Another Wad Shot

« September 2013 »

Memo to Jennifer Rubin, Emily Miller, and Elisabeth Hasslebeck: SIGH.

We are a nation of rituals, and we all have a part to play in those rituals. If a shooting happens on a Monday, the reaction happens on a Tuesday. And if the reaction happens on a Tuesday, odds are I'm going to have enough material for IDIOTS SAY THE DAMNDEST THINGS on Wednesday. And true enough, even though the reaction is more muted than it was for Newtown, I'm ready to play my part in the ritual.

"But Obama also said that the murders were a "cowardly" act. Not so. They were evil. The killing spree was, to be blunt, brazen and audacious. But in the end, just plain evil." - Known awful person Jennifer Rubin, on Fox News.

The word "evil" does not have magical powers, wingnuts. It's not like the mythical name of a demon, where if you call it "evil", you get power over it. Dubya called three countries "evil", and, judging from the recent violence in Iraq, we currently have power over exactly none of them.

I mean, sure, part of it is just the incessant right-wing desire to make sure that even when Obama says the right thing, they can criticize him for saying it the wrong way, turning every utterance into secret code that he's the Other, but even so, I'm pretty sure Bill Maher lost his show for objecting to mass murderers being called "cowardly". I'll pretend to look forward to similar opprobrium heading Rubin's way.

"Instead, Mr. Obama focuses on the rare mass shootings because the uncontrollable and random nature of them are more frightening to the public, which is politically helpful for him to push his gun-control agenda." - The Washington Times' Emily Miller, reminding you all that yes, the Washington Times is still a thing.

First of all, the president didn't even HAVE a "gun-control agenda" until one mass shooting ago. And it was barely even a gun-control agenda then.

Also, who says mass shootings are "uncontrollable" or "random"? The only people that are saying they're uncontrollable are the people that don't want the weapons used in them controlled, and "random" ignores that many of these shootings are motivated. But beyond that, what's wrong with focusing on things that affect a lot of people and are frightening? Instead of, say, focusing on things that don't affect a lot of people and aren't frightening, like this segue?

"What about frequency testing? How often has this game been played? I’m not one to get in there and monitor everything, but if this indeed is a strong link, right, to mass killings then why aren’t we looking at frequency of purchases per person? And also, how often they’re playing and how many—maybe they time out after a certain hour.” - Elisabeth Hasslebeck, taking full advantage of her new Fox job's perk of not having a bunch of people yell at you right after you say something stupid.

Apparently, Aaron Alexis played Call of Duty. A lot. And now they're calling it an "obsession". If Elisabeth Hasslebeck really wants to monitor aberrant behavior, she should be coming after me. Because I play a lot of games, I play them often, I play them after a certain hour. But I've never played a Call of Duty game. And that makes me the weird one.

Everyone plays Call of Fucking Duty. I agree that fewer people should play it, for the same reasons fewer people should have gone to see Grown Ups 2 or watch Fox and Friends. Not because it's turning the people who play it into violent sociopaths. We'd have even more violent sociopaths running around if that was the case. Seriously, do you have any idea how many people play Call of Duty, and how many of them are "obsessed" with it? It's a lot of fucking people. Not Angry Birds numbers, but pretty fucking close.

It's a good thing for Hasslebeck that there was an opening at America's-not-knowing-what-you're-fucking-talking-about leader.