Saturday, August 8, 2009

Wiener of the Week

Jane Velez-Mitchell has issues. And, no, I'm not referring to the dopey name of her insipid show Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell. And it's not just the fact that she SCREAMS throughout here entire show (xfloggingkylex says you can hear her even after you press the Mute button). Nor is it the fact that her show is a formulaic ripoff of Nancy Grace's show, which, itself, after a fine start, gradually because a formulaic stultifying nightmare.

No, the issues to which I refer have to do with a failure to think.

The evening after that loser in Pittsburgh shot up a gym (Deadeye's comment to me was, "See. That's why I don't work out."), Jane hosted a panel of guest "experts" to discuss this heinous, cowardly act.

There were positive moments in the exchange, mostly provided by criminal profiler Pat Brown, who correctly categorized the shooter as a sociopath, NOT a psychopath. And Velez-Mitchell scored a correct answer when she categorized his attitude as "[A] victim mentality...Everybody's to blame but him. OK, he is not to blame."

But the rest? To quote my Jewish brethren, "Oy, vey!"

The following are excerpts from the transcript.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Apparently, he was using -- Jeanne, he was using 30-round ammo clips that were illegal before the assault weapons ban was lifted in 2004. And those ammo clips allow you to kill a lot of people very quickly, right?
Translation: 30-round clips - once illegal - make it "easier to kill people", so we should ban them again.

If this statement alone isn't worth of a WotW, I don't know what is! Bringing back the ill-conceived (and unconstitutional) Assault Weapons ban wouldn't have saved those people, you stupid cow!
[Dr. Judy] KURIANSKY: ... then guns are often that kind of a sexual acting out, because a gun is like a sex organ. And when men are extremely frustrating and frustrated, they can end up taking all that aggression out with a gun.
Translation: Guns are a substitute sex organ, and shooting them off relieves aggression just like an orgasm.

Again, a statement worthy of a WotW on it's own merits. This is quack pop psychology at it's worst.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Brad, you`re the defense attorney. Do these women who were injured and the families of the dead have a lawsuit, and if so, against whom?

[Attorney Bradford] COHEN: It`s definitely -- it`s something that they should consider. And it`s probably against L.A. Fitness for some sort of lack of security. He went there once before, and he was fully armed. I don`t know, in terms of what kind of security they have, if there is that kind of appropriate security that`s in place. But I`m sure, believe me, with civil attorneys around, there`s definitely going to be someone who`s going to be filing a civil lawsuit.
Translation: Can they sue? You're damn right! Let's start looking for deep pockets right now!

I thought my head was going to explode at this point. Are you kidding me? You're talking lawsuits? For WHAT?!?!? It's a gym, asshats! You don't have security at a gym! Nor should you! Memberships are expensive enough as it is! And the idea that the gym is responsible for a sociopath shooting up the place is absolute nonsense. This exchange alone is grounds for tort reform!
DAVID SCHWARTZ, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know what the bottom line is, Jane? What are we going to do to prevent this in the future? You know, there needs -- we need to spend more money as a society on mental disease and defects. This is something very serious.

That's right. We're already blowing out unrepayable debt into the third and fourth generation of our grandchildren. Let's spend some more money on...what? What exactly are you going to do? Screen for sociopaths? Who will do it? The government? Oh, THAT'S not a recipe for persecuting political enemies of Der Staat or anything! Assclown!
SCHWARTZ: We need more -- the insurance companies also...
Translation: Make the insurance companies pay!

Not content with mere government spending, Mr. Schwartz wants to FORCE insurance companies to spend more money on...what? Again, the act of spending more money does not a solution make.
KURIANSKY: No question that in this -- in this whole time of health care...[crosstalk]...we need to pay more attention to mental health care here. And there`s another important issue that`s very psychological that has to do with bystanders. Because there have been real-life bystanders who stand by when people get murdered and don`t want to get involved. And now it`s turned to the Internet and the responsibility that people have to notice what people are blogging about. And who are they going to report to? That`s what we need to pay attention to now.
Translation: Anyone who suspected this act has to pay!

So...if someone read the rantings of this loser prior to him going on a rampage (which, it turns out, wouldn't have been possible, since he posted the entire "diary" just prior to the event), they are guilty, too? What is this, the USSR? We're supposed to rat out people based on rantings?

I've spent a lot of time around teenagers. They go off on rants where they say they're going to do this or going to do that. If you're not familiar with teenagers, you'd be alarmed. If you are familiar with teenagers, you'll shrug. Why? Because it's all bluster. There are exceptions to be sure, like the Columbine teenagers. And that begs the question: if you can't separate the bluster from real threats, and you're "required" to "report threats", how long will it be before every little childish threat becomes a crime?
DAVID SCHWARTZ, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Jane, it does take an intervention. I have had plenty of cases where there have been psychopaths who have had this intervention.

This guy went 49 years without killing anyone. There needs to be an intervention; it does take a village sometimes. And I guarantee you the writing was on the wall. If you sent Tom Ruskin out there to that gym to do an investigation, I guarantee you in five minutes he would find people that would come out and say that the writing was on the wall in this particular case.
Translation: It takes a village. Sing Kum Ba Ya everyone.

No further comment necessary.

Megapoints to criminal profiler Pat Brown for this scathing comeback to an insipid Velez-Mitchell comment.
PAT BROWN, CRIMINAL PROFILER: Well, I would agree with you Jane, if I believed that this was actually necessarily true.

But the part about getting help; again psychopaths do not seek help because they don`t think they need any because it`s everybody else`s fault. You cannot help them. They wont -- they will lie to their therapists and that won`t go anywhere.

What we need to do is work with children who are small. To teach them that they`re not entitled to everything that -- the selfishness that they`re being brought up with where they just get everything they want and think they can have everything.

No. You have to bring up children to realize that you have to earn things and that sometimes it takes time. You have to wait for things. And this guy apparently didn`t grow up with that, so he thinks that he should get what he wants and he`s is not willing to do the work.

In other words, he could probably get a lady in his life if he treated them nicely. If he stopped looking for a cheerleader type of 20-year-old instead of perhaps a nice 50-year-old librarian, a little overweight, who he was sweet to. He could have somebody in his life. But he has chosen not to do that.
Pat Brown, you've made a fan of me.

But Jane Velez-Mitchell? You're the Wiener of the Week.