Picketing Grief events - Westboro Bastards, I mean, Church, strikes again

The Westboro "Church" is at it again. These people are truly God's worst pond scum. Remember them? They like to picket the funerals of US Serviceman who were gay. I'm sure their "God" is so proud. Let's set the tone here....

From The Examiner.com:
The Westboro Church plans to picket the Aurora shooting memorial service

Now they want to picket the memorial service of people killed in the Aurora "Batman" shootings. Really?

These are the same people who like to make anyone grieving, grieve more for things they had nothing to do with.

From Huffington Post:

Sage Stallone Death: Westboro Baptist Church Plans To Picket Actor's Funeral

Really, religious people? Really?

There is hope in all this however, also from Huffington Post:

Texas A&M Students Form Human Wall To Block Westboro Baptist Church Protestors From Soldier Roy Tisdale's Funeral

Hear hear!

I really think, and there may be issues I don't see here that need to be addressed, I do admit that, but in the initial consideration it sounds great, wouldn't it be great if we had a new Federal Law (yes, Federal, not State, as some States will undeniably wimp out on this for whatever reason... Texas), to block anyone from picketing any grief service, funeral or memorial service. And you can't just call anything that. I'm talking honest to "God" funerals, that would be burying someone, or their funeral/memorial service.

Even the families of serial killers deserve to be able to lay their once, loved one, to rest. The family of these people are not criminals? They are doubly in grief. A loved one died, and they know the loved one had done horrible things. But they don't know that person as that kind of person, they know that person as the cute kid they raised or grew up with. So, back off on them.

The thought that people who are devestated, who are laying to rest their loved ones, no matter who they are or what the deceased has done, the thought of their being further attacked (because I'm sure it would feel like that to people at that time and in that state of mind), is criminal and should be illegal. It is immoral, unetheical, and sick, so why shouldn't it also be illegal?

I also think (obviously) that any "church" or "religion" that allows this kind of thing, or thinks this way, should be sent to prison, one at a time, or en masse. Especially if they can be sent to a prison containing a family member of one of the deceased whom they have picketed. Let them have an extended period of time wherein they can "discuss" this situation and their "beliefs" with them in an environment that enhances "discourse" and reconsideration.

The Westboro "Church". Right. A Church. Give me a break.

Update: I'm very happy to note that at least for the family of Military personnel, something is being done about all this. "Westboro Baptist Church protesters will soon be severely limited in their ability to disrupt military funerals, after Congress passed a sweeping veterans bill this week that includes restrictions on such demonstrations."

Dark Knight Rises public shooting and the missing shooter

The "Dark Knight Rises" Colorado shooting was and still is, a nightmare. It is now being called the largest public killing of this type in American history. James Holmes walked into a theater and started randomly killing people. It's a typical, if also unusual story. Man walks into a public area full of people and starts killing. But this time, this one came armed for bear, for a bear that might shoot back.

Here is another view on this topic "If only someone else had a gun".

That blogger ended by saying:

[If you think:] "If someone with a concealed weapon was there, they could have stopped this man."

"No, you have it all wrong wrong. The problem is not that there should have been more firearms at Cafe Racer. The problem is that Stawicki had one."

He was talking about a different public killing situation. I would argue that it wasn't that James Holmes today, had one at all. It's what he was doing with it. It's an old argument, but a valid one. He died his hair red, told police he was the "Joker", I'm thinking mental illness. It's always mental illness. You cannot protect yourself against it in this area of guns and killings. So this is outside of the law. He is reported as a highly intelligent student of a university, even though he was withdrawing. So he would have been fully capable of building a weapon of mass destruction, rather than just buying one.

But I wanted to take a different tact and point a few things out. Things we need to consider for this situation, especially if you think someone with a gun, some citizen, could have stopped things. This is not about bravado, but reality. It's easy to say, "I would have shot the bastard!" Another thing to live through it and act on it.

If someone were there who had a gun, maybe they could have stopped this from happening. That is true.

Maybe, if there were at least an off duty cop, or a military type off duty and carrying, or a Special Agent of some sort (FBI, CIA, DEA, whatever). They could have stopped it.

But when something like this happens, what would you do? It's quite possible someone was in there and they did have a gun with them. But do you pull it and use it? If you are well trained, the answer is most likely, yes.

But if you are someone who owned a gun, with little or no real training in this kind of situation, what do you do? If you pull and fire and it was a joke, or a promotional for the movie, you could be in serious trouble and anyone with a sense of sanity will be aware of that (where are the George Zimmerman's of the world at times like these and would he have had the balls to stand up against someone like this who wasn't a teenager with no apparrent scary weaponry?).

When someone walks in like this and throws a gas grenade of some sort and starts shooting and you can't tell if it's real, as it's kind of dark, it's an entertainment venue, there is shooting on screen, it's an action movie, it's pretty damn hard to tell what to do, and what is right to do.

I can only consider how I would view what I would do in a similar situation.

First I would have to notice it, second I would have to evaluate the situation, this all takes time. As he started shooting, I would have to see that they weren't blanks. Is it worth it to take a chance and shoot someone shooting blanks and later find out you murdered someone?

So I would actually have to wait to see someone killed, most likely. I could say, "Well, I would see a gun pulled, pull mine and kill him."

But would it happen like that? Most likely not, in reality.

UPDATE: NPR Article 1/29/2013 - Armed 'Good Guys' And The Realities Of Facing A Gunman

I would need concrete proof that this was a threat that wasn't going to stop, who was harming people, who was a homicidal threat and who needed to be stopped or killed. IN this situation shooting to disable isn't a great idea, shoot for center of mass, maybe a head shot, but not until after a center of mass shot. If you hit them in the center, wearing a flak jacket, it won't be a killing shot. Hopefully a stun shot only, giving you time to aim for the head. You have to be aware of what or who is behind him and where the bullet might ricochet off of. All this in what, a few seconds? That's plenty of time for him to kill and maim others. And all this through fog and possibly some kind of tear gas.

So you have to first notice what is really happening, for real. You have to draw your weapon. Now, do you yell a warning like they do in the movies and like police are usually required to do? Do you let him know, "Hey pal? I'm here, I have lethal force, I'm going to kill you if you don't stop!"

Do you take time to say all that? Give him a chance to stop?

No! You kill him. Better he dies not knowing you exist. If he shoots, and lays down his arms, then you are done, you yell your warning, you get him on the ground, stay away from him so you don't become a victim. Now you have to worry about the police coming in and seeing you with a gun. Where can that lead? Do they shoot you? Will you die at the hands of law enforcement when you are doing a heroic thing and maybe he will just go to jail?

The other side of this coin is the complaints about gun laws. If no one had guns, this couldn't happen.

Wrong. This wouldn't happen so frequently. Guns will always be around. I could make a gun in my garage.

So that really isn't an argument and we come back around to, if someone were there with a gun, it could have been stopped.

Again, that might be true, if there were someone there and armed, if they pulled the gun, if they made all the right observations and conclusions, if they performed well under the situation of intense combat and up against a well-armed and defended attacker, if they got off a shot that stopped or killed the attacker, if they didn't shoot him in the flak jacket merely alerting the terrorist to another attacker and then the "hero" gets shot and killed in the end and then he goes back to killing indiscriminately.

That's a lot of ifs.

Martha Wainwright

ban guns! i'm so tired of the fact that this is still a debate in this country. change the fucking gun laws. i want the right to NOT bear arms!

We have to be careful about these kinds of knee jerk reactions to things that happen like this. It could have been a lot worse. Holmes rigged his apartment with bombs. He is smart. If he couldn't get access to guns, he could build bombs. Could? He did! He could have brought them to the theater. Consider that guns kill people one at a time, one shot at a time. Some can kill many people one after another. It's all about what kind of cartridge, the type of firearm and magazines, the number of shooters. But think, suicide bomber. If he couldn't have gotten firearms, he could have brought bombs, dropped them every so often all over the theater.

He could have used incindieary bombs. Rather than his killer as many as he did, he could have killed everyone in that room, at once. They could have died in  an explosion followed up by fire, very, very hot fire. People in other theater rooms could have died. Be careful what you wish for, because mentally unbalanced people who want to kill, will.

And guns have nothing to do with it. They just seem easier to us. But there are more very much more effective ways to kill. Guns give you the "pleasure" of killing yourself. A bomb is much more effective, though you only get the rush from killing after the fact, unless you really are a suicide bomber. I would rather be shot, with a chance at getting out than blown up, and burned to death with no chance.

So think about yelling how bad guns are. Because althought the NRA will talk about our rights to own guns, they also limit people in how many people they can kill. One good bomb can far outweigh anything any gun can do.

So, if there were a lot of people in there with guns,maybe he would have been stopped. There was a bank in Texas that was getting robbed a lot, friend of mine told me today, and the bank posted for people to bring guns to the bank with them and the robberies stopped. Sounds like an urban myth to me, but it does prove a point. Like nuclear deterrence, if everyone has something, it's stupid to pull a gun, or you just get killed if you do.

So do we need more guns at the theaters or metal detectors or full body scanners? Is that how we want to live? How often does this happen? Really? Not very often, so don't start panicking.

This all sounds to me that were there a few more people there with guns, IF they had proper training, this wouldn't have been so horrendous an event. We may never be able to stop this kind of thing completely, but we can certainly take steps to alleviate how disastrous it can be. People who do have guns legally, need to be better trained if they are carrying them in public. Because if they are carrying them to use them, then they need to be ready and able to pull them, and use them properly. Because it's not all about the guns existing in the location, it's all about how they are used and how fast they are used effectively and appropriately.

I like to think if I were there and armed, I could have taken in what was happening and reacted, pulling, aiming and firing. Double tap to the mid torso, one higher and a third slower shot at the head. I'm lucky. I tend not to shake in intense situations, but not everyone can say that. Shooting is all about accuracy and intimidation. But I'll take accuracy over intimidation anytime.

So in the end is the issue that the killer had a gun in the first place? No. Because there are several fail points in this situation and no one consideration really explains it or solves it.

My best thoughts go out to the family and friends and those slain and shot. I wish them well, as I'm sure we all do.

For more, the Daily Herald article.

"FAIRFAX, VA—In the wake of last evening's horrific shooting that killed 12 in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, representatives from the National Rifle Association asked all Americans to please try, in this moment of sadness and grief, to remember the myriad great and indispensable things that guns do for us every day. "While the events of last night are truly tragic, I sincerely hope that no one at any point forgets how truly terrific guns are, and how they enrich all of our lives on a regular basis," said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, adding that the nation's citizens must open up their hearts in this time of mourning and realize how simply unlivable a life without gun ownership would be. "From hunting, to protecting one's home from prowlers, to target practice, why, there is practically no end to the ways in which guns are constantly improving our lives every moment of every day. As awful as this shooting was, none of us should ever forget that." LaPierre then closed his remarks with a direct plea to the people of Aurora, asking them to try and imagine where they would be today without the citizen's right to bear arms."

This is an anomaly, there are no answers. Now we will have to suffer through people and their agendas about guns for how long? But this isn't a decision making kind of situation. Obviously to me, he's mentally unbalanced. For the NRA to be speaking and saying these things at this time, is ludicrous and crass.

Someone told me this:

"Asked about the connection, the film's director Christopher Nolan said: "I'm not sure how to address something that bizarre, to be honest. I really don't have an answer for it, it's a very peculiar comment to make."

Please. It's a movie. Leave the director and artists alone. I'm sure they feel bad enough, but they have nothing to do with a mentally unbalanced individual who has chosen to be destructive. The film has no real bearing on the situation. He could have just as easily gone to shoot up a Disney film showing. Just be glad he didn't, or there would be masses of young childred dead. Count your blessings.

From EW.comhttp://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/07/20/christopher-nolan-dark-knight-rises-shooting-statement/:

Christopher Nolan has released a statement following the tragic events in Colorado in the early hours of July 20 — when a gunman opened fire at midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises. “Speaking on behalf of the cast and crew of The Dark Knight Rises, I would like to express our profound sorrow at the senseless tragedy that has befallen the entire Aurora community. I would not presume to know anything about the victims of the shooting, but that they were there last night to watch a movie. I believe movies are one of the great American art forms and the shared experience of watching a story unfold on screen is an important and joyful pastime. The movie theatre is my home, and the idea that someone would violate that innocent and hopeful place in such an unbearably savage way is devastating to me. Nothing any of us can say could ever adequately express our feelings for the innocent victims of this appalling crime, but our thoughts are with them and their families,” the director said.

More on the shooting from MSNBC

American? Watch this Bill Moyer's and Company Episode

Every American should watch this episode of Bill Moyer's and Company with Khalil Gibran Mohammad. PhD, a native of Chicago’s South Side, is the Director of the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, The New York Public Library. Muhammad is a former professor of African-American history at Indiana University.

After Khalil started talking, I was a little stunned. I started to assume he was another radical and at first, I was turning off to him. Then I listened more closer and suddenly I got what he was saying; and he was making sense.

What he had to say smacked to me as absolutely true. I realized that I had never considered what he was saying before, in such a clear mind. His issue is initially African American, but as he says, it's really more than that. It goes into this country being founded not so much on freedom, but freedom to make money.

I was somewhat horrified at first, in a way, but the more I listened, the more sense he made and the more things I've known for years, suddenly came clear into focus. And "Blacks" back in the 1700s are part and parcel of the founding of the entire thing. They were considered property, "chattel".

You have to see things as the Founding Fathers did, back then. Which I can do quite well. That is, I have a good capability of seeing things from how others do in the past, partially because I've read so much from ancient days gone by, going back to Aristotle when I was in sixth grade. I get where they were coming from. It has nothing to do with agreeing with them, but in a kind of academic empathy.

In a way I don't think we can judge them by our views of morality today. They were more moral than we are now a days, yet they were less moral than we are now a days; and as we will be to our descendants.

This all makes more sense related to how unbalanced our government is now and how and why corporations are so much in control now. I thought for a long time that this was a recent thing, in the last 100 years. But it goes back further than that.

If we realize that our ecomomic problems now come from a fundemental structuring of our entire society that goes back to the beginning, then we will be more rational in our decisions of what needs to be done to fix things. And I am not sure we can fix things in the way we have been going about it. We have been trying to fix things from a view that our issues are more recent and therefore, patching things together can fix them.

But if they stem from the origins of our country, then we will need to make some fundemental changes to our laws and bylaws. I don't think that the Founding Fathers had the information they needed in the ensuing years after their original documents were formed and ratified to be able to see where they would end up. Which means we need to make a new constitution.

Yet, that is a fearful thing when you consider the people who are in charge of our country, the "voices" that are speaking out for change, to bend the path of our Country to their will, and not the will of the  people. They tended to see the "People" as white Christians. Maybe it was that way in the beginning (though in reality it wasn't, considering we had more African "American" slaves back then than there were whites), but it certainly isn't that way now.

This is a nation of immigrants. If you don't think so, deal with it, because it is. And now we have many more African Americans, Asians, Latinos and others than were at issue back in the late 1700s. As of 2010, 72% of Americans are white. Of the nation's children in 2050 however, 62% are expected to be of a minority ethnicity. Either we start working this out now, or it won't be long before we find ourselves in a position of some kind of Apartheid.

But perhaps this isn't the time to rewrite the Constitution, but to merely continue to patch it until it becomes even more disfunctional. Enough to allow the government driving by corporations and self interest, and religious right wing groups to push even more irrational considerations to a point that the Constitution becomes truly broken. Then it really will finally need to be completely rewritten.

Maybe. Though that won't be able to happen yet for another five, ten, twenty, fifty, or even one hundred years. Sad, don't you think? Wouldn't it be nice, if the constitution ever needed restructuring, to know that there would always be enough educated and intelligent (and selfless) people available in our government that it could be masterfully and rewitten at any time? But if that were truly the case, we would probably never need for it to be rewritten. I surmise that the Founding Fathers thought they had structured a good enough document that along with rational judgement, we could successfullly govern ourselves for a long, long time. Well, it has been now, a long, long time.
Anyway, the point of this topic was that something needs to be done. But first you have to understand where we are are how we got here. Nothing is going to be effective until we rethink how we consider what actually is going on, what is wrong with things, and how to fix it. There is simply too much ignorance and self interest out there now.

We need to consider the sign one great statesman, Harry S. Truman, used to keep on his desk in the in the oval office. It said, "The Buck Stops Here". But along with that there needs to be a subtext beneath it, "And it will be handled intelligently".

Mitt Romney, as David Lynch

I had the weirdest dream last night in a long time. Prepare yourself....

It's still American, we're all still welcome to believe whatever we like about the unproveable.

It was one of those dreams that are so real, like 3D, High Def. When I woke up from it, I couldn't have been happier to finally be awake again. I was out somewhere, like a cross between a shopping mall and a community college and I ran into a filming of a Mitt Romney TV holiday special show.

"Liz Lemon", Tina Fey's character from "30 Rock", was there.

Danny Devito was there. Actually it was a cross between Danny and another short person but I can't figure out who.

Chuy Bravo and Chelsea Handler

Maybe Chuy from Chelsea Handler's show, "Chelsea Lately". Other famous actors were there.

So I knew I just had to try and insert myself into the crew so I could watch this insantiy. Which in reality I have actually done before.

Mitt, I have to say, was horrible, as one might expect. This entire production was an extremely bad idea, but everyone was praising their work; basically trying to kiss up to Mitt. People where there supporting Mitt who just don't make any sense in their being there. Liberals, Democrats, it was nuts.

I started trying to secretly tweet what was going on but security was high and I couldn't get a tweet out or a place to hide to do it; and what was going on, was really weird. It begged to be announced.

When I got there, they were just starting to make Danny dance in very little, weird clothing and perform in a way that could only be described as homo erotic. And Mitt was loving it. I was stunned watching this nightmare. I walked around the perimeter of the external set in a daze.

Mitt was pretty much gleeful about it and was directing everything on stage from the edge. Everyone was focused only in making whatever he wanted work as well as possible on screen. They were all being very professional... just insane.

I ended up by end of day watching from an alcove, out of the way but with a very good view. Liz walked over by me. I felt her charisma and wanted to get closer to her, to talk to her, maybe even get to know her a little. But she was very focused on the show and you could see she was planning in her head. Planning something. Somehow we stared talking, not much, just a few words. We stood there for a while. In talking to Liz and I had to find out if she knew what she was doing, what it meant, what was going on. So I made a sarcastic comment, leading her to respond, allowing her an opportunity to bond with me, to admit that she fully got it, that it was unbelieveble for her to be there, supporting Mitt of all people.

But instead, she really liked what she took as my suggestion for the show, which was meant as a sarcastic joke. A joke that I thought she would get, but she just didn't. It was like everyone had been co-opted, mezmerized by Mitt. As if he were some mad magician, some insane, evil hypnotist.



David Lynch with Michael J. Anderson on set of "Twin Peaks"

It was all as if I had stumbled into a (David) Lynchian, "Twin Peaks" kind of nightmare.

I was stunned at the idiocy of what they were doing. But she had really liked the idea and said, "So, do you like getting up at 5 or 6AM?" It was as if she were saying that tomorrow, their last day of shooting, she wanted me to be involved. She seemed to be the top dog in what was going on, which considering the sureality of her show "30 Rock" could make some kind of sense; but in the end, I wasn't on the crew. They had no way of knowing me, or contacting me. Would they be shooting here tomorrow?

I felt I needed to be involved though, to do whatever I could to make this monstrosity fail. Though I was sure it really didn't need my help in any of this in that respect. Still I felt I needed to be there to assure it happening.

Now, understand that I am a Horror writer. I've very worked hard to be able to dream up truly unsettling scenarios for my stories, books and screenplays, and from all accounts, I do very well at that. Thank you very much. I offer my book, "Death of Heaven" as a prime example of how twisted a tale I can weave, of a really twisted account of Human History and how we have entirely misperceieved our created reality. I like Horror stories and films. They are fun. Like a roller coaster ride where, in the end, you are entirelly safe. Except for what you carry away with you, in your mind.
But I really don't need to ever, have another nightmare like this... never again! Please.

Horror novella, Andrew, FREE last day on Amazon Kindle July 6-7th

My Horror novella, Andrew, is FREE to download today, the last day, on Amazon Kindle July 7th.

Cover - "Andrew's Last Battlefield Vision" by Hannah Hayes 

Andrew is the story of a very young boy, the child of a very brilliant married couple who were also rather unusual scientists. It is a horror story about how Andrew tries to deal with an event more traumatic than anyone should ever have to experience, no matter what age they are. Juxtaposed with how he learns to deal with it as an adult, we are able to see who he developed into by that point in his life, and where his parent's efforts end him up. Everyone seems to want a piece of him. Those who once "loved" him cannot protect him, even from themselves. No one, except one.

Yes, there is certainly a lot going on. This is horror in its most dark and fantastical. Not, for the light of heart or easily offended, yet done with a deft hand.

Also available on Amazon in paper/ebook and Smashwords

"Andrew" sets up my epic Horror book, Death of Heaven, called a "story of stories" by one artist. You might find it more entertaining to read Death of Heaven first (also in paperback) as they are intimately interlinked, but in markedly different (and myriad) ways.

I'll say this again differently, if you are a Stephen King fan, you might want to skip these works. If you loved Clive Barker's "Books of Blood", then these are right up your alley. I'm not trying to compare these to Clive's works, but they contain a similar intensity in Horror elements. I'm also not comparing Andrew (which is a bit "lighter" in nature) to Death of Heaven which is a complexity of notions and a skewed reality across all of history.

Cheers!

Horror novella, Andrew, FREE today on Amazon Kindle July 6-7th.

My Horror novella, Andrew, will be FREE to download today and tomorrow only, on Amazon Kindle July 6-7th.

Cover - "Andrew's Last Battlefield Vision" by Hannah

               

Andrew is the story of a very young boy, the child of a very brilliant married couple who were also rather unusual scientists. It is a horror story about how Andrew tries to deal with an event more traumatic than anyone should ever have to experience, no matter what age they are. Juxtaposed with how he learns to deal with it as an adult, we are able to see who he developed into by that point in his life, and where his parent's efforts end him up. Everyone seems to want a piece of him. Those who once "loved" him cannot protect him, even from themselves. No one, except one.

Yes, there is certainly a lot going on. This is horror in its most dark and fantastical. Not, for the light of heart or easily offended, yet done with a deft hand.

Also available on Amazon in paper/ebook and Smashwords

"Andrew" sets up my epic Horror book, Death of Heaven, called a "story of stories" by one artist. You might find it more entertaining to read Death of Heaven first (also in paperback) as they are intimately interlinked, but in markedly different (and myriad) ways.

I'll say this again differently, if you are a Stephen King fan, you might want to skip these works. If you loved Clive Barker's "Books of Blood", then these are right up your alley. I'm not trying to compare these to Clive's works, but they contain a similar intensity in Horror elements. I'm also not comparing Andrew (which is a bit "lighter" in nature) to Death of Heaven which is a complexity of notions and a skewed reality across all of history.

Cheers!

Horror novella, Andrew, FREE to download on Amazon Kindle July 6-7th

My Horror novella, Andrew, will be FREE to download on Amazon Kindle July 6-7th.

Cover - "Andrew's Last Battlefield Vision" by Hannah

               

Andrew is the story of a very young boy, the child of a very brilliant married couple who were also rather unusual scientists. It is a horror story about how Andrew tries to deal with an event more traumatic than anyone should ever have to experience, no matter what age they are. Juxtaposed with how he learns to deal with it as an adult, we are able to see who he developed into by that point in his life, and where his parent's efforts end him up. Everyone seems to want a piece of him. Those who once "loved" him cannot protect him, from themselves. No one, except one. Yes, there is certainly a lot more than that going on. This is horror in its most dark and fantastical. Not, for the light of heart or easily offended.

Andrew sets up my epic Horror book, Death of Heaven, a "story of stories". You might find it more entertaining however to read Death of Heaven first (also in paperback) as they are intimately interlinked, but in markedly different (and many) ways.

I'll say this again differently, if you are a Stephen King fan, you might want to skip these works. If you loved Clive Barker's "Books of Blood", then these are right up your alley. I'm not trying to compare these to Clive's works, but they contain a similar intensity in Horror elements. I'm also not comparing Andrew (which is a bit "lighter" in nature) to Death of Heaven.