Monday, July 23, 2012

Inappropriate Reactions to Tragedy = Opportunism

I am one of those people.  I don't really watch TV anymore and I certainly do not read newspapers.  I get all of my current events either from the internet or from word of mouth.  As a result - I really have no idea what is going on anymore.

This is a side-effect and as they go I have to say that I am growing to enjoy blissful ignorance of such things that ultimate do not matter in my life.

I heard about what we shall call "The Batman Shooting" from some friends who were complaining about world-wide premiere cancellations.  I didn't know anything about it.  What I heard took a while to filter through because first there was the Batman angle and then there was the "12 miles from Columbine" angle.

Interestingly, a few days later I actually go to look it up on the internet & being a few days behind, the headlines are now all about reactions to the event.

Here are two examples of blatant opportunism that I absolutely find offensive but are to be expected, tolerated and somehow complimented and admired (!?) : 

Illinois Man Brings Crosses to Site Of Shooting, one for each victim.

President Obama visits victims

In the first case, Greg Zanis is a self-aggrandizing Christian Zealot from another state.  He makes a point of 'undertaking a 16 hour drive' in his truck to deliver crosses to a murder scene.  He did this for the Columbine shootings and now felt the need to "come back".

  1. Are all of the victims Christian?  Would they actually appreciate this gesture personally?
  2. On whose property are these crosses being erected?
  3. Who the hell is Greg Zanis & why is he interested to begin with?
  4. Why does he feel the need to tell people "Zanis cares"?  Is this really about the victims or is he just showboating how much he cares?
  5. It is to be noted that the first time he did his he put up 15 crosses, including 2 for the shooters - which an angry father of one of the victims came & tore down.  So you might say that his efforts have already offended people.  Why did he do it again?
In the second case - yes every politician since the dawn of time uses tragedy for a photo opportunity to look like they are doing something about it.
  1. What exactly is his presence doing to help the situation?
  2. What exactly would be do, ever, at all, about preventing this from happening again in the future?
  3. His statement about the killer being forgotten quickly & the victims being remembered in the long run might have been met with : "Really?  Can you name any victims from similar incidents?"
  4. There are pictures of him smiling with the victims.  Does anyone else find this inappropriate?
  5. Yet another case of "Obama can not resist the lure of the camera".  I don't care what side of the political spectrum you butter your bread - you have to admit that the guy loves to be on TV.
Sadly, I still don't know a lot about the actual incident, as I've been so distracted by the bum-rush of opportunists swarming in like seagulls from receding waves.