The War On Bullshit

Have you been following this story of a man who was tasered to death at Vancouver airport? This is just one of a rash of taser incidents across North America in the past few months, including the highly-publicized incidents at the John Kerry speech and involving the death of a 56-year-old disabled woman in a wheelchair.

Tasers are an inappropriate tool for police to carry for three reasons. First, because tasers are supposed to be non-lethal, police are a little too anxious to use them. Police hesitate to shoot an unarmed man because most police do not relish the thought of killing someone, not to mention the investigation that would follow. Unfortunately, tasers can be fatal, as the examples above illustrate. Second, a taser does not allow a measured response - it gives only two options: shock ‘em or don’t. Third, many people don’t recognize a taser, especially foreigners like the poor polish man who was recently killed by one. The threat of force doesn’t work if you don’t recognize a taser as a weapon.

Am I asking you to disarm police? Hell no. That’s stupid. What I’m asking is for police to have weapons that make sense: a gun for lethal response, and a big black club (nightstick, or whatever) for a measured response. Why is a big stick better than a taser? One, it’s easier for police to understand the potential damage they’ll do by hitting someone with a stick than by zapping someone with an ill-understood technological device. Two, a stick allows a measured response - you can swing it hard or softly, hit a person in the side, wrist or head depending on the level of danger. Third, if you threaten someone with a big black stick, they’ll understand.

To sum up, while tasers were introduced to the police force with the best of intentions, i.e., to subdue criminals more humanely, the unexpected consequences have been just the opposite. I don’t think it’s fair to point fingers about this, I just want the tasers out of the police force. To those who would argue for tasers, please invite them to experience one first.

Addendum: The UN’s Committee Against Torture has recently ruled that police use of tasers violate the UN’s Convention against Torture. In other words, the United Nations has condemned tasering as a form of torture.

Second addendum: apparently Taser International is sending some obtuse letters to bloggers criticizing their products. My response to this is 1) It’s fair use, 2) it makes Taser sound guilty, and 3) Taser had best piss off now before I get really mad and start on the “Taser = Torture” case. Taser is also claiming that there is no conclusive evidence of someone dying from a taser weapon. My response is that, unless Taser can produce evidence that all these taser-related deaths would have occurred if the victim had not been electrocuted, they can kiss off.

One of the most effective ways of restraining civil dissent and quelling criticism of government is to argue that any form of criticism of, or even open debate about, government policies is somehow unpatriotic or treason. This same strategy manifests itself in some religions where questioning or thinking critically about religious institutions is supposedly sinful. Both cases are absurd, and for symmetrical reasons: the government has confused itself with its nation, and the religious institution has confused itself with its deity. Today, I’ll limit myself to the government side.

Patriotism and Treason

Merriam-Webster Online defines patriotism as:

“love for or devotion to one’s country,”

and treason as

“the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign’s family.”

Two things must be pointed out. First, devotion to one’s country has nothing to do with devotion to one’s government or one’s military. If you love your country, you are patriotic, regardless of whether you think the government is corrupt and military is incompetent. Second, criticizing the government is not treason. Disagreeing with your leader’s policies is not treason. Calling your leader a liar and a war criminal is not treason. Publicly attacking a four-star general for betraying the public by misleading them, is not treason.

Plotting to overthrow your government, or killing its leader is treason - nothing else.

Because “treason” and “patriotism” have these pesky definitions, US officials prefer the phrase, “not supporting the troops.” Here, “the troops” is an abstract concept that usually conjures up an image of brave, clean-shaven, athletic, innocent young men who love their country and want to defend it. The inaccuracy of this image aside, if politicians can make it sound like calling a war stupid is somehow hurting the poor, brave souls on the front line, it makes people hesitate to criticize. This is bullshit. At the same time, these hypocritical government assholes are proactively, idiotically screwing over their own military!

Top 7 Ways of Not Supporting the Troops

7. Lying to them - telling soldiers (and families of soldiers) that their comrades died defending their nation, when they actually died from friendly fire, in training, or in a pointless unwinnable war is not supporting them, it’s brainwashing them!

6. Not approving sufficient leave - In case you missed this, U.S. republicans, the people who most often pull this criticizing us is not supporting the troops bullshit, blocked a bill intended to give troops more time at home.

5. Giving veterans the shaft - Two words: Walter Reed.

4. Hiring mercenaries - Has it occured to anyone that the $445 000 / year the US military pays for each Blackwater merc might pay for better equipment for actual soldiers?

3. Bad equipment - Sending soldiers into battle without sufficient body armor, in unarmored vehicles, lacking even socks for chrissake, is completely unacceptable in a modern military.

2. Torturing enemy combatants - You know what just makes a soldier’s day? How about when the guys who’ve been shooting at you run low on supplies and surrender? That’s nice, huh? You know who doesn’t surrender? People who think they’re going to be tortured half to death in Guantanamo Bay, that’s who. If dying in battle sounds preferable to the treatment you’ll get as a P.O.W., you wouldn’t stand down, would you? And don’t give me any crap about ‘fanatics will never surrender.’ Muslim insurgents are people with children and dreams and fears just like everyone else, not Batman and Rambo. And don’t give me any crap about information obtained through torture helping the troops either. News flash: people who are tortured don’t give accurate information. They say whatever they think will make the guy with the testicle taser leave them alone.

And the number one way of not supporting the troops…

1. Sending them to unnecessary wars - if you really care about all those brave men and women in the armed forces, you wouldn’t get them shot, blown up, captured and beheaded, or shrapneled to death by sending them into unneeded battles, would you?

Western society faces a powerful cultural meme, propagated by governments and corporations alike, that buying things creates happiness. Sure, some material goods can bring some measure of happiness, some of the time. However, most everything sold by the Walmarts of our world will bring you no more lasting joy than a kick in the balls. Here’s a list of reasons to buy less stuff, organized into four groups.

Individual
1. Junk won’t make you happy - do you really think that that fancy spatula/tongs kitchen tool will bring you lasting happiness? Or that miniature camera tripod? Or those smelly candles? Or that new garden tool? Come on!
2. Save money - if you spend less on things that won’t make you happy, you have more money for the things that will
3. Buying less helps keep your ego in what matters - there’s nothing more pathetic than people who base their ego on the look of their cars, the size of their houses, the speed of their computers, or the size of their video game collections. I don’t care if you drive a ferrari. Try basing your ego on something that matters, like your contribution to humanity.
4. Get to have higher quality stuff - instead of buying many, worthless things, you get to have fewer, more valuable things.
5. Makes you cooler - I have found that a slick, uncluttered apartment, furnished with high-quality stuff will impress people who are worth impressing (dear geeks: in the eyes of a woman, 2 linux boxes, a windows laptop, a backup laptop, and three legacy machines you’re fixing up is nerdy; one little white macbook is cute.)
6. Have more room - if you stop filling your home with clutter, it gives you more room to actually live in, more room for visitors, more room for parties, etc.
7. Feel free - I get a great sense of freedom from knowing that every material thing to which I attach emotional worth can fit in one small suitcase.
8. Save time and effort - buying less stuff requires less time shopping, cleaning, getting things repaired, organizing and so on. Having less means that it’s easier to find things, especially when you’re trying to get out of the house on time.
9. It gives you power - wasting your money on nick-knacks and dust catchers gives marketers power over you. Take that power back by not buying their poorly made, poorly designed crap. Having less stuff means you don’t need as big a home, i.e., you don’t need as big a mortgage. That gives you power too, power you would otherwise relinquish to a bank or other lender.
10. It also gives you flexibility - a less cluttered home gives you more ways of opening up space for parties, and makes it easier to move to a new home.
11. Less frustration - having fewer things means there are fewer things to break; having better quality things means that what you do have will break less. It’s also harder to lose things when you have less.
12. Improve your health - less clutter means less dust, less junk means less harmful chemicals in your home, less disorganization means fewer accidents (you can’t trip on it if it’s not there).
13. Avoid crime - having a smaller, sparsely adorned home will remove you from the local thieves target list. DVD players are easy to sell on the street. A designer Italian coffee table that expands into a dining table, is not.
14. Simple insurance claim - when shit happens, having fewer things makes for a much simpler insurance claim.
15. Simplify your will - deciding who gets what is easier when there is less stuff.

Interpersonal (Sex)
1. Stop fights with your partner - having fewer things means there are less things to fight about. The fact that it’s easier to keep your space clean and neat means the messier of the couple will not irritate the neater as much.
2. Improves your sex life - you’ll have more space for romping, and better things to romp on/with, not to mention more money to spend on things that really juice up the sex life, like romantic vacations
3. More intimacy - Having fewer things (like chairs) and less space means people have to sit closer together
4. Beauty in Simplicity - whether you’re still trying to find Mr. or Mrs. Right, or just trying to hold on to the partner you have, living in a beautiful space can’t hurt. Have you ever seen beautiful clutter? I didn’t think so.

Societal
1. good for human rights - stop buying stuff made in sweatshops and the sweatshops will close
2. it’s good for the national economy - I didn’t say stop spending money, just stop buying junk. Buying better goods often means buying goods assembled in your country, so more money stays in your country
3. good for your country’s workers - some of the money that stays in your country is paid to local workers
4. you take up less space - it cost society less to provide services to a populace that is spread over less area
5. more flexibility to donate to worthwhile causes - since you’re not wasting all your money on junk, you might consider giving some to charity

Environmental
1. save energy - manufacturing, marketing and transporting goods requires energy
2. combat climate change - use less energy = use less fossil fuels
3. reduce air pollution - from both transportation and manufacturing
4. reduce water pollution - all the lead from those lead-tainted toys will get in the water supply sooner or later
5. smaller cities and less urban sprawl - if the people in the city take up less space, so does the city
6. produce less harmful chemicals - fewer batteries, for example
7. consume fewer resources - you have to make all that junk out of something
8. Stop destroying the forests - some junk is made out of wood products

Conclusion
If you take one thing away from this list, let it be this: when the ad says that such-and-such product will make you happy, it’s probably bullshit. Buying, owning and being surrounded by less stuff helps you focus on what really makes you happy. I can’t tell you what makes you happy, but if you think about it, you will probably find that it is not available at Walmart.