The War On Bullshit

Once again, public policy is being manipulated by people who watch too many action movies. In light of the recent events at Virginia Tech, a number of states, including Virginia and Louisiana, unfortunately my home-state, are considering a brilliant new law to deal with the problem of shootings on college campuses: allowing students and teachers with the proper licenses to carry concealed handguns with them to class. You heard me: concealed handguns in classrooms.

State Representative Ernest Wooten of Belle Chasse, La. (where there must be some serious inbreeding going on) has proposed that we arm more people on campuses – not just allowing guns in dormitories, but allowing students with the proper licenses to carry concealed handguns to their classes. In Virginia, NRA representatives have pushed legislation to allow basically the same thing. Under this proposal, college kids would be required to carry weapons to school.

Ted Nugent. Who needs photoshop when the world is populated by so many idiots?

I’ll make this real easy for you to figure out. Here’s three simple reasons why arming college kids is about the dumbest idea any statesman has proposed since Hitler decided Russia was worth invading.

3. Psychos are not deterred by guns.

Now, I realize that you and I, the average Joes, are pretty terrified of having our brains blown out. The college kid who decides shooting up a college campus is the best way to solve problems is, however, not the average Joe. Just consider a couple of the most recent examples of how these nuts commit suicide after shooting up a school:

Stephen Kazmierczak shot seven classmates and then himself at Northern Illinois University.

Cho Seung-Hui killed 32 schoolmates and then himself at Virginia Tech.

Right here in Louisiana, a nursing student shot and killed two women and then herself at the Louisiana Technical College. It’s pretty obvious to me that anyone deranged enough to shoot up a school is not going to be deterred by somebody’s concealed Beretta.

2. College guys are often on the prowl for a fight anyway. I don’t know if you remember your college daze as well as I do, but I recall most college-age guys putting off enough testosterone to intimidate the starting line of the Dallas Cowboys. Just think back on all the stupid reasons guys in their 20s beat each other senseless. I know, you’re saying, “but we arm our soldiers at that age!” Yeah, but soldiers and law enforcement are trained to use guns. We’ll look at that more in a moment. First, let’s look at a very typical college scene.

Greg just failed his College Algebra exam. He’s not doing as well as he needs to in order to stay on the track team, and he’s having a pretty bad day. Rufus is, unfortunately, the guy who gives him a reason; Greg catches Rufus laughing with Greg’s girlfriend Alice as they do homework together in the Student Union. In the good, old-fashioned, Andy Griffith version of this scene, Greg lashes out with a mean right cross and knocks Rufus’s block off.

In the Dick Cheney-sanctioned version of this scene, Greg reaches to the small of his back, pulls out the .45 tucked under his shirt, and blows Rufus and Alice’s brains out. Greg runs, but realizes after burning off the adrenaline that he has just killed his girlfriend, and shoots himself in the head. Unfortunately, Greg does not die – he just suffers massive brain damage and is then elected President. …well, I guess I was wrong on that one. Things worked out better for Greg in Scene II, right?

1. And the number one reason this is the dumbest crap I’ve ever seen: guns in untrained hands = chaos. Alright, we’ve seen on the news what happens when just one irate student opens fire on a college classroom. Can you imagine the devastation if there had been guns in the hands of five or ten classmates – all untrained in the use of a firearm? It would be a war-zone – worse, a war-zone full of idiots who can’t use a gun properly.

Imagine the devastation if one guy walks in brandishing a pistol, and eight people in the back row decide to take him down before he can hurt someone. In a matter of seconds, everyone in the front of the class is on the floor, dead.

Conclusion

This has got to be the stupidest shit I have ever seen anybody suggest. After Columbine, parents just said we had to stop letting our kids listen to devil music and we needed to censor everything. Now, Dick Cheney and Ted Nugent would have us believe we need to put more guns in schools. Do these morons really think a bunch of untrained, testosterone-laden college kids will be able to prevent more deaths when these shootings happen?

It seems like the theory is, if pantywaist liberal professors cannot protect our kids, let them protect themselves. Someone needs to tell Cheney that the flaw in this logic is that it is not a college administrator’s job to protect our students. That’s what campus police are for, you Darth Vader look-alike imbecile. Come to think of it, why would anyone even consider any gun law proposed by the guy who shot his hunting partner!?

In Utopia, Thomas More argues that governments are a conspiracy of the rich to control the poor:

“Therefore I must say that, as I hope for mercy, I can have no other notion of all the other governments that I see or know, than that they are a conspiracy of the rich, who, on pretence of managing the public, only pursue their private ends, and devise all the ways and arts they can find out; first, that they may, without danger, preserve all that they have so ill-acquired, and then, that they may engage the poor to toil and labour for them at as low rates as possible, and oppress them as much as they please; and if they can but prevail to get these contrivances established by the show of public authority, which is considered as the representative of the whole people, then they are accounted laws…”

Although some argue that Utopia is a satire, I’m not concerned with whether More was serious; I’m concerned with whether he was right. Suppose that governments were a conspiracy of the rich. What would we expect to find?

1. Most government leaders would be rich

The average net worth of President George W. Bush’s cabinet falls between $9.3 and $27.3 million. In, The Audacity of Hope, Barrak Obama points out that most senators are already rich before they go into office.

2. Poor people’s crimes will carry greater punishments than rich people’s crimes

The punishment for theft over $400 is up to a year in prison in the US and in some states repeat offenses can get life imprisonment. In Canada, theft over $5000 gets you up to 10 years. In comparison, the criminal penalties for insider trading, which may involve stealing millions, is a fine of between $10 000 and $100 000. Why is it that if you steal $10 000 000 through insider trading, you have to pay a fine, but if you steal three cars, you can get life in prison?

3. Government would ignore the will of the poor

In response to allegations that most Americans are against the war, Dick Cheney said, “So?” I rest my case.

4. The rich would pay less taxes

It’s pretty bad when Warren Buffett (as in the billionaire) pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, there’s something really wrong.

5. Government will bailout the rich but not the poor.

As pointed out by Stephen Colbert, when rich people lost big money on BearStearns going bankrupt, the Fed stepped in to bail them out. When poor people lost their houses in the recent mortgage disaster, did anyone bail them out? No.

Conclusion

Assuming that government is a conspiracy of the rich allows us to make startling accurate predictions. However, Ptolemy’s model of the solar system can make the same claim, despite being totally ass backwards. None of this is conclusive, but it is thought provoking.

Recently, Barrack Obama argued that homophobia was unchristian. This is another one of these “New Stupid” things I’ve been talking about.

Here’s an analysis of anti-gay bible verses from the old and new testaments. It gives both pro- and anti-gay interpretations of each controversial verse. I think the anti-gay interpretations are clearly closer to the original meaning. A pro-gay interpretation of “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination” is a bit of a stretch.

Homophobia is very Christian. Does that mean that homosexuality is immoral? NO. Christianity is immoral! Don’t believe me? Have you ever read the bible? Oh yeah, Jesus wanted everyone to love each other, but the old-testament God was a genocidal psychopath. Don’t believe me? Go READ the shit. And don’t give me any counter-arguments about those parts being wrong but the “basic teachings” being right. The basic teachings are just as crazy as the rest. To summarize:

Old Stupid Idea: Homosexuality is unnatural and ungodly because it says so in the bible
New Stupid Idea: Homophobia is unchristian
Intelligent Idea: Perhaps if the bible glorifies rape and murder, cheerleads for genocide, accepts slavery and demonizes women and homosexuals it’s a stupid book representing an immoral religion.

While I’m on the subject, I just finished reading Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope. One thing he brings up is the separation between supporting the troops and criticizing policy. I’ve dealt with this before. But let’s take it to a new level:

Old Stupid Idea: Criticizing the war is not supporting the troops, hence unpatriotic
New Stupid Idea: Criticizing war policies has nothing to do with the troops, hence not unpatriotic (Obama)
Intelligent Idea: What’s wrong with criticizing the military??? The military attracts all kinds of misfits and fuckheads!

Begin Tangential Rant.

And whether or not your darling son was one of the fuckheads before he got shot is irrelevant. I used to work at McDonald’s. You won’t hear my mother defending some idiot who works there just because I used to. Furthermore, if your son died while working for McDonald’s because General Ronald sent him to do something stupid and dangerous for no good goddamn reason, would you defend McDonald’s? NO! So why do you defend the military??? GET A CLUE.

End Tangential Rant.

Let’s review what we have on the US military to date. We’ve got rape and possibly murder of female soldiers by their male counterparts. We’ve got totally uncalled for cruelty to animals. We’ve got generally terrorizing kids and more specifically gang rape/murder of a 14-year old girl. Oh, and there’s been plenty of killing innocent people.

I could go on, but there’s already a comprehensive, well-cited list of atrocities and war crimes by american soldiers here.

So can we please drop this ban on criticizing the troops? And don’t give me any bullshit about them giving their lives for “our freedoms.” Message to Americans: in case you haven’t noticed, the people taking away your freedoms are not in Iraq, they’re in the White House.

In Obama’s defense, he may understand these points very well. He may simply be downplaying such controversial arguments for the very good reason that making them would not go over well with the (undereducated, brainwashed and delusional) voting public. It’s not like any of the other remaining candidates have this stuff figured out. I’m just saying, I hope it’s an act. The current US president is clearly part of the “Old Stupid” class. If the next president is part of the “New Stupid” class, he or she will just find new and exciting ways to fuck everything up.

Edit: I can’t help but throw in one more great reason to criticize the army: discrimination against atheists.