Category Archives: stuff that’s just fucking stupid

supersaturated stupidity

Posted on by
1

I thought we might have reached the saturation point in the Bundy Ranch Fuss. You know — the maximum capacity of stupid. A point at which the situation was so deeply and profoundly stupid that it couldn’t hold even one more drop of stupidity.

I thought we’d reached that point. I hadn’t counted on two things. First, the surface tension of stupidity — that quality that allows stupidity to resist external forces, in much the same way an amount of water can slightly exceed the capacity of the glass containing it. Surface tension means you can usually add a little more stupid to an existing container of stupid. Second, I hadn’t taken into account the supersaturation capabilities of Congressman Steve Stockman (Republican, of course — from Texas, of course). Stockman’s highly concentrated stupidity (which has been measured at .92 Gohmerts) allows him to exceed normal stupidity levels. Introducing Stockman into an already stupid situation can dramatically increase the overall volume of stupidity.

Congressman Steve Stockman (R-TX, natch) voicing his considered opinions.

Congressman Steve Stockman (R-TX, natch) voicing his considered opinions.

After the Sandy Hook massacre, you may remember, Stockman called President Obama’s proposed changes to gun safety “an existential threat to this nation” that he would “seek to thwart…by any means necessary.” And he did that before Obama even made those proposals. And it was Stockman who invited draft-dodging pedophile Ted Nugent — who Stockman considers to be “a patriot” — to the State of the Union speech. Stockman has claimed that the siege at Waco in 1993 was orchestrated by President Clinton in “to prove the need for a ban on so-called assault weapons.”

The list of Stockman’s assault on intelligent behavior is long and colorful — too long to include here (but wait, just one more: Stockman once tweeted ‘If babies had guns, they wouldn’t be aborted’ and no, I’m not making that up). Because he’s such a dunderhead, I suppose it’s not such a surprise that he inserted himself into the Bundy Ranch Fuss. What did he do?

He wrote a letter to President Obama, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, and BLM Director Neil Kornze saying:

Because of this standoff, I have looked into BLM’s authority to conduct such paramilitary raids against American citizens, and it appears that BLM is acting in a lawless manner in Nevada…. [T]he federal government must not only stand down, but remove all federal personnel from anywhere near the Bundy ranch…. [BLM has no] right to assume preemptory police powers, that role being reserved to the States.

Stockman (and this may be the only time I’ve ever uttered these words) is absolutely correct. The BLM doesn’t have authority to conduct paramilitary raids against American citizens. However, they do have authority to protect the public lands under BLM management and to enforce the law on BLM property. Which is exactly what they did.

Peaceful Bundy supporters peaceably demonstrating their peaceful disagreement with BLM.

Peaceful Bundy supporters peaceably demonstrating their peaceful disagreement with BLM.

Stockman’s understanding of the situation, of course, is an echo of the stupid shit we’re hearing from the so-called ‘patriots’ of the militia movement. Sadly, when it’s repeated by a sitting Member of Congress — even a nitwit like Stockman — it reinforces the idiocy. For example:

[T]he BLM had no business being armed up like the military in the first place nor did they have any business making an incursion into the State of Nevada. The whole thing was unbelievable. And they wonder why the militia showed up. I said there was a reason why you were not seeing the FBI and the US Marshals.

The fact (and yeah, I realize how useless it is to point out facts to these folks) is that BLM maintains an Office of Law Enforcement & Security specifically to deal with criminal behavior on Federal lands under BLM management (as opposed to US Parks, which has their own security officers). The reason the FBI and the US Marshal Service didn’t show up is because they don’t have jurisdiction. It’s not a conspiracy.

STEVE STOCKMAN KNOWS that Obama is an illegal alien terrorist. He’s been working closely with Arpaio/Zullo on Obama Fraud Investigation.

Well. Yeah. Facts and logic are pretty useless against somebody who claims (and may actually believe) the President of These United States is an illegal alien terrorist.

The Rancher needs to Sue the BLM for violating his Constitutional rights and abuse of authority under the color of law and so should anyone there that was moved, tasked or ordered to do anything by them!

Lawdy. This shouldn’t need to be pointed out, but dude there is NO Constitutional right to graze your cattle on public land. You are making the common conservative error of confusing Things I Do Not Like with Things That Are Unconstitutional.

[W]ho is really calling the shots here??? Who gave the order for the BLM to go in as they did is still not clear. I’d like to know ‘who’ ordered it.

Bonus points for having three (3!) question marks to show how sincerely confused you are. Who really gave the order? That would be any number of Federal judges over the last twenty years, all of whom have consistently ruled that Bundy was illegally grazing his cattle on public land. The most recent order, by Judge Lloyd George was issued on 9 July, 2013. The order states:

Bundy shall remove his livestock from the New Trespass Lands within 45 days of the date hereof, and that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundy’s cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days of the date hereof.

So after giving Bundy two decades to stop trespassing on public land, and giving him a further 45 days to comply, the BLM gave him eight more months before finally moving in the enforce the order first given 20 years ago. You know, even a flatworm is capable of learning more efficiently than Bundy.

A quick background as to why the BLM should not be harassing Cliven Bundy. This issue goes all the way back to the Confederation Papers, prior to the writing of our US Constitution.

Jeebus on a tortilla, seriously? Did you stop to think the Articles of Confederation no longer apply? (Here’s a hint: they don’t.) Did you ever consider that the US Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation? (Here’s a hint: they did.)

Why are not Senators and US Representative asking for the immediate resignation of the Reids (Harry and his son from the BLM). With the resignation denial of pension and lifetime medical care. make the criminals pay. I know I may be deluded, but the US Congress critters need to stand up once and for all.

Yes, you are deluded. Neither Senator Harry Reid nor his son can resign from BLM because neither of them are employed by BLM. There is a flaw in your reasoning.

bundy no trespassing

There’s some minimal comfort in the knowledge that Steve Stockman will no longer be a Member of Congress as of January 2015 (though I’m sure Republicans in Texas are actively seeking somebody equally stupid to replace him). There’s not much comfort, though, in knowing that neither Bundy nor his supporters have any respect for public lands or any understanding of the law governing those lands.

It’s really pretty simple. Does Bundy own the land on which his cattle are grazing? No. Has he ever owned that land? No. Can he use that land to graze his cattle if he pays the allotment fee? Yes. Has he ever paid the allotment fees? Yes, in the past. Has he paid his allotment fee? No, not for twenty years. Is he trespassing on public land? Yes. Is he aware he’s trespassing? Yes. Is Cliven Bundy leeching of the American people? Yes. Yes, absolutely yes.

Is this stupidity over? Sadly, no.

a crank in a cowboy hat

Posted on by
16

There’s a fuss happening out in Nevada, and it could get ugly.. It’s about — and I’m not making this up — grazing. Oh, the folks involved are claiming it’s about freedom and the Constitution and tyranny and all that, but that’s mostly bullshit. It’s more accurate to say it’s about a sense of privilege based on living in the same place and doing the same thing for a century and a half. But really, down at the bone, it’s about a crank in a cowboy hat.

You’ve seen it in movies; cattle grazing out on the open range in the Old West. Wide, open spaces. A handful of stalwart cowboys in big hats lazily keeping an eye on the herd. It’s all very picturesque, very cinematic, very American.

cattle grazing

When you’re watching the movies, though, you never stop to ask yourself a pretty basic question: Who the hell owns all that grazing land? For a long time, the answer was nobody. Or everybody, which is pretty much the same thing. The land was just there, so folks used it. As the United States expanded westward, the government gradually set about organizing and managing that unowned land. That eventually led to the creation of the Bureau of Land Management.

Today, about an eighth of all the land in the continental United States is considered public land — land owned in common by the people. It doesn’t belong to any individual, though individuals sometimes get to use it. We’re talking about everything from local municipal parks to national parks to open range. And that brings us to Cliven Bundy and the fuss in Nevada.

Cliven Bundy

Cliven Bundy

Bundy’s family has been ranching in Nevada since sometime in the 1880s. They own a chunk of land near the Utah border and some cattle. In the winter they keep the cattle near their ranch. But like most cattle ranches in the American West, they don’t own enough grazing land for their cattle to forage in the spring and summer. So the Bundy family and other area ranchers pay a fee to the U.S. government to graze their cattle on an allotment of public land.

Well, they used to pay the fee. In 1993, the government modified the allotment terms to provide protection for an endangered species — the desert tortoise. Bundy was raising cattle, not tortoises; he didn’t see why he had to abide by the new terms. So he stopped paying the allotment fee. But he didn’t stop grazing his cattle on the public land. For the last two decades, Bundy and his cattle have basically been trespassing.

In 1998, a Federal court ordered Bundy to remove his cattle from the land. He didn’t. After another fifteen years of pissing around, the government finally told Bundy to remove his cattle or they’d seize them. In July of last year they gave Bundy 15 days to remove his cattle. Again, he didn’t. This week, 260 days or so after the deadline, the BLM decided to stop being patient with Cliven Bundy. They started to remove his cattle themselves.

cattle

To some right wing dimwits, this equals tyranny. Bundy argues that his family have used that land since before the creation of the BLM, so his right to use the land preempts the government’s right to regulate it. He says he’ll fight against any attempt to take the cattle. He told the LA Times,

“I’ve got to protect my property. If people come to monkey with what’s mine, I’ll call the county sheriff. If that don’t work, I’ll gather my friends and kids and we’ll try to stop it. I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws.”

This is why things might turn ugly. Bundy has gathered his friends. To a small number of uneducated, angry, well-armed anti-government types, Bundy is a hero who is fighting against government oppression. Some two or three hundred of them have rallied outside his ranch. The BLM and the US Park Service responded by sending in more law enforcement personnel. The situation keeps escalating as the protesters become more confrontational. Various so-called citizen militias have shown up as well.

“That is what we do, we provide armed response. They have guns. We need guns to protect ourselves from the tyrannical government.”

This would be the same tyrannical government that’s given Bundy twenty years to stop being a dick and pay the allotment fee. That’s some piss poor tyranny.

bundy supporters

It’s about fighting for OUR freedom, the sign says. Whose freedom? Apparently not the other ranchers in the region — the ones who’ve continued to pay their allotment fees. And apparently not the rest of the citizenry, who have a right to expect Bundy to pay a fee to use public land — OUR land — to feed HIS cattle. The only freedom I see at risk is the freedom of Cliven Bundy to be a freeloader.

In the video below you’ll hear one of Bundy’s sons compare the situation in Nevada to the movie Red Dawn. The movie is a conservative gun nut’s wet dream. It’s about a group of plucky American high school kids who fight a guerrilla war against an invading Communist army. I’ve no doubt that’s exactly how a lot of Bundy’s supporters see the Obama presidency — as some sort of foreign occupying power. And I suspect they see themselves as the heroic Wolverines, courageously fighting back against overwhelming odds in an attempt to liberate America from oppression.

In fact, they’re just standing up for some crank who doesn’t want to abide by laws he doesn’t agree with. A crank who says he doesn’t recognize the Federal government but still tries to use the U.S. Constitution as a prop to support his claim that he has the right to treat public lands as if he owns them.

Cliven Bundy is no hero. He’s no patriot. He’s no defender of freedom. He’s just a crank in a cowboy hat.

from sea to shining wtf

Posted on by
16

So this morning I get an email from somebody I don’t know (his…or possibly her…email address was a model of anonymity — a seemingly random jumble of letters and numerals brilliantly designed to be completely forgettable, and maybe intended to put you directly to sleep) asking me this question:

Can you believe the wingers were so mad over that commercial?

I’d only started my first cup of coffee, so it took me a couple of seconds to decipher that. Wingers, I knew, referred to conservatives (nobody calls left-wing folks ‘wingers,’ though I’ve no idea why that is; left-wing folks are called ‘liberals’ or ‘commie socialist pussies’). The commercial, I assumed, was probably a Super Bowl commercial. But which commercial?

Bob Dylan shilling for General Motors? Maybe. The puppy-Clydesdale beer commercial? Possibly — we’re talking mixed-species horse-puppy relationships, and no way was that puppy old enough to be legal. Laurence Fishburn singing Puccini? Probably not — I mean, that opera begins with an execution, and conservatives are usually pro-death penalty.

I decided to seek guidance from that wellspring of Conservative Thinking: FreeRepublic.com. And hey, bingo — found it. It was this commercial:

What’s offensive about a multi-national corporation that sells its product worldwide making a commercial in which folks from different cultures sing America the Beautiful in a variety of languages? Here you go:

I was genuinely offended by the multilingual “America the Beautiful” Coke commercial. I mean REALLY pissed off! Big vote for WORST commercial.

The muzzie part of that ad was even worse than the foreign languages. The Coca Cola suits need to get the message loud and clear that mooselimbs are the enemy and that diversity is perversity. Real Americans should boycott all of their products including the Minute Maid brand.

Sing the song in English – even (especially??) if their speech is accented heavily with their native language.

Just watched the Coke ad. Think I’ll drink Pepsi tomorrow.

[S]o many seem offended by the multi-language Coke commercial. Was this the same Coke comemrcial that showed the gay couple skating? I’d be infinitely more offended by that than what language they were speaking.

[The gay couple skating] was the worst part of a commercial that went out of its way to be offensive on many levels.

I was REALLY pissed off at it. I never drink soda, but that makes me want to start boycotting Coke.

I remember the “like to buy the world a coke” singing commercial. Everyone sang in english. Language unifies. This commercial divides.

And in a classic case of Conservative Martyr Whining, we have this:

Coke airs an offensive ad. Conservatives are the only ones smart enough to recognize the offense and the liberal blogosphere immediately demonstrate their own “tolerance” by calling conservatives intolerant, stupid, racist, bigots for taking offense.

It’s apparently offensive to sing a song praising the beauty of this nation in any language other than English, especially if it’s sung by people who aren’t white, may not be Christian, and possibly aren’t heterosexual. If the folks who were offended by the commercial knew the history of America the Beautiful they’d be even more outraged.

It all began in Scotland in the middle of the 17th century. A minister named David Dickson, who was in and out of trouble for ‘nonconformist’ Protestant thought, wrote a long poem called O Mother Dear, Jerusalem. Seriously long — thirty-one painful verses describing the city of Jerusalem. For example:

Thy houses are of ivory,
Thy windows crystal clear,
Thy streets are laid with beaten gold —
There angels do appear.
Thy walls are made of precious stone,
Thy bulwarks diamond square,
Thy gates are made of Orient pearl —
O God, if I were there.

Despite thirty more verses of that, the poem remained popular among über-devout Protestants for a couple hundred years. Which is how Samuel Augustus Ward comes into the story.

Samuel Augustus Ward
Samuel Augustus Ward

Ward owned a little music store in Newark, New Jersey, but he was better known as the organist for the Grace Episcopal Church. He also dabbled in musical composition. One summer day in 1882, as he was coming back from a day spent at Coney Island, a tune got stuck in his head. Ward borrowed a friend’s shirt cuffs (which, back in that era, were detachable) and scribbled down the notes to the tune. He called it Materna, and later realized the tune fit the words of Dickson’s appalling poem.

It was a lovely little tune. Almost nobody cared. Ward died in 1903, unaware his tune would become wildly popular a few years later — thanks to Miss Katharine Lee Bates.

Katharine Lee Bates

Katharine Lee Bates

Katharine Bates was born in Falmouth, Massachusetts in 1859, the daughter of a Congregational minister. She was a rather independent and unorthodox woman. She obtained a degree from Wellesley College, studied for a while at Oxford in England, and eventually became a teacher and a writer.

In the summer of 1893, while she was briefly teaching in Colorado, Bates and some of her fellow teachers decided to visit Pikes Peak.

We hired a prairie wagon. Near the top we had to leave the wagon and go the rest of the way on mules. I was very tired. But when I saw the view, I felt great joy. All the wonder of America seemed displayed there, with the sea-like expanse.

She wrote a poem describing that beauty. The poem garnered a great deal of attention when it was published two years later in 1895. In 1910, her poem (with a few minor changes) was coupled with Samuel Ward’s tune Materna, and became known as America the Beautiful.

Why would conservatives be outraged by the history of this song? Because Katharine Bates lived for a quarter of a century with her ‘friend’ Katharine Coman. We don’t know for certain whether theirs was a sexual relationship, but there’s no doubt about the love they felt for each other. At some point Bates was described by a colleague as being a “free-flying spinster,” somebody who existed on the “fringe on the garment of life.” Bates response: “I always thought the fringe had the best of it. I don’t think I mind not being woven in.”

I think I’d have liked Katharine Lee Bates. I know I like the version of her song in the Coca Cola commercial. It pleases me that lyrics celebrating America written by a lesbian are sung in English and Hindi and Tagalog and Arabic. It pleases me that we see men and women of different races and different ethnic backgrounds and different sexual preferences and different religions celebrating this nation. And yes, even though the message being sent is ‘Buy Coke,’ it pleases me that the message is delivered in a way that is inclusive.

It does show an America that’s beautiful. And it’s a shame that some people can only find hate in that message.

so very not safe for work

Posted on by
Reply

You guys! If you go and join the United State Army right now, you can totally have sex with a goat. Or any other animal — it doesn’t have to be a goat. And it doesn’t have to be the Army, you guys. The Marines and Navy and even the Air Force — all of them offer the very same animal-sexing privileges (probably the Coast Guard too, but are they really part of the Armed Forces…really?).

You probably didn’t know this amazing true actual fact on account of you probably don’t read reliable conservative news sources. But back on December 1st of 2013 Congress repealed Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. What, you ask, is Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice? I’m glad you asked.

Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

Unnatural AND carnal copulation, you guys! According to every conservative source I can find, Congress repealed Article 125 so that Obama can pack the military with the gays and turn These United States into France (or maybe Saudi Arabia, it’s not entirely clear). Also? It was repealed so soldiers can fuck goats instead of fighting wars, which will destroy the morale of our brave, heroic men and women in uniform and make it easier for Obama to institute Shari’a law.

Tony Perkin, president of the Family Research Council and snappy dresser.

Tony Perkin, president of the Family Research Council and snappy dresser.

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, says “It’s all about using the military to advance this administration’s radical social agenda.” That radical agenda clearly includes soldiers sexing with the beasts of the field, probably while in uniform (the soldiers, not the beasts — that would just be wrong).

The Christian News Service (and they’re really really Christian, so you know they wouldn’t just make this shit up) interviewed former Army Col. Bob Maginnis (who by coincidence also works for the Family Research Council), who said:

“If we have a soldier who engages in sodomy with an animal — whether a government animal or a non-government animal — is it, in fact, a chargeable offense under the Uniform Code? I think that’s in question. Soldiers, unfortunately, like it or not, have engaged in this type of behavior in the past. Will they in the future, if they remove this statute? I don’t know.”

Col Bob Maginnis, Family Research Council authority on gays in military and bestiality.

Col Bob Maginnis, Family Research Council authority on gays in military and bestiality.

Non-government animals, you guys! Soldiers totally sexed them back when it was illegal, and now that the UCMJ has lifted the animal-sexing ban (which, let’s face it, is the very same thing as encouraging them to do it), will those soldiers still want to do the sex with goats? Maybe! Maybe not! Colonel Maginnis just doesn’t know!

The modern military, I declare. In the old days, all the military had to offer was the chance to learn a skill, the comradeship of your fellow troops, and the opportunity to visit exotic lands and kill the people who lived there. But I guess that’s just not enough for kids these days.

Honest, they're just good friends.

Honest, they’re just good friends.

Still I suppose if you’re going to require members of the military to be deployed to war zones four, six, ten times, then you probably have to look the other way while they fuck a goat now and then.

Editorial note: Tony Perkins and Col. Maginnis are apparently unaware of (well, okay, they just choose to ignore) Article 134 of the UCMJ, which outlaws “all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces” as well as “all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.” Which, not surprisingly, includes fucking goats.

celebratory gunfire

Posted on by
10

For the longest time, Texas has held a comfortable lead in the highly-contested Loopiest Legislators race. There are some seriously crazy-ass folks making laws in Texas. But you have to hand it to Florida — they’ve been making a big push to unseat the Texans. And they’re doing it almost entirely on gun laws.

I mean, Texas will hand out a concealed carry permit to almost any bozo who applies, but even they insist that the permit be issued by a criminal justice agency. Florida? Pffft. Their concealed carry permits are issued by the Florida Department of Agriculture. Seriously — I am NOT making this up. The fucking Department of Agriculture. Why? Who the hell knows?

But this is even more stupid than it appears on the surface, because only law enforcement agencies are allowed access to NICS, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Is the Florida Department of Agriculture a law enforcement agency? Why no, it’s not. Do they have access to federal criminal and mental health information when determining who merits a concealed weapons permit. Why no. No, they do not. (This is where we all shake our heads and say ‘Jeebus on toads’.)

Marion Hammer, pistol-packin' cat fancier.

Marion Hammer, pistol-packin’ cat fancier

That sets the tone for Florida’s other gun laws. We’re all familiar, of course, with Florida’s first-in-the-nation Stand Your Ground Law. That law was essentially written by Marion Hammer, the first woman president of the National Rifle Association (and cat fancier!). A couple dozen states in the U.S. have followed in Florida’s footsteps and have similar laws now. The law basically rewards the person who shoots first in a dispute (the party who shoots first is often the only person who shoots at all, since the other party is often too dead to return fire).

Stand Your Ground essentially indemnifies any shooter who claims to have fired his weapon out of fear for his personal safety. Like Curtis Reeves, the former police officer who recently shot and killed Chad Oulson during an argument over texting during movie previews. The texting led Reeves to argue with Oulson, which then led to reckless popcorn-throwing, which (because this is Florida) led inevitably to a dead guy on the floor of the theater. Reeves is claiming he was in fear for his life when he shot and killed Oulson.

Chad Coulson, loser in popcorn versus semi-auto .380 pistol dispute

Chad Oulson, loser in popcorn versus semi-auto .380 pistol dispute

Hell, you don’t even have to hit the person you were shooting at to use a Stand Your Ground Defense. In South Carolina, whose law is modeled on Florida’s, some teen-aged girls got into a fuss with other girls in a club. The second set of girls followed the first set to their home. Shannon Scott, a 33-year-old man (who had a sign in his window — and honest, I’m NOT making any of this up — saying Fight Crime – Shoot First), met his daughter and her friends at the door. He brought them inside, saw the other girls in their car, said he felt threatened that they might attempt a drive-by shooting. So he shot first. Didn’t hit them, though. Hit 17-year-old Darrell Niles, who was across the street, minding his own business. Hit him right in the head. Killed him. Was Scott charged with a crime? No sir.

“[It is] unreasonable to expect Scott is required to go back into his house, in his castle and hope that the cavalry (police) are going to come…. [And people like Scott] cannot be expected to shoot straight always because they are not supposed to have their life in jeopardy.”

Had Scott stayed inside with his daughter and her friends, Niles would be alive. But hey, what’s the point of having a gun if you can’t point it at somebody now and then. Or, in this case, point it in the general direction of somebody who might be thinking about maybe threatening somebody safely tucked inside a solid-walled structure.

Darrell Niles, interrupted bullet's flight path

Darrell Niles, interrupted bullet’s flight path

And now Ms. Hammer (and no, again, I am NOT making it up — that’s her actual name) is pushing another law in Florida, expanding Stand Your Ground. She’s written new legislation and has convinced two Florida legislators, Greg Evers and Neil Combee (do I need to say they’re Republicans?), to sponsor it. The proposed law would permit gun owners who feel in fear for their lives “to display guns, threaten to use the weapons, or fire warning shots.”

Warning shots. Like in the movies. Because that always works.

Florida legislator Greg Evers, opposed to Shari'a law, okay with random gunfire

Florida legislator Greg Evers, opposed to Shari’a law, okay with random gunfire

You see, it’s okay to fire your gun into the air because those bullets just disappear. Well, okay, they don’t just disappear — they eventually come back to earth. But when they fall back down, they never hit anybody. Well, okay, they sometimes hit people. But they never kill anybody. Well, okay, sometimes they kill people. But hardly ever.

But c’mon, if you can accidentally kill an innocent person across the street by accident, shouldn’t you also be able to accidentally kill an innocent person anywhere? Not all the time. Just now and then. When you’re afraid, of course. Kill them with a gun, that is. Not with a car. That’s criminal. Cars are dangerous.

If this law passes, there’ll probably be celebratory gunfire. Let’s hope those bullets come down in the right place.

gun control / legal pot — spot the difference

Posted on by
34

Sometimes smart people make stupid arguments. That surely happens more often when you’re writing on a deadline. I don’t know if that’s the case with S.E. Cupp’s recent opinion piece in the NY Daily News, but I don’t know how else to explain it.

SE Cupp

S.E. Cupp

Cupp describes herself as a ‘mainstream conservative’ but she’s not — not in the modern conservative movement. She’s an atheist who supports the Log Cabin Republicans, which takes her completely out of mainstream conservatism. I rarely agree with her views, but I’m willing to admit she sometimes makes a point worth considering. Not this time. She suggests the legalization of marijuana in Colorado will pose a political problem for progressives. Why?

[T]he legal weed experiment could at least put the politics of progressivism – all the rage in liberal circles now – in a tricky spot. For one, there are glaring inconsistencies between the liberal argument for pot legalization and positions on other issues. An obvious one is gun control. The same argument used against guns is used for pot: that legalizing pot and making it more available will reduce crime.

It’s not the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard from a conservative, but it’s pretty close. Of course legalizing pot will reduce crime, if only because possession of pot is no longer criminal. A person who purchased pot last month was a criminal; this month, that same person making that same purchase is an honest citizen supporting the local economy and increasing the State’s tax base. Hey bingo, crime reduction!

Honest citizen supporting the local economy

Honest citizen supporting the local economy

That’s stupid — but it’s not the stupidest part of her opinion piece. Here’s part of Cupp’s argument:

We’re told pot users will “responsibly” use marijuana in the privacy of their own homes…. [W]hy aren’t lawful gun owners afforded the same level of trust?

Why? Because nobody cleaning their lawfully obtained pot accidentally wounded or killed themselves. Or another person in the same room. Or a neighbor in an adjoining apartment. Because nobody ever pulled out a lawfully obtained dime bag in a moment of road rage and used it to kill another driver. Because nobody ever went into a school and slaughtered teachers and students with lawfully obtained marijuana. Because no unattended infant ever found lawfully obtained pot on a table and used it to accidentally blow his brains out. Because nobody ever tried to put lawfully obtained pot in his pocket and accidentally put a hole in his leg.

Jeebus on toast, this seems pretty fucking obvious, doesn’t it? Gun owners aren’t afforded the same level of trust because marijuana isn’t a lethal weapon. Let’s make this even easier to understand. Last Sunday a 13-year-old Chicago boy killed his 16-year-old cousin by shooting him in the head. This is from the Chicago Sun Times:

The boy gave a statement to police admitting to shooting his cousin, according to court records. Police said a possible argument over video games may have led to the shooting. It is unclear how the 13-year-old obtained the gun, police said.

Now, let’s apply the Cupp Argument:

The boy gave a statement to police admitting to getting his cousin stoned, according to court records. Police said a possible argument over video games may have led to them getting high. It is unclear how the 13-year-old obtained the marijuana, police said.

And that, Ms. Cupp, is why gun owners aren’t afforded the same level of trust. Ain’t nobody has to worry about an irate 13-year-old with a blunt doing you a hurt.

I suspect the bear would prefer to be stoned

I suspect the bear would prefer to be stoned

But Cupp also has another concern.

“While there’s obvious support among libertarians, others worry about the moral implications of legalizing risky behavior simply because people are ‘going to do it anyway'”

Yes, she’s right — there are risks associated with marijuana use. One obvious risk is to the user’s health; smoking anything damages the lungs — but research strongly indicates that smoking pot is much less injurious than smoking tobacco. A significantly greater hazard is the risk of injury — to the user and to others. Pot clearly impairs psycho-motor performance. There’s certainly evidence of drivers impaired by marijuana being involved in auto accidents. Again, though, the numbers are much lower than for drivers impaired by alcohol.

I’m going to say this again: S.E. Cupp isn’t stupid. I often disagree with her, but she’s definitely not stupid. I don’t know, maybe she was high when she wrote that opinion piece. You can write opinion pieces when you’re stoned — another advantage of marijuana over guns (just ask the bear). But just to settle the question — no, the legalization of marijuana in Colorado doesn’t pose a political problem for progressives.

Stupidity, on the other hand, does pose a political problem for — well, for everybody.

ADDENDUM: Last night Kentucky State representative Leslie Combs was attempting to unload her handgun in the capitol building annex “when it accidentally fired. The bullet struck the floor and ricocheted into a bookcase.” Nobody was injured. Combs, though, might have been high, given her calm response to the accident: “I am a gun owner. It happens.”

no, megyn kelly isn’t that stupid

Posted on by
2

If you’re not aware of it yet, FOX News personality Megyn Kelly (yes, that’s actually how she spells her name and no, that’s not her fault — blame her parents) said something stupid on her show. She was speaking about an article written by Aisha Harris in Slate. Harris wrote about the discontinuity of growing up as an African-American girl and having two Santas — the ubiquitous jolly white guy in the red suit, and “the Santa in my family’s household” who was black. When she asked her father about the two Santas, she got a perfect answer:

My father replied that Santa was every color. Whatever house he visited, jolly old St. Nicholas magically turned into the likeness of the family that lived there.

That’s incredibly sappy, but it’s also a perfectly lovely notion. But nonetheless Ms. Harris grew up feeling “slightly ashamed that our black Santa wasn’t the ‘real thing.'” So in her article she suggests (and I presume this is tongue-in-cheek) that we should abandon the notion of Santa Claus as a human and begin to present him as a penguin.

santa black

It’s too bad, in a way. Harris makes some important and interesting points about the duality of growing up black in what is essentially a white culture. The whole ‘Santa as Penguin’ business rather distracts from that — but still, the article is worth reading.

Enter FOX News in the person of Megyn Kelly. FOX News isn’t in the business of debating interesting social phenomena (nor is FOX News in the business of news, for that matter). FOX News is in the business of being outraged by interesting social phenomena. In a panel discussion about the article, Kelly categorically states that Santa is a white guy. And so, by the way, was Jesus.

Over the last couple of days there’s been an indignant cascade of cheerfully pissed off folks railing against Kelly. They’ve explained in detail the ethnology of the tribal cultures that inhabited Galilee in the first century. They’ve expounded on the symbolic and social evolution of Nikolaos of Myra from a tall, thin, Turkish-Greek priest to the jolly red-suited fat man created by Haddon Sundblom in the 1930s for Coca Cola adverts.

santa white

In effect, folks have been calling Megyn Kelly stupid. Profoundly stupid. Stupid on a galactic scale. People have been suggesting that the sheer mass of Megyn Kelly’s stupidity is so great that it’s capable of affecting tides. But folks, she’s not stupid — not at all. She’s worse than that.

There’s no shame in being stupid or ignorant. If you lack the capacity to be intelligent, it’s not your fault that you’re stupid. If you lack access to accurate information, it’s not your fault that you’re ignorant. If you lack the means to obtain a good education, it’s not your fault that you’re uneducated. The shame is in being willfully stupid, deliberately ignorant, consciously uneducated.

Megyn Kelly is intelligent, has easy access to accurate information, and received a quality education. In other words, the shame begins with the fact that Megyn Kelly works for FOX News.

megyn kelly

It’s her job to be outraged and to engender outrage in others. That’s the FOX News mission — keep their viewers uninformed and angry. Keep them feeling victimized. Because if you’re a victim, then you’re not to blame. If you’re a victim, you have a right to defend yourself. You have the right to defend yourself against minorities who want a non-white Santa. Against gay folks who want marriage equality. Against women who want to control their own reproduction. Against people who believe in evolution. Against anybody who believes differently than you do.

Megyn Kelly isn’t stupid. She’s a willing participant in an organized movement to prevent change. Megyn Kelly isn’t stupid; she’s just getting paid to act that way.

bad news and good news

Posted on by
2

Okay, first the bad news: Barack Obama is going to seize your children and give them to homosexuals. Then he’s going to take away your guns. Or maybe he’s going to take away your guns and then give your children to homosexuals. That point’s not entirely clear. But I’m absolutely confident it’s your children he’s going to give to homosexuals, not your guns. So there’s that.

Oh, and then he’s going to lead an Army of Black Negros to imprison and/or kill all the white folks.

President Barack Obama (of Kenya, Africa)

President Barack Obama (of Kenya, Africa) wants to take your children.

No, I’m not making this up. This comes directly from the highest possible authority: the intertubes radio show of Stan Solomon. In a highly intellectual discussion of the issue with well-known Advocate for All Sorts of Freedoms, Phyllis Schafly, Solomon reveals the scope of the Obama Child Abduction Program (OCAP):

“I think the next step, they’re going to say ‘We have the right, because you’re mentally in the wrong direction, to take your children, whether they’re in the womb or already born.’  There have been several cases, and it’s gotten very little publicity, where they took the child…and gave that child to a homosexual couple or a homosexual individual. And then that homosexual individual — in every case I’ve seen, a male — has taken the male child — I’m not saying it’s happened in all, or most, but it’s happened in several — they take that male child and they use that child for sexual gratification, and use that child for pornography…and the media won’t even talk about it.”

The media won’t even talk about it, you guys. And you know the media normally loves to talk about the homosexuals. Why so quiet on this issue? Coincidence, or conspiracy?

President Barack Obama (Negro homosexual with godless metal boobs)

President Barack Obama (Negro homosexual with godless metal boobs) will take your guns.

That’s how it starts. First they come for your kids, and then they come for your guns (or, you know, maybe the other way around — let’s not get distracted by those details). Stan Solomon gives us a fair and balanced and totally not-crazy report on what’s inevitably going to almost certainly might happen in his opinion (not based on facts):

“I also believe that they will use a — this is my opinion, not based on facts that I can offer you at this moment — but I believe they will put together a racial force to go against an opposite race resistance, basically a black force to go against a white resistance, and then they will claim anyone resisting the black force they are doing it because they are racist.”

One of Solomon’s patriotic guests acknowledges that “If Obama can take your guns away he can take your car, he can take your home, he can take your bank account, he can take your very life.” Your car, you guys. Obama can take your damned car. Oh, and yeah, your kids too. And he’ll give them all to homosexuals. Do you really want to see a homosexual — and probably a Negro homosexual — driving around in your car?

Is this the America you want to live in? Is it?

President Barack Obama

President Barack Obama (Chromium Muslim) will exterminate you.

Okay, that’s the bad news. Yes, yes, Obama is going to take your guns and children (and probably your damned car) and he’ll give them to Muslim Homosexuals to use for Negro pornography (the kids, not the guns — that would be sick) and then he’ll start a race war. But don’t despair; there’s also good news.

The good news is this: eighty years ago on this very day Congress searched around and found its balls long enough to chunk the 18th Amendment of the Constitution of These United States in the trash. Sure, you remember the 18th Amendment — the one that prohibited:

the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Eighty years ago today Prohibition was repealed — making the 18th Amendment the only constitutional amendment ever to be repealed. Congress said “America, y’all can drink again.” And we did, we surely did. And lawdy, after listening to Stan Solomon and his guests, we all need a drink.

Good decent American (after a few drinks).

Good decent American (after a few drinks).

And ain’t nobody, including the president, going to take the booze away from us again. Aye, drink and you may die. Stay sober, and you’ll live — at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell Obama that he may take our guns, he may take our children, he may take our damned cars — but he’ll never take… OUR FREEDOM! (And by ‘freedom’ I mean, you know, booze.)