San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, January 11, 2013

Yuppies And Red Light Creep

Yuppies are an interesting group. I have managed to live most of my adult life outside of their territory.  Largely by living in places where gunshots were frequently heard at night and lots of shady looking fellows would sell "goods" out of the trunks of their cars, I was able to avoid contact with Yuppsters.  Then, a year and a half ago, I moved into a Yuppie neighborhood.  Talk about culture shock!  I had never seen such a collection of BMWs before.  In contrast to my previous experiences with the folks I lived with, these people all have white teeth, nice hair, and they all smell good.  They use proper grammar.  The middle-aged Yuppie women all have stick-thin upper arms.   No flab to be found anywhere!  Everyone is involved in some sort of "extreme" activity and, as a result, I can sit out on my front porch the entire day and not see a single neighbor!  My goodness, I have lived across the street from one man for a year and a half now and we have never even looked at each other, much less shared a friendly word.
As I have observed Yuppies in their natural habitat for well over a year now I have learned many things about their behavior patterns and thought processes.  One of the more interesting behaviors of the Yuppie who gets behind the wheel is what I call "red light creep".  Red light creep is the process of first coming to a halt at a red light and then, slowly and almost imperceptibly at first, taking the foot off the brake and creeping closer to the car in front.  That, of course, results in the car behind doing the exact same thing.  Over the period of time the cars are sitting at the red light an entire line of cars will move forward several feet in a continuous herky-jerky process of movement.  Not being a Yuppie, I do not participate in the ritual.  As a result, a space large enough for another car will usually open up in front of my car.  At that point the Yuppie in the car behind me will get as close to my rear bumper as possible, urging me to complete the process and move forward.  When I do not I am usually treated to the "waving hand of disgust", the "middle finger salute" or the "excessive honking of the horn" behavior.  Fascinating creatures these Yuppies.
Observing the behavior of Yuppies and having any idea about the motivation of those behaviors are two entirely different things.  I have committed myself to the sociological process of attempting to discern Yuppie motives.  I know that is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do and fraught with potential error.  Yet I press on in my endeavor.  Some Yuppie behavior is, I believe, relatively easy to understand.  Yuppies want to be the center of attention.  They rightly believe that they look and smell so good that everybody around them should take notice.  They have worked hard, either at the gym or in the surgeon's office, to attain this physical appearance and somebody had better notice.  This explains why they talk loudly in public settings and strut around in public as if they were the Grand Marshall in some parade.  But none of these things seem to explain the phenomenon of red light creep.
Yuppies are intelligent.  They will tell you that themselves.  That is what makes red light creep so perplexing.  Certainly the Yuppie (both male and female Yuppies regularly practice this behavior) knows that moving forward will not change anything about the circumstances. The red light will not change to green more quickly simply because the Yuppie is inching his car forward.  Inching forward will not cause the driver of the car in front to be more alert, and thus the trailing Yuppie will not be forced to wait for a nano-second prior to violently accelerating away from the intersection when the light does change.  What could possibly be the reason for this absurd behavior?
The more I pondered the situation the more I began to realize that Yuppies are pretty hard charging folks.  They like to be out front, moving fast, making decisions, and embracing the Yuppie life-style with vigorous enthusiasm.  All of this combines to make them fairly impatient individuals.  They have Yuppie things to do and Yuppie people to see.  Waiting in line at a red light slows this process down.  The more I pondered Yuppies and red light creep the more I came to see that the behavior is not a result of ignorance or stupidity.  Yuppies practice red light creep because they simply cannot contain themselves.  They have goals and anything, including red lights and other cars, that gets in the way of those goals needs to be moved, surmounted, or eliminated in some way, shape or fashion.  Simply put, Yuppies have no patience whatsoever.  The process of red light creep is one of the best examples of the Yuppie inability to be patient that I have witnessed during my time among them.
Now that I understand the reason for red light creep I have discovered that a lot of other things also make sense.  Heretofore I had thought that my neighbors were unwilling to sit down with me on my front porch and share an adult beverage because my teeth are yellow, I have no hair and I don't smell too good.  Sometimes, believe it or not, I have been known to use improper grammar.  Now I realize that it is really not about me at all.  My Yuppie neighbors and I will never get to know one another because they all have something else to do and they have to get there in a hurry.  They have no time.  The patience required to sit on a porch on a fine summer evening is not found in the Yuppie skill set.  Too bad.  I think I should have liked to get to know some of my neighbors and now that will never happen.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Who Needs An Assault Rifle?

Who needs an assault rifle?  For one, I do.  I don't need it to shoot at people.  I don't need it to shoot at tasty animals.  I don't need it to defend my home from intruders.  I don't need it to make mince meat out of a paper target.  I need it because my psyche tells me that I need it.  I like the way an assault weapon feels when I hold it.  I like the way it looks hanging on my wall.  It brings me psychic pleasure.  Following my psychic desires makes me no different than the vast majority of the citizens in the Socialist Democracy of America.  In fact, that is the reason why most people purchase just about everything that they want or need.  I have been listening to the arguments about the need for more federal gun control laws.  One of the most popular arguments made by those who favor more state interference in our lives is that people just don't need certain types of guns.  The burden of proof is thereby shifted to those who want to own guns as they are required to somehow substantiate their claim that they need them.  It seems to me that that argument cuts both ways.  So, to those who would take away my right to own something simply because I want to, even if the ownership of that thing serves no practical purpose or function other than making me happy, I offer you the following questions:
Who needs more than one television in the house?  If you can establish the case that even one television is a necessity, and I don't even think that case can be made,  there is still certainly no way to expand that need to multiple televisions.  Owning multiple televisions makes you lazy.  With multiple televisions you do not have to get up and walk to another room to watch it.  In that sense multiple television ownership is a serious public health issue.  Call your congresspeople and tell them to sponsor a bill that will prohibit multiple television ownership.  Nobody needs multiple televisions.  Don't try to tell me that you own more than one television for convenience.  Don't try to tell me that it makes you happy to own more than one television.  If you can't prove you need more than one you should not be allowed to own more than one.
Who needs more than one automobile?  If you can establish the case that even one car is a necessity, and I do not think that you can given the state of public transportation in this land, there is still certainly no way you can expand that alleged need to multiple automobiles.  What are you going to do, drive two of them at the same time?  Multiple automobile ownership encourages driving more.  Driving more brings about greater natural resource depletion, as well as more air, water and sound pollution. Multiple automobiles dramatically increases the chance of having an accident in which bodily harm can be suffered.  Multiple automobile ownership is a serious public health issue.  Call your congresspeople and tell them to sponsor a bill that will prohibit multiple automobile ownership.  Don't try to tell me that you have a right to own multiple death machines.  If you can't prove that you have some special right to own more than one you should not be allowed to own more than one.  While I am on the subject of automobiles I should also point out that nobody needs a GPS device in their car.  It has been scientifically proven that the use of GPS devices results in reduced brain function and atrophy of that part of the brain associated with orientation.  GPS devices are a public health issue and nobody needs to use them.  They should be made illegal.
Who needs more than one electronic computing device?  I know for a fact that most of those who are reading this blog post own more than one electronic computing device.  There is no reason why you cannot communicate with your friends, search the internet and engage in sophisticated calculations about quantum physics with any more than one computer/phone/smart device.  Ownership of multiple electronic computing devices, and the flashy public display of them that frequently follows their purchase, is fraught with peril and highly damaging to the structure of our society.  Please take a moment and think about the children with me, would you?  Morally pure and basically good people are being enticed to engage in the immoral acts of envy and covetousness by the thoughtless behavior of owners of multiple electronic devices.  A properly functioning democracy requires that its citizens not be consumed by envy and covetousness.  The ownership of multiple electronic devices is destroying our moral fiber.  They must be controlled.  Call your congresspeople and demand that they write legislation prohibiting the ownership of more than one device.  No morally sensible person can justify the ownership of multiple devices on the basis of need.  Therefore the government must restrict all of us to just one device.
Who needs a house/apartment with more bedrooms than half the number of family members?  The wanton and profligate construction and sale of McMansions is morally reprehensible.  The list of socially undesirable effects of these energy consuming behemoths and monuments to ego is endless.  The construction process alone exposes innocent workers to a host of compounds that are known in the State of California to be carcinogens.  Off-gassing in a new home is responsible for untold millions of respiratory ailments and auto-immune diseases.  Many, if not most, of the products used to build these homes come from dirty foreigners, resulting in the loss of American jobs.  Perhaps worst of all is the fact that people simply do not need bigger houses.  One bedroom for every two people should be enough.  If people do not need more square footage then there should be a law prohibiting more square footage.  Need should be the basis for all purchases.  If need cannot be proven, the purchase should be illegal.
Who needs more than 2500 calories per day?  Our federal handlers, who never lie and who always tirelessly work in our best interest, have told us that we suffer from an epidemic of obesity.  We are told that obesity is the greatest public health issue of our time.  Clearly people are eating more than they need.  Based upon a little research I have concluded that nobody should need more than 2500 calories of food per day.  Unlike my previously proposed new laws, this one would not be inviolable.  If somebody could prove that he needs more than the maximum number of calories an exception could be made.  For example, a construction worker might need a few more calories to keep up his strength on the job.  He could petition the officials at the Federal Calorie Bureau and receive permission for a temporary increase in calorie consumption.  His case should be reviewed weekly and when he no longer needs more than the maximum number of calories his exemption should be revoked.  Far more people are killed by food than are killed by guns.  Food kills people.  People are dying every day because of excessive calorie consumption!  Am I the only one who cares about them?  Please, please, call your congresspeople and encourage them to make a law mandating the maximum daily caloric intake per citizen.  Don't try to tell me that I am infringing on your right to eat if you cannot prove to the federal authorities that you have a concomitant need to eat.  Citizens of the SDA should recognize that all rights are granted from the federal government and should be based exclusively upon need.  Don't try to tell me you have a constitutional right to eat more than you need based upon the Ninth Amendment.  Everybody knows that the Ninth Amendment was added to the Constitution purely to address issues that were important at the time but that are irrelevant in today's modern world. The founding fathers never considered the possibility of an obesity pandemic such as what we are experiencing today.  It is time for the government to stand up, stop infighting and do something dramatic in the war on fat!


Wednesday, January 9, 2013

The Future of Energy Production In The SDA

The process of fracking has created a boom in oil and gas exploration and development.  If the politicians will leave fracking alone it has the potential to bring about an economic reality that has been considered impossible in recent years.  Oil and gas gurus believe that fracking opens up fields that were previously considered exhausted and can provide enough energy to cause the Socialist Democracy of America to become a net exporter of oil and gas energy in a very short period of time.  Yes, you heard that right.  The SDA could become energy independent  in a relatively short period of time.   The SDA could become the world's largest producer of oil and gas.  However, despite all of the rhetoric about "energy independence" that is continually vomited out of the lying mouths of politicians, it is the politicians who are now scampering about like vermin in search of votes from the increasingly vocal anti-fracking coalition.  The envy filled hatred directed towards oil companies is so strong that fracking opponents are willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces.  Idiots.
One such opponent is Jeff Peckman of Denver.  He wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post on Friday, December 21st.  Jeff is a superb example of the economic illiteracy found in all oil company haters.  He also considers himself to be a bit of a prophet.  Here is what he writes, "In 2013 we will see an even bigger shift away from the fossil fuel economy.  Investors will redirect funds and speed up the shift before government and industry share it publicly.  A documentary due out next year will prove that much of the fossil fuel energy sector has been obsolete since the early 1900s.  Congress has known this." Wow!  Jeff Peckman is really dumb.  Everything he writes is amazing wrong.
Jeff's prediction that we will see an "even bigger shift away from the fossil fuel economy" presupposes that we have have seem some shift in that direction already.  We have not.  In fact, just the opposite is the case. Fracking technologies have caused a decided shift back towards fossil fuel sources of energy.  The fact that Congress appears unwilling to extend the wind energy tax credit package is sure evidence of this truth.  His prediction that "investors" will redirect funds into alternative energy sources is ridiculous.  Alternative energy companies are going out of business left and right.  Investors are fleeing those companies now that government subsidies are expiring.  Is Peckman totally blind?  No, he is just incapable of seeing the truth.  He is blinded by his hatred and envy for profit seeking oil companies.  His assertion that fossil fuels have been "obsolete since the early 1900s", whatever that means, borders on the insane.  How can an obsolete source of energy be primarily responsible for the economic development of the SDA over the past one hundred years?  He does not say. What he does say is that Congress has known about this evil conspiracy to let oil companies provide us tremendous economic growth and done nothing to stop them.  How does he know all of this?  Because some unnamed "documentary" is going to come out next year proving his point. 
It gets even worse for Jeff.  He should have stopped writing but he didn't.  He writes, "Previously suppressed and new clean energy technologies need to progress without delay.  Inventors of these technologies need special protection against harm."  Jeff does not tell us how "new clean energy technologies" have been "suppressed".  Nor does he tell us who has suppressed them.  Nor does he even tell us what these "new technologies" are.  Jeff really tells us nothing at all.  Well, not quite.  He does make one very clear statement.  Whatever his new clean energy technologies are, he firmly believes that they need government (read "taxpayer") subsidies in order to compete with the oil companies.  The "special protection against harm" he refers to is nothing more than a continuation of the wind energy credits and other credits of that class that are designed to prop up businesses that would have been bankrupt years ago in the absence of a transfer of money from the taxpayers to them.  Jeff is correct when he says that some people need protection.  He just does not comprehend what group requires the protection.  It is not the alternative energy companies and their founders who require protection from the voluntary decisions of consumers. It is the taxpayers who need protection from the politicians who are buying votes of envy filled oil company haters by transferring their money to alternative energy companies nobody in the free market would ever voluntarily support.
Jeff continues his crazed rant against oil companies by saying that, "Inventions require protection from seizure under the deception of 'economic security' that has been used to ensure fossil fuel industry profits.  Obstruction of clean energy technology should be viewed as  a terrorist act like the 'destruction of an energy facility' listed in the Patriot Act."  Wow, now Jeff is really off the deep end.  Apparently Jeff believes that some oil company executives have been running around stealing clean energy technology from its developers.  Of course, according to Jeff, the reason these evil, satanic companies have been doing this is due to the fact that they seek "profits".  Every time I turn around some hideous corporation is trying to make a profit.  Call in the National Guard.  Certainly the pursuit of profits must be a violation of the Patriot Act.  No red blooded patriotic citizen of the SDA would ever buy something from a company that makes a profit, would he?  No, the moral thing to do is purchase goods from companies that receive government subsidies.  What planet does Jeff live on?
Jeff concludes his diatribe by appealing to his god.  He writes, "Colorado legislators can lead this shift or leave it to citizens.  Our health, prosperity, and freedom are at stake."  Wow!  Call Superman.  Truth, justice and the American way are in danger because oil companies can now use fracking to abundantly satisfy our energy wants and needs.  Jeff seems incapable of recognizing that if the public voluntarily decides to shift away from oil and gas to alternative sources of energy, government hegemony is unnecessary.  On the other hand, calling up politicians to force the public to do something that is costly and wasteful will only result in diminished wealth and the restriction of economic freedom Peckman so seriously desires.
I have quoted Jeff Peckman at length because I believe he is typical of the willfully ignorant oil company hater. These people have rendered themselves incapable of seeing the world as it really is because they cannot get past the fact that oil companies are some of the most profitable companies in the world.  Rather than allowing millions of people to make billions of dollars developing and selling a product billions of people voluntarily purchase, Jeff would plunge us all back into the dark ages by forcing consumers to purchase energy that they do not want at a price much higher than they want to pay.  I have a prediction.  I predict that Jeff's predictions will not take place in 2013.  In fact, I predict that 2013 will be a banner year for oil companies in the SDA.  I also predict that we will all be much better off for it.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Keep Your Hands Off My Dead Money

Recently a group of 25 entrepreneurs, politicians, academics and wealthy heirs sent a letter to Congress called "A Responsible Estate Tax Proposal." Included in this group of wealthy citizens of the Socialist Democracy of America were Warren Buffet and John Bogel.  The letter they wrote argues that the estate tax is critical to "support the country and prevent the rise of powerful family dynasties."  They believe that the estate tax should be raised to 45 percent and should be applied to estates valued at $2 million or more.  This estate tax proposal is more aggressive than both the current estate tax law and King Obama's proposal to increase the present levels of estate taxation.  This elite group of 25 liberals was gathered together by a socialist group called United for a Fair EconomyAccording to these socialists, "We believe it is right to have a significant tax on large estates when they are passed on to the next generationWe believe it is right, morally and economically, and that an estate tax promotes democracy by slowing the concentration of wealth and power."  There is so much wrong with this group and their proposal that I hardly know where to begin to criticize them.  That will, however, not stop me from criticizing them.
The first, and most important, presupposition held by the twenty five signers of this letter is that government is good and business is bad.  Their assertion that government needs to "prevent the rise of powerful family dynasties" is absurd.  What is a "family dynasty"?  Is it anything like the old television show by that title?  What type of "power" do these family dynasties exercise?  Why is it important to keep them from exercising this power?  These 25 bozos have bought into the belief that when a man is in private business he is necessarily evil but when a man is in government he is necessarily good.  Businessmen are subject to sinful desires and prone to sinful behaviors but government agents are pure as the driven snow and never do anything wrong or bad.  This presupposition is disastrously wrong.  This presupposition has caused ignorant men to believe that Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Obama are great leaders.  This presupposition has caused ignorant men to call for the government to persecute and punish great leaders like Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Gates.
I honestly do not have any idea what these folks mean when they write about the danger to the country from "powerful family dynasties".  Other than compulsory government education and military service, there is no slavery in our land.  Other than government connected businesses, there are no monopolies in our land.  There are no ruling families.  There is no Cosa Nostra we must appear before.  No citizen of the SDA is legally or morally accountable to any wealthy family that I know of.  In fact, the mere idea of a "dynasty" is ridiculous.  A dynasty of what?  The only possible answer I can come up with to that question is a dynasty of wealth.  Rich family members tend to pass their wealth on to the next generation.  In that sense there is a sort of dynasty of net worth within some families.  Of course that wealth can be vaporized quite quickly if it is poorly managed or squandered.  Still, it is possible for wealth to be passed on and, sometimes, even grown over time.  But why should that be a bad thing?  Why should that be anybody's business but their own?
These air-heads write that they believe it is "morally right" to "have a significant tax on large estates when they are passed on to the next generation".   What is the basis for their moral belief?  What is the moral system that justifies such a theft?  We all know that a tax is an expropriation of funds from a private citizen by the government for its own use.  These days the majority of the money spent by government is spent via transfer programs where the money previously extracted from one group is given to another, in exchange for a vote in the next election.  I would like for these 25 moralists to explain to me how it is morally proper for government to take 45% of the value of a dead man's estate and distribute it to people who have no claim on it whatsoever.  I want them to explain why it is morally proper to take that money from the rightful heirs and use it for their own purposes.  Even more, I want them to explain how they can take this money for their own purposes and not end up becoming a powerful government dynasty that must be at least equally evil to the family dynasty it is trying to destroy.  
Another utterly incomprehensible statement is, "we believe an estate tax promotes democracy by slowing the concentration of wealth and power."  As I understand the concept of a democracy, it is one person/one vote.  Anybody who has a pulse and the gumption to sign up with the state registrar is allowed to vote.  When voters go to the polls in a democracy they do so knowing that the majority wins.  Whatever the majority wants the majority will get.  That being the case, how in the world does a tax that steals almost half of a dead man's money in any way promote the process of people voting and the majority of voters winning?  There is no logical connection between the two concepts whatsoever.  It is a complete nonsense statement.  Although it must be admitted that a confiscatory estate tax will likely "slow the concentration of wealth and power", it does not follow that slowing the concentration of wealth and power has any impact upon how many people vote and what they decide to vote for.  These powerful family dynasties have no control over how an individual votes when he casts his ballot.  The notion that a member of a rich family can control the way another man votes is sheer lunacy. 
I guess there is one sense in which the estate tax promotes democracy, although it is a very strange connection to make.  It is clear from the way the majority usually votes that those who make up the majority suffer from a tremendous case of sinful envy.  The majority of voters hate the minority of folks who make a lot of money and have a lot of wealth.  In that sense the democratic majority can be somewhat appeased and justified in their sinful envy by stealing half of the estate of a dead rich guy. In that sense an estate tax promotes the goal of a democracy by allowing the lower income groups who make up the majority to live off the wealth and income of the unprotected minority at the top of the income and wealth scale.   How any of this can be considered a moral process however, is extremely hard to understand.  
I have no problem if Bogel and Buffet want to give their entire estates to the federal treasury.  Good for them.  They should be allowed to do anything they want with their money.  No law is required to permit them to give all of their money to the government when they die.  That being the case, why do they seek to make a law that would force others to do what they can freely do on their own?  Why is it their business what their neighbors do with their money when they die?    There is no economic or moral argument that justifies their intrusion into the business of their neighbors.  Mr. Buffet, keep your hands off my money when I die. 

Monday, January 7, 2013

The Proximate Cause Of Massacres Is Government

On 12-17-12 I posted an article about the real cause of massacres.   If you haven't already, you might want to read that post prior to reading this one.  In a nutshell, individuals make the decision to massacre other individuals because they want to.  They carry out massacres because they enjoy doing so.  Massacres are not caused by lax gun regulation.  Massacres are not the result of the government not providing enough free (read: taxpayer financed) mental health care (read: drugs).  On the contrary, a strong case can be made that government provided drugs are a significant proximate cause of massacres.  
Jim Goad, of takimag.com, posted this amazing list of people who have massacred others and the drugs they were taking at the time. The list was posted on 12-17-12 and can be found athttp://takimag.com/article/gunsville_usa_jim_goad/print#ixzz2FW25gAv7:
 
• An autopsy concluded that Columbine killer Eric Harris had the SSRI antidepressant Fluvoxamine in his bloodstream at the time of his death.

• Jeff Weise, who killed nine people and himself at a Minnesota high school in 2005, was taking increasingly high doses of Prozac at the time of his spree.

• Robert Hawkins, who killed eight people and himself at an Omaha mall in 2007, reportedly "had been on antidepressants" at the time of his shooting. He allegedly had taken antidepressants since he was six years old.

• Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 and wounded 23 at Virginia Tech in 2007, had been prescribed Prozac and had previously taken Paxil for a year, but he apparently had ceased taking his medication at the time of the shooting.

• Andrew Engeldinger killed five people and himself after being fired from his job in 2012. A police search of his house revealed he’d been prescribed the antidepressants Mirtazapine and Trazodone, as well as the insomnia medication Temazepam.  

• Eduardo Sencion, who killed four people and himself with an assault rifle at a Utah IHOP in 2011, was a paranoid schizophrenic whose "medications were changed" during the summer prior to his attack.

• Robert Kenneth Stewart, who murdered eight people at a North Carolina nursing home in 2009, submitted to a blood test that revealed he had Lexapro, Ambien, Benadryl, and Xanax in his system at the time of his spree.

• Steven Kazmierczak, who killed five people and himself on Valentine’s Day in 2008, had allegedly been prescribed Xanax, Ambien, and Prozac, although according to his girlfriend he had stopped taking Prozac prior to the massacre.

• James Eagan Holmes, who shot up a Colorado movie theater in July, reportedly took 100MG of Vicodin before the shooting. He had also allegedly seen three school psychiatrists prior to his attack. Although his psychiatric records are privileged information, in his mug shot he appears to be medicated up to the eyeballs

In addition Goad reports that Adam Lanza, slayer of over two dozen people on Friday, appears to have had a classic pair of "medication eyes" himself. He was also reportedly “troubled” and possibly “autistic.” A neighbor of Lanza’s claims he was taking medication.

The cult-like distributors (government licensed school psychiatrists) of mind altering drugs generally freely admit that their "science" consists mostly of administering a wide variety of drugs to school children who behave differently than others and then watching to observe what happens to them.  The television commercials that incessantly run telling us we can have a plethora of happy thoughts if we only take such and such a drug always describe a long list of possible negative side effects that include "thoughts of suicide" and "homicidal rage".  Despite these enormous risks, people line up to medicate themselves in a vain attempt to feel some fleeting sense of happiness.
Is it a coincidence or merely a correlation that we seem to be experiencing an increased incidence of massacres at exactly the same time the government schools have committed themselves to medicating every child they can successfully diagnose as having some sort of "attention disorder"?  I think we all know what is really going on here.  Teachers have neither the energy nor the patience to deal with kids that are different.  You know the type of kid I am talking about.  He would rather be outside than sitting in a regimented classroom learning things he cares nothing about. The government school response to such a child is do what I say or I will drug you.  When the kids quite predictably do not do what the teacher says, they get drugged, after being diagnosed with some sort of psychological malady that is nothing more than fancy words declaring the kid would rather be anywhere other than a government school classroom. 
These drugs have a powerful impact upon the mood and personality of their victims.  The most common effect is the zombie syndrome.  Children being forced to take these drugs in order to stay in government schools eventually begin to act like zombies. They do what they are told without thinking.  They have no initiative of their own.  In a word, they are perfect government school students.  But what are those drugs doing to their minds and their wills?  Could those drugs be a proximate cause of massacres?  I think so. 
What a bitter irony it will be if government school administered drugs end up being a proximate cause of government school massacres.  While running around screaming that guns are the cause of massacres, the real culprit is right under their noses.  In fact, while running around saying we need more mental health care (read: distribution of mind altering drugs) for "troubled" government school children, the high priests of mental illness are the ones administering the drugs that bring about the end result they are trying to prevent. 
According to the federal government, one in five American adults has experienced mental illness in the last year, with mental illness being more than twice as high among younger adults (ages 18 to 25) than older adults (age 50 and older).  The report, conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), showed that 29.9 percent of 18- to 25-year-olds experienced mental illness in the last year, compared with 14.3 percent of people age 50 and older.
In addition, women were more likely to have experienced mental illness than men in the last year, with 23 percent of women reporting mental illness compared with 16.8 percent of men.  SAMHSA defined mental illness as having diagnosable disorder that is based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV).
Now isn't this just wonderful.  According to our federal handlers one in five of us was insane last year.  Plus we all know the principle of "once insane, always insane" will be applied to us.  If twenty percent of us go insane each year it will not take long before each of us will have allegedly experienced an insanity moment at some point in our lives.  By government reasoning we will soon all be classified as suffering from mental illness.  (As a side note, is "mental illness" a virus, bacteria or parasite?  Is it transmitted through air, water or some other fashion?  As far as I know, mental illness is the only illness that is defined as "feeling bad about myself" and treated by talking with a government approved priest of the mind.)
Last week I mentioned that we are rapidly moving towards a gun control law which will forbid the purchase of any gun to anyone deemed to be mentally ill.  If the great majority of us are deemed to be mentally ill there will be precious few guns sales in this land.  Sell your stock in Smith & Wesson. The future is not bright for gun manufacturers.  Of course, individuals who get a visceral thrill out of massacring fellow human beings will avoid the mental illness diagnosis and proceed on their merry way killing others as they see fit.  Once again, the proximate cause of massacres will be government, praised be its name.