Canada's 2021 COVID-19 Special Edition Snap Election

It's the big day in Canada this September 20th, 2021, as voters decide who will govern the nation through whatever the next years have in store. Oh yeah, and there's a big pandemic. And literally everyone is going crazy. There's anger, bitterness, and increasingly unhinged people all over the streets, the internet comment sections, the sidewalks outside of hospitals and the sidewalks outside of restaurants. Trudeau got gravel thrown at him, and a lot of abuse, at several campaign stops. Libraries aren't even safe. People are getting run over on the side of the road, like animals. The stakes have never been higher, and yet nobody knows what the hell, and even the smart money's confused.

When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called for an election mere weeks (was it weeks? really?) ago there was a collective late-summer sigh in the air, as Canadians of all political stripes wondered why the hell he couldn't wait until after the global pandemic had subsided a bit more. The last election was only two years ago, in October 2019, which feels like a million years ago, so there's strategies at play here that most won't be able to grasp until the dust settles. The reason Trudeau called the election? To cement a legacy that his backers hope will keep Canada on the path forward... to the future! For everyone! (We have our doubts, too.)

Uruguay Stays Strong: Prepares to get Stronger

Whether it kills brain cells or kills cancer cells; whether it's a gateway drug or an end-point drug; whether using it is moral or immoral – Uruguay did the only sane thing remaining after years of overblown rhetoric by anti-drug idiots versus pro-drug idiots, and we can only hope the rest of the world learns something.

For this I commend Uruguay, whatever else their problems and failings. Thanks for having actual human beings in your government and treating your populace like actual, rational, grown-adult human beings as well.

I honestly don't know why neither pro-nor-anti marijuana people in the rest of the world have become so humorless about the issue. What a bunch of stunted robot shits, maybe Bukowski was right when he said weed kills your soul – but he was a soulless drunk himself.

Pay Before You Pump

About a week ago there was a fairly big story about a malicious death (essentially a murder, technically a hit-and-run) in Toronto, caused by $112 worth of gas. The victim was the clerk, fearful about having a day's wages garnished because of theft. The manager of the location, and the industry itself, which likely institutes and enforces pay-for-theft measures (like many service industries – remember, if you don't want to tip, at least pay), criticized the entire incident but itself did little. I am no customer-service scientist, but I have a feeling that franchise owners and employers weren't ever truly warned against garnishing wages for fees.

Just ask a bartender or, especially, a waiter at your next time out. They'll tell you that for dine-and-dashers, or drink-and-stumblers, they are held responsible for the lost money. They buy it. They pay for theft. It's a stupid, malicious business, but it is rational in that it makes sense. That's business – if an employee can't keep profits then the employee is punished for that. Fine.

However, the scene of this crime is far more complex even than a simple theft of food and service at a restaurant or bar. Gas prices are rising like thermometers around the globe. Record summer heat means more cars on the roads, burning gas to maintain their spots in traffic jams, and operate A/C for the frustrated, overheated drives. Let's face it: when you're a privileged North American in a car, in dense traffic, it gets slow and it gets lonely. Carpooling doesn't figure at all in the story of gas theft and murder, but I figured I'd give it a moment, since passengers can be made to pay for their passage – and they should, with gas prices as they are.

The worst part of the story was a story about a teenage pump attendant (I forget where or if he was even a teen) who was dragged to his death for something like fourteen dollars and change. It's pretty damn despicable, but potentially the worst part is how many times it took before some politician realized there was exposure in acting on it.  It only took a loose bunch of lives before the righteous opportunists of the political sphere even took notice of a looming problem. Gas won't get cheaper. People won't suddenly begin to treat low-paid service staff as legitimate humans deserving of life, as worthy and valuable others – as they won't in any of dozens of arenas around the world. Anyone who's worked retail will tell you about it, if you were wondering.

Meanwhile, angst continues to pile up in Canada. Gas costs $1.25 a litre (that's like three something a gallon) and we have something like the third-largest oil reserves proven in the dirty, shitty oilsands. Meanwhile we sell it away, part and parcel, to foreign interests and continue to pay unreasonable prices at the pump when we buy it back from those foreign interests. Instead of refineries, profits are used in a pathetic attempt to greenwash the original extraction operations. Somewhere in this nest of wasteful fallacies lies a sensible route to well-priced gas or an achievable alternative. Politics, though. You gotta have politics. Opposition to oil sands development must be the exclusive domain of malicious idiots and borderline eco-terrorists – you know: 99 percenters, Occupiers, and other idealist trash who don't know anything about business, the economy, or why the status quo is set as it is.

So it's only a matter of time until Nexen is sold to Chinese investors. I'm not even of the opinion it's a mistake. The oilsands are a mistake, what is done with them now – and if it gains certain people in this country billions of dollars, and improves trade relations with China: so much the better – hardly matters. Sovereignty has not been anything more than a byword by which the Harper administration rustles up support among the smug and hopeless of Canada. Under such circumstances, the sale of Nexen Inc is a no-brainer, and any turn-around likely to harm Canadian prospects in international trade, making it seem as reactionary and uncompetitive, as well as uncooperative and dishonest.

Looking at what Canadians will do for gas, down to the cowardly killings of attendants, some good publicity will be a windfall. So long as the oil and money continue to flow, little else matters. The big companies (NHL and NFL are currently great examples of this, as well) don't care about the lives of their most-ubiquitous employees, or pollution, or who owns what bit of oilsands. Politicians will only act if it fits in with their specific brand, and if their mandarins have seen fit for action, or if the public applause will overpower the private censure. Nobody cares, and, seemingly, neither do the people – and who can blame them? They've got to get to work, and the highways are full of inept, asshole drivers in practically empty cars, just gumming up the works.

User Comment Rodeo: Canada's C-10 Bill

I miss Jack Layton more than ever lately. Politics have not changed at all from the bland regressive mess they've been, the Canadian populace is still a comatose rabble with vaguely confusedly libertarian/socially-fiscally-liberal/rationally-ideologically-conservative opinions that lead nowhere. The world's premiere first world country, hamstrung with voter apathy, political landslides, corruption, fraud, authoritarianism, paternalism, and every kind of stupid fucked up downright dangerous problem.

Oh but on paper, according to the UN, and if you're from anywhere else it looks like a fantastic country. The countryside is clean (hah!), there is hope and work around each corner (for therapists, social workers, and morticians), the economy is booming (incentives and make-work, stat! and don't worry about any funding cuts), and the political system is sound, popular, and fair. Voters are engaged, and everyone has a place at the table, and access to whatever information they need.

Phone lines are buzzing. There are even allegations that America has been making a rather large number of methodical calls to certain individuals, etc... But what's hearsay, anyway?

And recently the country was certified as the safest place on earth, filled with the happiest, most drug-free, productive and intelligent human beings in history. From the happy, well-integrated ethnic stereotypes; to the happy, well-integrated aboriginal stereotypes; to the happy, well-integrated generic stereotypes, it's a country on the rise. You might as well refer to it as the planet's 'chilly, under-appreciated paradise'.

It's also rife with potential for political skullduggery. You should see the sort of discourse an omnibus crime bill generates. Therefore I am reviving the User Comment Rodeo from hibernation, and the effects of the omnibus crime bill will be on display. Today it seems to suggest that posting the best possible user comment first would be advantageous, so here it is, the winner, the king:

Moderates are really the best, especially those with sharp analytical skill. The rating has been downvoted by, probably, the massive crowd of idiots that generally constitute the internet. Marijuana, or pot, enthusiasts also clicked the old thumbs-down button. The 15 votes in favor could have come from any side of the argument. It's truly the crown jewel of the show: gateway drug analysis, great line spacing, impeccable writing... and the youth-stoner shout out at the end is masterful. This seemed, to me, like the rationale of... a prescription drug fiend. Or an abstinence fiend, or any kind of fiend. But at least a fiend, and somewhat independent-minded, and not an ideologue.

Rest in Peace, Political Maverick Jack Layton

I'll be honest, during the election season in April and May I was actually excited. It seemed like the NDP would win, a variable ~10 reader group was reading the posts, some of whom were even Canadian, and I got to write about politics that I was familiar with. Canadian politics, milquetoast in comparison with other countries where opposition parties are harassed or exploded, are still an important thing to follow and the election was most important.

But what really came out of that election was the feeling that Jack Layton had become a justified Political Maverick. And I didn't use that term lightly, fallaciously, or jokingly. I was really convinced that Canada's only decent candidate was about to win. Of course, that didn't happen, but I was hopeful that when the political season opened up and those loafers went back to Parliament to shout at each other, Jack Layton was going to tell the Conservatives what the fuck up. I was thinking that some great sound bytes would come out of that and reveal the Harper majority for the regressive, wasteful, ignorant political behemoth it was. (And it wasn't at all a majority, unless the apathy non-vote were Conservatives).

 The election was clearly demarcated from the start: Harper was going to be fiscally conservative on the surface and ideologically centrist, Ignatieff was going to be fiscally liberal on the surface and ideologically centrist or inconsistent. Jack Layton was going to deal with social problems and was ideologically right, because Canada does not look after her social problems very well. He had a history of giving a shit about people, which Harper (who shakes his own son's hand instead of embracing him) is possibly incapable of doing. Layton was the Maverick, and had proved it repeatedly...

Layton probably knew what was coming, and made a point of leaving final words. And really, on this day, as during the election, my regret is that I never met him. I would've had a few soft-boiled questions and mostly I would've just wanted to know if he was as nice as people said. He was demonized by the scared dummies of this country as a communist, and the politically ignorant crippled him in the last election, but he was nothing if not an aware and principled politician, whatever his faults.

Political Maverick Jack Layton in the early days.

Final Stretch Blues

Political bookies have not budged from their original odds. Despite various news articles and voter polling and other dirty chicanery, the conclusion of the great national game of elect-the-PM is not in doubt. The Opposition shift was the wild card, nobody had pools on that. My smug bets on Political Maverick Jack Layton and the NDP are withering before my eyes. I don't answer the phone anymore, and there doesn't seem to be anything to believe.

The final stretch of the federal election has seen various desperate acts. Liberals, formerly quite comfortable about being the Opposition's prime spokespeople, have made certain panicked attempts at stemming the NDP flood. That flood, incidentally, might still just have been a PR break backed by ineffable poll numbers and a questionably realistic spirit of change. Similarly, the Conservatives have gunned for the NDP and have recently pulled a final smear tactic that may sway voters who are willing to believe allegations AKA everybody who was going to vote Conservative or Liberal anyway.

But the thing about politics is that even when other parties begin to panic, and the slander is thrown around, there's still no clear picture about anything. It's nice that Harper and Ignatieff are sweating, but where will the new competitive spirit lead? More sameness? Independent actors can 'reveal events' that bring campaigns, burning, to the ground. My expectation? Harper is the obvious forerunner, but Layton has had the optics from day one – still there was an insistence on Liberal/NDP backbiting. Ignatieff seems to have held on to everyone who was a Liberal before the election. In a sense it doesn't seem like anything will change, which makes all the hullabaloo rather ironic.

There is the HST question, the deficit, Family Subsidies, and the global image of Canada to worry about – among other things that are downplayed in favor of 'optics'. Well we can't just forget the G20, which managed to alarm only Canadians while the rest of the world snickered, and in view of what happened in 2011 so far, was mostly a costly and pathetic spectacle. Who can we blame for that? Is it even important to ask that question?

Mostly I'm surprised that, all things considered, the only thing that has really changed since March is the weather. If anybody was crazy enough to attempt to transcribe the whole 2011 Federal Election into music, it would be a set of absurd repetitious notes – a monotonous cacophony. Morse code. SOS. Things destabilize. When the static finally clears, the television screen blazes proudly with blue light and a reassuring message, "Canada, we are here for you."

Yeah Yeah...

For a minute or two yesterday it was almost possible to believe that Political Maverick Jack Layton was going to become a prime minister. There was this sense of optimism and energy, almost limitless, that something dynamic was finally going to happen in Canadian politics. Certain senior mandarins in parliament were already crying and cracking open priceless bottles of brandy.

Desperate operators roamed the streets of Canada in a last-ditch attempt to rustle up support for Harper and Ignatieff, each of whom were in their 'situation rooms' taking shots of maple syrup and shouting into microphones phrases such as (but not limited to): "Show me the votes!", "This isn't politics; it's a slaughter!", and my favorite of all time: "There's no time for the harmonium, just get the fuck out of Bridle Path!" Who even knows who they were talking to, but my guess is Prince.

Yes it sounded like the Liberals and Conservatives, after decades of dual-monopoly stranglehold over the Canadian Voter, were finally about to get a solid drumming for their misbehavior. Jack Layton had the image, had the poll numbers, had even half an ear among Quebeckers under the age of 35, had young voters countrywide, and just one final precipice to climb: the hearts and minds of Canada's most stubborn voters: knee-jerk Conservatives and habitual Liberals.

Continuing Canadian Context

Go ahead and ask them now, some weeks later, what the political landscape of Canada is. It features nothing the Group of Seven might have done except for the map with its abstract political colours. Harper is blue, Ignatieff is red, Layton is orange and May is green. Let's ponder these colours. Green is the colour of life, Orange is the colour of Hollander royalty, red is the colour of life (but also Soviets and the dying Maple Leaf). Blue is the colour of disenchantment, also of life, and thirdly of lack of options.

Since the election has been announced there has been a deafening silence about the government deficit and the global depression (or recession if you're an optimist, or end of capitalism if you're an alarmist) and everyone opened volleys of 'family politics' and other types of sensationalism. In this country you do not play politics on weighty issues. Let me explain: families, in Canada, are doing well. Most families are in the easy-to-control low-to-mid middle class, relatively wealthy, perhaps overspending on credit, but doing well and employed, with an exception rate of less than 10%. This comes out to maybe 15,000 out-of-work families facing destitution or hard times, probably half that and maybe even less than that.  There is no particular zone of concentration as in the '90s. The east coast probably can be weighted a little.

What makes this weak politics is that this group of people is easy to hoodwink. They think their fair taxes are monolithic tithes to the state. All an aspiring prime minister has to do is promise that these taxes will be reinvested into the middle class family background that pays the majority of them. It goes without saying that the poverty line does not discriminate between families and individuals, but families are more important. Help them, and help yourself to a political majority. This is all theory, but the parties have acted on it as if it were a rule.

So each of the big three politicians started election season by flogging family politics. Some friends of mine distilled it thusly: Conservatives meant a straight family with not even a gay child, while the Liberals and NDP would help any family.  Never mind the family unit is the sort of ancient structure that is known to be able to survive all kinds of nonsense. Maybe in the 'post-industrial' era families are endangered or suddenly overwhelmed by the corporate world structure. Anyways, because in most countries all people come from families, they are the safest bet for politics, and that is why for weeks there were shameless attempts by each party to win this faction over.

This is how majority politics works. I have no idea how these aspiring governments are planning to fund their extravagant family subsidies, but it will probably include wasteful consulting, forms in triplicate, and a communications blackout. Nearsightedness is a curse on the populace, but a blessing to the politicians.

The Canadian Political Situation as of March 27, 2011

There are a shit ton of things I could blog about in this apocalyptic month. Shit I could even go the frivolous route and write about something that happened to me, or what I think of a recent movie, or Charlie Sheen. I got a good Charlie Sheen joke I'm holding onto for the first anniversary of the BP Oil Spill of 2010. I think I could write three parts about snow melting. I could even do another off-colour joke about school shootings.

But I'm going to dial it back a little and give everyone some breathing space whilst I write speciously about the political situation in Ottawa, Canada. With so much trouble in the world, it's only right that I do what the US MEDIA does relentlessly and contextualize it in the candy-coloured terms of geopolitics.

The effortless government of Stephen Harper finally rolled into the rough last week; parliament was dissolved, and the thing Canadians feared most (an election) finally rose out of the slightly toxic, slightly oily, slightly radioactive water of Canadian politics. What kicked it all off was a budget bill nobody agreed with, which led to slightly bemused finance minister who took it not at all personally saying that only time would tell.

If you ask any Canadian on the street, especially if they're unmarried and under the age of 30, they'll tell you they know nothing about the situation at all. Who could blame those fools for not caring about how their country is managed? Sorry, anybody who's lived under a repressive regime: things are so good in Canada that we can afford the fatal luxury of political apathy. Under these conditions it's pretty easy to see how professional politicians could shake up an election season out of nowhere: with strife and struggle raging all over the world, they just wanted a piece of the action.

I've seen ministers out on the streets begging for lights and spare cigarettes. Tim Hortons franchises are packed with political bookies offering huge odds on Jack Layton. Oil-hungry representatives and death-lobbyists from other parts of the world are getting away with murder in the capitol while obscure backbenchers search for their parking passes. The RCMP is letting anybody into parliament who agrees to adjust their pay to 2011 levels. Michael Ignatieff looked considerably smug earlier this week, but I saw him a few minutes ago with a pained expression on his face, as if his earlier enthusiasm was but an act.

Meanwhile, Harper made the most intelligent comment of the month when he alluded to the fact that 'most Canadians do not want an election'. Sure, a small portion of politically literate Canadians balked at the idea that he had the gall to speak for them, but the rest of us are not very impressed by this year's lineup. Also he was right. We preferred complaining about the Conservatives and the fact that we were the first country on earth to have a robot as our leader.

In terms of betting it is far too early to make an half-decent wager. The smart money has not been placed yet, but by mid-April we will wish we had done this last year, and sullenly bet on Blue, again, out of sheer spite.

User Comment Rodeo

User comment boards are now-ubiquitous elements of the internet (or 'web 2.0' if you're an I.T. hipster) which allow spectators to wax sycophantic, display their ignorance, or attack their enemies. The historical precedent for the user comment board is graffiti, and how this obvious connection escaped the people who created and encouraged user comment sections is anyone's guess.

User comments are not entirely negative, nor entirely positive. Nor are they entirely like graffiti, because some people use these sections to engage in reasonable discussion. However, the percentage of society mature enough to post positive or non-offensive comments is often less than 25% – when anonymity is provided. User comment boards are repositories of hatred, anger, stupidity, and ignorance that display the opulence and redundancy of the world's internet. User comment boards are an overt concession to populism that often endorse only the forced sterilization and elimination of humanity, which makes them explicitly anti-populist, since they do not form an encouraging picture of the masses.

If you take the internet seriously, the existence and content of user commentary can bother you to a serious extent. It doesn't have to be this way: you don't have to be angry. I have been known to skim user comment sections and find useful information amid the proud declarations of idiocy, self-marketers, and trolls. For my part, I rarely post user comments, but I welcome them on this blog, and I don't mind their existence anywhere (including the famous, fractious YouTube boards). We all have to accept how they work, and that their problems are unlimited and difficult to solve.

For my example, I went to CBC.ca and read a story about the ONE and ONLY case of BSE in all of Canada this year. Considering the number of cattle raised in Alberta, let alone the country, the existence of one cow with a misfolded protein disorder is not very surprising. Considering the way livestock are farmed, it is even something to be expected, which means that the public safety organization is prepared to take necessary preventative steps and then publicize the case.

The story reads like you might expect: very basic, with plenty of nuance between the lines. It puts you at ease, but reminds you of the various threats of entropy, and the frightening class of afflictions that ravage the brain. That's it.

Then you look at the user comment section, just for the hell of it, already knowing what you will find:

There is the usual, know-it-all power user who is highly literate and knowledgeable but even more eager to display that knowledge and wisdom. Typical semi-activist user, between ages 15 and 30 (sometimes older), who will point a finger and throw as many affective terms into one sentence in order to let you know that things are scary, and that the powers that be do not care about crucial earth-shattering issues. Prions kill, but politics kill much more quickly.

Next:

There is another user, the anti-alarmist, who knows almost nothing beyond general information and disinformation and who likes to misuse logical arguments to try and force hideously biased or ignorant conclusions into your brain. In this case I will disagree with the post and write it out so you can see how user comments divide people: BSE does not exist in chickens, there are almost never bugs in cereal boxes because this is not the early 1900's, and we cannot simply trust inspectors, because inspectors are fallible and governments are fallible. Note the very high rating compared to the former poster: these are the populist types, who do not flog their own knowledge for the show, and who advocate obedience, power-worship and calm. These are people who, in all likelihood, work for an inspection agency or the government, or are lobotomized versions of the first poster, now used to placate the masses.

Next:

Ah, the common troll. The most distinctive, invariable, and prolific type of poster – the smoking gun of the internet. Trolls have loud, unashamed agendas that they flog at any opportunity, even if (as in this case) not a single opponent (animal rights activist - 'petafile' ) has posted in the user comment section. From hackneyed and rudimentary fact-arguments that are quickly abandoned for straw-man tactics to outrageous statements, the crippled mind of a common troll displays all the sorts of argumentative prowess that are not unknown to children, and therefore universally understandable: "Look at me: I'm right! Hey! Listen to me, I'm going to shout at these losers! Look how foolish they are: the facts speak for themselves. Let's lynch these losers!"
For trolls, context and timing never have to be right; only the feeling of perverse, stubborn righteousness.


Next:

This final post (from YouTube) is merely to place two types of posters in proximity. The upper poster is the 'average user' who posts earnestly to learn or sometimes merely to state an unoffensive personal opinion. These users do exist and sometimes form a majority. Often they post simple truths and maxims by which other users can avoid pain and suffering. They are friendly, responsive, and not particularly noteworthy.

The lower poster is a classic self-promoter. The classic self-promoter is often buoyed by his ability to confuse and dupe the unspoken 'idiot majority' who believe that ghosts, reversals of the law of conservation of mass, and free unofficial internet giveaways exist. Self-promoters are worth knowing if you have a million 'perpetual motion machines' to sell, or a warehouse full of decorative tacky china, or are yourself a Chinese businessperson looking to rip off westerners.

This is just the tip of the user content iceberg. These are just a few examples of the archetypal users you can find on the internet, and I hope it helps you stay cool when confronted with the multitude of unenlightened discourse available on the internet.