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.

Harmless News Story or Intentionally Downplayed Opportunity for Ethical Boycott?

A story I happened to read today developed serious undertones of 'Age of Indifference' malaise in less than five minutes. The first embarrassing part of the story is that, while the article is posted in the 'Diversions 'n Oddities' section, it's a story about drug catapults on the Arizona-Mexico border. This has to be some kind of lesson in provincialism in news reporting, right? This is better than indifference. This is global indifference in the two best flavours: national and international.

Some day in the future, maybe, a disastrous-drug-trade-related story can be proven to be as completely harmless and stupid as a high-school physics project gone wrong, or some other comic situation. I don't meant to play 'morally-outraged idiot', but in this case I thought maybe there was some point to the dumb act, and I thought, goddamn, if the drug markets were slightly different, Mexico wouldn't have hooked even one investigator or digital repeater from the sensationalistic, tone-deaf, and apparently forgetful global media. Shit, before I forget: if Reagan had jumped on only one ideological grenade, he could have entirely prevented the Cuban Cigarette Boat Crisis in the 1980's.

The worst part is that the United State's economic blind eye is, as ever, responsible. The typical hot-and-cold relationship to drugs does enough damage (allegedly; yes; in some cases) to society on an individual scale, let alone a national one. While ignoring the right of civilian domestic supply with various measures, which are only now beginning to erode, it has created a drug bottleneck which has been exploited in many iterations, and in many ways throughout recent history.

What is most terrifying is to imagine the hypocrisy of ethical consumers in America who smoke marijuana (allegedly a small group of people, which is a rumor I find distasteful) who are apparently funding a small, ongoing war. Hippies, and maybe even a majority of unethical users, have problems with people being shot or decapitated. That is Bad Stuff in any language, but maybe not in the lingo of the much ballyhooed, tech-fueled 'age of indifference'. Even those considered politically conservative can agree that outsourcing profit that could be nationalized is a ridiculous proposition, right? And conservative moralists, do you really wish anyone to be killed, even as a result of inaction, and then ignore the moral or ethical implications? These the traditional enemies of marijuana and other drugs are of course oblivious to any argument about glasses or half-fullness.

Everyone is entitled to indifference. I am of the opinion that being indifferent to pretty much everything is alright, but I may have to change my opinions on things, because I can sense what the losing proposition is. If nobody plays their cards right there's a lot of dissatisfaction at the table, and it is all exactly as Kenny Rogers prophesied.

So there's one boycott of commodities the United States consumes regularly that can take place, potentially end a 'diversion' on its own border, without crippling its economy – perhaps even stimulating it. For my money, the dirtiest economism of all is 'ethical consumption', which is similar in smut-factor to the 'cap and trade'. The only good thing about the economy is that it is still a game that is somewhat open to just about anyone, unless one is blissfully in the gutter with an empty bottle of wine and no cash.

Surely there are even a handful of methadryl spillers in the USA who would put their honor where their high was for a few weeks if only to cripple the encroaching clusterfuck for a few years.


For those who are factotums to fact and nothing but the fact:

I am a Sloppy Blogger

Yep. I'm a sloppy blogger. You don't see my kind too often. Obviously, you don't see them because they don't post and don't offer explanations for silence. Sloppy bloggers are a bit like lovers - if you don't like them, you don't care about the infrequency because it doesn't bother you if they are really dead or onto some new thing. However, if you do like sloppy bloggers, absence will make your heart grow so fond that you will tell other people about this guru-style blogger who posts three times a month and writes about nothing. You will understand that the rigours of actually living are too much sometimes. Maybe you have some idea about the north American economy. Acronymed : the nAe. Mind capitalization or it could actually refer to a real thing.

So in my own grand tradition of coining words I hereby coin: sloppy blogger. That's my term and I invented it. Unlike other even better words and terms and phrases, I will allow this one to be public, because it needs to be given actual life that only the internet can provide.