Archives for category: Politics

Canada now has the dubious honour of our own 9/11. A well-coordinated terrorist attack has shaken our nation to its very core, and the outside threat of a deadly militant organization lurking in every shadow has become our greatest national concern.

I’m speaking of course about the Armed, Unhinged, Crack-Addicts, or the AUCA. The greatest threat to our nation as a symbol is a demographic whose normal modus operandi is ripping off corner stores. Our Multiculturalisms are under attack, fellow Canadians, and we need to freak the fuck out because of it.

I don’t intend to demonize drugs addicts or the mentally ill. Those conditions do not necessarily lead to violence. However, they do not lead to a healthy state of mind either, and claiming that what happened in Ottawa was committed by a terrorist means that if you’re going to be an armed, unhinged, crack-addict, you just shouldn’t be Muslim.

Michael Zehaf-Bibeau had issues. He was even aware of them, and repeatedly asked to be incarcerated in order to properly recover from them. These were routinely denied, and the only way that Michael Zehaf-Bibeau could get help was to commit crimes, typically petty in nature, in order to get locked up. This is not a unique scenario, as those without any other help or shelter will on occasion seek the cozy confines of a jail cell in order to get it.

So Michael Zehaf-Bibeau was unhappy with the way the system was treating him, was in a headspace where violence seemed to be an appropriate reaction to that treatment, and shot up a public building because of it. To me, that doesn’t sound like terrorism, that sounds like the equivalent of a school shooting. Don’t get me wrong, this is a horrible tragedy, and government officials have the right to be shaken up, but do we need to “strengthen our resolve” against the global threat of “terrorist organizations”? Where the fuck does that even come from?

Maybe instead of calling on Canadians to harden our hearts for a more polite version of the war on terror, we should be providing more funds for our drug treatment centres, providing counseling for those who need it after this horrible attack, and providing better sheltering facilities for our homeless. Maybe better security at our parliament buildings would be a good idea too, even.

Michael Zehaf-Bibeau did not hate Canadian values. He loved Canadian values. He sought them out, and was denied them, or they were insufficient enough that he wasn’t able to get the help he needed. So he retaliated. That should be the story we focus on.

Of course, fear-mongering and sensationalism sells papers, and what better political opportunity to edge in some hard-right values into our government policy. Am I being cynical to think that those in power are taking advantage of this tragedy? Oh probably, but the most sensible opinion I’ve heard about this event so far has been from Rosie O’Fucking-Donnell.

Nathan Cirillo is not a martyr. He is a victim of a shooting, sure and that is a tragedy, but those happen all the time. Getting shot is even a part of his job description, which doesn’t make it right, but does spotlight the massive over-blowing of the narrative surrounding this story. There is no relationship between Michael Zehaf-Bibeau and ISIL, or even the previous attack on Canadian soldiers. Everything about this being a terrorist attack is unfounded speculation that is being capitalized on by our media and our politicians.

Please, please, please don’t get swept up in the tsunami that is beginning to form after this shooting. I really don’t want a Canadian version of the Patriot Act, in part because I know its kitschy name will probably have something to do with the monarchy or some other bullshit like that.

What the Internet, and social media especially, has allowed us to do is to market ourselves more thoroughly than we’ve ever before been capable. This allows entrepreneurs to simply make a Facebook page, and all of a sudden they now have a free advertising space where they can post random shit about whatever it is that they do. Maybe they make aprons? Who knows. Anyway, it’s a sweet deal, let’s be honest. But what Facebook and other social media also does is turn individuals into brands. Not just the products and services that participate on social media, but people themselves sell their Self as a sociable human being. Have you ever lamented being tagged in a bad photograph? It’s bad publicity. I read an article that spoke about the implications of only seeing the happy, fun, exciting things that everybody seems to be doing on Facebook, and how that lie influenced people. We all have problems, and when we see how awesome everybody else’s life seems to be, we feel even worse. This is a bit of a tangent, but the relevance of the article is that everyone wants to project an image of themselves that is successful, fun, and adventurous, and hide any sort of distasteful aspects of themselves. We sell ourselves to the public, and we want them to buy into us.

When we realize that this is who we are in a social media setting, we realize that any sort of activism rings just as hollow as a mega-corporation donating a few bucks to a charity for the tax write-off. We are projecting the image of activism for the sake of our branding, and this leads to is what is sardonically called Slacktivism. Slacktivism is people who may genuinely care about things, but can’t actually be bothered to do anything tangible about them. So reposting a status update, or changing your profile picture for a day, or pretty much anything to do with “raising awareness” would fall under the blanket of Slacktivism. As you might be able to tell, this accomplishes nothing, but does give off airs of humanism to those who might be paying attention.

That isn’t to say the activism doesn’t sometimes sneak through every once in a while, but when it does, it is packaged in such a way as any other form of mass media drivel. Successful activism today must fit the same criteria as a Jimmy Fallon bit: easily digestible, bitesize, palatable content that is inoffensive and safe. It is activism you might find on a Buzzfeed page with a catchy title. This is the kind of activism where the gimmick is more popular than the cause. One such example is my most favourite thing in the world: Movember, but the most recent explosion of gimmicky activism is, of course, the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge.

Don’t get me wrong. Having a charity drive for something other than the cancer of a private part is so God damned refreshing. And the number of lives that will be saved because of the millions upon millions of dollars being raised for an admittedly worthy cause is incalculable. So what am I griping about?

Let’s look at the Ice Bucket Challenge. Its success doesn’t come from the fact that Lou Gehrig’s Disease is a particularly prominent condition, as it is heart disease that afflicts most people in North America. Nor does its popularity stem from any kind of advertising campaign based on what ALS is:  its causes, its symptoms,  its treatments, or anything actually relevant to the disease itself. Its success comes from the fact that the gimmick associated with it is “fun”, its process is incredibly public, and celebrities are doing it. The cause itself is also a safe one, as no cultural norms need to be upheaved in order to cure a disease. It is a safe disease even, as heart disease would mean admitting that there is an epidemic of over-consumption in our culture.

Is the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge about ALS, or is it about the person who is dumping ice water on themselves? Does it promote the cure for the disease, or the “charitable” nature of the the person participating in it? The cause or the brand?

Do the ends justify the means? Regardless of the method of raising money, there has been a significant charity drive for ALS. I’m sure a sufferer of this condition couldn’t give a fuck about what I think about the Ice Bucket Challenge, and honestly, more power to them. But what the success of the Ice Bucket Challenge means is that those causes that have a bit of an edge to them, that can’t fit into an easily-digestible 30 second video clip; those become even more difficult to market, as the market shifts towards the Social Media paradigm of harmless activism and status updates.

Were genuine, hard-hitting causes to show up in a Facebook newsfeed, not only would they be seen in the context of cute cat memes and travel pictures, but they would also be in the company of slacktivism and gimmicks that degrade the nature of progress.

Since Liberalism turned out to be a huge flop, let’s look further left to see what else we can find. Oh hey look it’s Socialism. Now, by definition, Socialism isn’t actually a political ideology. The original definition of Socialism is when the community runs the businesses, and “community” has traditionally been interpreted as the State, which would normally make it a political ideology. However, Google defines Community as follows: a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common; or, a feeling of fellowship with others, as a result of sharing common attitudes, interests, and goals. This, to me, doesn’t really scream “the government”.

So does this mean that the municipality should run the businesses? No, that’s stupid too. What does a politician or community organizer know about how to sell widgets? The community best able to run a business would be the community of that business itself.

Look at the way our businesses are run today. We may not live under a monarchy, but we certainly work under one. Those at the top live in opulence and gratuitous wealth, and dictate terms down to the feudal lords of middle management, who own franchises or departments rather than land, which is then tilled by the manufacturing-line serfs. The political system that most of the world abandoned as obsolete, oftentimes via guillotine, is still more than prevalent in how most corporations function.

So what if the business was owned by its community? First and most importantly, everyone would have a say in how the business was run. This would not only foster equanimity in businesses, but would also streamline efficiency. Those who work in different sectors usually have an idea on how to best manage that sector, as they are on the frontlines. Having first-hand experience directing operations rather than hierarchical, trickle-down dictatorship blundering over common-sense errors that could easily be avoided if those creating policy understood the mechanisms of the practice, seems like a no-brainer exercise.

If everyone shared in the profits, and the business finances were open and transparent for those within the company, the wage-wars between unions and CEOs would disappear. The whole idea of a union, or even a singular owner, would be obsolete. The Us versus Them mentality would dissolve; unions are basically petition groups to the imperialistic rulers of the corporate kingdom, and if that paradigm were gone, then there would only remain an Us. I’m not even suggesting equal pay for everyone involved; we’re not so far left to touch on Communism just yet. I think even the janitor in a hospital would never demand as much pay as a doctor that operated there, due to the difference in stress levels, educational requirements, etc. However, I also think the janitor knows how to clean up after those doctors better than the owners of the hospital, or the doctors themselves. And having an equal voice among them, would be able to be heard if need be, and make demands that would ameliorate his or her ability to both work and live.

Despite Obama’s Islamofascism, Socialism isn’t a political ideology at the state level. It is, however, at the business level. It’s not centralizing power to the government, nor is it giving those lazy union workers a leg-up over their hardworking, gumption-based private sector counterparts. Its function is to bring democracy into the realm of society that currently needs it most: our work force.