No Tears for a Clown

Posted: September 20, 2014 in Uncategorized

Okay, so I’ll be the one to say it. A little suspicious of these crocodile tears over Rob Ford’s cancer. People who, with good reason, didn’t have a good word to say about him, all of a sudden retreated into this socially-mandated caterwauling about him as a valued husband, father, son, brother.

Reminds me of florid eulogies for lousy people that everyone attending the funeral knows is BS.

First of all, despite the cliched boilerplate public empathy, Rob Ford is a crappy husband, lied to and embarrassed his brother numerous times, couldn’t be making Mom proud and I can’t imagine a narcissist like him could be father of the year. That doesn’t mean he deserves to die, but c’mon, let’s not make Ford into something he isn’t so we can feel sorry for him.

Now I don’t take any joy in his illness. I just, honestly, can’t bring myself to gnash my teeth either. Granted, I don’t have teeth, but the reference still applies. No matter how this turns out for him, I can’t see my emotional landscape being altered.

Doctor says he doesn’t know if Ford being obese has anything to do with him getting a tumour in his fatty tissues, but logic says if he didn’t have the fat, he wouldn’t have a tumour that grows in fat. Ockham’s Razor. Look it up.

What’s my point? This is a man who has shown zero concern for his own health. He drinks to excess, smokes crack, eats to excess. He opposes ‘Hug a Thug’ but lives ‘Hug a Drug’. Even a microcephalic intelligence like Ford’s knows none of that is promoted by Hal Johnson and Joanne McLeod. If he hasn’t shown concern for his health, why all of a sudden should I?

I will save my active empathy for the kids with diseases like leukemia and adults with illnesses not brought on or furthered by their lifestyle choices and the Colonel’s buckets. Harsh? Maybe to those who feel a need to snap into show-pony displays of sadness, but when applied to a guy who inherited wealth that tells homeless kids to ‘get a job’, probably not.

-Ed

Elizabeth May Not

Posted: April 1, 2011 in Uncategorized

“Waa waa waa, I’m not invited to the leader’s debate, waa waa waa.”

Okay, Elizabeth May, cut the crap.

- your party does not have a seat in Parliament. Not one. You have not been able to convince enough people in a single riding to vote Green.

- at best, you may win a seat; in your dreams, maybe two. Two seats are not going to shape government policy.

- we get little enough time to hear the leaders of parties who have seats answer pointed questions from journalists; why would we want to dilute the time even further to include a party that has  no seats and no likelihood to influence public policy?

The outcry from the Greens reflects the annoying sense of entitlement too many of them have, that they are the moral elite and as such should be granted an audience. It’s the same irritating high-handedness you get from the pale, gaunt sales help at a vegan grocery store when you don’t know how to pronounce ‘quinoa’.  Y’ know what? Buzz off. Earn your place at the table like anyone else.

Now, can we stop wasting time with this distraction and deal with some real issues?

I’m Ed the Sock, and I’m nobody’s puppet — and your Fed-Up Party candidate for PM.

Open Ass, Remove Head

Posted: March 29, 2011 in Uncategorized

Okay, Canada, time to put-up or shut-up.

You gripe that politicians are dishonest, that you want people of integrity in office, politicians who respect the voters. Well, do me a favour? Don’t piss in my ear and tell me it’s raining.

The party leading in the polls is one that has been proven guilty of a string of ethics violations, campaign finance  fraud, abuse of power, lying (Hi, Bev Oda!) and has made history as the first party to be found guilty of  contempt of Parliament. Not once, but twice.

For those thinking,”hey, big deal, we’re all contemptuous of Parliament”, thank you very much, we know you’re here all week and we will tip our waitresses.

Contempt of Parliament means the government attempted to operate in secret, rule through deception and dishonesty and violate the pillars of parliamentary democracy. In short, they cheated and lied. And didn’t have the decency to apologize. That’s like dry butt-sexing the country without the courtesy of a reach-around.

This isn’t about warring political philosophies, not about ‘left’ or ‘right’. The conduct of the Harper government has been dishonest, arrogant and disrespectful. Maybe this is why it’s taking Harper so long to write his alleged book on Hockey: he’s having trouble grasping the concept of a game with rules, and penalties for breaking them.

Unless somewhere along the way, lying and cheating became core conservative philosophies (they haven’t), then the behavior is an indictment of  Harper and his finger puppets, not Tory political theory. Conservatives, by nature, respect tradition and the rule of law. Harper has peed on both. Keep supporting him, conservatives, and you’re headed down a path of moral compromise that is completely anti-conservative in nature. In other words – open ass, remove head.

As for the rest of you who aren’t dyed-in-the-wool (no sock jokes, please) Tories, why the hell would you vote for the Harpercrite government? You really think that a highly-educated, accomplished scholar, broadcaster, author and professor or a sarcastic sock puppet are a worse choices than a gang of proven crooks? (Yes, that’s a rhetorical question).

This election hasn’t been about issues, it’s been a big dick contest. The Tories are practically walking erections, proving their virility by breaking the rules and thumbing their nose at the pencil-dicks who complain. This is very entertaining in movies like “Beverly Hills Cop” and classic 80s TV shows like “Hunter”, but not so much when governing a country. A movie ticket costs under $15 and the film runs 120 minutes; our tax dollars amount to billions of dollars and the life of a government is measured in years. And there’s no popcorn.

So if you want to ignore Harper’s established corruption, that’s your prerogative. But then don’t act all outraged when governments of the future continue down that path. If you want good government, reward the honest efforts and punish the liars, or you’re not getting the government you want – you’re getting the one you deserve.

I’m Ed the Sock, your FU Party candidate for PM, and I’m nobody’s puppet.

Support the Fed-Up Party of Canada on Facebook.

Japan vs Charlie Sheen

Posted: March 11, 2011 in Uncategorized

When people tell me “there’s nothing good on TV,” I get pissed off. Not just because they are too lazy and full of shit to look for anything good, and not just because they’re saying it to try to sound superior (which they are, if your definition of “superior” is synonymous with “asshole”). No, I get pissed off because how can you generalize the impact or value of an entire medium? Would anyone say “there’s no good books being published”? No, not just because it’s grammatically incorrect; because you can’t dismiss an entire medium.

Just this week, we can see the diversity of television in the coverage of two events: Charlie Sheen and the Japanese earthquake (yes, for these purposes, Charlie Sheen will be identified as an ‘event’).

With Japan, as with other disasters of similar scale, television is making the human cost of the disaster evident to people around the world. For most of us without any Japanese ancestry, an earthquake there really will have no impact on our daily lives. Same with the tragedy in Haiti. If TV weren’t there, using it’s visual immediacy to help us connect on a human level with the victims, you can bet that charity donations from North America would amount to a lot less.

On the other hand, there’s Charlie Sheen. Imagine if someone you know had a raging drug problem, beat and threatened women, babbled incoherently — and was a father of 5, including 4 young children. How amusing would that be? (If you’re treating that as anything but a rhetorical question, and you’re not yet a parent, please consider not adding to the gene pool).

Where TV has been able to bring the disaster in Japan closer, it has distanced us from the human disaster that is Charlie Sheen. Being a celebrity, we don’t see him as a human being; he’s an entertainer, and there he is, entertaining.  Being on our TVs for years has made him almost imaginary, which is the same with Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Mel Gibson and other wreckage. We lose our ability to connect with them on a human level, so they inhabit the same part of our brain that processes reruns of “Dynasty” on SoapNet.

So with a medium that has such a potent capacity to at the same time bring us closer together and further apart, how can you generalize the fare being offered? (Again, rhetorical).

It’s true that 95% of everything is crap. But with a million TV channels, the remaining 5% covers a lot of hours of programming. Sitting down to watch TV doesn’t make you analogous to every couch potato who spends hours immobile eating pork rinds, any more than reading the Economist makes you comparable to someone reading Entertainment Weekly.

So, if you’re trying to impress me by saying you don’t watch TV, try someone more willing to tolerate your transparent claims to the intellectual high ground. Jackass.

I’m Ed the Sock, and I’m nobody’s puppet.


Before I begin, this disclaimer: I have nothing against classical conservative political thought; it’s a valid part of public dialogue. I do have a problem with the brand of conservatism we have today, which is not conservative at all, but radical — the opposite of actual conservatism.

So, okay, help me understand this: the right-wing conservatives that are seen in the media are usually also conservative Christians. How the Hell (oops, sorry, I “cussed”…wait, no I’m not) can these people be both?

Conservative political philosophy wants as little government invasion in our lives as possible.

Conservative Christians want public policy based on (their version of) Christianity — so they want the state to tell us what we’re allowed to do and not do at work, in public, health choices and in our own homes.

Sure, politics makes strange bedfellows, but this is gene splicing. They’re like Ray Milland and Rosie Greer in “The Thing with Two Heads”  (oops again, some conservatives may not like that comparison…one head was white, one black…miscegenation)

But this marrying (hetero, of course) of the two streams of conservatism fails my political litmus test, which is: Don’t piss in my ear and tell me it’s raining.

Either you believe the government should stay out of our lives, or you believe government should decide how we live.  You can’t have your cake and dictate how it’s eaten too.

Another point of divergence: the amalgamated conservatives are almost always Republicans. Republicans currently can’t find a social assistance program they don’t want to cut to the bone in order to afford tax cuts for the wealthy. Take from those in need and give to those who don’t need anything. How exactly does this jibe with Jesus’ advocacy for the needy? The GOP are kissing the feet of the rich, not washing the feet of the poor.

How does a believing Christian support a political movement that adds burdens to the disenfranchised?

I’m not being facetious (<fah-see-shus> look it up, they have dictionaries online).  Can someone, without filling the blogosphere with empty slogans, Glen Beck talking points or schoolyard name-calling, explain to me how this makes any sense?

I’ll re-visit this again when there’s feedback. Find me at The Real Ed the Sock or Ed_thesock on Facebook.

I’m Ed the Sock. And I’m nobody’s puppet.