Should the CSA be repealed?

The American Controlled Substances Act has been an absolute and total goatfuck.  Many people do not truly understand it, or its real political background; if they did, a real political movement would exist either to repeal it, or to make it a "unless devolved" law.  The CSA was championed by one Richard Milhouse Nixon, ratfucker and crook extraordinaire.  That alone should make Americans think.

Prior to the CSA, the whole area of drugs fell within the "states' rights" framework.  What this meant was that every single state, from New York to Hawaii, had the right to control drugs as the people saw fit, never mind what Congress (which, after all, is the opposite of progress) thought.  Nixon, arrant prick that he was, didn't like this.  The thing is, most of Nixon's policies were judged to be mistakes almost right after he resigned office.

Five states now believe that drug prohibition, or, more specifically, prohibition of cannabis, has failed spectacularly.  First Washington and Colorado, and now Alaska, Oregon, and the capital of America have decided that the War on Drugs is over, and that drugs have won.  Five states.

This is great news.  Now, anyone who knows me in real life knows that I hate, hate, hate, hate cannabis with the passion of a trillion burning suns.  I occasionally use sativex to keep my food down, but that's been prescribed by my doctor for good reason, and even then I use it only on weekends because it makes me fat (and I'm fat enough already).  I still fight for legalisation, and I even wrote a popular initiative to get prohibition overturned in California.  You know why?  Because with an illegal drug, the Number One allure is that it is illegal!  Making it legal and "no big deal" will cut down on the number of teen age rebels abusing cannabis not because it makes them feel good but because it is against the prevailing moral order.  Simple as that.

This was seen with LSD as well.  Before it was made illegal, the only people that used it were certain Los Angeles psychiatrists and their friends, because it was actually a pharmaceutical medicine for use in Freudian analysis, and there was a big red warning on the side of the box to the effect that, before it can be used in psychotherapy, the psychiatrist must try it, also.   Come 1965, all the hippies were using it as a sort of "Fuck the Man" type thing, even though LSD is obviously not an euphoriant like cannabis is.

As cannabis is now legal in five out of fifty states, who's to say that the "state's rights" paradigm isn't back with a vengeance?  More or less, the Prez.  The long and short of it is that the only reason the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency isn't arresting people left, right, and centre even where cannabis is legal, is because the ol' Hawaiian Monkey and the American Minister of Junkies (sorry, I meant Justice) have dropped plenty of hints to tell the Agency to dial it back.  The problem is that Presidents come and go... the Hawaiian Monkey has eaten eight full years of bananas, and there will be a new Prez next term.  If he's anything like George Fox-Terrier, he might well tell the DEA that whatever Obama said goes out the window.  Which means that all the trouble Americans went to to legalise the devil weed goes out the window, too.

The way I see it, there's three options.  The first, which is bullshit, but also the easiest to put through, would be to issue an executive order for states with legalised cannabis to be left alone by the Feds.  Executive orders can be rescinded, but at least there's some written policy instead of a fucking gentlemen's agreement. 

On the other end of the scale is repealing the Controlled Substances Act.  That would be the right thing to do on principle, but it would make drug policy an even bigger goatfuck than it is now.  See, there are a whole bunch of states that are just fine with the CSA as written, Nixon not withstanding.  I don't mean states like Nevada, Arizona, or Maine.  I mean the arse-end-of-fucking-nowhere states with their trousers hitched up to the chin, like Utah.  If the Controlled Substances Act is repealed tomorrow, that leaves Utah and company with a whole shitload of policies to write literally overnight.

So then there's the sane option.  The sane option would be to write a paragraph into the Controlled Substances Act that says it's only valid if state law does not supersede it.  That way, Hawaii and Utah can have their way (actually, not so much Hawaii, since they actually have a homegrown version of the CSA) and states that do choose to adopt a sane drug policy can do so without fear of reprisal.

More musings on Ukip

I've been thinking still more about the future political situation in England.  It's a puzzle wrapped in an enigma, but there's a big old combination lock attached to it, and if you listen carefully, you can hear the tumblers clicking.

There's been rumours that Ukip is the new Tory party.  The rumours could not be more wrong, simple as that.  If any party is dying, rather than the two-party system, it's Labour, the party of the coal-mining, may-I-help-you-Sir, ship-building set.  Or it's the Lib Dems.  "I don't give a fuck" seems to be an unpopular opinion to hold these days.  If anyone is the new Tory party, it's Ukip, while the Tory party itself seems to be the new Labour.

I don't deal in evidence; I deal in various degrees of truth, and the truth does not come from facts, figures, and cute little sound bites, although these things can prop up the truth.  The truth is that the Conservatives, in addition to being the party of the huntin' and shootin' set, was once also the party of Big Business and the Economy.  It is not so now.

Ever heard of Owen Paterson?  Probably you haven't.  He was the Minister for Energy before Cameron dropped his trousers and fucked him without even the benefit of lube, or the common courtesy of a reach around.  The reason he did this (not that Cameron needs a reason) is that Paterson told the truth.  There is no way in fucking Hell that Britain can meet its so-called "green" energy target by 2050.  No fucking way.  If it tries to do so, the lights will go out.  Simple as that.  Either try to meet your energy target, or succeed at keeping the lights on and the trains running.  It has fuck all to do with so-called climate change denialism (although being a skeptic doesn't make you a denialist), and it has all to do with the economy and reality in general.

The Conservative Party is trying like mad to get its voters back.  They are failing.  First, they attempted to gain them back through insults: if you vote Ukip, you must be either nuts or a racist.  Then, they attempted to gain them back through fear: if you vote Ukip, you are really voting Labour, and you could vote for Farage and wake up to find Millipede in front of Number Ten.  Neither works, of course.  In fact, neither is true, and especially the second one couldn't be more false.

Heywood is what's known in political newspeak as a safe seat.  In other words, Labour will always win.  They won this time around too... but with only a majority of 600 votes.  The runner-up was Ukip.  The Tories say that you could vote Ukip and end up with Labour... but in this case, if you voted Ukip, you'd get Ukip, but if you voted Tory you'd get Labour.

So of course David Cameron is shitting himself about this next by-election in Rochester.  The Ukip candidate is another Tory turncoat, a man by the name of Reckless.  He's well-loved in Rochester, and he will win the election unless the Tories do something.  If they don't, Cameron might as well turn in the keys to Number Ten, because if he doesn't, the keys will be taken away from him by force if necessary.

I thought about a pre-election pact being good for both Tory and Ukip.  I was wrong.  A pre-election pact would mean a loss of confidence in the Tory party, but even worse, it would mean a choice of only 650 candidates in total for both Tory and Ukip.  If no pact is made, there will be a full selection of 1300 candidates, and more choice is always a good thing.

The only thing that could save Cameron right now is amnesty for defectors.  Essentially, if he gave his blessing for the Tory party to split into two, with centrists staying with him and libertarians going off to fight on the same side but under Farage, the two chairmen would have an army twice the size and one which could successfully take on Labour at the next election.

The fact is that with this momentum Ukip could get over a hundred seats.  It's unlikely, but it's possible.  If support for the Conservatives falls by only half that amount, but so does support for Labour, there wouldn't really be a problem.  Even if Labour "wins" the next election, it's no guarantee that Labour could form a government. 

The reason is that, in a hung parliament, the "victor" isn't necessarily who wins the most seats, but who can count on the support of the most seats.  In a pinch, the Tories can count on Ukip and the Northern Irish unionist parties to back them up on most anything.  The Lib Dems will support the old coalition promises even if they don't form part of the next coalition.  Finally, the Tories might even get the SNP to back them up on matters involving Scotland (on matters not involving Scotland, the SNP generally abstain as a matter of principle).  On the other hand, Labour will not be able to get the support of Ukip even if pigs fly, and certainly not the Irish unionist or separatist parties. Therefore, in such a situation, Ukip will have the balance of power.

The only way this can happen, though, is if Farage and Cameron both field a full selection of 650 candidates each, and don't campaign against each other.  This way, a great government will still be achieved, and Labour won't have a chance.

The rise of the United Kingdom Independence Party

The two-party system is dead.  It's been gasping its dying breath since about four years ago, when the UK was left without a majority government, but it is now officially, irrevocably, irreversibly, and indubitably dead.  Extincto.  Pining for the fjords.  It has spread its wings and joined the fucking choir invisible.

What leads me to say this with such piss and vinegar is that the United Kingdom Independence Party has won its first seat in parliament, and lost its second one by a red cunt hair.  The first one was simple enough: a Conservative member resigned and ran again with Ukip rather than the Conservatives.  The people of the seaside area called Clacton like him, rather than his party, so he got elected with no problem.  Conservative and Ukip are two halves of the same coin, so no surprise there.

More surprising (in fact, it couldn't be more surprising) is Ukip's near victory in an area that was solidly Labour.  Labour is the party for the blue-collar masses, those people with only a high-school education who work as miners and shopkeepers and McDonald's "do you want fries with that?" crew.  Its candidates were once also in this mould (Taffy Nye Bevan, I'm looking at you, ya sheep fuckin' bastard!); recently, though, the Labour gang are just as educated and just as polished as the Tory boys, and so it can also be called the party of one hundred per cent, industrial-strength, lab-grade hypocrisy.

The Labour member for Heywood, a suburb of Manchester, was an old charger of a man with a name more suited to a horse: Jim Dobbin.  Whoa, Dobbin, whoa.  He was a member of the blue-collar, dirty-hands, coal-mining class through his father, although Dobbin himself was educated (in medicine actually).  Well, just a few months ago, on a business trip to Poland, he kicked his legs up in the air, neighed for the last time, popped his horseshoes, and cantered across Rainbow Bridge, to lie in patient wait for his rider, the two-party system.

I don't know why Mancunians damn near unseated (or rather, unhorsed) Labour.  They've been in bed with them since Margaret Thatcher, may her great Name be magnified and sanctified, told them The Reason They Suck.  I mean, up there, the C-word (and I don't mean cunt) is worse than the F-word.  Ukip is, to be honest, more Tory than the Tories.  Not in the authoritarian, Fascist way that most people mean when they say far right, but very much classically liberal, or libertarian.  That's a Good Thing though, so I'm not going to complain.  Just think it's weird, that's all.

Anyway, the fact is that Ukip are the real conservatives.  D-Cam, our present Prime Minister, is like a damn pussy willow.  He bends wherever the wind blows and he has no opinions of his own.  Zip.  Zero.  Zilch.  On the other hand, Nigel Farage, well, now, there's a man who should be Prime Minister.  Opinionated, of the people, sanguine, and never to be seen without a pint of real British bitter in his left hand and a real British cigarette in his right.  So I wish them luck.

The problem is that there's no difference in British politics these days.  It used to be that the Tories were the party of the bourgeois, and Labour were the party of the proletarians.  Now, neither is either one or the other.  Both occupy the centre ground, and if there's anything I don't like, it's fence-sitters.  Real politics is back.  Thank you, Farage.

Even Jacob Rees-Mogg, the one Conservative Member of Parliament with some actual brains in his head, wants an electoral pact with Ukip.  I like, no, I love the Mogg.  He's basically a phlegmatic, old-fashioned equivalent to investment banker Farage.  The Mogg reminds me of Phileas Fogg in the Verne novel: quietly active, and atavistic to a fault.  The only problem is that neither D-Cam nor Farage can see that an electoral pact would be good for them both.  D-Cam can't see it for his hubris (he doesn't want to have to thank anyone) and Farage can't see it for his pride (better go at it alone than sell out).

I think that there's a Ukip minister hidden inside the Mogg, and he's rattling the bars of his cage trying to get out.  Rees-Mogg will join Ukip, of that I am certain---but could he please at least try and be a bit less vehement about staying with the Tories?  I mean, I know he's just trying to give the Whips the political equivalent of a hand job, but there's a limit to that.  Plus, there's no need to polish D-Cam's name while you try to extricate yourself from the Whips' control.

Of course, now that Ukip is a going concern, a whole new can of worms has just opened up. First of all, in a four-party system, which is what we have now (although I'd hesitate to call the Lib Dems a party---they should hold onto their arses, because they'll be blown out from under them), there are no majorities.  Someone will have to form a coalition with someone else.  And if Nigel Farage refuses to think with his brain, Labour might grab the reins and that wouldn't be good for neither the Tories nor Ukip.

Second, there needs to be an electoral pact, no matter what D-Cam or Farage say.  If there is no electoral pact, the only alternative is assured destruction for the British right.

More thoughts on Ello

Now that I've been using Ello for a longer time, I can speak more to its strengths and faults.  For the unaware, Ello is a brand-new, invitation-only social network that is now making headlines across the world.  The cynic with a degree in psycho or socio will point out that its popularity is linked to fear of missing out, while the economist may claim that demand is linked to scarcity, but I disagree.  Vehemently.  Honestly, I couldn't give two-thirds of a rabbit's fart whether Ello is invitation-only or not.  I like it because of its underground ethos and its no-bullshit design.  There are other reasons why I like it, but those require a fair bit of explanation.

I do not like to talk about aspects of my mind or personality on here.  Ever.  But I think it's all right to say that I am an intensely verbal person.  I see the world not in pictures or in textures, but in words.  Anyone who knows me will tell you that I am something of a grammar fascist, and most definitely a spelling fascist.  I mean, I do like pictures, which is why I have an Instagram (no, you can't have it), but it's not a social thing for me, it's just where I put my family pictures.  I "suffer" from alphabetic synaesthesia.  Most of my creative projects involve words or letters in some way.

Social media wasn't built for me.  Whenever I try to write something with some actual fucking meaning on Fuckbook (no, you can't have that either), it comes out as two sentences and then "Read more" under that.  Fuck you, Facebook.  Fuckbook.  Instagram, well, that's purely a picture sharing site for me.  Pinterest?  What's Pinterest?  And Twatter, well, it's great for political discourse (bile and venom from Scottish nationalists not withstanding) but the 140 character limit is extremely stifling.  You try commenting on the exceedingly convoluted situation in Iraq and the Levant (that's Syria for you youngsters) in 140 characters or less.  Can't be done.  I assure you.

I think the whole thing started, rather unfortunately, with Google Plus.  In fact, Ello reminds me a lot of Google Plus in the early days.  Both platforms have had uniquely interesting early adopters.  Plus had many tech people, geeks, nerds of all shapes, sizes, colours, and creeds.  Ello has artists and designers.  The discussions on both are, or rather were, germane, interesting, and to the point.  The designs of both Plus in the early, closed beta days, and Ello today, subtly but noticeably encouraged this.  Unfortunately, when Plus opened to the public, the design was changed to something more busy and the one feature the early adopters desperately needed was not implemented.

I am speaking, of course, about threaded discussions.  When there were 20 comments on a thread, you could read the conversation and be enlightened by the sharing of ideas.  Now, however, there is an absolute goatfuck, because when there are 500 comments from some very intellectual people, the conversation takes so many twists and turns that you eventually say "fuck it" and facepalm.

That's just a minor problem though.  The far bigger piece of shit is some picture blogging site called Pinterest or something like that.  It's apparently like Instagram, but more for sharing what you like rather than your own personal pictures.  I don't know.  I don't use it, have never used it, and won't ever use it.  But Google Plus and Fuckbook took notice, and so Plus was "artfully" redesigned so that everybody's pictures choked up whatever little space was left for text.  Fuckbook created its "innovative" Timeline.  Makes me want to bang my head against my desk every fucking time I see it.

I honestly think the word "innovation" is being used today as a synonym for "shit".  Look at Windows 8.  It's full of innovations.  Facebook, same.  Myspace?  Anyone remember Myspace?  Also kept touting innovations.  Someone has to get a chainsaw and cut through all the innovation!

And then there's the bullshit "like" feature.  Google Plus calls it +1.  Twitter has Favourites.  Fuckbook has Likes.  Ello has none of these.  The closest you can get is by commenting "LIKE!" or the string :bread:.  I like this, because instead of the instant, dilaudid-like gratification that comes with mindlessly mashing the like button, you get a more lasting buzz by commenting and engaging in the discussion.  I would call it taking morphine tablets by mouth.  Not the instant, powerful high that injecting dilaudid creates, but more of a soft but lasting feeling.

The downsides all come because Ello is in its infancy.  It smells and hasn't yet learned how to walk properly, but it has the makings of a great adult within it.  The big problem is the grey text on white background.  White on black would be much, much better.  Another problem is the lack of a private messaging facility, but I think this will be sorted out in due course as well.  The crashiness on the home page has already been resolved.

There are some things I miss.  Notifications need to be on their own, separate page.  As of now they're on the main Friends page (rather than on Noise---for the non-Elloers, Noise is the secondary Friends page for people that you don't want to read all the time).  I'd much rather have them either on Noise, or on a separate notification page.  Also, if you're reading this, Ello team, please release an Android app.  Trying to read Ello on an Android tablet is fucking hell on wheels.

To be honest, I feel like mirroring this blog on a separate Ello account.  I mean, I have the invites, right?  I don't suppose it'll garner too many hits but one can only hope.  To Ello!

Anyway, I hope this thing becomes the new Facebook.  But I gotta take an innovation.

The Scotch Neverendum

In the wake of the goatfuck and clusterfuck that was the separation referendum in Scotland, I made several bold predictions on Twatter.  Of course, as thanks, I got bombarded with acid, poison, and hate-mail, but I persevered, and these predictions, by and large, turned out to be true.  Yes, I have fuck-all to do with Scotland, but the Mesopotamian Emergency is similarly analysed by people who have, by rights, fuck-all to do with it.

The fact is that, by and large, the only people who voted YES in that election were either an inch away from the fence, or belligerent, Buckie-swilling, kilt-wearing neds (the Scotch equivalent of English chavs or American white trash/rednecks) under the age of 26.  None of the issues at hand were solved, in any meaningful way, by the YES campaign.  It was all just a load of smoke and fucking mirrors.  Duck, dodge, evade, deny, and then blame British imperialism.  The rhetoric and tactics (but, surprisingly, not the policies) of the leader of the Scottish National Party, a potato bearing the name of Alex Salmond (very fishy!), bring to mind the rhetoric and tactics of a certain Austrian corporal and German chancellor.

I was actually scared that YES would win.  The reason was, really, their loudness.  By and large, they are an uncultured, loud-mouthed bunch, and this was fully taken advantage of by Salmond and his gang of malcontents.  A robotic account was set up on Twatter to echo ("retweet" in Twatter newspeak) every single derogatory or pejorative remark by those who chose to vote NO.  This exposed them to hate-mail; when I responded in solidarity, I was likewise bombarded.  Four constituencies voted YES in the referendum: Dundee, Glasgow, North Lanark, and West Dunbarton.  All four, coincidentally (or not), are ones where the tattoo-to-tooth ratio is highest.  All in all, though, the result was surprisingly narrow: forty-five per cent. for separation.

In spite of this, I predicted that NO would win.  I was right.  I also predicted that world leaders would come out in opposition.  I was right.  Finally, I predicted that Alex Salmond would resign in disgrace.  I was right.  

Salmond's resignation, while something I desperately wanted, opens up a new can of worms.  He had said, before his exit, that he would continue to serve his mandate, separation or not.  He lied.  Either that, or he was pushed out against his will.  Both, to my surprise, are equally likely.  Why does this open up a can of worms, you ask.  The reason is that he had made a promise to respect the sovereign will of Scotland's sons and daughters, and that a second referendum would only come after a "generation".  The unspoken rider to this is that this promise would be binding on Salmond only.  So despite the fact that I hate the fat fuck with a passion, I am actually sorry to see him go, for one reason, and one reason only.

When Salmond leaves, he will be replaced by a woman named Nikki Sturgeon, also known as Fishisaurus Regina.  Sturgeon will angle for yet another referendum and, based on the way the British government dropped the ball last time, they're going to let themselves get fucked by Fishisaurus and her six-foot strap-on, again without the simple courtesy of a reach-round.  The only upside is that Sturgeon isn't such a National Sozialist, or at least she doesn't appear that way.

Salmond's back room deals involved extortion of financial corporations and even the governing people of the University of St Andrews (the Scotch counterpart of Yale).  I don't think Sturgeon is that bad.  Although I suppose I should be careful what I wish for: a kinder, nicer SNP leader might attract another 5% to vote YES next time around, and then we'd seriously be fucked.  And there will be a "next time around", believe you me.

The only possible solution would be a Conservative-Ukip coalition, with Ukip winning seats in Scotland.  Let's pray it happens.  Hold on tight to your hats and your arses, people... because they just might get blown off from under you.

Thoughts on Ello

There is a new social network making the rounds.  It is called Ello, and I was recently granted the chance to try it out.  First impressions were good.  The site is minimalist and elegant, reminiscent more of the old, classic iPod than anything else.  It is also reminiscent of the Facebook of my high-school years, rather than the one of today.  The font hearkens back to the heady BBS days of the 1980's, when you logged in by dialling a phone number, and text either appeared on your screen or was printed out.  I approve greatly.

I have a few quibbles, though.  One is about the business model.  They pledge not to use advertisements on their network, or to give your data to third parties.  Their manifesto (how very Communist of them) contains something along the lines of, you are not the product.  The problem is, when you operate a free site, your clients must be the product.  Any other free business model is either unsustainable, or not truly free.  This is the case with so-called "freemium" products: more often than not, they are intentionally hobbled to such an extent that usability is impaired.  In plain English, they fuck you at every turn, tell you to stand and deliver, and then they don't even have the common courtesy of giving you a reach round.  They have no fucking choice: they need the money.  It's as simple as that.

The Ello management is, justifiably, reticent about where they got their money: nearly half a million dollars.  They do say that it came from a venture capitalist group.  Venture capitalists are known for having fists so tight that if you gave them a lump of coal to hold onto, it would turn into a diamond a minute later.  Kickstarter people just want a product to use and are dedicated enough to pay to have it made; venture capitalists want a return on investment.  They will not support a product just because it looks pretty or because it works.  Venture capitalists eat greenbacks and shit product.

The key word is "exit".  Venture capitalists pay money for an opportunity to exit.  This comes in two ways: a buyout (big shark, little shark, little shark gets eaten) or a flotation (little shark, school of piranhas, little shark gets eaten).  Examples?  Facebook got floated.  Google got floated.  Instagram got bought out.  Skype got bought out.  In any case, idealism goes down the longkang and the manifesto goes out the window.  Such is the price to pay for venture capital.  There are ways to defeat this.  One way would be to use venture capital as, in effect, a loan.  The Ello management could solicit people to buy shares, and buy out the vampire capitalists in the process.  Of course, such a thing will get you burned, thanks to said vampires.  "Don't buy, you'll be bought out", and all that jazz.  Good luck getting a penny more.

There are a few exceptions, like this online marketplace that I won't name.  Suffice it to say that it was invented by a man named Jeff B. and, apparently, run by members of the American investment community as a non-profit for the benefit of consumers everywhere.  Profit?  What's that?  But this ain't Ama---whoops, I said I wouldn't name it.

The way I see this, though, is like a really good party.  Facebook was a fun underground party at the beginning: it started with just a velvet rope, a bouncer to check student ID, trendy liquor, and some ultra-modern furnishings.  At this point, it was just you and your classmates from Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, what have you.  Then they let high school students in, and the party got wilder (but lost a lot of its maturity).  The bouncer got too expensive, so they fired him.  People started flooding in and they wore out all the furniture.  That got replaced, but it was replaced with stuff of lesser quality.  They got a game console in to attract even more people, but that's when the party got weird.  Eventually, even grannies and grand-dads got in on the act, and, let me tell you, if your granny goes to the same parties as you do, it's time to pull chocks and take off.

Google Plus has some of the same quirks, but it arguably never was a good party, and people saw it.  You go in, and it's like, "Is there anybody alive out there?"  I mean, it's all right for the sweater vest and red-trouser crowd, but come on.  It's like going to a Christmas party at the office.  Nobody actually has fun on there, do they.  Do they?

Ello will likely go through the same phases.  I wish it won't, but it will.  All parties have to come to an end someday: it happened to Tagged, it happened to MySpace, it happened to Facebook... so let's just enjoy the fucking party while it fucking lasts, and when it gets weird, just kick the tyres and light the fires.  On to the next one, and so on, ad nauseam (perhaps literally).   

The furniture at the Ello party, unfortunately, seems to be from IKEA.  It looks great, but it seems to be made in China, and as soon as you sit on the chairs to have a pint, BANG.  The chair breaks underneath you.  Some people have had the door fall off its hinges (browser crash at home page).  And then there are the people invited to this shindig.  From what I've seen, 99% of the Ello attendees are of three stripes.  A sizeable minority are businesses, there to network and to gain more customers.  Then there's the LesBiGayTrans crowd, tired of what they see as discriminatory policies at Facebook.  Or just because the party got weird... but then again, they are largely a liberal crowd, and, as such, will seek any reason under God's bright sun to protest.  Liberals love to protest like gin loves tonic.  Finally, there's the $500 pram, organic-everything, neck-beard, thrift-store, fixed-gear bike, chunky black plastic specs crowd.  I understand the word "hipster" is too mainstream (isn't it ironic?).  I guess they all got in because "you've probably never heard of it".

Let's see how this develops, though.  I managed to score an invite and will try to keep y'all posted on how things work... let's just hope that the 99% will shrink in proportion. I'm sick and tired of the god damn hipsters.

A No-Holds-Barred Comparison of Canadian Political Leaders

I wrote the below reply on a social networking site called BookFace or something along those lines.  One of my friends, a poli sci student of Pakistani extraction, had come out in opposition against an investment agreement Canada was planning with China.  I posted a series of replies, and then figured... hey, that could make a great overview on Canadian politicos!So, here goes, verbatim et literatim, enjoy.

Much as I dislike Stephen Harper, free trade is not the reason. The world is getting smaller, and I would be surprised if, in thirty years, national borders hold any meaning whatever beyond the social construct of "culture". If there WILL be any borders, they will be big, supranational ones between power blocs (EU, NAFTA, Commonwealth, CIS, etc) and not between nation-states as we know them today.

The real problem with Stephen Harper is his agreement with, and endorsement of, American aggression in the Middle East and elsewhere. Harper is waging war for fun and profit. Not cool, dude.

But think of the alternatives. Justin Trudeau is an annoying brat who hasn't the foggiest idea of how the world works. He is obnoxious, inexperienced, and utterly unqualified for the job he wishes to hold. He is a locum history teacher, who has admitted to recreational drug abuse in the presence of his two small children. He wants government spending left, right, and centre, when we haven't the money to spend in the first place. And most gallingly, he thinks that the name makes the man, rather than vice versa. He thinks he's some sort of Canadian Rockefeller.

Thomas Mulcair shares Trudeau's spendomania. That's really his biggest problem. The other problem is that under his tenure, the Canadian NDP has returned to its roots, rather than Layton's softer "Liberals of the Left" version. This might not sound like such a problem, until you realise that the old NDP, as well as the new NDP, is Canada's answer to the British Labour Party of the Fifties, rather than Labour of today. Old Labour/NDP are both parties run by the working class (aka those who are on their feet at work) for the working class. We are not working class. We are middle class. I don't want the unions (especially not Mafia-influenced unions like the Teamsters) running the show. Otherwise, Mulcair is actually an honest man.
  
And then there's Elizabeth May. The best and worst that can be said for her is that she's a complete and utter nutbar. Not to say she's a moron. Big difference. But because of her over-riding goal of ecological activism, sustainability, carbon neutrality, or God knows what the word for it is nowadays, she's willing to tank the Canadian economy. Her ideas, although they may be solid ten, fifteen, or twenty years down the line, are absolutely pie in the sky today. The problem is that if you impose controls on companies so as to save the Earth upon which you walk, you will make these companies bankrupt and thus lead yourself straight into the mouth of destitution.

God's honest truth is that the Liberals are THE party for Canada in times of economic boom. We are not in a boom. We are in the throes of the Great Recession, and the go-to party for depressions and recessions are the Conservatives. Simple as that.

Scotland Independence Debate: My Impressions

All right.  Now, not many of you would know this (except perhaps those who may know me from another life) but I am interested in the debate on Scotch separation from the United Kingdom.  Strangely enough, I hold no fixed opinion on this except for some vague, idealistic concept that it would be good for what's left of the Empire to stay together and not fight amongst ourselves like so many toothless Mancunian football hooligans.  So much for that.

Now, I find the British Labour Party plebeian and outre beyond belief.  But Alex Salmond, together with his ship of fools, is the merest blackguard, the most common blatherskite, and the worst possible sort of wanker ever to grace the Parliament of Scotland.  This is the arsehole that, through Imperial Decree, and out of petulant gall, established that universities in Scotland would be free for Scotchmen, free for Frenchmen, free for Dutchmen, in fact, free for damn near everyone except Englishmen!  I think that if he suddenly went on telly with a shotgun and shot himself in his bloody great stupid gob, he'd be doing us all a big favour.  I hate his guts.  Fucking douchebag.

So, yesterday's debate was between the great paragon of the proletariat Alistair Darling, and Scotland's ugly, obese, smelly fish, Alex Salmond.  And even if I didn't hate fuckface Salmond before I saw the thing, I fucking despise him now, just because of what he said.  Darling, despite his proletarian-ness, came across as intelligent, reasonable, and a real darling.  He was a lawyer before he sold his soul for a place in Parliament, that is, if he ever had one, and he proved that he still was every inch a competent lawyer.

Some background information: if Scotland separates, Salmond says, they will continue to use the pound, in a formal currency union with England.  Several of the big-wigs in the central British government, located in Westminster, have alternately said that this will happen when pigs fly, when it will rain up rather than down, when the grass turns blue and the sky turns green, and when Birnam Wood comes to Dunsinane.  Salmond has repeatedly ignored these hints, and stubbornly continues to believe that this is just pre-negotiation posturing.

The second part of the debate was where Darling shone.  He asked Salmond the question that has always been on everyone's mind: what currency will Scotland use if the pound is not an option?  Continuing to use the pound, Darling wisely said, was like insisting on a joint account with your ex even after you'd fucking divorced her.  The pound doesn't belong to Scotland.  Nor does it belong to England, Ireland, or Wales!  It is property of the Crowns united.  You can take your Crown back, Scotland, but the pound is community property... and if your ex-partners want to keep it... let them fuggin' keep it God damn it!  Fucking Jesus Almighty!

Of course, Salmond's reply basically boiled down to the same thing a petulant six-year-old in the middle of a temper tantrum might say: namely, that the pound is an option, no ifs, ands, or buts.  So Darling asked him to try something very difficult: to think, just for a short moment, of the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the Great Gobshite Salmond might be mistaken.  Of course, Salmond had no reply.  That's when the boos and head-shaking started.

The childish misbehaviour of Salmond eventually caused even super-calm, super-patient Darling to lose his cool and say that a six-year old could identify a nation's capital, flag, and currency, and that Salmond couldn't even manage the last one.   At this point, Salmond said that the options were enumerated in some obscure government think tank report, but that he wasn't going to talk about that, but about what was best for Scotland.  The question wasn't what's best for Scotland.  The question was, what's plan B?  What's plan C for that matter?

Darling continued to chip away at the smelly old fish for quite a while like this.  He implied that because Salmond was so stupid as to not understand, he was going to take him on a process of elimination.  The euro?  No, says Salmond.  A new Scottish currency?  No, says Salmond.  Unofficial use of the pound (which would tank both economies at once)?  No comment, says Salmond, but I want what's best for Scotland.  Fucking idiot.

In fact, all this bullshit reminds him, says Darling, of the time gobshite Salmond claimed to have a court decision saying that Scotland could automatically enter the EU no questions asked after independence.  Where, people said, and sued Salmond's moron gallery to find out.  Two years later, it transpired that there was no decision.

Honestly, I had no idea Darling would do so well.  He essentially echoed my questions, and more or less in the same way I would have asked them, only he did it in a nicer way.  Salmond still hadn't come up with anything by the time his cross-examination was over.  Then again, he's a barrister.  I should have known.

So then it's fuckhead Salmond's turn.  Instead of asking pertinent questions like Darling did, his first two questions were in fact statements pointing at a few jokes made by British government people on slow days.  The first was something like Scotland will have to drive on the right side of the road if they separate, and the second was something like Scotland will now be vulnerable to attack by aliens from outer space if they separate.

Haven't you ever heard of a joke before? says Darling.  Well said.  Alex, old boy, you're going to lose this one... now do us all a favour, old chap.  Go in your father's barn, grab his fowling piece (you do know what a shotgun is, right Alex?), put it in your mouth or rectum or whatever that gaping hole in your face is, and pull the fucking trigger.

Putin... Godwin's Law incarnate?

Several months ago, Prince Charles, the future King of the United Kingdom, made his personal opinion about the Russian President known to the world, to wit: President Putin can be, in a number of ways, compared to the former German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler.  Although there is an informal logical law known as Godwin's Law that states that comparisons to Hitler are fallacious if not proven otherwise, I believe that Prince Charles has the truth on his side.  Not because he went to my alma mater; I believe myself to be unbiased in this regard.

Cambridge edumacation or not, the situation in Europe today almost precisely mirrors that of Europe in 1939.  I will elaborate, but at least in politics, Putin can be compared to Hitler. First of all, it can be demonstrated that Germany in the Thirties and Russia in the New Tens have abused the letter of the law to crush political opposition.  I won't give German examples because any fool can Google them... but there are Russian ones which almost directly parallel them.

For example, a speech by Putin included a statement to the effect that Russians need to help raise the birth rate, and that this was very important to the economy.  Basically, Putin ordered Russians to fuck because it's good for business.  So a "protest" was staged in a musaeum of biology, where several men and women proceeded to obey Putin's instructions to the letter and tape it so that it could be proven.  The upshot of this was that some of the people involved, instead of being praised for their good humour, were arrested and imprisoned for indecent exposure.  On the other hand, the people who made loud, public love in a fountain were neither arrested nor charged, because this did not carry a political message.

Similarly, Ukraine, which was, until recently, a Russian client state, was plagued by selective enforcement of laws.  Specifically, price-gouging, kickbacks, and anti-competitive practices were committed and tolerated by the petrochemical-government complex; Julia Tymoshenko certainly took part in this, and may perhaps have been guilty as the Devil himself.  This has to be viewed in a relative way, though.  I don't like to quote sources or even use any beyond myself, but this is a special case: one of my mother's friends from university said, effectively, that kickbacks were standard operating procedure in the oil world, and its sine qua non.  They happen in every conceivable form, and in every country: Russia and pre-revolutionary Iran weren't just in bed with Big Oil, they were having an Eyes Wide Shut-style orgy with it.  "Environmental cleanup", my arse.  "Service fee", my arse.  "Facilitation fee", my motherfucking arse.  Now, this lady should know because she has a PhD in petrochemical engineering and, in 1967, invented the oil sands extracting technique that we all know and love while washing the dishes (this message brought to you by Palmolive).

So yeah, Tymoshenko was in the pay of Big Oil.  So was everyone else.  Russkies, Ukies, everyone.  The way it generally works is that in order to drill, you need to pay for a use-of-land permit.  Because this is time-sensitive, you pay a facilitation fee.  You get your drill set up, and then you get a visit by the permit man.  Of course, the drill "isn't up to environmental standards", so you pay an environmental cleanup "estimate", with the balance (and it's always a large one) to be paid or returned to you theoretically after drilling, but practically when the sun rises in the West.  You additionally pay the permit man another facilitation fee, so you can just start the god damn drill already.  Then some state-owned corporation or other makes a request for tender.  You submit a nice, low bid, which is rejected for being "inadequate" because there's no allowance for "losses/spoilage".  You submit a bid higher by say 10%, changing nothing, and it gets accepted. Every year, unsurprisingly, there is an oil "spoilage" of exactly 10%, no more, no less. In addition to this, you pay a generous "export duty", cash only.  You also pay a generous "import duty", cash only.  And on top of both of these, you pay a very generous and tailored "facilitation fee", cash only.

Tymoshenko was likely on the receiving end of this, as chairwoman of a large oil firm.  Other people in the Ukie government also received "facilitation payments".  Perhaps not in oil, as Ukraine has none, but I suspect the wheat business is similar in its... idiosyncrasies.  Oh God, I derailed this article, but what I'm trying to say is that she went to jail but a lot of others who participated in the same sort of thing didn't.  And don't give me that bullshit that nobody knows who the others were... I'll lay you ten to one that "the others" includes the gentlemen who were on the bench.  And I'll lay you a hundred or a thousand to one that the reason she was singled out in this way was because she was a proponent of increasing ties to the democratic, Western world.

So I mean that's how it goes.  Then there's his push for a World War III.  Even that mirrors World War II.  Although Hitler and Putin both display markedly aggressive foreign policy (in Hitler's case, open, and in Putin's case, through covert influence of European terrorist groups), their Western counterparts (Neville Chamberlain and Barack Obama) are very soft-spoken and reserved, and prefer to fight through diplomatic means only.  Even though Hitler threw the first punch, the war was started by the Allies (specifically, Churchill).  Also, popular opinion seems to vacillate between a more reserved, melancholic/phlegmatic leader (Obama is the latter, whereas Chamberlain was the former) and a choleric/sanguine one.  So it just might happen that not only is Putin like Hitler in many ways, but the New Tens are like the Old Forties in many ways.  Then there's Putin's constant xenophobic hatefests (much like Hitler's), and his views on Nineties Russia that so closely parallel Hitler's views on Weimar Germany. 

Although in a way, Putin is more like Stavro Blofeld than like Hitler; he has charisma, and you can't help cheering for the old boy if only his damn agenda were better.  His covert manipulation tactics smack of Blofeld, not so much of Hitler.  Hitler liked his bed-leg and his knife; Putin can accomplish more with a few words and an epic judo throwdown.  He's an insult to his family name, though: it is well known that Putin has blue blood of some sort.  Perhaps a cadet branch of Moscow's noblesse de robe?  Perhaps Ras-putin?  Who truly knows?  All I know is that a proper leader should be conservative.  Not wishing a return to communist days.

Silver bells... silver bells... it's election time in Toronto!

Mayor of Toronto.  When people hear this, they think of a carrot-topped, morbidly obese, hard-working and hard-partying hulk of a man named Rob Ford.  And they're right.  Rob Ford has practically become a symbol, for better or worse, of Toronto.  Ford jokes have become nothing if not a fucking staple on late-night television, and the mere mention of Toronto is enough to get sniggers all round, with perhaps the odd question of, "What's happened to their crackhead Mayor?"

Yet an impartial panel of experts broken down by age and sex (i.e., me---because nobody is more broken down by age and sex than I) has determined that he is by far the most suitable candidate for the job.  As for the personality quirks, who doesn't like a Mayor that regularly eats pussy and is proud of it?

I know a lot of people hate Ford owing to his avoidance of the Toronto gay Pride parade.  I don't, and here's my reasoning.  I am philosophically opposed to any sort of Pride when it comes to sexual orientation, and this purely because what goes on in the bedroom should stay in the bedroom.  Although I disagree with homosexual practices, I don't believe it should be a criminal act---but neither do I believe it should be a public affair.  On balance, I don't think heterosexual practices should be a public affair neither.

If you're gay/straight/bi/whatever... keep the dancing and kissing and fucking in the clubs and at home.  Don't expose the rest of us to your public displays of affection.  And don't scream out, "I'm gay and proud to be so!", or, for that matter, "I'm bi/straight/anything with legs and proud to be so!"  Furthermore, the Pride parade is anything but family-friendly---like Ford, I find the nudity and the simulated sex acts inappropriate for a city-sponsored event.

If the Mayor should be tradition-bound to participate at a parade, it should be the Orange Order parade, or the Masonic parade.  The reason for this is that the history of Toronto is inseparable from that of the Orange Order: until the 1960's, every sitting Mayor of Toronto was a dues-paying member of that fine Protestant institution, and the tradition was a great one.  The Orange Order parade is one that is inoffensive to anyone but Irish republicans, obviously family-friendly, and also it is not an eyesore like Pride.

Ford, for all his flaws (and I would certainly not consider eating pussy a flaw), is nothing short of an expert when it comes to financial matters. If anyone hasn't noticed by now, Toronto is in a financial crisis.  Rob Ford is the only candidate with the skill to find out what needs cutting, and the balls to say, "Last stop for the gravy train."

He also is the only one with a sensible plan for the Toronto Underground.   When compared with other cities of comparable size and demographic in North America (CHICAGO!) and Europe (Vienna or Munich), Toronto has the worst damn Underground system I have ever seen in my life.  Even the station design is absolutely terrible.

Allow me to sustain my digression for a bit.  The original incarnation of the Toronto Underground system used a public-bathroom aesthetic.  This is NOT a bad thing---the tiled look and distinctive font is very pretty.  The problem came when the TTC (the commission in charge of the Underground) failed to establish an architecture department, or even an engineering department.  So the new stations are a hotch-potch of various designs, including a very kitschy Museum Station.

The only problem with Ford is that he is a walking Public Relations nightmare.  He drinks like a fish, eats far in excess of anything a man his size would need, speaks his mind even when the expedient thing would be to lie, and refuses to spend unnecessary cash even when this would be advisable.  For instance, Ford declines to use a chauffeur; this despite the fact that he is a busy man and his job description requires reading prior to actually beginning his work day.

This, along with the poll results, has made me fear that Ford will not be elected a second time, which would be a bloody shame.  The next-best man is one named John Tory.  In the main, he is a good Mayoral candidate as well, with a few important differences to Ford, but also substantially similar in many ways.

Tory, like Ford, is a conservative candidate.  This is a good thing.  Toronto needs conservatism.  The difference is that Rob Ford is the populist candidate, that is, one with a rhetoric appealing to the proletariat/the "working class"; while John Tory is the Establishment candidate, with rather upper-class speech patterns and a polished manner.  The content of their agenda, however, is substantially the same; they differ, more or less, in electability and in skill set.

Oh, yes, and in Underground opinion.  Ford is by far the best when it comes to the Underground.  For Tory, it's merely another campaign point, whereas it's the heart and soul of the race for Rob Ford.

Tory is far more electable among the general middle-to-upper class, over-50 bracket; these are the people that are most reliable and will turn up to elections for certain.  On the other hand, Ford has a fan club whose support for him can be characterised as nothing if not rabid.  These supporters, however, tend not to be university-educated and tend to be in the lower income brackets; the exception of course are the people from Ford's home town of Etobicoke.

 The worst option, and, sadly, a very popular one, is Olivia Chow.  Now, I don't say this because she is a woman or a born Hongkie---in fact, I have nothing but the utmost respect for women as well as for everyone from Hongkong (I do love that island!)  She represents the (very) liberal side at the campaign, and like most liberals, she is an absolute, total, and utter fool.  I loved her (now, sadly, deceased) husband Jack Layton, but Chow is, for better or worse (more worse than better), the Hilary Clinton of Canadian politics.  She exerted much backroom influence on Layton, and the majority of this influence was undue and malign.

A simple look at the agenda of these three politicians tells a lot.  Ford and Tory share much of the same sane and sober agenda, although they do tend to phrase certain things differently.  Ford tells it like it is, while Tory tends to waffle a bit before giving a somewhat wishy-washy reply.  Of course, speech patterns matter jack shit; the more important thing is the content.

For instance, Ford is willing to support the (very partial---not more than ten percent) privatisation of the Toronto Hydroelectric Corporation.  Tory has reservations about "fire sales" but won't rule anything out.  Chow, on the other hand, will not budge an inch and refuses to sell even a single share of Toronto Hydro.

Ford and Tory agree on the extension of the Scarborough Rapid Transit (essentially, a customised Underground) for three more stops.  This plan has been approved and fully funded by City Council (in American terms, the Board of Supervisors).  They also agree on privatising rubbish collection east of Yonge Street, as was done west of Yonge Street by Ford.  Finally, Ford and Tory both want to create a big music festival for Toronto.

Here's where they differ: Ford wants to cut the land transfer tax (good on ya, Rob!) and Tory seems to be a bit wishy-washy as per his usual style, but open to the discussion regardless.  Tory and Ford both want to keep property taxes from increasing too much, but the mechanics of their respective plans are somewhat different.  Ford wants to expand the Toronto Island airport, whereas Tory still has questions but is open to discussion, as usual. 

Chow goes against all of this.  She must be mad.  First of all, she wishes to scrap the fully-funded and fully-approved Scarborough Rapid Transit extension, and build the cheaper and much less convenient surface rail track in its place, as originally envisioned.  Second, she refuses to privatise rubbish collection just yet; this, in Chow speak, means she refuses to privatise it at all.  Furthermore, instead of making Toronto better with a music festival like Ford and Tory want to do, she wants to make Toronto worse by pedestrianising a few very busy streets.  Chow is firmly for retaining the land transfer tax and property tax as is, and against expanding the Island airport. 

In short, Chow wants to return to the Miller days, when City Hall was run by the unions and when the gravy train was just chugging along.  We can't have that.  Especially not in these days of financial crisis.  Please, please, if you're a Torontonian and hate Ford, consider voting Tory.  He's a good man and will keep the city running.

The year in review

Alright, so, fuck it.  I've decided to start blogging again, and since a lot has happened in the Kafkaesque goatfuck that is modern Anglo-Canadian politics, I guess I'll take it one step at a motherfucking time.

First off, the Ontario election.  I liked Hudak.  I hoped that he'd win.  I mean, I know he looks like a weasel but he had a budget plan that involved actually saving money, something that the province of Ontario so desperately needs.  The other serious contender was a bull dyke named Kathleen Wynne, whose idea of budgeting was "spend money to save money".  I see no problem with that idea, except for EVERY FUCKING WORD OF IT!  You can NOT spend money left and right, money that you don't fucking have, and expect any sort of profit on this borrowed dosh to overshadow the inevitable fucking INTEREST that borrowing generates!

Like, look.  Two men lose their jobs and need money.  They have to make money to survive.  One man gets an even more high-paying job, and tightens his belt so this doesn't happen in future.  The other man goes to a cash point, withdraws $250 from his Barclaycard, and then says, "Hey, look, I've made money." NO YOU HAVEN'T.

Wynne didn't even spend money where it counts.  What she should have spent it on was a tube system for Toronto to rival London's or Manhattan's.  Instead, she spent it on giving happy-ending massages to teachers, government sector workers, and the unemployable poor.  The majority of this province DOES NOT work for the government... and sinking money into the public school system is never a good idea, since it tends to disappear very quickly.

Oh, yes, and she cancelled two gas plants Ontario desperately needed to save two of her party bootlickers' arses.  This had the end phenomenon of a 150% hike in gas prices... because the winter in Ontario was precisely the same as the one that helped defeat Hitler's forces in Russia.

Of course, this useless cunt of a candidate won.  Now, I know Ontario voters are a perverse bunch.  Never in the history of Ontario has a provincial Prime Minister been of the same party as the national Prime Minister, but for once, couldn't Ontario voters vote with their brains rather than their cocks?  They should at least have balanced themselves out so that there was a hung parliament... now she and her gang of knuckleheads can put any bill, even a hare-brained one like the provincial budget, forward and it'll get passed come hell or high water.

Then the whole business with Russia/the Ukraine.  Another complete clusterfuck.  Now, I understand that Crimea was a gift to Ukraine by Khrushchev, with terms and conditions attached.  Ukraine violated those terms and conditions.  So I believe that the annexation of Crimea by Russia, especially following a popular fucking referendum, was legal and justified.  But the goatfuck currently taking place in eastern Ukraine, Donbass, etc---there is no way that could even be described in the same fucking book as legal.

Now, people's rebellions are commonplace and understandable.  Especially following Tymoshenko's machinations.  Now, I know the old girl wasn't guilty of price-fixing all on her own, and I do know that the Russian colonial government put her in prison to the exclusion Putin supporters.  This is a totalitarian tactic and one that is in opposition to everything that the word "democracy" stands for, but the fact is, that Yulia Tymoshenko is guilty of offences that would warrant the same punishment anywhere in the civilised world.

But price-fixing and collusion with illegal monopolies does not excuse the Russian government, under the despotic and iron-fisted rule of Vladimir Putin, rendering significant and material aid to rebels.  But for the illegal interventions of the Putin regime, the situation in the East might well be over.  Since Putin insists on goofing the floof in this area, though, we are saddled with the possibility of a Third World War.  Putin's actions of fomenting unrest in the Ukraine mirror certain aspects of the actions of a particular Austrian corporal (yes, the same one Prince Charles compared him to).

Furthermore, he has not sent people who simply agree with the "ideals" (if you could call them that) behind the Anti-Maidan movement.  Instead, the "potato bugs" (the pro-Russian ribbons they wear look like the elytrae of potato bugs) causing disturbances in Eastern Ukraine are mercenaries who have been paid on the order of $500 a week specifically to, as I said earlier, goof the floof.  So not only is it an illegal ploy, but it is the work of a sociopath, with no ideals except cold, hard cash behind it.

One more thing that has happened is the separation referendum in Scotland.  Scotchmen want to separate from the United Kingdom; on this, I hold no fixed opinion aside from a very weak "no".  I am entirely willing to debate the benefits and the costs of separating, as I really and truly hold no major opinion.  Yes, I'd like the Kingdom to remain United till the stars fall from the sky, but it is simply an ideal, rather than some deep-seated fucking conviction or something.

On the other hand, though, there have been some extremely dirty tactics from proponents on both sides.  I use Twitter to express my dissatisfaction with certain elements of the "Yes" cause.  These include the First Minister of Scotland, Alexander Salmond (whom I refer to as Fish) and his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon (whom I refer to as Fish Number Two).  If I choose to air my dissatisfaction with these two individuals, my tweet is almost instantly picked up by the "Britnat Abuse Bot", a COMPUTER PROGRAM rebroadcasting "abuse" of anyone connected in the least with the Yes movement.  This exposes me to enormous quantities of vitriol and hate-mail in spite of the fact that I HAVE NO FUCKING OPINION ABOUT YES OR NO!!!

First of all, Salmond and his party (the SNP) have a political platform and a style of rhetoric that is xenophobic, nationalistic, hateful, and specifically anti-English.  Salmond has made it absolutely and perfectly clear that, should Scotland become independent, university will remain free of charge for members of the European Union, with the single exception of England.   His currency plans are unworkable and smack of a petulant toddler throwing a tantrum.  He has demanded that the British government establish a pound-sterling currency union; as he was roundly shot down by damn near everyone who fucking mattered more than a rabbit's fart in the Grand Scheme of Things, he simply said that he'll use the pound anyway, drag England (for it will be the United Kingdom no more) into a currency quagmire that it wants no part of and would have absolutely no control over, and essentially told the British government to kiss his morbidly obese arse.

And then comes the kicker.  It was widely reported that Salmond and his SNP cronies personally "discouraged" certain powerful financial corporations from delivering an official, published opinion on Scotch independence.  Reportedly, Salmond's telephone call was "forceful" and designed to "discourage... from saying anything".  In plain English, what this means is that Salmond PERSONALLY EXTORTED LARGE BANKS INTO SHUTTING UP.  He called them and most likely screamed unprintable obscenities and threats at a nominally independent coalition of banks.  Heads of free and democratic countries DO NOT FUCKING DO THIS!!!  Of course, the wonderful and magical SNP put a great spin on this: one of their mouthpieces said, basically, that Fish had been making sure that anything published was neutral and properly balanced.  Well, then, I pray that God does not choose to become neutral.

What happened was extortion, pure and simple.  If it had been Labour doing this, or Conservatives, or even fucking UKIP, they would be locked up and the key eaten (not merely thrown away) at the behest of the SNP.  But because Saint Fish is doing this, nothing will ever come of it.

And all this has devolved into a culture of intimidation and hate.  I remarked on Twitter that automatic accession of a separate Scotland to the European Union would be impossible.  Two European presidents (as in heads of the European Union as a whole) had agreed with me: first Barroso and then Juncker.  I was bombarded with a torrent of questions and hate mail.  The first was rather easily dealt with.  I don't mind answering questions.  Many of them asked me to point to a specific EU law that agreed with me.  I couldn't, I'll be the first to say, and that is because European law is such a complete and utter clusterfuck that it requires a degree so far beyond your regular Cambridge BA and that it is offered only at one tiny institution in Europe.  This is why we have specialised civil servants such as Mr Barroso and Mr Juncker.

But when I was honest and up-front with this fact, and the fact that every major newspaper and the majority of government documentation on this issue seemed either to agree with me or simply not to disagree with me, I was labelled an "Anglo Canuck" (don't mind that, I'm proud to be an Anglo Canuck!) and a "member of the Village Idiot Club" (I am neither from a village, nor am I an idiot, so fuck you, fucking cunt.)

I'm just sick and tired of this shit.  Debate intelligently or just why don't you SHUT THE FUCK UP.