Making Sense

I don't often write about news because many nowadays aren't interested in current events and frankly, I need all the readers I can get. An alarming amount of people find that keeping informed is more depressing than my bank balance.

In fact, lots of folk aren't just satisfied to simply avoid the news but are actually actively opposed to it. They feel so strongly about their anti-news stance that they have begun an ad hoc, listless fight for their right to be apathetic. “My grandpappy fought in some kind of war or something to give me the right not to give a rat's patooty about current events and I'm going to exercise that right, dad gum it.” said one spokesman who didn't care to be identified.

Although it's unclear as to what dad's gums has to do with the issue, it's felt that the anti-info backlash is because issues today have become more complex and confusing than a government form. Nothing is black and white anymore, just like TV's. As a result it seems nothing in the news makes sense. Humans have been trying to make sense of the world ever since day one... whenever that was. (I should be upfront and declare that on the creation/evolution debate, I come down strongly on the side that says we're some kid from Alpha Centauri's grade nine science project.)

Fact is, whether you're into creationism, evolutionism or science project-ism, you're just trying to make sense of the world. It's an inate drive within each of us to understand our environment; much like the drives to survive, to procreate and to drink beer.

In an effort to help us figure out what makes the world tick, the team of smarty-pantses (smarty-pantsi?) at the Loco “think tank” embarked on a program to examine the news for logic and pure common sense. (That's think tank, not drunk tank as some have claimed. I'm not mentioning any names but her initials are “Cupcake”. ) Let's look at a simple issue. Bottled water under fire. First introduced as ”Perrier water”, bottled water was so expensive it was only enjoyed by the rich and snooty and those that aspired to snootihood.

It was sold in green glass bottles and was even more money than pop. Everyone who was not in the ranks of the ridiculously rich, simply drank water from the tap. Then, suddenly, bottled water was everywhere. Convenient, portable, healthy, it created jobs, stimulated the economy. It was A Good Thing; the drink of choice for soccer moms and fitness Nazis everywhere. Then, just as suddenly, it became A Very Bad Thing. Bottle pollution. Waste of money. Governments and institutions banning it like it's liquid crack. In the markets, every time water falls and investors take a bath and workers are sent to the showers. People buy pop instead. Less guilt.

As if the bottled water suppliers are the only polluting, wasteful companies. Okay, so that doesn't make much sense. Maybe we can look at politics. Should be simple.

There are only three parties. My Guys, Your Guys and The Other Guys. When my guys are in power, they fumble along as best they can and have things dictated to them from the beaurocracy.

They blame everything bad on the Previous Guys. When Your Guy gets in, he also fumbles along as best he can being equally dictated to by the ever-present, all-powerful, all-seeing beurocracy. Your Guy blames everything on My Guy who was the Previous Guy and would sell his mother's soul to be the Next Guy. Sadly, between the fighting between all Those Guys, nobody ends up remembering it was Us Guys that voted all These Guys in.

Incredibly, all Those Guys get away with it because Us Guys let them. It could be because Us Guys don't actually get to vote for The Big Guy directly; the part that makes the least sense. Here's one more. It's from the sports pages. The names have been changed to protect the stupid. There's a team in a premier two-nation hockey league losing money like a drunken Chev plant at a casino. We'll call them the Flagstaff Wild-Dogs. They lose tens of millions per year because Arizona has a climate so hot, the only ice available is in glasses of scotch and bourbon. There's a Canadian, John Nutfunny, we'll call him, that wants to pay an obscene amount for the team and move it to where people are rabidly fanatical about hockey.

The league, however, would rather keep the team in Flagstaff losing millions rather than sell to this guy. They feel this billionaire businessman is “untrustworthy”. This begs a number of questions. Firstly, why would the league want to maintain a franchise where hockey rates in popularity somewhere below roller derby and belly bucking? Why would anyone smart enough to make a gazillion dollars in a different industry want to buy a business with the financial success of a crown corporation? If professional sports clubs lose money like they claim, why does Nutfunny want to own one and why is a failing franchise worth so much?

When has trustworthiness been a prerequisite for owning a hockey team? It didn't seem to be a rule for owners like Peter, Nelson And Bruce. The biggest question is, of course, how much sense does any of this make? The answer to that question is, “none”. Maybe the anti-news folks are onto something!