I have been sitting on something for a few weeks now, letting it percolate and permeate through my brain. At first I ignored it. Then it began to grow, like Athletes foot.
I am talking about our helmet-haired leader and his reference to “committing sociology.”
What does that mean?
I think I committed sociology once, but I’m not sure. Is it dangerous, to approach things from a sociological viewpoint? To believe that human behaviour does not occur in a vacuum, and that to influence human behaviour one must understand the root causes of the aforementioned behaviour? According to Mr. Harper, it is. We should all run around and attempt to curtail negative societal behaviours without even attempting to understanding what makes people tick. Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised. We do, after all, have the omnibus crime bill to show how little Harper regards or understands sociological issues.
The blind stupidity of disregarding an important social science aside, what really gets my goat is the sheer stupidity of the comment itself. It brought me right back to the days of George “Dubya” Bush and his infamous Bushisms. Is this really what we have going for us as our leader right now? A man who has completely lost all touch with his first language? A man who, instead of seriously approaching an important issue makes light of a fellow politicians attempt to seriously address it? A man who can’t even coherently phrase his jabs in any way that makes sense? At least Dubya had a down-home appeal, a persona with whom one would enjoy sharing a beer. If I ran into Harper in a bar I would desperately look for the robot’s off switch so I could avoid having a conversation with it.
Is it too much to ask that our leader consider what he says before he says it, and ensures that it makes sense? I don’t think so, but then again I would probably make the shittiest politician in history. Perhaps if I committed less sociology and more grammar idiocy I would be more in the ballpark.
—
Brett Geisel is a Winnipeg-based writer for Spectator Tribune.