see, this is a typically bizarre story by the tory media in canada, who seem to have no concept of the national interest at all.

it is falling all over itself to ensure that the government of ontario cede it's sovereignty to a nafta kangaroo court and pay out $30 million of taxpayer money to a consortium of foreign investors for the crime of cancelling an unnecessary project. it even goes so far as to suggest this is not the right time to challenge whether nafta is working "as it should".

it's absurd.

i will agree that this is, in fact, nafta working "as it should" - and that it is a catastrophe. if the tory media had any concept of a canadian national interest, it would cite the case as an example of what is wrong with nafta and what needs to be removed from the agreement. i would like to see ontario take a stand, here, and demand that the federal government revisit chapter 11 in any upcoming renegotiations. these parasites don't deserve a fucking dime.

but, apparently, it's more interested in writing blank cheques to wall street bankers, at the expense of our treasury.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/us-company-windstream-energy-sues-canada-for-28-million-in-nafta-case/article34104737/

i just want to clarify that i'm not exactly arguing against hiring illegals. i'm not taking a nativist or nationalist position here, i'm taking a socialist position that puts the rights of workers ahead of everything else..

so, what i'm saying is that if you're going to hire an illegal then you should pay them the same wages (relative to existing laws), give them the same benefits, etc.

but, when you assert the hiring pre-requisite of treating illegals and citizens equally, what happens is that the illegals lose their competitive advantage and things like language skills make the citizens more appealing.

if you actually put this equal playing field down, and stopped paying migrants less, you would see the demand for illegal labour dry up very quickly and the flow of migrants would essentially stop. but, the thing is that nobody actually wants this except the subclass of workers that is getting priced out - it doesn't fit the aims of capital (who always want to lower wages), and it doesn't fit the aim of the consumer class (who always want lower prices).

but, my position is not about building walls or shutting out the outside world. it's about enforcing labour regulations, and stopping the exploitation of migrant labour.

i was in general support of the refugee ban, but i oppose the deportation of illegal migrants.

the republicans tend to frequently make this error, because they focus so much on supply-side economics. a lot of what's wrong with how they think reduces to this simple error: you don't solve a problem by reducing the supply of a good, you solve it by attacking the demand for it.

consider the war on drugs. a massive failure, by any analysis. why? because they focused on reducing supply, rather than putting together social programs that restricted demand. and how fucking hard can it be to reduce demand for fucking heroin, anyways?

if this actually goes through, one of the effects is going to be an increase in human trafficking - because he's not doing anything to reduce the demand for cheap labour, which is what keeps them coming in.

i've been clear that i think they need to crack down on businesses that carry out illegal hiring practices and better enforce labour regulations. it's a very standard left-wing position.

but, i don't think anybody should get deported (unless they're a criminal). it doesn't accomplish anything, it's just empty draconianism.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/us/politics/dhs-immigration-trump.html

yeah. this is the moronic position that they're taking:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-mulroney-guajardo-freeland-1.3992043

(and, it's rich to hear mulroney call somebody else a loser - that's hypocrisy at it's finest)

you could see this coming from a thousand miles away: they're going to prioritize the public relations face on solidarity with mexicans on deportation orders (and the essentially non-existent relationship that canada has with mexico) over the economic bedrock of trade with the united states.

then, they'll attack opponents as racists.

...because, apparently, trudeau thinks he's running for re-election as the governor of california.

this government is stupid. it's not even ideological at this point. it's just a lack of basic intelligence.

they are actually, seriously, forfeiting the entire economy on a bet that they can get re-elected by standing up for migrant workers in california.

yes: they should throw mexico under the bus.

actually, i'd love to focus more on canadian topics, but our parliament tends to just waste all of it's time with symbolism and obstructionism. canadian politics doesn't really happen between elections, which are short, except around the week of the budget - and the reason is that the parties don't want to stimulate a discussion, they just want to obfuscate or deflect. maybe they could drop the debate on a symbolic motion on "islamophobia" and pick up something substantive?

anyways.

how am i doing?

i'm feeling a whole hell of a lot better. really.

i'm skipping this show tonight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMueDWG86JU

it's an experiential thing, solely. apparently, they follow the same algorithm every set, so once you've heard it once you've heard it all. and, while i'm sure i'd enjoy it, i'd rather stay in and nurse my remaining sickness.

the headache is gone. but, i've also had the windows open all day and will probably leave them open for the next several days. when my nose cleared enough this morning to regain a sense of smell, the first thing i noticed was that my apartment smells like stale smoke and that it may have been a part of the cause of my coughing fits.

i'm focusing right now on cycling the air out, which is going to mean an early spring cleaning. i want to focus on finding hidden sources of dust. i forgot to clean at all this month....

i've spent the last several days editing and watching vlogs, which are now being uploaded. i'm happy with this algorithm: a few hours to edit for the month, a few days to render, about six hours to watch them and then a few days to upload. then i'm not thinking about it for another month...

i've made some progress with the show reviews, but it's been slow due to distractions. i'm not particularly upset about this. but, i'd like to get over the hump tonight, too.

so, that's the last few days: necessary editing shit while nursing a cold, and being less productive than i could be due to distraction. hey, i read a few things. i'm not wasting time, i'm stretching it out.

a little reality check on where trudeau sits on the spectrum, eh?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/21/pruitt-to-epa-employees-we-dont-have-to-choose-between-jobs-and-the-environment/?tid=pm_business_pop

They neglected to mention that we do not live in that era any longer.

right. lol. sure we don't.

i don't know what it means to suggest that illegal immigrants have free speech rights. it's some kind of contradiction in terms. what being an illegal immigrant means is that you get deported as soon as anybody finds out. otherwise, you're not illegal.

i understand that the fourteenth amendment exists, and i'm not denying the importance of due process. but, at the end of the day, if you're illegal then you're illegal; due process means a judge throws you out of the country. and, an illegal still can't actually bring a case to trial - lest they end up deported, even if they win.

so, even if you want to take an abstract position that illegal immigrants have first amendment rights due to the fourteenth amendment, it's something that only exists on paper. the court would have to treat the issues as two different things. it might first rule on the first amendment issue and deduce that the dismissal is wrongful. but, it would then promptly deport the claimant. so, of what value is it?

it's consequently correct to argue that migrants don't have any legal rights to stand up for, because they'll get deported the moment they try to stand up for them. the actual substantive rights that migrants have are restricted to ensuring that they are treated humanely and get a fair trial in the process of being deported - and, as we can see, it's difficult to get the government to even observe these rights.

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/14/on_one_hand_obama_applauds_immigrant_activists_as_a_texas_case_argues_that_unauthorized_immigrants_have_no_first_amendment_rights/

the post of national security advisor has generally been held by academics. i may be wrong, but i've always understood the role as being meant to act as a counterweight to the military, which tends to think inside a bubble. that's the point of the nsa: to get outside the military bubble. why have a nsa at all, if they're coming from the pentagon? why not just consult the joint chiefs of staff?

but, i'm not even going to blame trump. bush couldn't have been much more informed, but the party knew to put in condy, and then hadley. like them or hate them, these are smart people. i mean, i don't like condy much, but i'm not going to insult her intelligence.

why is the republican party letting him flail in the wind like this?