“The government should be run like a great American company."

it's hard to make sense of what this means.

if taken literally, he would mean that the purpose of government is to maximize profit. which means what, exactly? we know they don't like tax increases.

i suppose the shareholders of the government are the people that own the debt. so, is he saying that government should be operated in such a way that maximizes return on debt? is he working for the chinese?

i had this problem with harper. half of the time, i couldn't even criticize him, because i couldn't understand what the fuck he was even trying to say.

there is no way to make sense of that statement. governments are not like businesses.

let's try a few comparable statements:

"the army should be run like a broadway musical."

maybe you like broadway musicals. but, how do you run the army like a broadway musical? this is incoherent.

or, how about this:

"this popsicle stand should be run like a world class science lab."

what?

ok. i'm done with the budget. the rest of it is accounting bullshit.

like i say: it's a weird document. it's full of blatantly dishonest language, and appears designed to mobilize untraditional segments of liberal party support at the expense of it's traditional base.

but, i hope i've decoded bits of it.

the issue over the next year may come out of right-field as financial deregulation. this was not discussed by anybody in the last election. it wasn't even an issue at all. the conservatives will support deregulatory legislation, but they wouldn't touch it when in power. let's hope the ndp picks up on it and reacts to it.

yeah. that's deregulation.

keep an eye on this.

in fact, the stability of canada's banking system was cited far and wide. we had no bank failures.

this strikes me as typically orwellian language from this government. i would keep an eye on this, as i suspect they are planning on deregulating, and packaging it in an obfuscating way designed to confuse us.

this is some good news, and it follows after a bit of an uproar regarding following through with an arms deal to saudi arabia that was signed by the previous government.

it remains to be seen if we'll uphold the commitments. but at least we're signing it. that's a good thing.

more haitian slave-labour!

i guess this is what they mean when they say they want to help under-represented groups find low-wage jobs?

don't buy shit from haiti...

i'll admit i may be misunderstanding this, but it looks to me like they're budgeting millions of dollars to spy on potheads.

but, trust them. they're not planning a harsh crackdown. nooooo. that's not why they're budgeting millions to spy on potheads.

it's so they can legalize it afterwards.

obviously, right?

ugh.

wake up: they're trying to smoke you out so they can cuff you.

mr. feminist prime minister...

ask your mom how she knows she's bipolar. what is the diagnosis based upon?

did they give her a blood test and measure hormone levels?
were they able to identify an area in her brain that was behaving a specific way?

or was it based on the results of an opinion survey, and the intuition of the wise magician?

whatever it is, it's not science.

what we actually need is a crackdown on psychiatrists, and an insistence from the state that they base their diagnoses on biological determinants if they are to receive funding. we need greater regulation in the sector to ensure people aren't being taken in.

this is a fiasco on multiple levels.

why is he doing this? because his mom blames the obvious ramifications of being arranged to wed an old man on a mental illness. i would rather suggest that any other outcome would have been absurd, and margaret was likely of sound mental health the whole time. instead of blaming her behaviour on a mental illness, we may want to have a second look at the practice of betrothing teenagers to old men. the people trying to argue that she was suffering from an illness should be ashamed of themselves. where's mr. feminist when the topic is the patriarchy attacking his mother's character? i mean, what was she diagnosed with, anyways? hysteria?

my own experiences with "mental health" professionals is that they're a bunch of con artists. i've been over this in this space. they do not provide for objective tests. most of the so-called conditions that they diagnose can never be confirmed or falsified. broadly speaking, they're not even wrong.

psychology, as a science, is a useful thing to fund. it examines the effects of brain chemistry, and does experiments that use the scientific method. you get no such thing by funding "mental health". you get a bunch of magicians, many of whom are pushing dangerous drugs for personal profit.

rather than increase funds for "mental health", i'd rather see the system liberalized to better pursue the concepts of free will and individual choice. as a random example, i'm a transgendered person who will probably never get through the psychiatric component of the transition. but, i don't think i need better access to a psychiatrist; i think the requirements that i speak with a shrink should be waved.

worse, he's overstepping his bounds on this.

the provinces may think it's a good idea to shrug this off, but they're setting a terrible precedent. everything else aside, including how useful these funds would be if spent on something useful, the provinces need to send the message that the pmo doesn't allocate health monies.

even if i agreed with the allocation, i would reject the interference.

this is an abuse of power and should be called out as one.

the housing bit is probably the only real upside of this budget that i can see and i just want to put in a little context regarding the framing...

the most substantial pushback that the government got on the refugee resettlement was always that it didn't make sense to bring in and house refugees when you've got homeless people on the street and indigenous groups living in third world conditions. how do you explain to these homeless people on lists that the government is bringing in refugees, they're higher priority and you'll just have to wait? and, how can you expect that not to generate racialized resentment, and not just amongst the people that got passed over but also amongst observers, passive and not so?

it's good that they listened on this file.

but, will it actually happen?

wow. lol...

for the 800th time, i would never call myself a "progressive".

i'm a libertarian. true libertarianism is socialism. i'll pick liberals over progressives - who i consider to be conservatives - every time. i'd prefer a socialist, if i can get one....

so, if i ever vote for a "progressive", it's out of cynicism and a poor spectrum. as far as i'm concerned, progressives are just conservatives with a conscience - and i see no issue with using terms like "progressive" and "tory" interchangeably.

i'm certainly never going to go out and organize with them.