nafta was the absolute last thing that the elder trudeau set in motion before he was forced to resign (the open secret in canada is that reagan was convinced he was a communist and forced him to step down over his opposition to missile defence). he set up a commission in the last months of his rule - called the macdonald commission, as it was head by a liberal bureaucrat called donald macdonald (condolences for the name.) - that recommended that canada aggressively seek a new reciprocity deal with the united states.

trudeau himself was picking up the legacy of wilfrid laurier, who was his biggest ideological influence in governing.

the macdonald commission's report was eventually picked up by the next elected prime minister (brian mulroney), who tends to be the popular face of free trade in canada. but, this was continuity: he was carrying forward with something that trudeau put in motion.

the immensely superior bilateral fta was signed first, and then nafta superseded it afterwards. it was jean chretien that signed nafta, but he was clear that he felt he had no choice. the elder trudeau was vociferously opposed to all of this, as he felt that what mulroney came up with was the literal opposite thing of what he intended.

the liberals in general - not just the elder trudeau -  presented a large number of very cogent criticisms of the fta and then nafta through the 80s and early 90s, while maintaining support for actual reciprocity. most of what they said has proven rather prophetic, although they weren't ever able to find a way out of what mulroney left around our collective necks.

nobody expected that trudeau would be his father. but, it would be nice if his handlers would at least bother to read what he wrote about free trade with the united states, as it is quite lengthy and rather insightful.

as it is, trudeau 2.0 is under serious threat of going down in history as mulroney the younger.

https://www.workers.org/marcy/cd/samnafta/nafta/nafta02.htm

what's starting to unfold is that the trudeau government is going to sell out certain industries in exchange for further investment rights, which will lead to further job losses, a further decrease in the standard of living, further cuts to services, further environmental degradation and a general attack on the working class, in exchange for higher profits for trust fund babies and other people reliant on hedge funds.

and, nobody should have expected anything different.

given that all that the government cares about is alberta anyways, why don't we try this: if we abolish nafta, they'll get a market price for oil, which will negate the need to export to asia. that would be good for them....

it's really not an agreement that gives us much, besides rights to invest. and, what's unfolding is starting to look like theatre.

what trump is really doing is characteristic - he's tilting at windmills with this, by threatening us with something that's in our own interests, to begin with - because he doesn't remotely understand what he's talking about. the business press is aligning with their class interests.

but, speaking of emperors with no clothes...

and, i've said this over and over again: we should have offered to pull out in exchange for concessions. we can throw this deal in the trash overnight; we don't have to go through congress.

but, what trump wants is to extract concessions, so he's trying to build "leverage". that's not a negotiation amongst equals, it's a threat from an imperialist tyrant.

and, we need to straight up tell him to fuck off.

let's throw their imports in the sea.

abolishing nafta is generally expected to make a different of about .2% of gdp, or something.

the reason is twofold:

1) nafta is not a free trade agreement.
2) abolishing nafta would not erect any tariffs (with the united states.), because that's been dealt with through various bilateral agreements, and the wto.

so, this idea that tearing down nafta is going to create a trade barrier between canada and the united states is just wrong. that barrier was removed long before nafta. and, nafta was not about removing barriers anyways - it was about creating rights for investors.

what abolishing nafta would harm would be people with large investments in the united states. we're talking about a very small bourgeois upper class that trudeau belongs to.

but who cares about them?

it can be calculated how often a broken clock is wrong - and then accurately predicted.

and, one of the few things that harper did that i thought was quite positive was putting more money into local greenhouses for the purposes of food sovereignty. he made this a priority. surprising, but welcome.

this is a sustainable future: automated local food production in greenhouses, using aquaculture rather than pesticides.

there is no future in continuing to ship all this food in from the south at such great environmental costs.

don't believe the reports arguing that nafta termination will cost jobs.

in the short run, it will certainly lead to job losses, as export markets dry up. but, what it would really lead to in the end is a reorganization, as domestic markets further open up. and, this is an issue where the trade deficit is actually relevant, because it is a rough measure of the amount of jobs that can be created by increasing local consumption.

here in ontario, we'd lose jobs in the export industries, like softwood. but, we'd gain jobs in agriculture and services.

but, the environment is more important than jobs. and, that's basically the argument i'd throw out there: we should be doing whatever we can to try and localize production, so we're not wasting so much carbon unnecessarily shipping things around all over the place to undercut labour markets.

anything that stops us from burning all this carbon shipping all this food in from california and mexico is a good thing.

but, it's also worth noting that cancelling nafta is not an end but a means to an end, that end being the much preferable option of a bilateral treaty with the united states, and something less than that with mexico.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/02/like-isis-thomas-more-believed-passionately-in-burning-people-alive/

they made me read thomas more in high school, and i just remember thinking he was a douche.

"but my laws come to me from god."

i know that a lot of americans will turn into bleeding hearts when they hear this, and bleed all over everybody as they fall down convulsing. it's a match point for a certain group of people.

i'm going to ask you to think about it.

because, is the premise of democracy not that we can make our own laws?

and, if so, is this attitude not fundamentally incompatible with democracy - and something that should be resisted immediately, torn out at the root, rather than accommodated for in the name of 'tolerance'?

i'll say it again: we cannot tolerate the intolerant. and, the idea that laws are made by gods - and not by humans - is at the absolute root of intolerance. it's not an argument that should be validated by the court.

and, so i would actually take some pleasure in watching the judge strike down her gavel.

where's your god now?

i've been clear that i don't think that 'religious freedom' should be a charter right. putting religious freedom in the charter is the biggest error that pierre trudeau made, while in office. i believe this is attributable to that asshole, lougheed. it's become a loophole to escape the rule of law, and get special treatment for trivial reasons.

i believe in one law for everybody.

sorry.

that said, the judicial system in canada tends to lean the other way. and, that's something that the majority ought to be fighting to change, ourselves.

like i say: i think it's a triviality. i don't care if people wear hijabs or baseball hats in court. or sweat pants. or miniskirts.

but, i would expect consistency, one way or the other.

and, there's an entirely valid argument that the hijab is just not appropriate attire.

if, in the end, the judicial system rules that hijabs are allowed in court, they'd have to rule that baseball hats are, too.

and, you might be careful what you wish for.

i understand that people come from different cultures and accept different norms and even different legal standards.

but, in a democracy, you're not supposed to be able to say "i have different beliefs, so the rules don't apply to me.".

the rules need to apply to everybody the same way - regardless of their culture or beliefs.

but, in a democracy, we can also change the rules, if we can generate enough popular support to do so. and, this would be the task ahead of religious muslims.

but, it's a difficult battle, up hill.

and, i'm certainly not on their side, on this.

...although i don't care what you wear in your private life.

i'm willing to accept the argument that this is inappropriate attire for court.

but, what the judge would need to demonstrate is a consistent approach - that she didn't single the hijab out for special treatment.

and, is a hijab inappropriate attire in court? i wouldn't make the case too strenuously. but, i wouldn't argue against it too strenuously, either.

i think i'd like to hear arguments on it.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4050966/quebec-judge-who-refused-to-hear-woman-in-hijab-loses-appeal-to-quash-investigation/

i would advise that they spend their time doing something else.

there's clearly multiple people down there smoking.

but, they couldn't fit enough people in the room to overpower the cold air pushing down from 6 wide open bay windows, 24/7. and, they'd choke to death, if they were to try.

if there's any damage done to the floor, it will be from the smoke, not the temperature.

so, it's no surprise that the crackheads downstairs aren't good at physics.

i have enough of the holes patched that i'm clear-headed enough that i'm getting some work done; if i've been a little slow the last few days, it's more that i've been distracted, and partly by the need to patch holes..

so, here's how the physics with this works.

so long as it's relatively cool out, opening the window above a smoker will flush the cold air downwards. further, the smoke will escape out the window.

the end result is that i get fresh air, and they get cold. perhaps very cold. but, i can't care, so long as they're blowing smoke through the electrical fixtures in an obvious attempt to piss me off.

i'm perfectly happy to sit here in a sweater with the windows open for the next month. the air in here is clear enough, right now, and just going to clear out further, as i patch up more and more holes.

and, the more i'm annoyed the colder it will get downstairs.

that said, the maintenance person should be here today to finish sanding the bedroom, at which point i can start smoke-proofing that space and moving things in, which will let me smoke-proof the larger space, next.

i don't feel like my time is being wasted, because i have to work this out, anyways. but, it's unclear to me why they're wasting their time with such obviously childish behaviour.

now, people will yell and scream at me for expressing this.

but, look at who is yelling and screaming at me.

no; do this - it's an excellent exercise in independent, critical thinking.

why are these specific people making these specific criticisms? why are they so upset about it? why are they reacting with vitriol instead of logic?

the best way to get rid of this nonsense is to read a history book.

what you will learn is that everybody enslaves and slaughters everybody else, and these constructs you speak of only exist inside of your mind - because they were put there in order to control you.

now, if you're a black person arguing that white privilege exists, what you're doing is acknowledging your inferiority. and, yes - that does make you a white supremacist, as upholding your own inferiority is the same thing as upholding the white man's superiority.

i want to be clear: anybody that argues for the existence of white privilege is a racist, and needs to be smashed.

that is the definition of being a racist.

white privilege = white supremacism. so, arguing that white privilege exists is the same thing as being a white supremacist.

all the fancy language is just meant to confuse and brainwash you into upholding the status quo.

see, and the more you don't get it, the more he was right.

that's the orwell-turing thesis.

nononono.

you don't get it.

see, if orwell was right, you'd never know it.

because you're a fucking idiot. which was his actual point.

me, though, i'm smart, so i have to explain it to you.

but you're still not going to get it...

and, of course, the people that call themselves leftists are broadly anything but.

what's an anarchist to do, besides point it out from a distance and hope they don't get crucified?

it's exactly what orwell taught us.

the people we call feminists are out there enforcing patriarchy.

the people we call secularists are out there enforcing religion.

and, the people we call anti-racists are out there enforcing white supremacism.

and, they're all cops.

what those posters are teaching kids is that a racial hierarchy exists, and that they will need to adapt to their correct place within it.

the people that did the actual postering are no doubt completely brainwashed, and at little fault. and, you can't argue with people that are under the control of these methods, either.

what this is is a psy-op. it's an evolution of the tools that people like edward bernays invented a hundred years ago. and, if they have their way, we will all be placed in our right places, in this neo-burkean structure - with white people as rulers, and everybody else as slaves.

so, i don't see any difference between putting up a sign that asks white people to acknowledge their privilege and putting up a sign that asks white people to acknowledge their superiority - and black people to acknowledge their inferiority.

so, when i say this is racist, i don't mean "reverse racism".

this is systemic racism.

this is white supremacism.

it follows that when i deny white privilege, i am denying white superiority, and fighting against systemic racism.

but, our ignorance is our strength, today.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/racism-campaign-school-district-74-1.4566779

so, i expect that protective services are on their way to take these kids out of the abusive environment they're living in....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/harrow-mom-walk-school-sign-bus-1.4568266

have another drink, rachel.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-throne-speech-2018-1.4567873

so, we're 15 years from fusion, huh?

lol.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/09/nuclear-fusion-on-brink-of-being-realised-say-mit-scientists

(i know the history of forced secularization, and will only remind you that i've strenuously argued that forced secularization doesn't work and should be avoided for that reason.)

you gotta be careful when you see something like this at the washington post.

but, this is where my solidarity lies - in principle.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/women-in-iran-are-pulling-off-their-headscarves--and-hoping-for-a-turning-point/2018/03/08/bb238a96-217c-11e8-946c-9420060cb7bd_story.html

so, what are all the countries that obama lost?

- russia [who, up until mid mandate, sought a reset and friendship]
- iran
- india
- pakistan
- iraq
- afghanistan

and, which countries are in the process of being lost as a consequence of obama's lingering policy influence?

- turkey
- japan
- south korea
- germany

what did he gain?

- ukraine
- libya

these are serious losses that historians will need to seriously account for.

it's true that he was handed a difficult plate.

but, regardless, obama was really a historically poor president. his economic policies were outstanding, but his foreign policy legacy was merely to accelerate the collapse created by bush. his major error was letting hillary take control of the state department; in the end, he was outsmarted by putin over and over again. and, he really left little domestic legislation that will survive the current administration, with perhaps the sole exception being the heritage foundation's health care plan - which is what the republicans always wanted, anyways.

i've said this before: look at a list of presidents from the second half of the nineteenth century.

you can't name anything they did, can you?

that's obamas future.

...except that he will be remembered for setting various things in motion, that will lead to the collapse of american hegemony.

those sanctions on russia will be remembered for time immemorial as one of the worst foreign policy blunders in the history of the world - on par with french armies starving in the russian winter, or germany foolishly overextending itself deep into the russian steppes.

i really wish that websites would stop pushing video and podcasts - or at least provide transcripts for people that would rather read than watch.

it just takes ten times as long to watch a video or listen to the audio of something than it does to read a transcript of the same thing.

we don't need to change the senate.

we need to change the prime minister.

under the smoke and mirrors, the truth is quite clearly this:

justin trudeau is an ideological conservative.

that's the reason that nothing seems to make sense.

like obama before him, he's batting for the other side.

on it's face, this is a level of incompetence that has not been seen in any western democracy. ever. it brings up memories of incompetent boy kings, or monarchs gone mad with power. and, this is the real lesson, here - we need to stop underestimating the threat inherent to electing the children of former leaders.

what trudeau has done to the senate is exactly the kind of thing that democracy was supposed to make impossible.

if the liberals won't accept the independent group (which is absurd.), then the liberal rump needs to join the independent group and take control of the chamber, already.

can we get the senate to arrange itself in a way that the majority controls the committees?

i'm still convinced that this is a ploy by the liberals to avoid passing the legislation - which they never intended to pass. but, the way the senate exists right now is really nothing short of retarded.

how can the government sit there and allow the opposition to control the senate, when it has a majority in the chamber? it's beyond absurd, it's contempt. is it even unconstitutional? is it grounds to remove the prime minister from power?

the liberals have a majority in the senate.

this is a cruel joke....

(this link is paywalled)
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/senate-adds-new-delay-to-ottawas-cannabis-legalization-plan/article38227907/

....and is available for free here: