the reason chretien signed nafta in the first place - despite campaigning against it - was that he realized that a bad deal was better than no deal, and he was right, at the time - because the deal included mexico, and we couldn't be left out of it (they'd have taken everything from us).

now, we're talking about making an already very bad deal an even worse deal. and, it still might be right that making a very bad deal an even worse deal is still better than there being no deal, if that bad deal still includes mexico.

but, there comes a point where that doesn't hold any more and you have to say "enough".

i'd be leaning towards slippery slop arguments on this, and arguing that we can't let it continue to slide, negotiation over negotiation.

what we want is a bilateral deal, whether the prime minister understands it or not.

when we shut down the institutions - the "asylums" - it was partly under the argument that these people would be better off if taken care of by their families. you'll hear thatcherites talk about the responsibility of the family, but i don't think that idea would have gotten traction in canada if not for the underlying idea that it is their parents that can love and care for them the best. it was done in their perceived best interests...

i think that this conclusion needs to be revisited.

these kids are death sentences.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/whitecoat/i-can-t-continue-to-do-this-forever-families-with-children-aging-out-of-care-seek-answers-1.4707909

i'm just in favour of dogs being bred solely for cuteness & docile companionship.

so, everybody that wants a dog should have a golden retriever. goldens for all, even.

i'm not being remotely sarcastic. i don't at all understand why anybody would want this scary, dirty thing to have to deal with when you can have something cute & cuddly, instead. it's just irrational to me. really.

fwiw.

the marijuana issue over the last few days has been largely reduced to smell - partly because i've taken the proper steps to deal with it. as best i can. but, tonight i have a headache deep in my eye sockets, and i suspect it's related to the second-hand smoke.

i mean, if your idea of "having a life" is working a 9 hour night shift and then going home and smoking an ounce of pot during the daylight hours, or waking up at 6 am and drinking and chain smoking until you pass out at 8 pm, then that's a very sad reflection on yourself and a very sad reflection on society, as a whole.

these are people that do not have lives worth living at all, which is perhaps why they need to numb it with substance abuse. that's very sad and all.

but, i have every right to demand that their destructive habits don't affect my own life, or the ability to accomplish the goals and tasks i've set myself to accomplish within it.

so, i'm trying to stay awake and be productive in building my period discs, and my neighbours are sitting around getting shitfaced and blowing all kinds of smoke at me, and i'm the one that needs to get a life.

right.

typical.

generally, you tell drug addicts to get a life, not people complaining about drug addicts affecting their quality of life - because i have a life to be concerned about the quality of, and they apparently don't.

that's the whole point.

not only did wynne not pick up increasingly sparse red tory support, but she lost her own base trying to do it.

if there's a broader structural lesson from the election, it may be that it's the evaporation of the clark swing. this was something that was easy to see coming, eventually.

...which means that liberals should stop trying to appeal to "progressive conservatives"; they no longer exist.