this lisa mcleod character is really demonstrating herself to be horrifically incompetent, and this is a good example of the kind of idiocy that one expects from a conservative government in this country. they don't even operate under a right-wing ideology, they're just openly nihilistic and destructive.

autism is a lifelong problem. and, yes - it's expensive. but, that's exactly why it needs to be socialized; it's the perfect example of when a government should step in, according to any conservative ideology i've ever read. if you were to ask any conservative philosopher that's ever existed what a government should actually do, "take care of autistic people" would be in the list of core responsibilities, along with jailing poor people and conquering savages in order to steal their resources.

the reason is that it's a full time job for whomever has to do it. if you force a family into this role, you're completely eliminating any ability they have to be self-sufficient. if it's a two income family, it becomes a one income family; if it's a one income family, it ends up reliant on some kind of assistance. so, any economist will tell you that the consequences of trying to save money like this are just going to end up costing you more.

but, beyond that, there's a human element to this. having an autistic child in a society without a social support system is a brutal life sentence. what is the argument? god's will? it's so pathetically backwards...

and, for what? an accounting identity?

there's no question that previous governments have underfunded the system. but, what lisa mcleod is doing with this is not how an advanced civilization deals with a complex social problem, it's how barbarians cull the weak.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/autism-services-funding-parents-react-1.5010316

we imprisoned these people here - in the middle of nowhere, with no way in or out, no economy, no future.

we can let them out, if we want.

ok.

so, it seems like cory booker is a black democrat (tm), whereas kamala harris just a democrat who happens to be dark-skinned.

it's too early, still. but, harris - a californian elitist - may have a hard-time competing with a guy that knows how to sing in the choir; don't be surprised if she's actually barely competitive in the south. the flip side is that harris may end up destroying booker in the bigger liberal cities like chicago, new york, detroit.

the left's chance to capitalize on this may rely on harris' ability to cut deeply enough into booker's lead in the south, to force him into what are pyrrhic victories, while having no chance of winning, herself.

i know the media likes her chances, but she's dominated. if she ends up with booker running strong in the south, and a left liberal running strong in the north, she gets squeezed out.

i guess her best chance is to try to run as the leftist candidate. that might not be believable on it's face, but if the left doesn't show up, that's her path.

booker, meanwhile needs to stop her from killing them both off.

the south may surprise me, though. i know that the demographics are changing, and the traditional church circuit is becoming less important. i couldn't imagine that this is the election where urban secularism finally overpowers the black church, but it could expose some weaknesses. the best case scenario is probably that it just hopelessly splits the vote for both of them.

i don't expect warren to make it iowa. and i don't expect biden to actually run.

lol.

it doesn't matter what's true, right?

https://www.rt.com/news/450925-pompeo-america-obligated-fights-iran-venezuela/

i'm going to reiterate what i just said: the federal liberals seem to be very close-minded when it comes to policy discussions around immigration.

that's not going to serve them well.

it already hasn't.

this sounds like a technologically-driven, rational way to deal with skills shortages without allowing the culture to be overrun with labour surpluses. it has some obvious potential for abuse, but i've been clear that i think the problem we're having is that we're relying too much on market theory, and not doing enough planning. so, this sounds like the right change in approach, at least.

and, of course, such a program could and should be used to prioritize local employment needs over immigration.

the caveat is that this is quebec, where they often come up with superior ideas and then fudge the implementation. but, let's hope they get it right - because it sounds like it could be a model to be exported.

i would like to see the feds listen and react, and they do tend to be more open to different ideas from quebec, for obvious electoral reasons, rather than condemn and attack in a manner that is both tone deaf and counterproductive. the 20th century model of immigration does need to change with the technology, and adjust to differing immigration pushes and pulls.

this sounds so simple and obvious that it just might work.....

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/coalition-avenir-quebec-immigration-bill-1.5009402