i understand that there is some plausible deniability around the tuskegee experiment, and it has even been Officially Debunked By The Internet.

but, the story around tuskegee has changed over time, and the denials should not be taken absolutely.

the story of experimentation in guatemala doesn't have the same plausible deniability attached to it. or, at least not yet. and, you should ask the question: if you believe they did it in guatemala, why don't you believe they did it in alabama?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/08/guatemala-victims-us-syphilis-study

there is a caveat, and that has to do with foreign aid work. if i were an african, i might be queasy about letting some aid worker from some american foundation put something in my arm - because there's an unfortunate history around eugenics. the issue here isn't around the safety of vaccines, but around what is actually being injected.

even in the united states, there's the tuskegee experiment, where they injected blacks with syphilis. this is something that happened, and it can't be completely dismissed when making decisions.

but, regular school vaccinations should be mandatory.

i have no patience for anti-vaxxers, whatsoever.

see, if i were writing the laws, i'd spin the situation around: refusing to vaccionate your children would be considered child abuse, and grounds to place a child in foster care.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4957561/teens-vaccines-canada-consent-rules/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=Outbrain&utm_campaign=2015

in evolution, there are winners and losers. why should government pick and choose?

these endangered species just couldn't compete on the market, and should be let to fail.

there's more than sarcasm, here. one must remember that the malthuses of their day were influenced more by market economics than darwinian selection, and that attempting to apply market theory to biology has led to some of the worst human rights disasters in human history.

ford is entering a very dangerous space with this.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/01/18/news/doug-ford-reviewing-endangered-species-act-find-efficiencies-businesses

also: the secondhand smoke is back.

gross.

i'm going to have to take a hot shower, put the fan back on and determine what my next step is.

the discourse is just a confusing mess.

the right claims that the point of a carbon tax is not to fight climate change but to raise revenue, and in a sense they're right. but, given that we have a structural deficit caused by undertaxation, i'm willing to support the thing on those grounds, nonethelesss.

but, it does not change the need for an infrastructure-driven carbon transition plan.

see, in the context of a province that won't tax businesses at a reasonable rate, i'll welcome the revenue from a provincial carbon tax - even if its less than they would have pulled in from california, by selling these phony licenses to pollute to them.

but, this should not in any way be confused for or misconstrued as a meaningful climate change policy.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/02/12/news/doug-fords-government-just-proposed-plan-looks-lot-carbon-tax

that's right: our corporate tax rates are too low, which has created a structural deficit. but, it's only a problem if you don't understand how government accounting operates.

the best thing to do would be to roll out infrastructure spending to boost tax revenue.

but, we're stuck in a race to the bottom, and held hostage by an ideologically backwards approach to governing that thinks that government is the problem in society.

a rational person might see a report like this as an argument that austerity in this province is already at a breaking point. but, the government is likely to interpret it as a green light to sell off public assets, because they don't actually care about fiscal deficits in the first place - it's just smoke and mirrors for a pro-market agenda.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2019/02/14/doug-ford-vows-to-find-waste-after-financial-watchdog-warns-theres-little-to-cut_a_23669935/

i don't want to have a debate about "combatants" v "non-combatants" either, as though that makes some kind of difference.

you don't have to pick up a gun to provide material support to a terrorist group; mothering more fighters is an act of material support.

and, we cannot even have a debate over whether we can tolerate this or not.

they should clearly be sent directly to jail with no chance of parole, and no debate on the topic is reasonable.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isis-canadians-syria-prosecutions-1.5019971

doug ford: wasting money on chasing the jobs of yesterday. he'll line up at centre field to fight against chronos and win! let's all get together and turn back the clocks.

again: what an embarrassing doofus.

it's 2019. the combustion engine is dead. that money would be better spent retooling factories for renewable energy production.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/doug-ford-announces-40m-for-ontario-auto-sector-plan-1.4297180