it's like...

....have you ever noticed that crop circles look like ancient, neolithic stone paintings?

makes you wonder.

well, there was something going on up on that knoll.

one of my favourite twists on the jfk story is this: what if somebody from the future actually came back in time and did it?

i mean, you've heard that question. would you go back in time to kill hitler to stop world war two, if you could?

maybe somebody actually did come back to stop world war three.

jfk was a dangerous idiot.

i don't know who killed him, buit whomever it was did the world a gigantic favour; we very plausibly might not be here today, had he won a second term.

jackie o, huh?

and, are we supposed to conclude that trudeau is secretly a philandering, drug addicted mafia stooge that needs to be removed from office before he blows up the world?

castro is rolling in his grave.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-trudeau-appoints-jacqueline-oneill-as-canadas-first-ambassador-for/

i mean, surely he could pick a better role model than the person that single-handedly came closer to blowing up the world than anybody else. ever. in history.

as an aside, i don't know what to make of an ambassador for "women and peace". seems like kind of an anachronism. i guess if we're going to have an anachronism, we should give it to jackie o.

i like democracy.

but, i think plato was right about getting rid of the family. it's an outdated institution that society should be trying to move away from.

the idea behind separating kids from their parents at the border - which i support, when ordered by the judicial system, which is the initial context we had before us - was to put them in foster care and/or get them medical treatment when they needed it.

i don't think that bringing a sick or abused or neglected kid to the border should be a way for an adult to get a visa into the country, and especially not if the parent's neglect or abuse is responsible for the child being sick. but, i don't think you turn away the sick kid, either. so, you separate them - and, despite the howls of progressives and conservatives, i don't think this is or should be a controversial policy. at all.

but, if you're going to take the kids away, as i think you should, then you need to make sure they're actually getting the help you're taking them away to receive, and not put in a holding cell for future reference.

the reality is that the demagogic response pushed by actors in the democratic party establishment, including over social media, is partly to blame for the situation that exists today. and, the trump administration has actually attempted to use this confusion to their advantage.

we need to stop thinking that we're all immigration judges, or are all able to make worthwhile legal decisions about very complicated cases based on our kneejerk gut reactions, or broadly unsophisticated moral prerogatives. this is not a situation for zealots or activists to step up and get involved in, but a situation where the judiciary needs to be able to do it's work free from political interference, which is only going to make things worse.

so, i fully support the judicial precedent that orders the separation of children from their parents when they are in need of medical care, or are determined to be better off in foster care, and i am not on the side of the socially conservative and/or religiously progressive groups that want to put an end to that practice in order to foster "family togetherness". the judiciary made this decision with the best interests of the child in mind, and it should be advanced in good faith.

i don't believe a word that justin trudeau says about pharmacare.

sorry.

you know, maybe i'm being paranoid, but sometimes i can't help but think i'm being followed around by the paparazzi or something when i'm grocery shopping, and they're looking to take a choice shot of me when i'm dressed down.

listen.

i shop on a bicycle, which is strenuous exercise - so i wear gym clothes, more or less literally. my wardrobe decision generally consists of taking pyjamas out of the dirty laundry and throwing them on, because i expect to come home sopping wet and sweaty (do you like that thought?), and then hop in the shower almost right away.

i know i'm not making any best-dressed lists. and, in context, i really don't give a fuck.

so, it's not even like you're catching jennifer aniston without doing her hair, or britney without her makeup or whatever else. you're literally catching a nobody on disability wearing dirty rags as they carry out the basic necessity of purchasing various arrangements of complex sugar molecules, in order to fuel their body's metabolic combustion processes.

and, if you really are following me around and judging me on what i am or am not wearing while i do this, you're worse than paparazzi. you're pathetic.

the basic truth is that most women don't do their hair to buy tomatoes, and the ones that do have extreme self-esteem problems.

and, i wonder: what would it feel like to be sexually undercut? and, that is an economic term, not a statement of violence, as violent as it may feel.

how would it feel to know you have to lower your price in order to compete with the corporate products?

and, you know that these companies are going to use tactics to undercut each other, too, as they establish market share and try to outcompete each other. every fifth handjob gets a free one. or, two for the price of one coupons.

and, when it's all said and done and you finally realize you can't compete, what does it feel like to give up and join the factory? to know you've been priced out? to know it's over and done?

to become an item on a menu?

"welcome to mcfucks. can i take your order please?"

yeah, i'll have, umm...wait, i missed early mornings, didn't i?

"yeah. we're doing the afternoon menu."

shit. i really wanted a before-morning-piss fuck.

"i think threesome queen does mornings until 2:00."

no. the drive thru line is always long, there. umm, can i just get a quickie, then?

"red or blonde?"

do you have brown?

"skin or hair."

both.

"yup. and, would you like anal with that?"

nah.

"that'll be $8.09. if you could drive to the next window to pick up the condom, and she'll meet you in row number three."

$8? fuck. it used to be $5.50.

"$5.47, actually. they just increased the minimum wage, so prices went up."

you're going to price me out.

"next window, please, sir."

this is maybe an open question that ought to be asked.

will the new new deal, be it green or otherwise, have a lender of last resort?

because it might just be a lot like the old deal of laissez-faire capitalism, if it doesn't.

so, did i support the bailouts?

yeah.

i mean, you know they were actually loans, right?

we talk about the new deal a lot. a very important part of the new deal was the construction of what is called a lender of last resort. because, you know what happens to all of your money if the bank it's in defaults, don't you? i guess you don't like that part of the new deal.

funny. a lot of farmers liked it.

i don't think that savings banks should be gambling other people's money. but, a lender of last resort was a very important new deal reform, and i would advise keeping it in tact in case you need it again in the future.

no, really.

make your next move to unveil your policies to promote competition on the market. go for it.

i guess we're waiting for your endorsement from the chamber of commerce, right?

or maybe your head's just stuck in your ass.

they have a name for people that support government social services for the poor (generally administered by religious groups) and insist on free markets in the private sector.

these people are called conservatives.

if you actually believe in socialism, that means you support socialism for everybody - including multinational corporations.

a socialist system is a holistic whole. it doesn't make sense to fund social security and medicare, then tell companies they need to compete over who can make the best car, and all you're going to do is threaten your social services if you insist on maintaining competitive business practices.

so, yes, i support socialism for corporations. i support socialism for everybody.

i guess you don't - because you're not really a socialist, are you?

would i ever?

i'd beat the shit out of you if you proposed it.

my honest assessment?

if you want a reward, you need to take a risk.

so, when you say "prostitution is just like any other job", the fact is that you're right.

but, you may want to be careful what you wish for.

the economic system that we live in will not provide for this in the way you're imagining.

it will reduce you to a wage slave.

that is reality.

i'm sorry.

maybe, one day, when we have communism, it might make sense to talk about this.

but, legalizing prostitution in a late capitalist society will lead to the virtual and literal enslavement of thousands upon thousands of people.

it would be a human catastrophe on a scale unknown in the modern era.

it's not that i'm going to argue with a "sex worker" that they don't own their body or they shouldn't have control over it, it's that i'm going to point out very strenuously that if they think that legalizing prostitution will give them more control over their labour rather than less control over it then they simply don't understand the reality of commodity capitalism very well.

i have said this over and over again, and i'll say it again: the legalization of prostitution will result in the reduction of prostitution to salaried wage work, at a minimum wage. being a prostitute will become just like getting a job at mcdonald's. you'll need an interview with a boss, and potentially a uniform picked out by the company. you'll report for a shift work in your room, and if you're lucky you'll get paid overtime. and, then, you'll probably want a job at mcdonald's, instead.

if you want to maintain control over your body and your labour, you want to find ways to inflate the price of your service, which means keeping it scarce, and on a black market.

the people that actually benefit from legalization are not the prostitutes, but the johns - and the pimps. and, the ancap fantasy reality that suggests otherwise is not any kind of meaningful feminism, but just another utopian application of market theory that anybody with any basic sense should be able to see through pretty clearly. when you increase the supply of something, while keeping the demand steady, you collapse the price. and, when you open the industry up to corporatization, the result is that independent contractors have little option but to become salaried employees of a capitalist class that then takes control. you don't get the choice, either; the market forces you into accepting a wage.

that is capitalism. your ancap free market fantasy reality is not.

so, my argument is that you don't understand economics very well, and need to rethink what you're proposing in order to get what you want. what i'm not doing is arguing with you about what you want, or questioning your agency in how to get there.

if you want more freedom over your body and what you claim to be your work, legalization is the last thing in the world that you want; it will give you the exact opposite of that, and play directly into the hands of the people you're trying to protect yourself from.