i haven't rejected the wall due to the cost. if anything, the higher cost would be an asset to congress; this is the kind of thing they'll pay for, because it's contracted out. this is what lobbyists do. it was politically stupid for clinton to make this a fiscal issue; the cost is of no concern to much of anybody except a couple of right-wing blowhards. and, they can yell at the wall all day - nobody cares except for their circle jerk.
the reason i claimed that the wall doesn't make any sense is that it would restrict the flow of cheap labour, which nobody wants to do. i mean, surely you don't think that these mexican peasants are outsmarting the border guards? they're allowed to pass back and forth. it's the bedrock of the border economy, and of the agricultural industry. i can actually cite aviva chomsky on this; she wrote the book on it. briefly, the migrant population replaced slave labour in the areas it exists in and the process of managing the labour fell to the state. the border patrol is like an hr agency. this is extremely dark subject material....
so, if they cut the routes, you'd get massive levels of inflation. that's insane; all of the money in the region would push back. unless, of course, they have something better....
it didn't cross my mind until now that this whole push may be about replacing migrant workers with prison labour. i'm making deductions on speculations; a real journalist would be useful, here.
i guess it never crossed my mind because i wasn't taking him seriously until the last week of the election, when it became obvious that the big money was behind him. and, i haven't really done the reanalysis on a case-by-case basis.
if you want to get out ahead of me, the themes should be obvious. i'm sure there's a number of things that need to be understood differently when you realize that trump is the big money, establishment candidate. just....it's not a panacea. there will be things that still don't make any sense.
https://consumerist.com/2017/01/25/for-profit-prisons-could-see-boost-with-trumps-executive-order-to-open-new-detention-centers/
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
and, listen, i just want to be clear, if i haven't been: i didn't follow this guy in groupthink. i was critical, even as i endorsed him. but, i'm a small-l liberal. so, i'm not going to follow the garden path that the tory media has set out for me, or parrot the reactionaries at all.
i've already laid out my lines of criticism. i think i've been clear enough. i wish the ndp was a little closer to what i'm saying, but a lot of the issues that have come up are longstanding concerns that even partially underscore my apprehension about voting ndp (like pr...). if the narrative was about health care, i'd no doubt be following party lines a lot more closely. but, i've always leaned liberal on broad governance concerns. i don't want to abolish the senate or repeal the clarity act, either. the ndp has held to a number of these positions for a very long time that are not radical, but just foolish.
it would be easier if i had a party to identify with, but i have no problem blazing a path through the wilderness, either.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-trudeau-approval-history-1.3950007
i've already laid out my lines of criticism. i think i've been clear enough. i wish the ndp was a little closer to what i'm saying, but a lot of the issues that have come up are longstanding concerns that even partially underscore my apprehension about voting ndp (like pr...). if the narrative was about health care, i'd no doubt be following party lines a lot more closely. but, i've always leaned liberal on broad governance concerns. i don't want to abolish the senate or repeal the clarity act, either. the ndp has held to a number of these positions for a very long time that are not radical, but just foolish.
it would be easier if i had a party to identify with, but i have no problem blazing a path through the wilderness, either.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-trudeau-approval-history-1.3950007
at
18:26
but, there is of course an obvious way out of the inflationary pressures of the wall. and, if we are opening up nafta, i would like to request a concession for rules on country of origin: i want prison labour clearly marked, please.
at
17:20
so, how much are california strawberries going to cost if field labour is $15/hr?
it's a broken system all around, no doubt. nobody wants to maintain the existing system of virtual slave labour in california agriculture. but, the idea of cutting migrant labour off is so devastating as shock therapy that it remains inconceivable.
i never thought i'd say it, but it's a good thing that we inked that deal with europe. we may need it for food security.
and, the fact that nobody is even discussing the issue as one of food security is just astounding to me. it's not even in the list of debates. i mean, i get that it's something that the broad public isn't supposed to understand. but, they're kind of going to have to understand this, now, whether the producers and the politicians like it or not.
again: it's just inconceivable. i've asked for hard numbers on this and can't get them, but the price of food is bound to go up by something like 400-500% - and that's before the shortages hit. the idea that the government could purposefully promote a policy with that kind of consequence is impossible to comprehend.
you have to expect that this wall is going to have a lot of holes in it. and, check the funding for clues on this. if (when...) it comes in at a tenth of the expected cost, you'll be able to draw the obvious conclusions.
i still think that, at the end of the day, americans will believe a wall exists. and, hopefully, that's actually a blessing in disguise.
it's a broken system all around, no doubt. nobody wants to maintain the existing system of virtual slave labour in california agriculture. but, the idea of cutting migrant labour off is so devastating as shock therapy that it remains inconceivable.
i never thought i'd say it, but it's a good thing that we inked that deal with europe. we may need it for food security.
and, the fact that nobody is even discussing the issue as one of food security is just astounding to me. it's not even in the list of debates. i mean, i get that it's something that the broad public isn't supposed to understand. but, they're kind of going to have to understand this, now, whether the producers and the politicians like it or not.
again: it's just inconceivable. i've asked for hard numbers on this and can't get them, but the price of food is bound to go up by something like 400-500% - and that's before the shortages hit. the idea that the government could purposefully promote a policy with that kind of consequence is impossible to comprehend.
you have to expect that this wall is going to have a lot of holes in it. and, check the funding for clues on this. if (when...) it comes in at a tenth of the expected cost, you'll be able to draw the obvious conclusions.
i still think that, at the end of the day, americans will believe a wall exists. and, hopefully, that's actually a blessing in disguise.
at
16:19
fwiw, the window was only open for about an hour this morning and i don't currently plan to re-open it. we'll have to see, but right now it seems like it's ok....
this editing process was slowed down by a number of weird factors, but i should be back to posting within an hour or so. i just need to call my gp to book an appointment, presumably with an urologist.
this editing process was slowed down by a number of weird factors, but i should be back to posting within an hour or so. i just need to call my gp to book an appointment, presumably with an urologist.
at
12:14
what's with people in their late 30s, or even their 40s, self-identifying as millennials, anyways? pathetic...
if you were born in the 70s, you are not a millennial, and you should neither be pretending that you are nor that you speak for the younger generation. you're just a gen xer in a midlife crisis.
yes: mid-life. you're at mid-life. deal with it.
if you were born in the 70s, you are not a millennial, and you should neither be pretending that you are nor that you speak for the younger generation. you're just a gen xer in a midlife crisis.
yes: mid-life. you're at mid-life. deal with it.
at
09:46
this is more or less what i've been trying to say. nice to see it get picked up in the msm.
the globe is a red tory business daily that sits near the middle of the spectrum but is widely seen as centre-right. this isn't a left-wing site, and it is influential on an important readership in the banking sector.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/should-canada-scrap-nafta-and-seek-a-new-deal-with-trump/article33700860/
the globe is a red tory business daily that sits near the middle of the spectrum but is widely seen as centre-right. this isn't a left-wing site, and it is influential on an important readership in the banking sector.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/should-canada-scrap-nafta-and-seek-a-new-deal-with-trump/article33700860/
at
08:45
could a tariff finally be the kick china needs to focus on internal production?
he puts the model down: offshore production and bring it back for a working class that can pay for it. sure: putting a tariff in is going to cost a lot of people a lot of money.....if they just abort the production. but, might the chinese find that a move towards fordism is in their interests? and, if so, might a tariff actually have the effect of finalizing the shift in global production that wolff has spoken of previously?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vO3h3Geh48
he puts the model down: offshore production and bring it back for a working class that can pay for it. sure: putting a tariff in is going to cost a lot of people a lot of money.....if they just abort the production. but, might the chinese find that a move towards fordism is in their interests? and, if so, might a tariff actually have the effect of finalizing the shift in global production that wolff has spoken of previously?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vO3h3Geh48
at
08:07
this is worth watching, feigned naivete or not. but, it's not like anybody really thought differently to begin with. the power struggles in this region are actually very bare. nobody actually thinks the americans are there "to help" - except, perhaps, for americans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIoAN8GxD7E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIoAN8GxD7E
at
04:51
i'm a big advocate of tort law. and, i think that the solution to smokers rights v. non-smokers rights lies in shifting the burden to the smokers, themselves.
so, while i'm not really an advocate of laws that ban smoking, i am an advocate of adopting a "polluter-pays" approach to dealing with the externalities related to cigarette smoking. remember: i live in canada. so, i can support high taxes for cigarettes, but only under the argument that the money goes towards health care. what i'm talking about right now, though, is the question of what is to be done about tenant smoking, and finding ways to balance tenant rights for smokers and non-smokers.
i would both argue that smokers have the right to smoke and argue that non-smokers have the right to not smoke. the novel part of my argument is that i would argue that non-smokers should have the ability to hold smokers liable for costs incurred in smoke-proofing their buildings. for the practical example in front of me, i would argue that the smokers in the building should be held liable for the heating and electrical costs incurred as a consequence of me opening the window to neutralize their habits. if a cost is placed on their pollution, perhaps they'd think twice about causing these externalities.
so, while i'm not really an advocate of laws that ban smoking, i am an advocate of adopting a "polluter-pays" approach to dealing with the externalities related to cigarette smoking. remember: i live in canada. so, i can support high taxes for cigarettes, but only under the argument that the money goes towards health care. what i'm talking about right now, though, is the question of what is to be done about tenant smoking, and finding ways to balance tenant rights for smokers and non-smokers.
i would both argue that smokers have the right to smoke and argue that non-smokers have the right to not smoke. the novel part of my argument is that i would argue that non-smokers should have the ability to hold smokers liable for costs incurred in smoke-proofing their buildings. for the practical example in front of me, i would argue that the smokers in the building should be held liable for the heating and electrical costs incurred as a consequence of me opening the window to neutralize their habits. if a cost is placed on their pollution, perhaps they'd think twice about causing these externalities.
at
02:17
so, i woke up to a different smell today: cyanide & carbon monoxide. that is, the smell of cigarette smoke.
that's a smell i know well. it's dankness - the way it falls over everything like a blanket. you simply can't address this without opening the windows and letting the room air out.
i'm actually not sure if the tenant directly above me smokes or not. i think he might be a secret smoker from time to time, which is why this comes and goes. i think that the other tenant on the main floor does. the tenants two floors up are very heavy smokers and you can smell it when you walk in the front door but it doesn't usually bug me down in the basement.
this isn't the first time i've noticed this, but i don't think it's been this bad before; or, perhaps, my smell is better now than it has been since i've moved here. but, i didn't quit smoking just to deal with the second-hand smoke from upstairs. so, i'm not backing down on this point: the windows will remain open (with the heat up...) until the smell clears out.
and, the answer is to stop smoking inside.
that's a smell i know well. it's dankness - the way it falls over everything like a blanket. you simply can't address this without opening the windows and letting the room air out.
i'm actually not sure if the tenant directly above me smokes or not. i think he might be a secret smoker from time to time, which is why this comes and goes. i think that the other tenant on the main floor does. the tenants two floors up are very heavy smokers and you can smell it when you walk in the front door but it doesn't usually bug me down in the basement.
this isn't the first time i've noticed this, but i don't think it's been this bad before; or, perhaps, my smell is better now than it has been since i've moved here. but, i didn't quit smoking just to deal with the second-hand smoke from upstairs. so, i'm not backing down on this point: the windows will remain open (with the heat up...) until the smell clears out.
and, the answer is to stop smoking inside.
at
01:15
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)