but, i never told you that i was the cool kid following the in-crowd, in the first place.

what i told you was that i was the outcast that stalks through the shadows.

you have no grounds to be surprised that i turned out to be right in my own understanding of myself.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/19/jean-luc-melenchon-french-president-europe

i'm not sure that the vacancy tax is going to work in it's intended purpose so much as it's going to attempt to balance out the loss in the tax base that comes from people not physically being in the province to pay taxes. see, if the property wasn't vacant, there would be a taxpayer in it, right? so, the vacancy reduces the tax base. or, it does in the world of corporate logic, which governments seem more and more integrated into. by taxing the unit, you're minimizing the loss in tax revenue that the vacancy creates. i'm actually willing to support it for what it is, without expecting it to minimize speculation (it will, rather, probably drive inflation, in the long run. i mean, you might see it level off for a few weeks or something, but expect prices to rebound dramatically, as the taxes get eaten as inflation). but, this is not in my class interests, anyways; again - it seems like a reasonable tax measure, just don't expect it to do what they're claiming it will.

they maybe should have been honest about it to prevent a backlash.

i've stated here before that i'm in support of rent controls, which is the part of the legislation that actually affects me. they have a majority, right now. let's hope it gets worked out before the next election.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/toronto/ontario-housing-16-big-changes-explained-in-charts/article34757648/

actually, i think that the government is realizing that popular support for climate activism is at a low point and taking advantage of it. there was never any kind of real commitment to the issue by this government - everything they've done is a facade, and at times it's been a deeply orwellian one. it only took the slightest hint of negative polling around environmentalism for them to drop the issue altogether.

the reality is that this government is not remotely different than the previous one: it is aggressively promoting an extraction agenda with almost no interest in slowing down emissions. emissions will continue to increase under this government. you don't need to blame it on corruption; it's baked into the bipartisan consensus, on an ideological level.

the ndp aren't any better, either.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/04/21/ottawas-methane-gas-delay-a-real-blow-to-canadas-climate-targets.html

the official response should be something like this:

mr. president,

fuck off.

regards,
the dairy farmers of canada

farmers in canada do not exist for the purpose of buying american goods, dumped or otherwise, and should not for a moment even consider trump's claims that the united states has any right whatsoever to set prices for goods in foreign countries.

trump has a lot of fucking nerve even bringing it up, actually, and should immediately apologize for overstepping his bounds.

i'd rather see farmers take a greater control in managing their own supply, but i think it's a good idea to manage it. what supply management ultimately protects from is the kind of massive factory farming that is destroying dairy farmers in the midwest. these corporate farms just buy up all the land and send the farmers into the cities to sell their labour.

you'll note the areas of north vietnam and myanmar, as well.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/7f/87/46/7f874616b564a8d062e07a7548866517.jpg

you have to go back further in history than americans are accustomed to admitting is relevant, but the timeline is longer in east asia, and the north of korea has indeed been a part of china, although the south never has. trump may or may not have fully understood, but the chinese were no doubt presenting the perspective that they should have control over all areas that have historically been in the chinese orbit; this is a perspective they have presented repeatedly, over many years. and, the north of korea is legitimately in this orbit. it is for this reason that korean unification is not inevitable.