i'm also going to share my thoughts on this point because it may clear up a misperception. this isn't the first time i've posted these thoughts.

ecstasy. as a drug. do i take it? not a fucking chance.

it's not quite what you think...

safe drugs: marijuana. mdma. mushrooms.
iffy drugs: alcohol. lsd.
stupid drugs: meth, cocaine, heroin.

if you know a little about how the process works, you know what i'm getting at.

i would buy and take and consume pure mdma. but, you will never find pure mdma on the street. ever. what you will find is some kind of concoction of meth and coke that might have trace mdma, if you're lucky.

it's probably meth.

and, if you try to give me meth, i'm going to punch you in the face.

andrew scheer is more like stockwell day than he is like stephen harper. somebody get him a wetsuit.

oh, look - trudeau is wearing one through the press availability.

the conservatives were nearly bottomed out last election. the next time around, it's not likely that they'll do much worse than they did the last time around. but, he has almost no chance of winning. in fact, i'd expect some crossings and resignations over the next week as the more moderate and opportunistic wing of the party realizes what just happened and seeks to get out.

trudeau always had more to worry about with the ndp race.

but, the mexicans don't care about a rules-based order, either. that's actually the root of the problem: workers don't have any rights in mexico. we even put down some labour agreements in nafta, and nobody talks about them because they're "unenforceable".

it goes back to the dawkins film, again. cooperation is good. but, the only party in nafta that wants to cooperate is the canadian government; the americans and mexicans are both driven by violent self-interest. and, we will be badly taken advantage of if we don't wake up to that.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3484283/justin-trudeau-donald-trump-g7-summit-crossroads

what is a realistic expectation from canada? 2% of gdp is a demand from american industry, not a substantive defence consideration.

the europeans have every right to prefer to maintain their own force, and if the americans want to insist on it, i'm sure they'll be happy to oblige.

canada's contribution should be entirely defensive. coast guard. norad. immigration. i'd be almost willing to provide a blank cheque on norad in return for an agreement to avoid further colonialism.

but, remember: the canadian oligarchs wants high oil prices, right now.

to begin with, i'm glad they're writing white papers again. i've kind of felt deprived. i might not read this one, but if they keep coming in areas i'm more interested in, i will.

what about canada and the 2%? well, the truth is that we're good at sneaking out of it. trudeau is pushing a line about being a reliable member of the alliance, which is true enough, but like a lot of what he says there's this kind of child-like naivete to it - as though lockheed martin is driven by concepts of fraternal bonds of friendship and patriotic fervour rather than cynically driven by greed and profit, and as though trump isn't in the pockets of the defence lobby.

i've been over this a few times. we have historically avoided involving ourselves in conflicts we're not excited about, and sometimes downright opposed to, by putting resources into occupying strategic cold war regions, which had the happy coincidence of doing things like building hospitals. and, we're proud of that, up here. but, that world no longer exists. now, they're demanding that we buy weapons. maybe, we could get some of those data wizards on the point of why defence jobs have shitty multipliers and you'd create more jobs with green energy? but, how do we get out of this, this time?

"we're spending money on veterans" seems entirely insufficient, granted. but, that level of insufficiency is also consistent, dare i even say characteristic, of the current pmo.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-defence-policy-1.4131623

the trump administration wants to present the arrangement as though they're doing europe a favour, rather than continuing a 70 year occupation force. the europeans should not have to pay for their own occupation.  but, why would they send blank cheques to washington when they can build their own army, anyways?

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-europe-as-a-stronger-global-actor/file-european-defence-union

the germans have always been a reluctant ally. you don't build allies through foreign occupation; ask the iraqis. so, the americans had to know it was a matter of time, after reunification, before the germans reasserted themselves. they couldn't have been delusional enough to think otherwise. it's just too obvious.

so, it always followed that the americans would eventually have to relinquish some sovereignty to a more assertive europe.

but, not the uk.

the uk is a part of the empire.

by the way, though, this:

The times in which we could rely fully on others — they are somewhat over

...is actually exactly what trump actually wants to hear.

see, my take on brexit was that it was a reaction to german realignment.

i stated repeatedly leading up to the vote that what brexit passing signalled was that the americans were pulling the uk out of europe, because the germans were reorienting themselves towards the russians. what brexit failing would imply would be american confidence in german participation in the alliance.

nice try, merk.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/angela-merkel-donald-trump-germany-us-no-longer-rely-european-union-climate-change-g7-a7760486.html

Nicola Sturgeon has defended Jeremy Corbyn's view that there is a link between the deadly attack in Manchester and UK foreign policy.

they state it like there's some kind of controversy around the claim.

why do you think they bomb you, uk? is it because you think they hate your freedom? because they're barbarians, and it's just what barbarians do? because they want to take over the world, one subway bombing at a time? or maybe just to piss you off?

they know bono is from ireland, right?

yes, obviously, the bombings are a consequence of your foreign policy. and, propaganda aside, it's hard to believe there is a properly oxygenated brain in the united kingdom that is defective enough to fail to grasp this.