there's about 20-25% tariffs in transiting goods through the provinces, and interprovincial trade is around $170 billion. slashing that would be throwing around 35-45 billion dollars away in lost revenue.

for reference, the massive job losses coming to the civil service are expected to "save" the government $60 billion, and probably cost the economy twice that in multiplier effects, and this was being projected as a way to "save the country from fiscal ruin", when it is in truth simply going to ravage large swaths of the local economy in the pm's own riding, which he just won and could now very well lose asap.

the next day, they cut another $40 billion in revenue with no economically coherent way to regenerate it, besides nonsense about tax cuts being stimulus (no empirical study anywhere at any time has ever upheld the ideologically driven market religion belief that cutting taxes stimulates the economy. this is thoroughly debunked as completely faith-driven nonsense with not the slightest shred of evidence to support.)? why?

could it be because they want more spending cuts?

this is an idea they campaigned on, so it's no surprise, but i don't think it's a good idea.

it might be less of a not good idea if they cut the food and booze out, but how less not good is not clear. i will admit that my biggest criticisms were related to food and booze. lumber also sounds like an item that provinces should have tariffs on.

swapping cars for canola tax free might seem like a good enough idea for consumers on it's face, but most canadians would certainly benefit more from the taxation at the tariff level than they would from eliminating those taxes, which all evidence suggests is going to be followed by a cut in services. canadians are better off being taxed for services than they are getting tax cuts and then being told to be pay for the services getting cut. the reason for this is that only a small fraction of canadians (~10% in previous years, but certainly less now due to all the cuts in revenue recently) actually pay enough taxes to cover the cost of healthcare, education, childcare, roads, etc. the vast majority of canadians pay less in that they get back and rely on heavy contributions by the wealthy and by the corporate elite to balance the difference. however, they don't realize that and don't understand their taxes very well. the amount of anger that your average canadian wage slave demonstrates for their payroll deductions would appear to be inversely proportional to the level that they understand where their taxes go, which i'm going to call dumbass workers' law.

for example, i've had people go after me pretty viciously for the money taken off their check to pay my odsp, but that money is paid with property taxes, not payroll deductions, and i was able to point out that one of these guys actually rents. i don't get a cent taken off your check. the money taken off your check currently goes to healthcare and education, but the government increasingly wants to reduce your income to pay for planes and tanks to kill russians with, instead.

this was a silent source of revenue, and my understanding is that it was substantive, as well. cutting this source of revenue immediately after passing the last budget should worry people, as it's going to lead to huge decreases in revenue that a right-wing government can use as an excuse to cut services with. it suggests there might be some kind of cunning plan being implemented.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-interprovincial-trade-barrier-dropped-9.6984871

this is a picture of the cast of mary poppins in 2005ish.

the one in the middle is mary poppins.

she's about 20 years older than the rest of them.

did ryan wedding ever clear a drug test at the olympics?

my understanding is that the drug use at the olympics is rampant, and the olympic villages tend to look something like woodstock by the end of the event.

well, this is frightening.

i don't think it's very close. the video doesn't accurately reflect hitchens' trostkyist perspectives on the russia file. at all.

when there have been wars in ukraine in the last several decades, there's always been an alternative to the europeans and russians on the ground. ukraine has a peculiarly central position in the development of anarchism, which is probably due to the fact that it was a wasteland, free of direct control. ukrainians always had the idiosyncratic need to balance between the freedom of the steppe, and it's inherent tyranny, and the slave-reality of working people in settled eastern europe, with the security that slavery brings. anarchism could likely not have arisen anywhere else. ukrainian wars have always been multisided, with a dozen different flags pushing a dozen different ideologies.

what is weird about the current mess is that there is no alternative, as there always has been, you have to pick between one broken system and the other. it's an alternativeless thatcherian nightmare in a real sense; you can hear her banshee wails and tortured cries, screaming from the night sky no alternative!. i would expect hitchens to take a much more subtle position than this when faced with that truth.

the situation in sudan is extremely complex, but the basic point is that the area has resources and the colonial arab monarchies to their northeast (which are at about the same level of social development as 15th or 16th century europe, before any of the revolutions, even the glorious revolution that ended britain's single brief streak with totalitarian religionism) seek to exploit the region for minerals and for slaves and are making a bloody mess of it while they do so, as has been the status quo there through centuries of arab imperialism and colonialism in the region. 

you could send us forces in to protect them, but they'd be more likely to get caught up in it.

if, however, there were merchants on the ground that controlled access to their own resources, and could protect those assets from theft by arabs and turks and chinese alike, the next question is how to prevent them from conquering somalia. that might be challenging to build but it's the right approach.

the true believer is always the greater threat to freedom than the self-interested cynic is.

i'm going to guess that nicki minaj has probably had a lot of bad experiences with arab men, who tend not to be very well behaved or to have very much respect for people's rights. she's not the most educated voice, but she is probably speaking more from experience than imagination.

for some reason, the american media wants to pretend as though christians aren't getting killed by islamic terrorists in africa. it's classic right-wing denialism and it's becoming standard in the fake left to just pretend hamas and al qaeda and al shabaab and boko horom and the rsf and the taliban and etc just don't exist.

islam is about peace. riiiiiiiiiight.

how fucking stupid do they think we are? i mean, we fell for christianity once and spent a thousand years fighting it off, so you'd think we'd easily learn not to fall for islam, but we have to come to a simple, stark truth, which is that fake left men like the hierarchical components in religionism. they like the idea of telling their bitch what to do. they don't care about the gays. men have to have beards? they can deal with that. etc. if a couple of people get killed or raped, what's the big deal? it's not so bad. just get used to it.

it's these fake leftists that pose us a deeper threat, as a society, than any right wing extremists, and we're seeing it on full display in the media's willful ignorance of the spread of arabic colonialism and islamic imperialism in africa, in central asia, in india and also in southeast asia.

african civil conflicts tend to be multisided and complex, but the basic premise that islamic terrorists in nigeria are slaughtering christian men and raping the women, which is how society works at the barely-not-monkey level, is entirely correct. that is real. you can try explain it or foolishly attempt to put it in "context", but claims that the accusation lacks factual support or empirical basis is just pathetically repeating jihadist propaganda, and reduces the american media landscape to a level of useful idiocy that is something out of saudi arabia, which is increasingly also true, due to the increasing importance of arab blood money in funding and directing american media.

what?

sometimes you need to lift that mirror up. it's how you do it.

trump was recently criticized for calling a journalist named catherine a pig, but what you don't realize is that he was actually referring to karoline leavitt, and he got his prompters backwards.

you know the donald is a closeted gay.

exhibit a: eating pizza with a fork. it's a dead giveaway.

but, just listen to him talk for five minutes.

i think the most exciting thing you're going to find in that email dump is evidence of trump having sex with epstein, himself.

i got evicted in april of this year, signed a lease in may and moved again on oct 1st. my new landlord is weird and distant, but the place doesn't smell like drugs (i haven't finished cleaning it yet) and i'm probably ok here for a while. the local property manager might be a problem as he seems to be a right-wing loser, and i'm more focused on him than the landlord. the landlord seems to be reasonable but he also doesn't seem to care much and so i'm trying to find a balance, and i'm going to have to do the research. i'm going to need to call the ltb today about upstairs, for example.

the middle property is dealt with and i walked away ok if this new place works out, which is looking more tentative by the day.

my dtc got approved, and i applied for the cdb and learned about the perks of registered disability savings; i could get a free $15,000, i just need to apply for it.

so the fact that the issue with the property owners that bought my house in 2023 and aggressively evicted me is going to the supreme court, after a consolidation stint in the court of appeal, is scaring me less. i could use the disability money, if i have to. but i'm extremely confident that the supreme court will come down on the right side of this.

the ontario superior court is corrupt. i was able to figure out that one of the women that bought the place is in doug ford's inner orbit, and is one of his daughter's best friends. she used be a talking head on ctv in toronto. i don't know why any of this happened, but that is the best explanation i can come up with as to the nature of the blatant and open corruption i'm experiencing. the ford family is no stranger to corruption.

while this is only an issue on appeal in a cursory way - i did appeal to the judicial council and did bring up concerning events but have not brought the relationship with the ford family into focus, and don't know what came first, the corruption or the purchase of the small house in windsor through the upper crust elite sotheby's auction house, which normally deals with multimillion dollar mansions on the waterfront in this area - it won't follow the case to ottawa, even if it does follow it to toronto. i need to get out of this court to get a correct ruling.

speaking of epstein.

it seems like it was something like that, that they tried to traffic me, and i shook them off, but i haven't been able to get rid of these right-wing muslim losers that were overseeing it, and they're continuing to follow me around and drug me.

canada's court system suffers from a longstanding issue with a poorly educated judiciary that lacks the breadth of knowledge to deal with a lot of the issues dropped on it and has recently, due to decisions made by justin trudeau, taken a sharp turn to the right. however, it's not normally known for open corruption. this is unusual and it should get stamped out through escalation. 

i am going to post a link to a several thousand page document here soon that is intending to prep the case for the supreme court. it doesn't have the details because i can't prove them but this would be easier if they'd just write me a check and fuck off