6 hour walk.

dead feet. tender calves.

...but a few tasks completed.

for a small city, it is about as scattered as possible. i want to say it's badly planned, and it is, especially the lack of sidewalks, but it's more like it's planned as a giant suburb of detroit rather than a city of it's own.

so, the necessity of fixing my bike is quite apparent.

one of the things i needed to get was some water resistant spray for some shoes. there's plenty of options, but they're all at least an hour walk one way or the other. how can that be? i'm not sure, but i'm going to take a guess....

see, if i walk down the street that comprises the business district closest to me, it's pretty sketchy. there are some successful businesses, and some very old ones. but a lot of the storefronts are either boarded up or for rent.

could these have previously been somewhere to get shoe spray? it's a reasonable deduction, i think.

for twice the price that it's sold at walmart.

so, i'm going to hypothesize that windsor is in that middle phase where the big box stores have decimated local businesses and they haven't moved into the core yet.

i have to think that there will eventually be a mall built downtown. right now, it's just strip malls a km or two in either direction and a half dead city in the core.

which is why the rent is cheap.

which is why i'm here...

with the spray specifically, i think there's a few places around here i could try and i'd guess at least one would stock it. it's an example of limited actual applicability. i wouldn't have gone as far as i did just for that, and probably wouldn't have actually had to. any kind of electronics would be a better example.

you may want to take note that wired routers are apparently difficult to locate at this point, so if you require one for your network then you may want to get a backup while you still can.

<---- increasingly pissed off by the disappearance of my functioning belkin.

an odd speech. legally speaking, he seems to be correct, as far as i can tell. but the law is only valid when enforced. and who does he have to enforce his claims with?

i'm not sure to take his warning as delusional, or a thinly veiled threat of (not necessarily military) russian intervention.

i don't know how much of this is true, but i find it plausible and certainly something to be concerned about.

man, this guy is out of it. the eu is run by hard-right franco-german neo-liberals, not scandinavian social democrats.

and iraq was not a nato operation.

now, if you'll excuse me, i'm hungry. i'm going to have some freedom fries. with gravy. and cheese.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11557

he's right about the base though.

russia cannot allow nato forces into crimea.