i need to move.
Friday, September 28, 2018
the thing about being a leftist is that you don't see the world in terms of nationality, but in terms of class. i'm not concerned about americans or canadians or mexicans, i'm concerned about workers and capitalists and landowners.
i care more about american workers than i do about canadian landowners, and more about canadian workers than i do about american capitalists.
and, i'm going to side with what's best for the proletariat on both sides of the border, not what's best for the canadian elite.
i got kind of busy yesterday. today is going to be ridiculous. there'll be a lengthy update some time soon.
i care more about american workers than i do about canadian landowners, and more about canadian workers than i do about american capitalists.
and, i'm going to side with what's best for the proletariat on both sides of the border, not what's best for the canadian elite.
i got kind of busy yesterday. today is going to be ridiculous. there'll be a lengthy update some time soon.
Thursday, September 27, 2018
so, what actually happened? what's the story, here?
around 20:00 on monday evening, i sat down to make some spaghetti. as i was about to slice into my tomato, some cops banged on my door.
as mentioned, my primary concern was avoiding resisting arrest, so i was very compliant. whether i've committed a crime or not, resisting arrest is always one, so you don't want to do that.
i was arrested for "criminal harassment", and brought to the station in cuffs in a windowless van. i called a lawyer when i got there, for the purposes of informing somebody i was in jail, but i did not expect to be in custody for more than a few minutes. i am, after all, being charged with repeatedly applying for an ad.
i was instead placed in a holding cell for over twenty hours. i spent most of that time screaming for access to a judge, who i knew damned well would snicker at the situation, yelling the situation into the cameras (for the record) and counting to....i made it 10,500 before my throat forced me to stop. i suspect i could have counted to 20,000 if i had metallic vocal chords.
i decided i would charge $1000 emotional damages for every second left to rot in a cell for the crime of replying to an ad. so, when i get around to it, the suit against the city will be for $11 000 000. that should be enough to find somewhere to live that is smoke-free, right?
i did not sleep. i urinated once, close to 16:00 the next day. i ate one of the three meals they gave me.
i was brought out to see several people during the day, including duty counsel and a representative for legal aid. as mentioned, duty counsel was a conservative older lady that i trust was acting in what she perceived were my best interests, but she seemed quite concerned that i was going to become irrational in the court, and feared i would harm my own well being. i fully recognize that she spends most of her days helping people with low levels of education get out of terrible situations, and there's obviously a lot of altruism in that, but it sets up a mentality of fiduciary duty; she wanted me to go sit in the corner and be quiet and let her deal with it. which i did actually do, because, on some level, she was absolutely right. i just worry that i wasn't present for a set of important conversations. it's one thing to tell me to be quiet in the room and let me listen, and another to tell me to sit in the other room.
it seemed like the outcome of the hearing had already been decided when they finally brought me into the court room at the very end of the day. the justice was clearly baffled by both the situation and the charges, stating into the record that it was unacceptable to arrest somebody with no prior record and leave them in a cell for twenty hours. i was not permitted to speak and was in fact asked to sit down repeatedly, but i think i might have helped her understand, if i was permitted to do so. duty counsel was a nervous wreck, clearly frightened i was going to undo her careful work...
but, i stayed quietly. i didn't sing o canada through air guitar. i didn't call the judge a fascist. i didn't curse the accused, or swear at the prosecutor or do anything of the things that....that she probably actually deals with on a daily basis. it was perhaps incorrect to see me the same way as most of the people she represents, but i can't fault her for it. that's what she knows. that's what she sees.
the judge only seemed willing to reject the crown's argument up to the point of triviality. i suspect that she would have dismissed the charges if she could, but, given that she couldn't, she had to leave the conditions in place. so long as the charges exist, i must be ordered not to reply to the ad. and, while she did not feel that she could remove the recognizance altogether, she reduced it from $2000 to $100 - a functional dismissal.
she repeatedly stated that there is no evidence to justify the conditions.
when the crown read the charges into the record, she talked about how the owner of the apartment felt unable to show the apartment to other "legitimate" applicants because she feared i might be using false identities to reply to the ad (which is simply schizophrenic nonsense, imagined whole cloth, and without the slightest evidentiary basis), and told me i was "not welcome here". i reacted by scoffing at the absurdity of the presented scenario, and the oppression inherent in the language - and the justice seemed to agree with me.
so, i can't go near guns. like i'd go near guns, right. that's a standard condition, and i had no argument, because i don't care. and, i can't reply to the ad until the charges are dropped or defeated. if i do either of those two things, i will be arrested a second time, and have to pay $100.
i need to reappear on october 10th, if the charges are not dropped before then.
to me, continuing to reply to this ad is a rights issue. i hardly expect to be approved. but, i have the right to be annoying - independently of whatever schizophrenic fantasies anybody wants to have, or pretend to have. however, i have been charged with a crime and agreed to not engage in this behaviour, until such a point comes that a judge upholds my right to be annoying. you could articulate this different ways: i am providing for due process, or allowing for judicial review. but, it's one thing to tell a cop that he's wrong and close the door and another thing to get charged by that cop and go to court and need to have a judge state that the cop is wrong. i will expect compensation, in the long run.
i was released a little after 17:00.
around 20:00 on monday evening, i sat down to make some spaghetti. as i was about to slice into my tomato, some cops banged on my door.
as mentioned, my primary concern was avoiding resisting arrest, so i was very compliant. whether i've committed a crime or not, resisting arrest is always one, so you don't want to do that.
i was arrested for "criminal harassment", and brought to the station in cuffs in a windowless van. i called a lawyer when i got there, for the purposes of informing somebody i was in jail, but i did not expect to be in custody for more than a few minutes. i am, after all, being charged with repeatedly applying for an ad.
i was instead placed in a holding cell for over twenty hours. i spent most of that time screaming for access to a judge, who i knew damned well would snicker at the situation, yelling the situation into the cameras (for the record) and counting to....i made it 10,500 before my throat forced me to stop. i suspect i could have counted to 20,000 if i had metallic vocal chords.
i decided i would charge $1000 emotional damages for every second left to rot in a cell for the crime of replying to an ad. so, when i get around to it, the suit against the city will be for $11 000 000. that should be enough to find somewhere to live that is smoke-free, right?
i did not sleep. i urinated once, close to 16:00 the next day. i ate one of the three meals they gave me.
i was brought out to see several people during the day, including duty counsel and a representative for legal aid. as mentioned, duty counsel was a conservative older lady that i trust was acting in what she perceived were my best interests, but she seemed quite concerned that i was going to become irrational in the court, and feared i would harm my own well being. i fully recognize that she spends most of her days helping people with low levels of education get out of terrible situations, and there's obviously a lot of altruism in that, but it sets up a mentality of fiduciary duty; she wanted me to go sit in the corner and be quiet and let her deal with it. which i did actually do, because, on some level, she was absolutely right. i just worry that i wasn't present for a set of important conversations. it's one thing to tell me to be quiet in the room and let me listen, and another to tell me to sit in the other room.
it seemed like the outcome of the hearing had already been decided when they finally brought me into the court room at the very end of the day. the justice was clearly baffled by both the situation and the charges, stating into the record that it was unacceptable to arrest somebody with no prior record and leave them in a cell for twenty hours. i was not permitted to speak and was in fact asked to sit down repeatedly, but i think i might have helped her understand, if i was permitted to do so. duty counsel was a nervous wreck, clearly frightened i was going to undo her careful work...
but, i stayed quietly. i didn't sing o canada through air guitar. i didn't call the judge a fascist. i didn't curse the accused, or swear at the prosecutor or do anything of the things that....that she probably actually deals with on a daily basis. it was perhaps incorrect to see me the same way as most of the people she represents, but i can't fault her for it. that's what she knows. that's what she sees.
the judge only seemed willing to reject the crown's argument up to the point of triviality. i suspect that she would have dismissed the charges if she could, but, given that she couldn't, she had to leave the conditions in place. so long as the charges exist, i must be ordered not to reply to the ad. and, while she did not feel that she could remove the recognizance altogether, she reduced it from $2000 to $100 - a functional dismissal.
she repeatedly stated that there is no evidence to justify the conditions.
when the crown read the charges into the record, she talked about how the owner of the apartment felt unable to show the apartment to other "legitimate" applicants because she feared i might be using false identities to reply to the ad (which is simply schizophrenic nonsense, imagined whole cloth, and without the slightest evidentiary basis), and told me i was "not welcome here". i reacted by scoffing at the absurdity of the presented scenario, and the oppression inherent in the language - and the justice seemed to agree with me.
so, i can't go near guns. like i'd go near guns, right. that's a standard condition, and i had no argument, because i don't care. and, i can't reply to the ad until the charges are dropped or defeated. if i do either of those two things, i will be arrested a second time, and have to pay $100.
i need to reappear on october 10th, if the charges are not dropped before then.
to me, continuing to reply to this ad is a rights issue. i hardly expect to be approved. but, i have the right to be annoying - independently of whatever schizophrenic fantasies anybody wants to have, or pretend to have. however, i have been charged with a crime and agreed to not engage in this behaviour, until such a point comes that a judge upholds my right to be annoying. you could articulate this different ways: i am providing for due process, or allowing for judicial review. but, it's one thing to tell a cop that he's wrong and close the door and another thing to get charged by that cop and go to court and need to have a judge state that the cop is wrong. i will expect compensation, in the long run.
i was released a little after 17:00.
yeah. ok. careful language in the code.
"release from custody by officer in charge" - that was the warrant/non-warrant binary, which comes with the $500 max.
but, i was ordered released by the judge. so, i don't have a max, because the cops didn't actually agree to releasing me at all.
the cops didn't want to release me at all.
for the crime of replying to an ad.
lol. fucking idiots.
but, listen: the justice thought this was retarded, entered into the record that she was upset at the amount of time i spent in custody and ordered me released on the most lenient conditions that she could. i expect any judge to agree entirely with the justice: this is vexatious. i fully acknowledge that these details are something i'm just learning about now, but i understand the legality of the situation fairly well and it's a flatly stupid case. in the end, the more ridiculous the crown is about it, the harder the judge is going to come down on it.
i snickered when the charges were read, and the duty counsel cringed, but the justice smiled - she agreed.
this is stupid.
"release from custody by officer in charge" - that was the warrant/non-warrant binary, which comes with the $500 max.
but, i was ordered released by the judge. so, i don't have a max, because the cops didn't actually agree to releasing me at all.
the cops didn't want to release me at all.
for the crime of replying to an ad.
lol. fucking idiots.
but, listen: the justice thought this was retarded, entered into the record that she was upset at the amount of time i spent in custody and ordered me released on the most lenient conditions that she could. i expect any judge to agree entirely with the justice: this is vexatious. i fully acknowledge that these details are something i'm just learning about now, but i understand the legality of the situation fairly well and it's a flatly stupid case. in the end, the more ridiculous the crown is about it, the harder the judge is going to come down on it.
i snickered when the charges were read, and the duty counsel cringed, but the justice smiled - she agreed.
this is stupid.
ok.
on third thought, i'm in a different section, a "judicial interim release". see, lawyers aren't logicians. so, they don't recognize a binary between "arrest with warrant" and "arrest without a warrant". i would think that these are the only two possibilities, but apparently a third one exists.
there are no maximum recognizance conditions set on a judicial interim release, and that is apparently true whether there was a warrant involved, or not.
but, see, this is the kind of thing that i didn't have explained to me. what is the difference between this situation and a regular release on recognizance? in both situations, the accused is being released before a trial, right? so, why is there a separate section for this?
on third thought, i'm in a different section, a "judicial interim release". see, lawyers aren't logicians. so, they don't recognize a binary between "arrest with warrant" and "arrest without a warrant". i would think that these are the only two possibilities, but apparently a third one exists.
there are no maximum recognizance conditions set on a judicial interim release, and that is apparently true whether there was a warrant involved, or not.
but, see, this is the kind of thing that i didn't have explained to me. what is the difference between this situation and a regular release on recognizance? in both situations, the accused is being released before a trial, right? so, why is there a separate section for this?
and, see, here's the thing.
maybe i could have stopped all this bullshit before it started if i knew this stuff off of the top of my head. but, what fun is that? see, then the cop gets to keep his job, and i don't get to sue for damages for harassment and negligence.
there will be a proper investigation, in the end. and, the fuckers will be held accountable for their errors.
maybe i could have stopped all this bullshit before it started if i knew this stuff off of the top of my head. but, what fun is that? see, then the cop gets to keep his job, and i don't get to sue for damages for harassment and negligence.
there will be a proper investigation, in the end. and, the fuckers will be held accountable for their errors.
the thing going through my head at the time was "i don't want to resist arrest, i'll figure this out afterwards". so, i was compliant for that reason. because you hear about that all of the time - cops show up to arrest you for swearing in church, and then instead of the cop getting fired, you end up in jail for assaulting a police officer.
you know, i'm wondering something else.
i didn't ask for a warrant. maybe i should have.
these are the rules for releasing somebody arrested via warrant.
"(b) release the person on the person’s entering into a recognizance before the officer in charge without sureties in the amount not exceeding five hundred dollars that the officer in charge directs, but without deposit of money or other valuable security"
they tried to charge me $2000, but the justice said that was crazy because there was no evidence (take note.) and cut it down to $100. so, in the end, what happened was lawful.
but, did the crown make an unlawful request, or was i arrested without a warrant?
because, if i was charged with a hybrid offence without a warrant, i should not have been arrested at all - i should have been asked to appear in court.
the more incompetence i can uncover, the bigger the payout.
i didn't ask for a warrant. maybe i should have.
these are the rules for releasing somebody arrested via warrant.
"(b) release the person on the person’s entering into a recognizance before the officer in charge without sureties in the amount not exceeding five hundred dollars that the officer in charge directs, but without deposit of money or other valuable security"
they tried to charge me $2000, but the justice said that was crazy because there was no evidence (take note.) and cut it down to $100. so, in the end, what happened was lawful.
but, did the crown make an unlawful request, or was i arrested without a warrant?
because, if i was charged with a hybrid offence without a warrant, i should not have been arrested at all - i should have been asked to appear in court.
the more incompetence i can uncover, the bigger the payout.
the duty counsel got me out of jail without any meaningful conditions. that was what she said she wanted to do, and that's what she did, and on a certain level she's right - that's the most immediate concern.
but, if it was done at the expense of me understanding the accusations against me, or putting me at a disadvantage in relation to the trial, then it was a pyrrhic victory.
i need to confront her about what documentation she has to pass on to me, tomorrow.
but, if it was done at the expense of me understanding the accusations against me, or putting me at a disadvantage in relation to the trial, then it was a pyrrhic victory.
i need to confront her about what documentation she has to pass on to me, tomorrow.
the crown did read something into the record.
it could be that that was all there was to it, but i know i wasn't getting the whole picture. what do you do, in that scenario? you can hardly escape the cage and barge in. you just have to figure out what happened and hold people responsible for it accountable for it.
they obviously can't conduct a bail hearing without me, and then tell me that evidence is admitted later. that's all on the record. they'll all get fired.
but, none of this can happen, it's all impossible.
so, we'll see what the transcript says, right?
it could be that that was all there was to it, but i know i wasn't getting the whole picture. what do you do, in that scenario? you can hardly escape the cage and barge in. you just have to figure out what happened and hold people responsible for it accountable for it.
they obviously can't conduct a bail hearing without me, and then tell me that evidence is admitted later. that's all on the record. they'll all get fired.
but, none of this can happen, it's all impossible.
so, we'll see what the transcript says, right?
i was not asked to testify.
i was not asked to present evidence.
i was told this would occur later, both by the counsel provided and by the justice.
again: i accepted duty counsel because i was unclear of the proper procedure and unable to research it. when told that the evidence would be presented later, i knew it seemed wrong, but i deferred, due to being unable to verify it. and, i am confident that the charges would have been dropped outright if i had been given the chance to present anything at all resembling a case.
hrmmn.
if i got fucked around at the bail hearing, that's just another reason to sue the city.
let's see what the transcripts say...
i was not asked to present evidence.
i was told this would occur later, both by the counsel provided and by the justice.
again: i accepted duty counsel because i was unclear of the proper procedure and unable to research it. when told that the evidence would be presented later, i knew it seemed wrong, but i deferred, due to being unable to verify it. and, i am confident that the charges would have been dropped outright if i had been given the chance to present anything at all resembling a case.
hrmmn.
if i got fucked around at the bail hearing, that's just another reason to sue the city.
let's see what the transcripts say...
see, this is not what happened.
and, i asked about it, repeatedly.
i was told by both duty counsel and by the justice that no analysis of the evidence would occur until a pre-trial.
i was brought into the court at 16:45 and asked if i agreed to the conditions or not. i did not see a witness. i did not see an officer. i did not get a chance to present evidence. i pointed out that this seems wrong, and was told otherwise.
i have not met my accuser.
the more layers of corruption there are, the more layers that will fall, in the end.
let's see what the transcript says...
http://lawfacts.ca/node/146
and, i asked about it, repeatedly.
i was told by both duty counsel and by the justice that no analysis of the evidence would occur until a pre-trial.
i was brought into the court at 16:45 and asked if i agreed to the conditions or not. i did not see a witness. i did not see an officer. i did not get a chance to present evidence. i pointed out that this seems wrong, and was told otherwise.
i have not met my accuser.
the more layers of corruption there are, the more layers that will fall, in the end.
let's see what the transcript says...
http://lawfacts.ca/node/146
ok.
i'm going to wait and talk to a lawyer about the holding cell video, as there's no obvious way to do it. i'll probably need to make a request to a judge.
i have a stress disorder. putting me in a cell on trumped up charges is pretty egregious. i don't think it'll be hard to get a judge to release the footage. but, it's going to take an argument of some sort. that's ok.
right now, i need to focus on getting full disclosure.
...and, on determining whether a part of the bail hearing happened without me, or not. i suspect that i missed some of it...it just didn't seem like the whole thing, to me...
i'm going to wait and talk to a lawyer about the holding cell video, as there's no obvious way to do it. i'll probably need to make a request to a judge.
i have a stress disorder. putting me in a cell on trumped up charges is pretty egregious. i don't think it'll be hard to get a judge to release the footage. but, it's going to take an argument of some sort. that's ok.
right now, i need to focus on getting full disclosure.
...and, on determining whether a part of the bail hearing happened without me, or not. i suspect that i missed some of it...it just didn't seem like the whole thing, to me...
Wednesday, September 26, 2018
because i'm not licensed, i need a judge to order the audio from the bail hearing.
that's whacked. i understand the restriction as it applies to media or the general public, for privacy reasons. i don't really want a newspaper combing through my bail hearing without a court order declaring it's public knowledge; i get it. but, it's my fucking bail hearing. is my self-interest not obvious?
worse, i have to sign a waiver that says i can't use the audio for any meaningful purpose.
i guess the transcription lobby has some power, huh?
it would be a lot of effort to get a recording, and i couldn't do anything with it. let's see if the rules around transcripts are equally draconian.
that's whacked. i understand the restriction as it applies to media or the general public, for privacy reasons. i don't really want a newspaper combing through my bail hearing without a court order declaring it's public knowledge; i get it. but, it's my fucking bail hearing. is my self-interest not obvious?
worse, i have to sign a waiver that says i can't use the audio for any meaningful purpose.
i guess the transcription lobby has some power, huh?
it would be a lot of effort to get a recording, and i couldn't do anything with it. let's see if the rules around transcripts are equally draconian.
so, what do i need to do for tomorrow?
1) file the appeal with the fee exemption. remember: i'm poor. i don't pay court fees. there's plenty of justice for the impoverished; it's the working poor & middle class that get reamed.
2) request full disclosure from the crown.
3) ask for the transcripts of the bail hearing, including the sections i missed.
4) ask the duty council if she has any documents i'm entitled to see. i should have done that the other day. i was not exactly thinking straight. she should also have some information for me regarding a legal aid certificate. was there a warrant for my arrest?
5) ask for video of my time in detention, as i was clearly in anguish. tortured. dying inside. so sad. so sad...
i think i will need to wait until the process plays out before i can prosecute the officer, or file the complaint. right now, i want data. i just have to figure out how to get all of these things.
i think it's freedom of information. and i think it's a $5 fee.
1) file the appeal with the fee exemption. remember: i'm poor. i don't pay court fees. there's plenty of justice for the impoverished; it's the working poor & middle class that get reamed.
2) request full disclosure from the crown.
3) ask for the transcripts of the bail hearing, including the sections i missed.
4) ask the duty council if she has any documents i'm entitled to see. i should have done that the other day. i was not exactly thinking straight. she should also have some information for me regarding a legal aid certificate. was there a warrant for my arrest?
5) ask for video of my time in detention, as i was clearly in anguish. tortured. dying inside. so sad. so sad...
i think i will need to wait until the process plays out before i can prosecute the officer, or file the complaint. right now, i want data. i just have to figure out how to get all of these things.
i think it's freedom of information. and i think it's a $5 fee.
i guess he wasn't expecting the spanish inquisition.
https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/prosecutor-on-probation-for-meeting-prostitute-in-court-house-washroom
https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/prosecutor-on-probation-for-meeting-prostitute-in-court-house-washroom
i'm going to get something to eat first, but this looks like what i'm up to.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Procedure_and_Practice/Disclosure
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Procedure_and_Practice/Disclosure
ok.
i took three years of a "law and society" course, which included courses on tort law, constitutional law, aboriginal law and criminal law as well, but i have never studied the procedures involved in an actual trial. and, they tell you this, right. "this course will not prepare you for a court room". this is why lawyers go through an apprenticeship process, right.
so, i need to teach myself how this is going to actually happen.
one of the reasons that duty counsel was so necessary for me yesterday is that i didn't have access to a computer, meaning i was unable to research the topic. i've never studied bail conditions. i don't have any idea. if you gave me the night to figure it out, mind you...
i assumed i was going to go to a pre-trial hearing first, and a bail hearing second. that is, i assumed the judge would base their bail decisions on a pre-trial. well, how is a judge supposed to figure out proper bail conditions without looking at the trial evidence? apparently, what they actually do is look at prior history. i guess you could argue that i'm missing the point: the bail hearing is not intended to weigh the value of the evidence, but whether i'm eligible for bail, which is not determined by evidence but by history. but, that still strikes me as irrational. i do believe that had the judge looked at the actual evidence, i would have been released without conditions - and the case would have been dropped.
if i am right, and the judge dismisses the case immediately, i am going to be forced to deal with the consequences of a charge pending on my record while i am searching for housing, in a very critical period, in the first few days of a stay. it's difficult to underestimate the potential damage that this is going to create for me. and, while it may work out in my favour in the end, it's an outrageous scenario in the short-term.
imagine a scenario where, on sept 30th, i am permitted to sign a lease on the condition of passing a police check, fail that check, and then have the charges dropped on oct 1st. that's a lawsuit the cops can't win, sure. but, it's a deep cost for me, as well.
so, the purpose of the date on the 10th is supposed to be to ask for disclosure. but, i really feel that the crown should have had that information available before they even arrested me, and that it should have formed the basis of the bail hearing.
i frankly do not think it is unlikely that the court will drop the charges before the 10th, making the hearing and disclosure unnecessary - although i will ask for disclosure, anyways.
but, the longer this drags on, the more annoying it is for everybody, as the harder it is going to be for me to leave.
at this point, i don't even know if the crown is seeking to send me to jail or not. while i would consider that extremely unlikely, it's kind of important information for both me and a potential landlord to have, as i am about to sign a lease.
i took three years of a "law and society" course, which included courses on tort law, constitutional law, aboriginal law and criminal law as well, but i have never studied the procedures involved in an actual trial. and, they tell you this, right. "this course will not prepare you for a court room". this is why lawyers go through an apprenticeship process, right.
so, i need to teach myself how this is going to actually happen.
one of the reasons that duty counsel was so necessary for me yesterday is that i didn't have access to a computer, meaning i was unable to research the topic. i've never studied bail conditions. i don't have any idea. if you gave me the night to figure it out, mind you...
i assumed i was going to go to a pre-trial hearing first, and a bail hearing second. that is, i assumed the judge would base their bail decisions on a pre-trial. well, how is a judge supposed to figure out proper bail conditions without looking at the trial evidence? apparently, what they actually do is look at prior history. i guess you could argue that i'm missing the point: the bail hearing is not intended to weigh the value of the evidence, but whether i'm eligible for bail, which is not determined by evidence but by history. but, that still strikes me as irrational. i do believe that had the judge looked at the actual evidence, i would have been released without conditions - and the case would have been dropped.
if i am right, and the judge dismisses the case immediately, i am going to be forced to deal with the consequences of a charge pending on my record while i am searching for housing, in a very critical period, in the first few days of a stay. it's difficult to underestimate the potential damage that this is going to create for me. and, while it may work out in my favour in the end, it's an outrageous scenario in the short-term.
imagine a scenario where, on sept 30th, i am permitted to sign a lease on the condition of passing a police check, fail that check, and then have the charges dropped on oct 1st. that's a lawsuit the cops can't win, sure. but, it's a deep cost for me, as well.
so, the purpose of the date on the 10th is supposed to be to ask for disclosure. but, i really feel that the crown should have had that information available before they even arrested me, and that it should have formed the basis of the bail hearing.
i frankly do not think it is unlikely that the court will drop the charges before the 10th, making the hearing and disclosure unnecessary - although i will ask for disclosure, anyways.
but, the longer this drags on, the more annoying it is for everybody, as the harder it is going to be for me to leave.
at this point, i don't even know if the crown is seeking to send me to jail or not. while i would consider that extremely unlikely, it's kind of important information for both me and a potential landlord to have, as i am about to sign a lease.
i suspect that the actual truth is that the situation was driven by the officer, who essentially filed a false report. but, this is what we'll need to determine over the upcoming weeks. either:
1) this woman legitimately thinks that somebody aggressively applying for an ad puts her in some kind of risk category, which indicates she's dealing with some kind of schizophrenia, or some kind of stress disorder. she appears to be imagining that i'm following her around. i've never met her. but, if her fear is truly honest, it implies she requires psychiatric attention. or,
2) the cop manufactured the situation to go after me, in whatever collusion there was with this woman.
so, it's either a crazy woman that needs help or it's a malicious cop that needs to be fired - or both.
we'll figure this out, soon enough.
1) this woman legitimately thinks that somebody aggressively applying for an ad puts her in some kind of risk category, which indicates she's dealing with some kind of schizophrenia, or some kind of stress disorder. she appears to be imagining that i'm following her around. i've never met her. but, if her fear is truly honest, it implies she requires psychiatric attention. or,
2) the cop manufactured the situation to go after me, in whatever collusion there was with this woman.
so, it's either a crazy woman that needs help or it's a malicious cop that needs to be fired - or both.
we'll figure this out, soon enough.
i really had no option but to sleep.
i'm up now....
the most annoying thing about what happened yesterday is that i lost the day to applications, and i'm going to lose the day today, as well, because i lost my voice. i spent much of the night and day screaming to see a judge.
i sound like a kid learning how to play the trumpet: sound for a second or two, and then wind. if i yell, it comes back a little. i probably just need to rest them. hopefully, i'll be able to talk again tomorrow.
20 hours. i was very close to being released; the magic number is 24.
i'm going to roll with the system so long as i have to, but i don't think things are happening the way that they're supposed to. i have yet to see the charges laid against me, or any evidence or arguments from the crown. i told them i was representing myself, but they put the situation in the hands of a duty counsel instead. she had a conservative approach that was focused on getting me out of jail, and she did - my conditions are that i can't apply to the ad again (until the charges are dropped) and that i can't be around guns, which isn't much of a condition at all. if somebody sees me with a gun, i'll have to pay a $100 fine. but, i would have taken a much more aggressive approach in insisting there are no grounds for any restrictions at all.
in my view, the situation essentially reduces to due process. the woman is making an accusation against me, and i need to defend against it. this accusation may be frivolous and vexatious, but i will need to suffer the consequences of it until that is demonstrated - and then be compensated for any damages i suffer as a consequence of it.
as this ad is posted every day, i'm of the opinion that i have every right to apply to this ad every time it is posted. i will continue to exercise my rights in due course. but, because i'm guilty until proven innocent, and i signed an agreement, i will need to back off for a few days or weeks.
i will be aggressively attacking this woman in the court. some cursory google research suggests that she has a history of filing vexatious charges, and usually has her cases dropped. i am absolutely willing to be the person that stands up and puts a stop to this, has her ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation and has her barred from further vexatious litigation. she should expect this to be very difficult. and, am i supposed to shed a tear?
i will be aggressively attacking the officer, as well, with the intent to have him fired.
i will be suing the city for emotional damages related to locking me up on false charges.
i will probably launch a civil case against this woman for damages resulting from having to fight off a harassment charge while i am trying to move.
and, i will be launching a human rights challenge against the apartment complex, as well. i was going to have a hard time doing that, up until this point, because i didn't have a lot of information. but, the information being presented by the court is full of language like "the tenant is not welcome". that is, her vexatious litigation is going to give me the information i need to prosecute her for discrimination, that i didn't previously have.
in ontario, applications may be denied for financial reasons like failing a credit check. but, telling a tenant that they are "not welcome here" is discrimination under the law. it's amazing that this ended up in the court documents, but i'll take my good luck, as it is.
obviously, my first order of business is getting the charges dropped, and i legitimately do not expect this to be difficult. i'm really fairly stuck until i can do this. i'm almost wondering if i'm better off waiting, so i don't scare off any potential landlords.
and, while i don't even expect the case to go to trial, there is an obscure possibility that i could be facing up to ten years' imprisonment. it's almost impossible for me to think about moving until the tenth...
yeah.
i'll need to file in the morning.
i'm going to accept legal aid, because it is available and it would be foolish not to. i don't want to pay for a lawyer, but i'll take a lawyer, for free. see, i think i understand the law well, and i'm good at winning arguments, but i'm going to need help with the procedural aspect of it. i really think what i need is a tutor, to help me through the procedure the first time. and, once armed with that experience, i can then represent myself in future cases. i'm expecting to hear something back by the end of the day, and, if i don't, i'll call after 17:00.
the one qualification i need to present is the following: given the context, i need the lawyer to be female. and, you can expect me to show up to court looking pretty, too.
i'm up now....
the most annoying thing about what happened yesterday is that i lost the day to applications, and i'm going to lose the day today, as well, because i lost my voice. i spent much of the night and day screaming to see a judge.
i sound like a kid learning how to play the trumpet: sound for a second or two, and then wind. if i yell, it comes back a little. i probably just need to rest them. hopefully, i'll be able to talk again tomorrow.
20 hours. i was very close to being released; the magic number is 24.
i'm going to roll with the system so long as i have to, but i don't think things are happening the way that they're supposed to. i have yet to see the charges laid against me, or any evidence or arguments from the crown. i told them i was representing myself, but they put the situation in the hands of a duty counsel instead. she had a conservative approach that was focused on getting me out of jail, and she did - my conditions are that i can't apply to the ad again (until the charges are dropped) and that i can't be around guns, which isn't much of a condition at all. if somebody sees me with a gun, i'll have to pay a $100 fine. but, i would have taken a much more aggressive approach in insisting there are no grounds for any restrictions at all.
in my view, the situation essentially reduces to due process. the woman is making an accusation against me, and i need to defend against it. this accusation may be frivolous and vexatious, but i will need to suffer the consequences of it until that is demonstrated - and then be compensated for any damages i suffer as a consequence of it.
as this ad is posted every day, i'm of the opinion that i have every right to apply to this ad every time it is posted. i will continue to exercise my rights in due course. but, because i'm guilty until proven innocent, and i signed an agreement, i will need to back off for a few days or weeks.
i will be aggressively attacking this woman in the court. some cursory google research suggests that she has a history of filing vexatious charges, and usually has her cases dropped. i am absolutely willing to be the person that stands up and puts a stop to this, has her ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation and has her barred from further vexatious litigation. she should expect this to be very difficult. and, am i supposed to shed a tear?
i will be aggressively attacking the officer, as well, with the intent to have him fired.
i will be suing the city for emotional damages related to locking me up on false charges.
i will probably launch a civil case against this woman for damages resulting from having to fight off a harassment charge while i am trying to move.
and, i will be launching a human rights challenge against the apartment complex, as well. i was going to have a hard time doing that, up until this point, because i didn't have a lot of information. but, the information being presented by the court is full of language like "the tenant is not welcome". that is, her vexatious litigation is going to give me the information i need to prosecute her for discrimination, that i didn't previously have.
in ontario, applications may be denied for financial reasons like failing a credit check. but, telling a tenant that they are "not welcome here" is discrimination under the law. it's amazing that this ended up in the court documents, but i'll take my good luck, as it is.
obviously, my first order of business is getting the charges dropped, and i legitimately do not expect this to be difficult. i'm really fairly stuck until i can do this. i'm almost wondering if i'm better off waiting, so i don't scare off any potential landlords.
and, while i don't even expect the case to go to trial, there is an obscure possibility that i could be facing up to ten years' imprisonment. it's almost impossible for me to think about moving until the tenth...
yeah.
i'll need to file in the morning.
i'm going to accept legal aid, because it is available and it would be foolish not to. i don't want to pay for a lawyer, but i'll take a lawyer, for free. see, i think i understand the law well, and i'm good at winning arguments, but i'm going to need help with the procedural aspect of it. i really think what i need is a tutor, to help me through the procedure the first time. and, once armed with that experience, i can then represent myself in future cases. i'm expecting to hear something back by the end of the day, and, if i don't, i'll call after 17:00.
the one qualification i need to present is the following: given the context, i need the lawyer to be female. and, you can expect me to show up to court looking pretty, too.
the last 30 hours have been absurd.
full write-ups will happen over the evening. but, i now have to fight an absurdly frivolous harassment charge over the next few weeks, which is going to make it difficult to find an apartment. i think i'm actually dealing with a dumb cop. but, i'm now going to fail a criminal check, until i can get the charges dropped..
i have no choice but to appeal and will probably file it immediately in the morning.
in the long run, i expect to end up richer from this. a lot richer. in the short term, it's massively disruptive.
this is a letter meant for potential counsel.
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/thoughts/kafkavsorwellinreallife.html
full write-ups will happen over the evening. but, i now have to fight an absurdly frivolous harassment charge over the next few weeks, which is going to make it difficult to find an apartment. i think i'm actually dealing with a dumb cop. but, i'm now going to fail a criminal check, until i can get the charges dropped..
i have no choice but to appeal and will probably file it immediately in the morning.
in the long run, i expect to end up richer from this. a lot richer. in the short term, it's massively disruptive.
this is a letter meant for potential counsel.
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/thoughts/kafkavsorwellinreallife.html
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
on that old debate as to whether kafka or orwell was the better prophet...
i had to get a few hours of sleep when i got home, as i hadn't slept in custody. they picked me up right before i was going to make spaghetti and take a shower, too, to end what was already a long day. so, i need to recuperate a little tonight.but, you are correct: i am a creature of the internet, and i make arguments better in writing. you also tend to take control of conversations, which is a good trait, but i learned a long time ago that i need to write an essay, sometimes, to accommodate for disconnects with certain personality types.
i was barely awake during our conversation outside of the court, but if i remember correctly, you were going to speak to legal aid and get back to me before the end of the 26th. i'm hoping that this essay can find it's way to a potential lawyer that is making a decision on taking the case, as i don't think this case is really about harassment on my behalf, but more about police harassment against me. this essay should form the basis of my defence. i don't think that a bail hearing was the right time to have this discussion, but, as mentioned, it would have required a soliloquy from me that you weren't likely to grant.
i got arrested for repeatedly applying to an ad for housing on the internet, and essentially charged with stalking somebody that i've never met. i had a speech prepared, but i didn't need to use it, because the justice didn't need to hear it - how do you get from being persistent in applying for housing (however annoying...) to criminal harassment directed at a specific individual unknown to the accused? and, this was really the crux of the matter from the crown's perspective. the bail conditions were set up to treat me like i was stalking this woman, and she required protection from me, when the reality is that i was being persistent in looking for an apartment, and had no idea she even existed. the justice immediately realized that disconnect. i think you saw the gulf in logic, too. even the crown seemed less than convinced that this was worth her time, frankly. so, how do you get such a ridiculous charge out of such a benign behaviour?
ockham's razor really suggests something else is at play, and i do believe that the actual issue was that the officer was out to get me. if we need some alternate way to explain how somebody gets arrested and held for 20 hours for replying to a non-personal ad on the internet, this is the answer that seems most apparent. i had not only dealt with this officer previously, he had threatened to charge me with harassment previously, and i had in fact filed a complaint against him with the oiprd. while i do not claim to know whether caroline chevalier's fears are real in her own mind or not, i think the irony of the situation is that her narrative suggests some paranoia or ptsd on her behalf, and that that may require some treatment for her own well being. i don't want to seem insensitive towards people that are dealing with real harassment, as i actually have a great deal of empathy, but i must be adamant that this is not it, and that any attempt to frame the issue as one where a potentially vulnerable female is being threatened by a rejected suitor or aggressive pursuer is not consistent with any evidence that actually exists. i was pursuing an apartment, and under the impression that the person on the other side of the machine was ryan myon. this is a case the crown appears to be pursuing due solely to the nature of the report that exists, rather than any meaningful evidence, which reduces to an issue of framing by the officer. as such, i think this is the real issue before the court.
i initially had contact with this officer in the summer of 2018 on an unrelated call regarding a conflict between my neighbour and i about the issue of secondhand smoke. i am living in a unit with poor flooring, on top of a very heavy marijuana user. i must keep the windows open at almost all times to prevent being stoned by the second-hand smoke. this is the topic of a suit i filed against my landlord, swt-16361-18. i actually took myself to the hospital at one point and tested positive for thc, from the second-hand smoke. at the start of the summer, a new tenant moved in next door that insisted on getting very drunk and chain smoking regular cigarettes directly in my air supply, leaving me in a situation where if i closed my window i'd get stoned, and if i opened my window i'd get smoked on. frustratingly, there is a very big yard next door, and no reason this person was required to smoke in my air supply. after several polite attempts to ask her to smoke elsewhere, i resorted to more powerful tactics, including blaring loud music and yelling rude things out the window.
there's no question that i've been very rude to this person, but there's no question that she's been very rude to me, too. she doesn't have the right to smoke wherever she wants, and i don't have the obligation to live in her smoke, but most smokers don't see it that way: they think they do have the right to smoke wherever they want, and everybody else does have the obligation to deal with it. what should have been a polite and neighbourly request to move a few feet away from the building turned into frequent yelling matches with a quite belligerent drunk. and, at some point she decided i was harassing her and called the cops.
now, this is really a situation without a proper remedy. i believe i should have some legal recourse to prevent her from smoking in my air supply. if these were private houses, rather than apartments, i could sue for trespass; i can't really do that, in the existing situation. i've explored the idea of having her charged with nuisance, and i'll get to that in a second. but, there really isn't anything i can do in this situation besides make the experience unpleasant, and hope she smokes somewhere else - which is in fact what happened, in the end. but, i'm cognizant of the law, too. i knew not to threaten her or make her feel unsafe - just to be irritating enough to get under her skin. i don't expect she had the same subtle understanding of harassment, and consequently felt justified in calling the police for being irritated.
i believe that the first time i met the officer that pressed charges (an "officer muntino") was on a call from the neighbour that i was harassing her by yelling things out the window at her. and, i actually think that the key bias underlying the charges that were pressed comes from this encounter, directly. while i don't recall all of the mean things i said to this woman to try to get her to smoke somewhere else, i can be certain that i didn't say anything racist, for the reason that i'm not a racist. i'd just never do that, and i'm confident i didn't. there's certain things that you make sure you don't say to a black person, that you very carefully avoid, at all times. but, the smoker does happen to be quite visibly african in descent. i don't know how this information found it's way to the officer. it may have even been coerced by the officer, who could have accidentally framed the issue that way. but, when the officer appeared at my door, he accused me of hurling racial slurs and was quite angry and perturbed by it. again: it's hard to know what the smoker is thinking. but, the thing is that it isn't actually true. i simply wouldn't do that. this officer then reassured this woman that she has the right to smoke wherever she wants, which just fed into more conflict in the space. fwiw, she has no problems yelling transphobic slurs at me, and doesn't think twice about it, but i don't care as long as she smokes somewhere else.
as mentioned, i am of the opinion that she should not be legally permitted to smoke at such a close proximity to my window, and i should have a legal method at my disposal to force her to move. i couldn't get bylaw to do anything. trespass doesn't make sense in context. i can't sue the landlord next door for reasonable enjoyment. but, in researching approaches, something that struck me as potentially worthwhile was building evidence for a possible nuisance case. i tried exploring these options with police, and was told i need to establish intent. so, i started filming her while she was smoking - and telling her why i was doing it. i then got a second visit from officer muntino, ordering me to stop filming her smoking, under threat of being charged with...
....criminal harassment.
i told him that i was building a case for nuisance, and he said there's no such thing as criminal nuisance. there is of course such thing as criminal nuisance, and this behaviour is not harassment, either. i was not charged for this, for obvious reasons. but, there's a commonality in these cases - this cop likes to throw his weight around, and ultimately doesn't know what he's talking about.
the story i'd like to paint is one of a cop that is convinced i'm a racist, and is essentially out to get me, so jumped on an opportunity to charge me with harassment when he finally could, as trivial as it might actually be. but, i'm not a racist. nor am i even very white, really. i'm just a non-smoker trying to find a healthy place to live.
the report i filed with the oiprd on sept 16th is based on a different narrative of the events that occurred in relation to this case than the one presented by the crown. from file #E-201809161252432765,
Your complaint details
Address
15-851 tuscarora
windsor
there was a phone call & a visit to my door, of a threatening, harassing and frankly simply incompetent nature.
Incident Dates
Date
12/9/2018
Time
3:56
Date
16/9/2018
Time
12:00
Summary of complaint
Please note formatting has been stripped for preview purposes - original intact
this officer has threatened me with arrest for a non-crime on two occasions. the first occurrence occurred by phone, and i have a recording of it. the officer called me at 3:56 am - that is almost 4:00 in the morning - on sept 12, and threatened to arrest me for repeatedly responding to an online ad. the number that the officer called me from was (removed). i txted a response to this number, and was told it is not an officer's number. it must have been a friend or partner's number, i suppose. i do have the recording of the officer identifying himself and can email it somewhere. i explained that my behaviour - repeatedly responding to an online ad for an apartment - is not harassment under the criminal code, and not only would i not stop, but i am preparing a human rights case against the landlord, for discriminating against me on enumerated grounds. the second occurrence happened at roughly 12:00 pm on sept 16th. two officers showed up at my door (the other was a white male officer and said nothing during the encounter), and this "constable mancino" threatened me with arrest a second time if i did not stop responding to the ad. i asked the officer to explain what harassment under the law is, and he failed to do so in a correct manner. he seemed to believe that harassment is merely annoying somebody, rather than threatening to harm them. of course, if that were true, then telemarketing would be against the law, and the jails would be full of call centre agents. it's just wrong. after determining that the officer did not understand the law, i told him i didn't have time for this, encouraged him to launch a report if he wanted to and went to close the door. he then put his foot in the door, preventing me from doing so. i informed him that he does not have a warrant, and yet he still refused to move his foot. he did eventually move his foot after i asked him to several times. he then threatened to arrest me if i reply to the ad again - not if i conduct in threatening or harassing behaviour, but if i merely reply to the ad. on his way out, i asked him for his badge number and he refused to give it to me. he started with "184" and then said he already gave it to me, which he did not. even if he had already given it to me, that would not be a reason to not give it to me again. when a citizen asks for a badge number, an officer should state it slowly and repeatedly if necessary. this officer may have been acting out of bias regarding my gender identity, as i am openly transgendered, but i cannot state that for certain. regardless, he should not have called me at 4:00 am from an unofficial police number that may or may not have belonged to his friend or partner, he should not have threatened me with arrest without understanding the nature of the law, he should not have prevented me from closing the door without a warrant and he should have given me his badge number when i asked. i would suggest that this particular officer has a superiority complex, is unreformable and should probably look for a different line of work.
i was arrested on the evening of sept 24th and held for 20+ hours before being released.
while i understand that i am the one on trial, i think that the evidence against me is so flimsy as to dispense of it rather quickly, and i think that it is the officer that truly needs to stand trial here. i believe the case should be dismissed, that this officer should be severely disciplined and that i should be compensated generously for the ordeal. so, i would hope that potential counsel would be looking towards the longer term, in turning the situation over: for the person being harassed here, and quite violently, is in fact actually myself.
Monday, September 24, 2018
i don't have any clear memories of going to dunrobin - i may have had some relatives on my mom's dad's side up that way, although i want to say they were closer to the water, in an older community. shirley's bay? - but i know that strip in gatineau well, and may have known people affected by the tornado, in a past life.
dunrobin is a wealthy community, but that part of gatineau is quite poor and those people will feel this for a long time.
dunrobin is a wealthy community, but that part of gatineau is quite poor and those people will feel this for a long time.
that said, leftists understand that criminalizing drug use does not help in emancipating workers from addiction or in abolishing nihilistic attitudes towards consumption. this is a battle that must be waged via information, not with the force of authority.
the proper solution is to build a society where people have better things to do than get stoned, and consequently don't want to be stoned all of the time.
kind of like how i've built my life.
i realize that the drugs are affecting my productivity, and i don't like it. the ideal is to create systems where everybody has enough self-interest in their own labour that they feel this way; drug abuse is abolished not by force but via mass disengagement and mass disinterest.
it follows that the solution to drug addiction is the same thing as the solution to religion - the eradication of poverty.
the proper solution is to build a society where people have better things to do than get stoned, and consequently don't want to be stoned all of the time.
kind of like how i've built my life.
i realize that the drugs are affecting my productivity, and i don't like it. the ideal is to create systems where everybody has enough self-interest in their own labour that they feel this way; drug abuse is abolished not by force but via mass disengagement and mass disinterest.
it follows that the solution to drug addiction is the same thing as the solution to religion - the eradication of poverty.
historically, the left has generally tended to take a negative view of habitual drug use, as it works against any latent revolutionary potential, and converts rebellious workers into mindless drones. and, this function of drug use has never been lost on the elites, either, who have used it as a weapon on multiple occasions (see opium wars).
Sunday, September 23, 2018
so, the new climate in ontario seems to be as follows:
1) spring: feb-apr
2) summer: may-sept
3) fall: oct-dec
4) winter: january. sometimes.
i can't risk leaving on oct 1st, as it could take a while, and the climate could get rough in november.
but, it's been hot here all september, and it seems likely to stay summerish past halloween.
we used to talk about labour day as the end of summer. nowadays, the end of summer is halloween. & we used to talk about victoria day as the start of summer. nowadays, that's more likely to happen before easter.
i have to keep looking, but i've largely given up and i'm really planning for a move out in march, at this point. i'm even staring to consider the benefits of stopping looking and just focusing on catching up in the alter-reality.
at the reduced rent of $525, i should be able to put aside $500-600 months until then, which would be another $3000 or so, leaving me with around $7000 on the move out. that's getting close to the down payment i want.
i think the maximum i'm allowed to sit on is $20,000 before the government decides i'm too rich to be disabled.
1) spring: feb-apr
2) summer: may-sept
3) fall: oct-dec
4) winter: january. sometimes.
i can't risk leaving on oct 1st, as it could take a while, and the climate could get rough in november.
but, it's been hot here all september, and it seems likely to stay summerish past halloween.
we used to talk about labour day as the end of summer. nowadays, the end of summer is halloween. & we used to talk about victoria day as the start of summer. nowadays, that's more likely to happen before easter.
i have to keep looking, but i've largely given up and i'm really planning for a move out in march, at this point. i'm even staring to consider the benefits of stopping looking and just focusing on catching up in the alter-reality.
at the reduced rent of $525, i should be able to put aside $500-600 months until then, which would be another $3000 or so, leaving me with around $7000 on the move out. that's getting close to the down payment i want.
i think the maximum i'm allowed to sit on is $20,000 before the government decides i'm too rich to be disabled.
so, this isn't exactly what i wanted to do, but it's an approach, if you'd like to help me get out of this situation.
if you've been reading this page, you know why i'm doing this.
https://www.patreon.com/user?u=13732362
if you've been reading this page, you know why i'm doing this.
https://www.patreon.com/user?u=13732362
Saturday, September 22, 2018
listen, i could have applied for a job with the government, and bought a nice house in the suburbs...
....only to have a family of four with with two teenagers, all smokers, including a pothead mother, move in next door, and have smoke parties outside all of the time, and smoke through open windows.
it would be easier to get up and move if i had more cash, granted. but, that's what the case was for - i can afford to move, that's not the problem. and, i'm in fact in more or less exactly the same situation i'd be in, even if i did have a stable income.
that's why i did the right thing in fighting back.
the issue is not my income, it's the city. i continue to be astounded by the smoking rates, here, and the deficit of healthy housing, in an era where the simple reality is that the vast majority of people think that smoking anything is retarded.
and, i might point out the following: if i had a job i couldn't just get up and leave town.
....only to have a family of four with with two teenagers, all smokers, including a pothead mother, move in next door, and have smoke parties outside all of the time, and smoke through open windows.
it would be easier to get up and move if i had more cash, granted. but, that's what the case was for - i can afford to move, that's not the problem. and, i'm in fact in more or less exactly the same situation i'd be in, even if i did have a stable income.
that's why i did the right thing in fighting back.
the issue is not my income, it's the city. i continue to be astounded by the smoking rates, here, and the deficit of healthy housing, in an era where the simple reality is that the vast majority of people think that smoking anything is retarded.
and, i might point out the following: if i had a job i couldn't just get up and leave town.
a lot of the activism that exists right now is rooted in very poor understandings of history, that are mangled to fit into a pre-existing narrative, and consequently come to a set of ridiculous conclusions that are going to prolong capitalism rather than abolish it.
we have to have these historical debates.
we have to reverse the false understandings and set the record straight before we can carry forward. & it's not academic. it's not historical materialism. it's just the recognition that you can't undo processes that never were, and you have to understand how processes actually are before you can actually unravel them.
if you try and eat an orange like it's an apple, you're going to get sick. and, you have to unpeel the fruit the right way - you can't unpeel a banana like it's an orange. or, at least not without destroying the delicious fruit, inside.
we have to have these historical debates.
we have to reverse the false understandings and set the record straight before we can carry forward. & it's not academic. it's not historical materialism. it's just the recognition that you can't undo processes that never were, and you have to understand how processes actually are before you can actually unravel them.
if you try and eat an orange like it's an apple, you're going to get sick. and, you have to unpeel the fruit the right way - you can't unpeel a banana like it's an orange. or, at least not without destroying the delicious fruit, inside.
northern europe fought a thousand year war to defeat roman/christian colonialism, and ultimately lost, but then undid it's effects from the inside out.
the christian armies were victorious, but pagan science carried the day in the end - in england, in germany, in sweden.
there's a reason the vikings burned the churches, and ignored the granaries: colonialism is a function of catholicism. and, it was northern europe that was it's first victim, not it's primary exponent.
by the time of the colonial era, most of northern europe had undergone a reformation, which reasserted it's sovereignty from rome. and, you see the differences in history. the spanish & portugese were catholics and slaughtered and enslaved, while the protestant english attempted to do things like buy the land and the half-calvinist/half-catholic french had a mixed identity - the church was as bad in the french colonies as it was elsewhere, including in much of canada, but the french explorers were often more interested in trading than colonizing, and this underlies much of the reasoning behind the stronger alliances with french groups.
it's not all white conquistadors conquering and planting flags. there's alliances. there's self-interest, all around. and, you have to understand where they came from to understand what they did.
but, almost everywhere, the root cause of the problems that happened, when they did, is ultimately catholicism. even the slave trade that the english took over was ultimately...it was muslim in construction, but catholic in emulation. the reason africans were enslaved was not because they were black but because they weren't christian, on orders from the pope, and in emulation of the existing muslim practice - for the muslims would enslave christians at any chance they got, including frequent raids into cities like london and paris. yes, that happened. it's why france conquered algeria, to stop the pirates from raiding the coasts.
what i want is to build solidarity between indigenous groups and white europeans on this basis of a shared opponent in messianic religion. and, i think the indigenous groups might be pleasantly surprised about what science really teaches, when separated from industrial capitalism - there's more commonality than apparent. but, we need to talk about ecology, not religion; we need to talk about interdependence, not sovereignty.
i am confident that the descendants of indigenous people will look back at this period and recognize it as a civilizing era, even as they cringe at the dual evils of capitalism and catholicism, much as white people look at the european dark ages and pull out competing and equally correct narratives about the retarding influence of the church, and it's ultimately civilizing impact.
had a native warrior met a german barbarian in the year 300, they would have made a fast alliance in their attack on the romans. that's what i want to emulate, now.
the christian armies were victorious, but pagan science carried the day in the end - in england, in germany, in sweden.
there's a reason the vikings burned the churches, and ignored the granaries: colonialism is a function of catholicism. and, it was northern europe that was it's first victim, not it's primary exponent.
by the time of the colonial era, most of northern europe had undergone a reformation, which reasserted it's sovereignty from rome. and, you see the differences in history. the spanish & portugese were catholics and slaughtered and enslaved, while the protestant english attempted to do things like buy the land and the half-calvinist/half-catholic french had a mixed identity - the church was as bad in the french colonies as it was elsewhere, including in much of canada, but the french explorers were often more interested in trading than colonizing, and this underlies much of the reasoning behind the stronger alliances with french groups.
it's not all white conquistadors conquering and planting flags. there's alliances. there's self-interest, all around. and, you have to understand where they came from to understand what they did.
but, almost everywhere, the root cause of the problems that happened, when they did, is ultimately catholicism. even the slave trade that the english took over was ultimately...it was muslim in construction, but catholic in emulation. the reason africans were enslaved was not because they were black but because they weren't christian, on orders from the pope, and in emulation of the existing muslim practice - for the muslims would enslave christians at any chance they got, including frequent raids into cities like london and paris. yes, that happened. it's why france conquered algeria, to stop the pirates from raiding the coasts.
what i want is to build solidarity between indigenous groups and white europeans on this basis of a shared opponent in messianic religion. and, i think the indigenous groups might be pleasantly surprised about what science really teaches, when separated from industrial capitalism - there's more commonality than apparent. but, we need to talk about ecology, not religion; we need to talk about interdependence, not sovereignty.
i am confident that the descendants of indigenous people will look back at this period and recognize it as a civilizing era, even as they cringe at the dual evils of capitalism and catholicism, much as white people look at the european dark ages and pull out competing and equally correct narratives about the retarding influence of the church, and it's ultimately civilizing impact.
had a native warrior met a german barbarian in the year 300, they would have made a fast alliance in their attack on the romans. that's what i want to emulate, now.
stop.
you have to understand that the roman church did exactly the same thing to germans, slavs and celts in northern europe from c. 500-c.1500 as it did to indigenous peoples in the americas from c. 1500-c.1900. if anything, the colonization of native americans was less brutal and less complete than the colonization of northern europe. but, there was a continuity - the colonization of the americas was the next step in the process, the logical continuation of colonizing europe.
there's a common enemy here in christianity. but, the natives need to drop their own xenophobia in order to get their heads around it.
the church carried out massacres against the natives, no doubt. but, there was nothing as horrific as the genocide that charlemagne carried out against the saxons, there was never anything like the crusade against the albigensians, there was nothing as systematic as the inquisition, etc.
and, this is my piss off against this modern foucaudian concept of history: it is ridiculously ignorant, in it's total lack of knowledge of europe. it knows nothing of the history of this continent, and yet somehow claims to right a set of wrongs carried out by this continent, from this position of abject ignorance about it.
is there an african or indigenous tribe that has been so violently separated from it's past that it can't even reconstruct it? for, that is the truth of indigenous european religion: it is so utterly erased that we only have scattered fragments remaining of what it even was.
and, then they blame these crimes on white europeans, who are the most colonized people on the planet.
your enemy is messianic religion, and it is a common enemy that we both share. let's understand that.
you have to understand that the roman church did exactly the same thing to germans, slavs and celts in northern europe from c. 500-c.1500 as it did to indigenous peoples in the americas from c. 1500-c.1900. if anything, the colonization of native americans was less brutal and less complete than the colonization of northern europe. but, there was a continuity - the colonization of the americas was the next step in the process, the logical continuation of colonizing europe.
there's a common enemy here in christianity. but, the natives need to drop their own xenophobia in order to get their heads around it.
the church carried out massacres against the natives, no doubt. but, there was nothing as horrific as the genocide that charlemagne carried out against the saxons, there was never anything like the crusade against the albigensians, there was nothing as systematic as the inquisition, etc.
and, this is my piss off against this modern foucaudian concept of history: it is ridiculously ignorant, in it's total lack of knowledge of europe. it knows nothing of the history of this continent, and yet somehow claims to right a set of wrongs carried out by this continent, from this position of abject ignorance about it.
is there an african or indigenous tribe that has been so violently separated from it's past that it can't even reconstruct it? for, that is the truth of indigenous european religion: it is so utterly erased that we only have scattered fragments remaining of what it even was.
and, then they blame these crimes on white europeans, who are the most colonized people on the planet.
your enemy is messianic religion, and it is a common enemy that we both share. let's understand that.
Friday, September 21, 2018
i am a paragon of perfect health, and i spend about $50/week on "groceries" - including things like toilet paper and toothpaste. that's probably around $40 on actual food. a naive extrapolation would be to $120 for three people, but you could save a little in bulk. and, a kid doesn't eat like a grown-up.
i'm the person he's talking about: i budget, i eye bargains, etc.
so, it's an under-estimate, certainly, but perhaps not by as much as some are claiming; $100 is probably not undoable.
and, what do i eat? it's on my vlog channel. daily fruit smoothies and a lot of spaghetti, with eggs every few days.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/09/21/philippe-couillard-grocery-bill_a_23535545/?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=spotim_recirculation&spotim_referrer=recirculation
i'm the person he's talking about: i budget, i eye bargains, etc.
so, it's an under-estimate, certainly, but perhaps not by as much as some are claiming; $100 is probably not undoable.
and, what do i eat? it's on my vlog channel. daily fruit smoothies and a lot of spaghetti, with eggs every few days.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/09/21/philippe-couillard-grocery-bill_a_23535545/?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=spotim_recirculation&spotim_referrer=recirculation
another thing people seem to have their head stuck up their ass about regarding residential schools is the idea that it is somehow unique to indigenous people.
as though the catholic church only abused indigenous children, right?
i'm actually of the opinion that this may have worked out rather splendidly, if we had used secular institutions, instead - that this really isn't about colonialism, per se, as much as it's about the fucking church.
indigenous groups shouldn't see themselves in opposition to french canadians or the irish, or the italians, on some kind of a racial axis. the church did exactly the same thing to all these other kids, too. rather, they should be standing in solidarity with each other, on the side of modernity, and in opposition to religion.
we will have progress when the question is redefined in this way, away from an indigenous grievance against colonialism and towards a general social grievance against religion.
but, again: when you talk to these people, you realize that will never happen, because they're deeply socially and culturally conservative people, to the core of their identity. they don't want to free themselves from the oppression of organized religion, they want to re-establish their own traditional systems of oppression.
i stand with those oppressed by religion - and that means i stand with those oppressed by traditional and indigenous religions, as well.
as though the catholic church only abused indigenous children, right?
i'm actually of the opinion that this may have worked out rather splendidly, if we had used secular institutions, instead - that this really isn't about colonialism, per se, as much as it's about the fucking church.
indigenous groups shouldn't see themselves in opposition to french canadians or the irish, or the italians, on some kind of a racial axis. the church did exactly the same thing to all these other kids, too. rather, they should be standing in solidarity with each other, on the side of modernity, and in opposition to religion.
we will have progress when the question is redefined in this way, away from an indigenous grievance against colonialism and towards a general social grievance against religion.
but, again: when you talk to these people, you realize that will never happen, because they're deeply socially and culturally conservative people, to the core of their identity. they don't want to free themselves from the oppression of organized religion, they want to re-establish their own traditional systems of oppression.
i stand with those oppressed by religion - and that means i stand with those oppressed by traditional and indigenous religions, as well.
the system didn't work: they didn't discard their beliefs, and they didn't learn to read. they were just molested by catholic fundamentalists and largely left to languish in their own ignorance.
you don't see white people walking around carrying out witchcraft and sacrificing goats any more, do you? and, the reason is that they were romanized by a structure that beat the ignorance out of them. christianity has created it's own set of problems, but at least white people generally reason out problems using science nowadays, rather than superstition or tradition.
a properly altruistic approach towards the indigenous peoples of this country (and i am one of them.) is to help them get passed the limitations of their own culture, abandon their religion and embrace science. that is what i want for my own people: for us to abandon our ignorance and enter the modern world.
so, the problem with the question is that it is wrong: residential schools were not an effective means of teaching indigenous people how to read, civilizing them or separating them from their ignorance. in order to achieve that desired end point, we need to try something else - something less violent, less authoritarian and less religious.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/09/20/alberta-course-asked-students-about-positives-of-residential-schools_a_23534319/?ncid=other_trending_qeesnbnu0l8&utm_campaign=trending
you don't see white people walking around carrying out witchcraft and sacrificing goats any more, do you? and, the reason is that they were romanized by a structure that beat the ignorance out of them. christianity has created it's own set of problems, but at least white people generally reason out problems using science nowadays, rather than superstition or tradition.
a properly altruistic approach towards the indigenous peoples of this country (and i am one of them.) is to help them get passed the limitations of their own culture, abandon their religion and embrace science. that is what i want for my own people: for us to abandon our ignorance and enter the modern world.
so, the problem with the question is that it is wrong: residential schools were not an effective means of teaching indigenous people how to read, civilizing them or separating them from their ignorance. in order to achieve that desired end point, we need to try something else - something less violent, less authoritarian and less religious.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/09/20/alberta-course-asked-students-about-positives-of-residential-schools_a_23534319/?ncid=other_trending_qeesnbnu0l8&utm_campaign=trending
Thursday, September 20, 2018
yes, they probably need to send a male.
but, he needs to be a little bit older.
and, he needs to have a decent grasp on policy, in addition to being sympathetic to the president's views.
you couldn't ask for a better guy than chretien. he's not a compromise. he's exactly what they need. if you were to imagine the guy, it would be him.
but, again: this government has a chip on it's shoulder in wanting to distance itself from it's own legacy.
and, the country is on the brink of suffering dramatically for this foolishness - this hollow pride.
but, he needs to be a little bit older.
and, he needs to have a decent grasp on policy, in addition to being sympathetic to the president's views.
you couldn't ask for a better guy than chretien. he's not a compromise. he's exactly what they need. if you were to imagine the guy, it would be him.
but, again: this government has a chip on it's shoulder in wanting to distance itself from it's own legacy.
and, the country is on the brink of suffering dramatically for this foolishness - this hollow pride.
our government's opinion of the president of the united states is so low that we've sent doug ford to talk to him, thinking he's the guy that fixes the impasse.
my friends....
(pause. looks towards cue cards.)
my...my...
*cough*
my friends!
*crickets*
my friends, that's not going to get us very far.
my friends....
(pause. looks towards cue cards.)
my...my...
*cough*
my friends!
*crickets*
my friends, that's not going to get us very far.
it's a function of the smug sense of misplaced superiority that we're projecting.
we're looking down on somebody that could wipe us off the map with the press of a button, and is actually demonstrating some restraint in not doing so.
any intelligent outside observer can see the truth: we're the idiots at the table.
we're looking down on somebody that could wipe us off the map with the press of a button, and is actually demonstrating some restraint in not doing so.
any intelligent outside observer can see the truth: we're the idiots at the table.
the premise that donald trump is going to have any respect for doug ford at all is just further indicative of the stupidity that is driving the canadian side, and further evidence that much of what trump is saying about us right now is actually true.
donald trump is going to interpret doug ford as the complete fucking idiot that he is, and hold us in contempt for wasting his time pandering to him by sending the village idiot to talk to him.
the right person to send is jean chretien.
donald trump is going to interpret doug ford as the complete fucking idiot that he is, and hold us in contempt for wasting his time pandering to him by sending the village idiot to talk to him.
the right person to send is jean chretien.
all throughout history, science has fought against - and sometimes lost to - superstition and ignorance.
and, that is how indoor smoking, or really smoking at all, ought to be approached: this is another battle for science to fight and win against superstition and ignorance.
there will be ups and downs, but history is on the side of abolishing smoking.
...eventually.
my misanthropism is not so great that i think this is beyond us. but, i know i need that caveat: eventually.
for, there are still people that will argue in favour of any manner of superstition and nonsense, aren't there? but, they are mostly waning, as the stupid is beaten out of them.
i was thinking about this the other day as i was walking. the smoking rates amongst young people are dramatically lower, indicating there is good reason to think i can hope to wait it out by waiting for them all to die. and, they will die young, and terribly - that is what the science informs us of.
that is some cause for optimism - that they will be dead, soon. that humanity is in fact winning this battle, however slowly.
but, in the process of waiting for them to die, i am also waiting myself out, for my own limits are finite, as well. it's a solution that leaves much to be desired...
i was up late last night fighting with the smoke. i'm going to eat and see what's available to look at.
and, that is how indoor smoking, or really smoking at all, ought to be approached: this is another battle for science to fight and win against superstition and ignorance.
there will be ups and downs, but history is on the side of abolishing smoking.
...eventually.
my misanthropism is not so great that i think this is beyond us. but, i know i need that caveat: eventually.
for, there are still people that will argue in favour of any manner of superstition and nonsense, aren't there? but, they are mostly waning, as the stupid is beaten out of them.
i was thinking about this the other day as i was walking. the smoking rates amongst young people are dramatically lower, indicating there is good reason to think i can hope to wait it out by waiting for them all to die. and, they will die young, and terribly - that is what the science informs us of.
that is some cause for optimism - that they will be dead, soon. that humanity is in fact winning this battle, however slowly.
but, in the process of waiting for them to die, i am also waiting myself out, for my own limits are finite, as well. it's a solution that leaves much to be desired...
i was up late last night fighting with the smoke. i'm going to eat and see what's available to look at.
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
to be clear.
they put an ad up for a bachelor at $700. i'd seen it before and knew it was a small one bedroom. so, i get there and the property manager says "i thought it was a bachelor, but it turns out it's a one bedroom". after sniffing out the place a second time, i tentatively take an application - and ask if it's the same price, now that she realizes it's a one bedroom. she says it is.
the building was recently purchased.
i decide to apply later that night, so i call her up, and she's evasive - tells me to drop off the application on the other end of town. them, claims she's not in the office. she's never in the office, apparently, until i get declined.
she claims i was the only applicant, and that appears to have been true.
there are other reasons for a big company like this to decline me, but i have to point out that they rent to refugees and to students, so they don't have problems taking government checks, or applicants with high rent to income ratios. students might have cosigners, though. and, as mentioned, i don't know what the real story about housing access and refugees is - i don't know what kind of a deal a big company like york is getting to open up housing.
i suspect it was at least a partial factor.
it's now listed for $775, which is still affordable. my own rent is set to go up in a few months, remember, to about $720 - as my income goes up this month from $1150 to $1170.
but, i was clear enough that i was kind of panicking, and now that the serve is down, the impetus of that panic seems to have passed. i'm not sure that moving there solves the problem i set out to solve...
they put an ad up for a bachelor at $700. i'd seen it before and knew it was a small one bedroom. so, i get there and the property manager says "i thought it was a bachelor, but it turns out it's a one bedroom". after sniffing out the place a second time, i tentatively take an application - and ask if it's the same price, now that she realizes it's a one bedroom. she says it is.
the building was recently purchased.
i decide to apply later that night, so i call her up, and she's evasive - tells me to drop off the application on the other end of town. them, claims she's not in the office. she's never in the office, apparently, until i get declined.
she claims i was the only applicant, and that appears to have been true.
there are other reasons for a big company like this to decline me, but i have to point out that they rent to refugees and to students, so they don't have problems taking government checks, or applicants with high rent to income ratios. students might have cosigners, though. and, as mentioned, i don't know what the real story about housing access and refugees is - i don't know what kind of a deal a big company like york is getting to open up housing.
i suspect it was at least a partial factor.
it's now listed for $775, which is still affordable. my own rent is set to go up in a few months, remember, to about $720 - as my income goes up this month from $1150 to $1170.
but, i was clear enough that i was kind of panicking, and now that the serve is down, the impetus of that panic seems to have passed. i'm not sure that moving there solves the problem i set out to solve...
the place that declined me also just relisted, but at a higher price.
they didn't give me a reason for declining me. how much did the price
boost have to do with it? they also changed the listing from 'bachelor'
to 'one bedroom', which is correct, but when the manager told me she had it listed wrong, she told me the price would be the same. if that's what was going on, it might explain why the situation felt so sketchy. i may call them again if it's still
sitting there, as it's actually still in my price range, although it
seems a little odd to react to disinterest by increasing the price.....
but, i have to get across once again that...
there's 50 people there to see a tiny little apartment. they're all white. yet, we know that the factor causing the housing crisis is an influx of migrants - and i see them out and about all over the place.
they're here, and they're occupying a lot of housing, but they don't apply for the places i apply for. why is that?
i don't pretend that i fully understand what's happening, but it doesn't add up.
there's 50 people there to see a tiny little apartment. they're all white. yet, we know that the factor causing the housing crisis is an influx of migrants - and i see them out and about all over the place.
they're here, and they're occupying a lot of housing, but they don't apply for the places i apply for. why is that?
i don't pretend that i fully understand what's happening, but it doesn't add up.
the unit had a lot of flies when i moved in, and i've actually mostly cleared them out.
as far as i can tell, the termites are coming up from the subfloor, and i suspect there's a nest between the units. for a few weeks at the end of june, they were "swarming" the light fixture in the living room, which is a technical term around their mating rituals. and, they seemed to come right up out of the floor. it's just another reason to repair the flooring....
the moths are coming in through the screens, i think, but are not really that bad, either. i can deal with a few stray moths.
it's the termites that seem like a real problem.
as far as i can tell, the termites are coming up from the subfloor, and i suspect there's a nest between the units. for a few weeks at the end of june, they were "swarming" the light fixture in the living room, which is a technical term around their mating rituals. and, they seemed to come right up out of the floor. it's just another reason to repair the flooring....
the moths are coming in through the screens, i think, but are not really that bad, either. i can deal with a few stray moths.
it's the termites that seem like a real problem.
don't misunderstand me: i don't know what happened.
but, it's been clear from day one that the situation was eventually going to flip over, and the tables would eventually turn. at some point, the owner has to pull his head out of his ass and realize "this chain smoker is costing me a fortune, and i'm sick of standing up for her.".
but, it's been clear from day one that the situation was eventually going to flip over, and the tables would eventually turn. at some point, the owner has to pull his head out of his ass and realize "this chain smoker is costing me a fortune, and i'm sick of standing up for her.".
so, i got my money order back, and deposited it back into my account. it cost me $7.50 in money, and i got some exercise - it's not catastrophic. or, at least, it won't be if i can figure it out...
like i say: it was a long shot, although it really shouldn't have been. it's the same thing i'm paying right now, for a slightly smaller unit. the reason i'm not that upset is that i don't know if it was really a way out of the smoke or not.
that company doesn't seem to care about non-smoking policies. and, that building was a little older.
on they way back in, i noticed that they've got signs up in the building explaining that they're taking some steps to keep the bugs out of the building. and, you know, for all the problems with smoke i've had here, i haven't had really serious problems with bugs - or at least not the bad ones. no bed bugs. no roaches. well, i've seen a couple, but it's been very minor. i've had some flies, some termites and some moths, which i think are of at least concern in the broader scheme of it. i don't know what other people are experiencing, but it's not something i've dealt with, here...
i noticed on the flyer, though, that there's a new property manager.
did i get this woman fired? i don't know. but, there's a new sheriff in the building.
i have a showing this afternoon, but i'm going to give the new boss a call when i get back. i don't think the situation is in any way immediately salvageable. but, if the new manager gets rid of the smoke machine below me, and i'm still here for the length of time it takes, it could make sense to put in a new offer.
i want out of here, don't get me wrong.
but, i'm having a hard time finding healthy housing. i need to look at all of the options.
at the least, what i can say is this: i think this old woman was a big part of the problem, because she took the wrong side of the fight. if this new woman takes the right side, the situation could reverse itself.
i mean, get your head around what i'm dealing with: i have a neighbour that smokes drugs and listens to loud music all day and all night, and when i made a complaint i was asked to move. that's absurd, and could only exist as a function of the friendship between the neighbour and the manager. if the manager is out, the friendship is out, and there's some possibility that logic could reassert itself.
i said some possibility.
this is still windsor, after all.
like i say: it was a long shot, although it really shouldn't have been. it's the same thing i'm paying right now, for a slightly smaller unit. the reason i'm not that upset is that i don't know if it was really a way out of the smoke or not.
that company doesn't seem to care about non-smoking policies. and, that building was a little older.
on they way back in, i noticed that they've got signs up in the building explaining that they're taking some steps to keep the bugs out of the building. and, you know, for all the problems with smoke i've had here, i haven't had really serious problems with bugs - or at least not the bad ones. no bed bugs. no roaches. well, i've seen a couple, but it's been very minor. i've had some flies, some termites and some moths, which i think are of at least concern in the broader scheme of it. i don't know what other people are experiencing, but it's not something i've dealt with, here...
i noticed on the flyer, though, that there's a new property manager.
did i get this woman fired? i don't know. but, there's a new sheriff in the building.
i have a showing this afternoon, but i'm going to give the new boss a call when i get back. i don't think the situation is in any way immediately salvageable. but, if the new manager gets rid of the smoke machine below me, and i'm still here for the length of time it takes, it could make sense to put in a new offer.
i want out of here, don't get me wrong.
but, i'm having a hard time finding healthy housing. i need to look at all of the options.
at the least, what i can say is this: i think this old woman was a big part of the problem, because she took the wrong side of the fight. if this new woman takes the right side, the situation could reverse itself.
i mean, get your head around what i'm dealing with: i have a neighbour that smokes drugs and listens to loud music all day and all night, and when i made a complaint i was asked to move. that's absurd, and could only exist as a function of the friendship between the neighbour and the manager. if the manager is out, the friendship is out, and there's some possibility that logic could reassert itself.
i said some possibility.
this is still windsor, after all.
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
i actually think that the time-out, combined with the serve, was something i sort of needed.
i need to slow down a little bit and make sure i'm only applying for apartments that are actually solutions to the problem.
and, i don't expect that they're going to be able to get me out of here any time soon, either - or at least not legally.
i have an appointment tomorrow. it seems like it's non-smoking. and, if it is, it may be the first chance i get to see the type of unit i actually want.
i was thinking about that this afternoon. while i have put several applications down, none of them have really been what i actually wanted. what i'm going to see tomorrow is potentially the first opportunity to see what i actually want.
i need to slow down a little bit and make sure i'm only applying for apartments that are actually solutions to the problem.
and, i don't expect that they're going to be able to get me out of here any time soon, either - or at least not legally.
i have an appointment tomorrow. it seems like it's non-smoking. and, if it is, it may be the first chance i get to see the type of unit i actually want.
i was thinking about that this afternoon. while i have put several applications down, none of them have really been what i actually wanted. what i'm going to see tomorrow is potentially the first opportunity to see what i actually want.
i could potentially set up a fake did and use a fake voice, but i could be blowing a chance if i get caught.
and, i need a potential landlord to understand that i'm an introvert on disability for anxiety, i spend all day at home by myself and i don't have or want any friends. i can't have them misunderstanding what i'm like, and then expecting me to be a social butterfly.
and, i need a potential landlord to understand that i'm an introvert on disability for anxiety, i spend all day at home by myself and i don't have or want any friends. i can't have them misunderstanding what i'm like, and then expecting me to be a social butterfly.
given that my situation of conflict with a landlord is common, what do most people do?
most people bullshit their references.
they give them a friend or family member's number, and just lie through their teeth about it.
so, this whole process of reference providing and reference checking largely reduces to the ability to get somebody to lie on your behalf. that's what an employer or landlord is really checking up on.
and, that's the actual problem i have - i don't have anybody i can get to lie for me.
but, how stupid is this? what is the purpose of determining if somebody can get another to lie on their behalf?
only capitalism, right?
most people bullshit their references.
they give them a friend or family member's number, and just lie through their teeth about it.
so, this whole process of reference providing and reference checking largely reduces to the ability to get somebody to lie on your behalf. that's what an employer or landlord is really checking up on.
and, that's the actual problem i have - i don't have anybody i can get to lie for me.
but, how stupid is this? what is the purpose of determining if somebody can get another to lie on their behalf?
only capitalism, right?
i've had this problem for years around references in a wide variety of contexts, and i've never been able to figure out what the point of it is.
if i'm applying for a new job, it's because i don't like my current job, right? so, why would you ask the people i'm bailing on for their opinion of me? i obviously don't like them, so what difference does it make if they like me or not? why wouldn't you ask me of my opinion of them? isn't that what's important?
likewise, if i'm looking for a new apartment, it's because i don't like the one i'm in. so, why would you ask the landlord i'm moving away from? of what value is their opinion of me? why wouldn't you ask me what i think of them? isn't that the important thing?
i'm a clean non-smoker that is trying to get out of a dirty apartment building that is full of drug addicts and heavy smokers, with a landlord that sells drugs to the tenants and refuses to address the smoke complaints. i've sued and won a rent reduction and an end to the lease. yet, they want to call this landlord and ask them for a reference? it's surreal & ridiculous.
the landlord should be arrested and put in jail, not quizzed on their opinion of the situation.
but, this isn't unexpected, and i'm well aware that i'm going to need to find somebody that isn't interested in references and/or is willing to look at actual evidence, rather than ask the problem in the scenario what their opinion is.
if i'm applying for a new job, it's because i don't like my current job, right? so, why would you ask the people i'm bailing on for their opinion of me? i obviously don't like them, so what difference does it make if they like me or not? why wouldn't you ask me of my opinion of them? isn't that what's important?
likewise, if i'm looking for a new apartment, it's because i don't like the one i'm in. so, why would you ask the landlord i'm moving away from? of what value is their opinion of me? why wouldn't you ask me what i think of them? isn't that the important thing?
i'm a clean non-smoker that is trying to get out of a dirty apartment building that is full of drug addicts and heavy smokers, with a landlord that sells drugs to the tenants and refuses to address the smoke complaints. i've sued and won a rent reduction and an end to the lease. yet, they want to call this landlord and ask them for a reference? it's surreal & ridiculous.
the landlord should be arrested and put in jail, not quizzed on their opinion of the situation.
but, this isn't unexpected, and i'm well aware that i'm going to need to find somebody that isn't interested in references and/or is willing to look at actual evidence, rather than ask the problem in the scenario what their opinion is.
as expected, the application was declined.
i can supposedly get the money order tomorrow...
i actually suspect it was declined several days ago, and she was holding on to it, hoping to keep it. i'm not surprised or disappointed by any of this - it was a shot in the dark, and it might not have even worked out well. the annoying thing is that i lost a week that i could have spent looking.
i haven't seen anything i'd really jump at, although i'm obviously going to have to spend the day calling.
it seems as though i very well may have to actually file this appeal on the 28th.
i can supposedly get the money order tomorrow...
i actually suspect it was declined several days ago, and she was holding on to it, hoping to keep it. i'm not surprised or disappointed by any of this - it was a shot in the dark, and it might not have even worked out well. the annoying thing is that i lost a week that i could have spent looking.
i haven't seen anything i'd really jump at, although i'm obviously going to have to spend the day calling.
it seems as though i very well may have to actually file this appeal on the 28th.
it's one thing to give a marginalized group a voice, and then completely ignore them. that is the typically "enlightened" liberal perspective - let them speak, they add "diversity" and "culture", and then just walk away and completely ignore them.
this is the status quo on the pseudo-left. but, this is deeply patronizing and deeply racist.
it is another thing to listen to the voices of the marginalized with goodwill, and make a good faith effort to take them into consideration. this ought to be the preferable approach, at face value. but, anybody who has actually done this has learned how impossible it is to stay consistent with an ideologically left approach and listen to these group at the same time - which is why they're so often ignored in the first place.
so, we're left with a pointless choice between ignoring them altogether and infantilizing them into something that isn't worth taking seriously, because you can't take a group seriously when they show up at a science conference and start taking about great spirits - you have to approach them with some patronizing concept of fiduciary obligation and patiently wait to ignore them, or you have to continue to marginalize them.
what you want is for these groups to be able to come to the table and be able to represent their interests using modern language, with an understanding of modern science and modern law. but, you probably realize they wouldn't be marginalized any more if they could stand up and speak for themselves, right?
i don't think that the liberals of past eras were wrong in pointing to education as a way out. today, we point to mary wollstonecraft as the originator of feminism for pointing out the idea that what women need is equal access to education, but we attack people who made similar arguments about indigenous groups as racists and colonialist wasters. it's not an inconsistency, it's an inversion; it's repressed racism for us to continue to cast them away as the other, and then justify that as an "embrace of diversity". if we saw therm as equals, we would insist on educating them so they can stand up for themselves, not let them languish aimlessly in their own ignorance, and then steal their resources when they can't present a defence of them.
it's not what we did that was wrong, it was how we did it. and, it is the how that we should be adjusting, not the what. because, the endpoint of education and modernization is the correct one, and the correct way for these groups to save themselves - and help the rest of us save the planet.
this is the status quo on the pseudo-left. but, this is deeply patronizing and deeply racist.
it is another thing to listen to the voices of the marginalized with goodwill, and make a good faith effort to take them into consideration. this ought to be the preferable approach, at face value. but, anybody who has actually done this has learned how impossible it is to stay consistent with an ideologically left approach and listen to these group at the same time - which is why they're so often ignored in the first place.
so, we're left with a pointless choice between ignoring them altogether and infantilizing them into something that isn't worth taking seriously, because you can't take a group seriously when they show up at a science conference and start taking about great spirits - you have to approach them with some patronizing concept of fiduciary obligation and patiently wait to ignore them, or you have to continue to marginalize them.
what you want is for these groups to be able to come to the table and be able to represent their interests using modern language, with an understanding of modern science and modern law. but, you probably realize they wouldn't be marginalized any more if they could stand up and speak for themselves, right?
i don't think that the liberals of past eras were wrong in pointing to education as a way out. today, we point to mary wollstonecraft as the originator of feminism for pointing out the idea that what women need is equal access to education, but we attack people who made similar arguments about indigenous groups as racists and colonialist wasters. it's not an inconsistency, it's an inversion; it's repressed racism for us to continue to cast them away as the other, and then justify that as an "embrace of diversity". if we saw therm as equals, we would insist on educating them so they can stand up for themselves, not let them languish aimlessly in their own ignorance, and then steal their resources when they can't present a defence of them.
it's not what we did that was wrong, it was how we did it. and, it is the how that we should be adjusting, not the what. because, the endpoint of education and modernization is the correct one, and the correct way for these groups to save themselves - and help the rest of us save the planet.
Monday, September 17, 2018
the idea that i would vent my frustration using violence is comedic.
i actually have a black belt in karate, which is something i picked up as a kid because i was being picked on. well, it was fairly coerced, but it came out of that necessity - i was a scrawny little kid that was unable to defend myself, so i got sent to self-defence classes.
the funny thing is that my dad was actually a semi-pro boxer at one point. he was drafted by the 67s, too. yet, i never learned to skate, and i never learned to fight. my mother would not allow it.
no, instead, i went to self-defence classes - where i was taught concepts of proportional force, as much as i was taught how to spar. i was just a kid; my black belt was more about self-confidence than skill in martial arts. as an adult, what i remember about it is more in the philosophical realm than the realm of actual fighting.
it is always a better idea to avoid a fight than start one because even if you are the greater fighter, you do not know what weapons your opponent has. you can't win by bringing fists to a knife fight.
intimidation is a key component of any conflict; if one can outsmart their opponent, they need not actually fight them.
and etc.
i think a part of the purpose of sending me to the classes was to bulk me up, as a part of the problem was that i was a little scrawny kid; it didn't seem to have the intended effect, and i ended up as a scrawny teenager, too. but, i learned those lessons well, and was mostly able to avoid conflict through those years, by consistently head faking my opponents.
i'm going to beat you down with words and lawsuits. and, i'm going to enjoy it, too.
but, i'm not a violent person, i never have been one and i couldn't imagine becoming one.
i actually have a black belt in karate, which is something i picked up as a kid because i was being picked on. well, it was fairly coerced, but it came out of that necessity - i was a scrawny little kid that was unable to defend myself, so i got sent to self-defence classes.
the funny thing is that my dad was actually a semi-pro boxer at one point. he was drafted by the 67s, too. yet, i never learned to skate, and i never learned to fight. my mother would not allow it.
no, instead, i went to self-defence classes - where i was taught concepts of proportional force, as much as i was taught how to spar. i was just a kid; my black belt was more about self-confidence than skill in martial arts. as an adult, what i remember about it is more in the philosophical realm than the realm of actual fighting.
it is always a better idea to avoid a fight than start one because even if you are the greater fighter, you do not know what weapons your opponent has. you can't win by bringing fists to a knife fight.
intimidation is a key component of any conflict; if one can outsmart their opponent, they need not actually fight them.
and etc.
i think a part of the purpose of sending me to the classes was to bulk me up, as a part of the problem was that i was a little scrawny kid; it didn't seem to have the intended effect, and i ended up as a scrawny teenager, too. but, i learned those lessons well, and was mostly able to avoid conflict through those years, by consistently head faking my opponents.
i'm going to beat you down with words and lawsuits. and, i'm going to enjoy it, too.
but, i'm not a violent person, i never have been one and i couldn't imagine becoming one.
i grew up as an opposition leftist in the 90s.
the core of my political identity is in alter-globalization, in opposition to "free trade".
if trump was a little more specific, such that i could take him seriously, as opposed to saying vague things like "it's the worst deal" and "we'll get a better deal", i might have endorsed him.
it's the most important thing. and, by a good margin.
and again: it's not like this new deal is perfect or anything. but, it's aiming for the goal of raising workers' standards in mexico, which is at the crux of the original problem. that is the fundamental problem that needs to be addressed, and it seems like it's being addressed...so, if i were an american, i would have to support that, even if i have qualms in other points.
the core of my political identity is in alter-globalization, in opposition to "free trade".
if trump was a little more specific, such that i could take him seriously, as opposed to saying vague things like "it's the worst deal" and "we'll get a better deal", i might have endorsed him.
it's the most important thing. and, by a good margin.
and again: it's not like this new deal is perfect or anything. but, it's aiming for the goal of raising workers' standards in mexico, which is at the crux of the original problem. that is the fundamental problem that needs to be addressed, and it seems like it's being addressed...so, if i were an american, i would have to support that, even if i have qualms in other points.
a big part of the initial calculus was that i simply didn't believe what he was saying on trade, because i'd heard it so many times.
clinton was going to pull out of nafta. & obama was, too. so, why would i believe either of them?
so, i never thought he'd pull out of the tpp.
& i never thought he'd take the lines he's taken on nafta - which aren't perfect, either. but preferable. definitely.
clinton was going to pull out of nafta. & obama was, too. so, why would i believe either of them?
so, i never thought he'd pull out of the tpp.
& i never thought he'd take the lines he's taken on nafta - which aren't perfect, either. but preferable. definitely.
so, let's say the democrats try to run on the left on immigration and the right on nafta, while trump runs on the left on nafta and the right on immigration.
well, i might agree more with the democrats on immigration - but i agree more with trump on nafta.
and, i care more about nafta than i care about immigration.
so, i'm going to vote for trump instead.
do you understand this?
well, i might agree more with the democrats on immigration - but i agree more with trump on nafta.
and, i care more about nafta than i care about immigration.
so, i'm going to vote for trump instead.
do you understand this?
donald trump could very well see himself facing a militant, pro-war, neo-liberal democrat that wants to ramp up the war(s), strengthen nato, resurrect the tpp, bring back nafta, etc.
and the neo-liberals are sitting there in their business suits and don't understand why i wouldn't want that, or why so many americans wouldn't want that.
there's still some bad sides to trump, no doubt. but, a lot of it is actually more about congress. so, one of the biggest arguments in favour of voting for clinton was the supreme court. but, if the congress can drag the process past the midterms, it may be a democratic majority that gets the final say. what would immigration reform look like with a democratic congress? &etc.
i'd obviously rather see the democrats run a left-wing option that wants to....that wants to carry through what trump has started on a lot of these points, to better conclusions than trump could. a bernie sanders, for example.
but that simply isn't likely.
and, if you made me choose, i'd probably pick trump as a lesser evil over a lot of the party's more likely candidates, on the issues that i actually care about.
and the neo-liberals are sitting there in their business suits and don't understand why i wouldn't want that, or why so many americans wouldn't want that.
there's still some bad sides to trump, no doubt. but, a lot of it is actually more about congress. so, one of the biggest arguments in favour of voting for clinton was the supreme court. but, if the congress can drag the process past the midterms, it may be a democratic majority that gets the final say. what would immigration reform look like with a democratic congress? &etc.
i'd obviously rather see the democrats run a left-wing option that wants to....that wants to carry through what trump has started on a lot of these points, to better conclusions than trump could. a bernie sanders, for example.
but that simply isn't likely.
and, if you made me choose, i'd probably pick trump as a lesser evil over a lot of the party's more likely candidates, on the issues that i actually care about.
what we learned in the 2016 election cycle was that the republican voter suppression tactics are extremely effective.
i'm not going to get into the details of american senate or house races from up here in canada. but, don't be surprised if the democrats have a hard time getting the vote out - or if that is, at least, the official narrative.
it's the people that scream 'fake news' that are pushing fake news. my analysis at the time was that if the vote is fair then hillary will win - but the vote is not fair, so you should expect trump to win. the details of predicting specific seat numbers in the house and senate is a much more complicated problem, and suppression is a much more variable factor. but, the same basic narrative is likely to hold.
the polling isn't wrong.
the vote is being suppressed.
i'm not in a position to make a prediction as to the outcome right now, and will likely not be before november.
but, the methodological pushback i want to present is the following: it's not clear why you'd vote for a democrat in the house or senate if you don't like donald trump, both because it's not causal and because trump may actually have an easier time getting much of his mandate through with a democratic congress. much of the pushback against trump is coming from corporate democrats, who are broadly on the right of the spectrum, and more similar to house republicans than house democrats. trump may be personally unpopular, but i may speak for a number of people when i suggest that i don't like him but am pleasantly surprised by a percentage of his policies. i could easily imagine a scenario where donald trump is the lesser evil in 2020. so, this is far too simplistic a way to understand what's going to happen.
i mean, if you want to fall into the cliche that he's unprecedented, that's more or less what i'm saying. but let's get out head around that. all the way.
i'm not going to get into the details of american senate or house races from up here in canada. but, don't be surprised if the democrats have a hard time getting the vote out - or if that is, at least, the official narrative.
it's the people that scream 'fake news' that are pushing fake news. my analysis at the time was that if the vote is fair then hillary will win - but the vote is not fair, so you should expect trump to win. the details of predicting specific seat numbers in the house and senate is a much more complicated problem, and suppression is a much more variable factor. but, the same basic narrative is likely to hold.
the polling isn't wrong.
the vote is being suppressed.
i'm not in a position to make a prediction as to the outcome right now, and will likely not be before november.
but, the methodological pushback i want to present is the following: it's not clear why you'd vote for a democrat in the house or senate if you don't like donald trump, both because it's not causal and because trump may actually have an easier time getting much of his mandate through with a democratic congress. much of the pushback against trump is coming from corporate democrats, who are broadly on the right of the spectrum, and more similar to house republicans than house democrats. trump may be personally unpopular, but i may speak for a number of people when i suggest that i don't like him but am pleasantly surprised by a percentage of his policies. i could easily imagine a scenario where donald trump is the lesser evil in 2020. so, this is far too simplistic a way to understand what's going to happen.
i mean, if you want to fall into the cliche that he's unprecedented, that's more or less what i'm saying. but let's get out head around that. all the way.
Sunday, September 16, 2018
Your complaint details
- Address
null
windsor
there was a phone call & a visit to my door, of a threatening, harassing and frankly simply incompetent nature.
- Incident Dates
-
- Date
- 12/9/2018
- Time
- 3:56
- Date
- 16/9/2018
- Time
- 12:00
- Summary of complaint
- Please note formatting has been stripped for preview purposes - original intact
this officer has threatened me with arrest for a non-crime on two occasions. the first occurrence occurred by phone, and i have a recording of it. the officer called me at 3:56 am - that is almost 4:00 in the morning - on sept 12, and threatened to arrest me for repeatedly responding to an online ad. the number that the officer called me from was . i txted a response to this number, and was told it is not an officer's number. it must have been a friend or partner's number, i suppose. i do have the recording of the officer identifying himself and can email it somewhere. i explained that my behaviour - repeatedly responding to an online ad for an apartment - is not harassment under the criminal code, and not only would i not stop, but i am preparing a human rights case against the landlord, for discriminating against me on enumerated grounds. the second occurrence happened at roughly 12:00 pm on sept 16th. two officers showed up at my door (the other was a white male officer and said nothing during the encounter), and this "constable mancino" threatened me with arrest a second time if i did not stop responding to the ad. i asked the officer to explain what harassment under the law is, and he failed to do so in a correct manner. he seemed to believe that harassment is merely annoying somebody, rather than threatening to harm them. of course, if that were true, then telemarketing would be against the law, and the jails would be full of call centre agents. it's just wrong. after determining that the officer did not understand the law, i told him i didn't have time for this, encouraged him to launch a report if he wanted to and went to close the door. he then put his foot in the door, preventing me from doing so. i informed him that he does not have a warrant, and yet he still refused to move his foot. he did eventually move his foot after i asked him to several times. he then threatened to arrest me if i reply to the ad again - not if i conduct in threatening or harassing behaviour, but if i merely reply to the ad. on his way out, i asked him for his badge number and he refused to give it to me. he started with "184" and then said he already gave it to me, which he did not. even if he had already given it to me, that would not be a reason to not give it to me again. when a citizen asks for a badge number, an officer should state it slowly and repeatedly if necessary. this officer may have been acting out of bias regarding my gender identity, as i am openly transgendered, but i cannot state that for certain. regardless, he should not have called me at 4:00 am from an unofficial police number that may or may not have belonged to his friend or partner, he should not have threatened me with arrest without understanding the nature of the law, he should not have prevented me from closing the door without a warrant and he should have given me his badge number when i asked. i would suggest that this particular officer has a superiority complex, is unreformable and should probably look for a different line of work.
i have filed a complaint on the following grounds.
1) calling me at 4:00 am from an unofficial #.
2) threatening to file charges on unjustified grounds.
3) refusing to let me close the door, without a warrant.
4) refusing to give me his badge number.
and, i do very much hope that he gets fired - or that it at least contributes to the process of him getting fired.
1) calling me at 4:00 am from an unofficial #.
2) threatening to file charges on unjustified grounds.
3) refusing to let me close the door, without a warrant.
4) refusing to give me his badge number.
and, i do very much hope that he gets fired - or that it at least contributes to the process of him getting fired.
Saturday, September 15, 2018
stop.
when did they test you?
did they do a blood test?
maybe they told you it's on the other side of the blood-brain barrier, so they can't do it.
did they do a dna test?
maybe they told you that they don't understand the genetics.
ok.
but, where is the test of this imbalance? where is the chemical evidence? have you seen anything of the sort, at all?
you haven't, have you?
in truth, it's just been presented to you in mystical terms, hasn't it? some fucking dualistic zoroastrian bullshit, or some hippie nonsense about forces out of sync.
"you are angry because your chemicals are imbalanced. let us medicate slowly on the one. deep breaths."
hey, at least they're not doing exorcisms. but, exorcisms involved herbs, too, you know....
when did they test you?
did they do a blood test?
maybe they told you it's on the other side of the blood-brain barrier, so they can't do it.
did they do a dna test?
maybe they told you that they don't understand the genetics.
ok.
but, where is the test of this imbalance? where is the chemical evidence? have you seen anything of the sort, at all?
you haven't, have you?
in truth, it's just been presented to you in mystical terms, hasn't it? some fucking dualistic zoroastrian bullshit, or some hippie nonsense about forces out of sync.
"you are angry because your chemicals are imbalanced. let us medicate slowly on the one. deep breaths."
hey, at least they're not doing exorcisms. but, exorcisms involved herbs, too, you know....
saying "you have an imbalance, so you should take this drug", without doing any testing to determine the existence of the imbalance, is actually scientifically equivalent to saying "your aura is off-centered, so you should take this herb".
without an empirical test, this claimed imbalance is no more real than any other mystical entity. it's an abstract idea. an aura. truly.
maybe you're into this shit, but it's not science!
without an empirical test, this claimed imbalance is no more real than any other mystical entity. it's an abstract idea. an aura. truly.
maybe you're into this shit, but it's not science!
that is what psychiatry is - it's a giant drug racketeering operation.
you go to the "doctor", who sells you drugs. these drugs don't fix anything, they just get you stoned, and leave you dependent on them, as well. and, that is the definition of a patient: a dependant drug addict.
well, unless an imbalance can be determined chemically, how can you tell you need help synthesizing this thing? you can't. nobody determined that this was wrong with you - they just gave you a drug that makes you high, and then asked you how you feel. and, you're high on the drugs they gave you - of course you feel better.
chances are that you don't have an imbalance at all, and you just like getting high - because that's all they did, was prescribe you drugs to get you stoned. it was never determined if you have an imbalance; it was only determined that you like the drugs.
again: if somebody can prove to me that i need something then i'll take them seriously. but, nobody wants to do that. all these "doctors" want to do is sell drugs to people that probably don't have anything wrong with them and probably don't need them...
you go to the "doctor", who sells you drugs. these drugs don't fix anything, they just get you stoned, and leave you dependent on them, as well. and, that is the definition of a patient: a dependant drug addict.
well, unless an imbalance can be determined chemically, how can you tell you need help synthesizing this thing? you can't. nobody determined that this was wrong with you - they just gave you a drug that makes you high, and then asked you how you feel. and, you're high on the drugs they gave you - of course you feel better.
chances are that you don't have an imbalance at all, and you just like getting high - because that's all they did, was prescribe you drugs to get you stoned. it was never determined if you have an imbalance; it was only determined that you like the drugs.
again: if somebody can prove to me that i need something then i'll take them seriously. but, nobody wants to do that. all these "doctors" want to do is sell drugs to people that probably don't have anything wrong with them and probably don't need them...
i am willing to acknowledge that i may have a condition of some sort, but i am not willing to experiment around chemical approaches to treating it. what i want to see is a test that defines a specific problem, and a specific solution to treating it.
so, i don't want to be told i'm "bipolar" or "schizophrenic", and should take these drugs with an unclear mechanism for it - these are meaningless diagnoses and shots in the dark at fixing an undetermined problem.
i want to be told i can't synthesize a specific protein, due to a specific genetic mutation. and, i want to take a targeted treatment option for it.
until then, i will refuse medication, outright - because i'm not being presented with a useful diagnosis, or being told that the medication will fix an actual problem.
what is actually happening is that i'm just being drugged for financial gain, at a devastating cost to my personal well being.
so, i don't want to be told i'm "bipolar" or "schizophrenic", and should take these drugs with an unclear mechanism for it - these are meaningless diagnoses and shots in the dark at fixing an undetermined problem.
i want to be told i can't synthesize a specific protein, due to a specific genetic mutation. and, i want to take a targeted treatment option for it.
until then, i will refuse medication, outright - because i'm not being presented with a useful diagnosis, or being told that the medication will fix an actual problem.
what is actually happening is that i'm just being drugged for financial gain, at a devastating cost to my personal well being.
the reality is that most of what we call psychology is utter quackery.
these diseases don't actually exist - there's no basis to test for them. if you have an infection, you can do a blood test to determine that you have it. if you have a psychiatric condition, you get five minutes with a "doctor" that presents a subjective opinion of your diagnosis, with no empirical basis whatsoever, and then prescribes a drug to address a problem that was never established exists in the first place.
so, let's say you think you have schizophrenia. you might imagine there's a way to test for that, right? a blood test? a dna test?
no.
the way they determine if you're schizophrenic - which is something that is claimed to be a physical health problem - is by observing your behaviour and then presenting an opinion on the topic.
there is absolutely no science involved in this process, whatsoever.
they then give you drugs that they claim are intended to reduce symptoms. but, without establishing a chemical basis of the symptoms, or even determining if symptoms are actually present, what could that possibly mean? again: let's say you have high cholesterol. well, they test to determine your cholesterol levels, first, and then give you drugs to chemically alter your cholesterol levels. but, nobody tests for a chemical basis of schizophrenia, so how can the efficacy of the drugs even be measured? what does it even mean to say they don't work?
this is not science, and it should not be treated as though it is. this should be treated like the quackery it is, and relegated to the dustbin of "alternative medicine".
if a doctor cannot give you a medical basis for your diagnosis, that is a chemical imbalance or a genetic abnormality, then they should not be administering you drugs.
at all.
these diseases don't actually exist - there's no basis to test for them. if you have an infection, you can do a blood test to determine that you have it. if you have a psychiatric condition, you get five minutes with a "doctor" that presents a subjective opinion of your diagnosis, with no empirical basis whatsoever, and then prescribes a drug to address a problem that was never established exists in the first place.
so, let's say you think you have schizophrenia. you might imagine there's a way to test for that, right? a blood test? a dna test?
no.
the way they determine if you're schizophrenic - which is something that is claimed to be a physical health problem - is by observing your behaviour and then presenting an opinion on the topic.
there is absolutely no science involved in this process, whatsoever.
they then give you drugs that they claim are intended to reduce symptoms. but, without establishing a chemical basis of the symptoms, or even determining if symptoms are actually present, what could that possibly mean? again: let's say you have high cholesterol. well, they test to determine your cholesterol levels, first, and then give you drugs to chemically alter your cholesterol levels. but, nobody tests for a chemical basis of schizophrenia, so how can the efficacy of the drugs even be measured? what does it even mean to say they don't work?
this is not science, and it should not be treated as though it is. this should be treated like the quackery it is, and relegated to the dustbin of "alternative medicine".
if a doctor cannot give you a medical basis for your diagnosis, that is a chemical imbalance or a genetic abnormality, then they should not be administering you drugs.
at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)