....& the thing about bmsr is that it would be nice to hear them live up to some of the potential they're hinting at, but never do. all you ever get from them are these boring little pop songs. when will they take the next level of abstraction and do something interesting with the form they're playing with?

in a different circumstance, i may have gone to see the stargazer lillies and stayed for the headliners. but, i shouldn't be wasting cash, right now.

but, i mean it wasn't...

sometimes, i try to grapple with a trend and, in the end, walk away from it just concluding it's not for me - i give it a fair hearing and rule against it sort of thing. but i actually do listen to it before i trash it.

i never gave that garage rock movement that existed at the time a second listen; i had about as much interest in the strokes as i had in calypso music.

it was just completely out of my sphere of interest. 

i actually don't think i've ever bothered listening to a strokes record all the way through.

i had friends into that scene, but i always thought it was stupid and avoided it pretty strenuously, from the start. there's really nothing that came out of it that i ever liked at all.

i may even go so far as to say that my reaction to it at the time was something along the lines of interpreting at as the final death blow to rock music as an art form - and, in hindsight, i may have been right.

there's just nothing going on but empty retro regurgitation - it's literally indiscernible from what it's copying. meaning it's the reduction of the form to a parody, a novel act.

and, i suppose that doesn't matter much to you if it's what you've always known, right? but it was actually really frustrating to see the media pushing this empty trash, after experiencing the high points of 90s art rock, which was actually relatively popular.

i spent the early 00s listening to post-rock.

the combination of heavy tariffs and a decreasing money supply could create a depression, rather than a recession.

they stopped printing money.

it's really as simple as that: the american economy grows when the feds print money, and it shrinks when they stop printing money. so, if you want growth, you must print money - and there is no outcome but recession if you don't.

the markets are actually being really stupid right now, because investors tend not to live in reality. but, the money is drying up...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-14/financials-etf-bleeds-cash-as-yield-curve-goes-flat-etf-watch

ok.

so, i know how i'm doing this: i believe in the right to fresh air, and that second-hand smoke causes cancer, so the management is discriminating against me based on creed by not accommodating for those beliefs.

but, what i'm going to ask for in restitution (basically, every cent i've paid in rent) overlaps with the tenant application i've suspended - for now. if i go through with that, and i'm awarded rent (which i did ask for), i'll be awarded damages twice - which they don't allow, for good reason. what that means is that i can't really file this until july 1st at the earliest.

if this somehow works out and i sign a lease for august 1st before july 1st, i'll need to reopen the tenant board case and put the human rights case on hold. i'd expect the judge to reschedule the hearing, and that's ok. i just don't want to double-dip.

if i'm sitting here on july 1st without a lease for august 1st, i'll mail the application before i pay my rent.

that means i've got a few weeks of work ahead of me, hopefully.

i'm willing to argue in court that atheism, science & secular humanism all fit the definition of a creed, as laid out here.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-based-creed/4-creed

the ohrc does not appear to be legislated to determine analogous grounds - it needs to interpret existing law, not write new law. the landlord & tenant board has the same mandate.

i'm going to have to derive my own grounds from enumerated ones, then.

if i feel like i'm being discriminated against due to being a non-smoker, what is that? i guess, using the logic of the people doing the discriminating, the reason i'm being treated differently is that i don't belong to their club - for that is how they see it, they see pot smokers as belonging to a club, and non-smokers as being outside of it.

i consider this absurd, and always have - potheads are the losers that think they're cool, but everybody else knows are losers. the actual cool kids just walk by and shake their heads and snicker. and, i've always approached smoking marijuana as doing something that was very deeply uncool, to the point of being a celebration of being outcast. but, one of the points i'm going to have to make in these hearings is that smoking pot isn't binary - it's not like you smoke every day or you don't smoke at all. most people that smoke, smoke infrequently; it's this idea of daily use that is unusual, and frankly deeply uncool. but, the building is full of habitual smokers (including management, apparently), and i'm not in their club, so i don't get equal treatment.

so, this seems to be the basis of the differentiation in treatment - i don't smoke every day (or even every month), so i'm not in their club, so i'm not cool, so i don't deserve equal treatment.

i don't want to be in their club, either. and, that would be because i don't have the same beliefs that they do. they seem to believe that smoking pot makes you cool, and they seem to believe that habitual pot use is not detrimental to your health, either - both beliefs that are not shared by the club i'm in, which is the club of atheistic & scientific secular humanists.

in my club, we believe in human rights - such as the right to fresh air. we also believe in the science that tells us that smoking is harmful to our health - both in the short term and also in the long term. by not accommodating these beliefs, the management is consequently discriminating against my creed of atheistic & scientific secular humanism.

so, that's what we're going to claim here: discrimination on grounds of disability regarding my bronchitis as well as discrimination against my belief in science & my belief in human rights.

i was diagnosed with chronic bronchitis from exposure to second-hand smoke when i was very young, and it has in fact acted as a trigger for many, many years.

i've periodically needed a puffer.

now, i haven't been triggered as badly as i could be, but it's because i've taken so many steps to deal with the issue - steps i've been demanded to stop, and eventually threatened with eviction over.

but, the actual grounds i'm being discriminated against is on not smoking. i am being treated differently, and the reason is that i don't smoke. rather than have my concerns addressed, i've been asked to leave. so, i really want to find an analogous ground argument...

afaik, all of the existing precedent for this is in british columbia, so this is going to be pushing new legal ground in ontario. call me the trailblazer, here - the pioneer.

i was hoping to get this done tonight, but spent hours dealing with a termite swarm. it's at least mostly stopped since i closed one of the six windows in this place, which they seemed to begetting in through - and w which there are now dozens of dead termites on.

i'd never seen this before, but apparently they fly into the lightbulbs, where they procreate, and their wings fall off. i've killed a handful of queens in here since i moved in, but i thought they were ants....they're termites....

*shrug*

i'll sleep on this and see if i can scheme something up in the morning. because i want to make the point clearer: they are discriminating against me because i don't smoke, and specifically because i don't smoke marijuana.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B79Yz_e6a6XNc3MyektfeGptWlE/edit

i actually think this is the right way to approach both of these problems.

*applauds*.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/10-patients-safely-receive-hepatitis-c-infected-lungs-in-new-clinical-trial-1.3972398

i'm still expecting this to be dragged on until it dies.

at some point, the government will need to prorogue. wait for it.

they may be intending to blame it on the conservatives and run on it in 2019. but, remember - it was trudeau that set up this sham of a senate, in the first place.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-accept-most-not-all-senate-amendments-to-marijuana-bill-1.3971400