the rule should really be that taking an odsp check means you're not allowed to get a job, and that the moment you start working, you forfeit eligibility to disability.

what i was getting at, though, is that i don't expect this government to last very long.

so, can i make it through a few years without the axe coming down...that's the question...

but, lisa.

i'm disabled.

that means i can't work - i don't need incentives. i went to university for thirteen years. i did graduate once, even, too. there's nothing you can do to "help me succeed" - i cannot "succeed"; i'm disabled.

it's like saying you're going to help an ostrich to fly, or you're going to help the blind to see. it's absurdity.

disabled people are disabled.

i don't need stupid christian rhetoric; what i need is affordable, smoke-free housing.

this is actually breaking a campaign promise; he said he wasn't going to do that.

i mean, you would have been daft to believe him, but nonetheless.

it's disappointing, but it was obvious, and there's no use in feigning dismay over it: we elected a conservative government, and this is the kind of thing conservative governments do.

at least i know what they're doing, for the next year or two.

it remains to be seen whether the immigrant voters that elected ford are getting what they expected or not. we know they lean a little right on a swath of issues. they like the market rhetoric, and they don't like the gays. but, cuts to social services isn't one of those issues; i'd suspect that this actually comes out unpopular in the 905, where a good number of voters didn't have the cultural understanding of british toryism to know better than to believe ford when he said he'd "take care of people". he really didn't campaign on cutting services - the opposition tried to get the point across, but it may have been interpreted by what you might call naive voters as smears. they don't have the cultural hubris in opposing conservatives, they weren't raised in it, so they may have been easily misled.

i think that what these people voted for was a pro-business government with a social conscience. these people take their religions seriously. and, that's going to piss me off most of the time, but the thing i'm going to agree with them on is social assistance for the poor - because their mosque or their temple insists on it.

for me? right now? knowing that cuts are not imminent is helpful.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/lisa-macleod-announcement-1.4768626

this isn't a controversial situation. the controversy arises when people are doing things away from the office, with no meaningful connection to their employer. this guy was either literally working, or driving around in the company van - they have every right to fire him for either slacking off at work or fucking around with company property.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/van-driver-black-macdonald-fired-splashing-pedestrians-1.4766304

if i find myself living in toronto, i'll let you know.

the actual truth is that i don't care who or what occupies toronto city council, for the reason that i don't live in toronto.

....and, i guess i gotta wait until the morning.

fuck.

at least i know it's coming.

there's no way i'm paying rent until i see the order.

and, if there's some fuck up on it, i'll need to immediately - immediately - appeal.

the truth is that horwath is more hillary than wynne ever was.

so, if you had some depraved obsession with the 2016 american election being played out in ontario, you've got a full-on miniseries ahead of you, now.

ugh.

gross.

there appears to be a ruling.

unfortunately, the agent on the phone wasn't able to access it. she suggested that it may have been uploaded incorrectly.

if i'm lucky, i'll get something in my inbox before sunset.

more likely is that i'll need to call in the morning.

there's a lot revolving around this. i'm prepared for a smallish sum (while holding out for a bigger one), but it's going to be a problem if it's nothing at all.

it's clear enough that i'm going to either need the cash to move me out of windsor or to pay for the difference in rental costs. the kind of thing i need is probably running closer to $900 than $700 - which is not very affordable on $1200. but, if i have $4000-5000 in the bank to chip at, it becomes more realistic.

the other option is to spend a few thousand dollars getting out of here.

if i get nothing, i'm going to need to hope the market falls for october, and sit tight for it to happen.

they're both no good, lying scoundrels that are interested solely in self-promotion.

this is going to be an interesting session in ontario, because i'm going to find myself continually disagreeing with both the opposition and the government.

if the choice is between the ndp or the conservatives, ontario needs an alternative.

i can only assign one of two explanations to a government that wants to impose stress-tests on mortgages, in a default-free environment:

1) the people creating policy are so lost in american politics, that they literally don't understand how the canadian system works - which i think is the correct answer, or
2) they're planning to deregulate the system.

stress tests are an idea that was created for the american market. if you have a memory, you'll recall that the canadian system was praised for it's inability to collapse, due to being properly regulated. so, why are they bringing in this deeply american policy, to fix a deeply american problem that simply does not exist in this country?

again, it's either because:

1) the party is literally fully of people that went to school in the united states, studied the american housing system and just don't understand how canada works - which i think is the sad truth, as it is consistent with many other things we've seen from this government, or
2) the government is preparing to dismantle the system that the rest of the world upheld as superior in the face of the 2008 crash.

the liberals are no longer the smart party. it's clear.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/07/30/permanent-generation-middle-class-renters_a_23492177/?ncid=other_trending_qeesnbnu0l8&utm_campaign=trending

so, a lawyer has to be able to do two jobs - although, in truth, most lawyers hire assistants to help them do the thing people associate with them.

when people think of the vocation of a lawyer, they think of somebody that is able to come up with good arguments, and apply those arguments to existing law. this is a scholarly vocation that requires a lot of research and a lot of analysis and a lot of creative thought. and, i do think i would be pretty good at this role.

but, as mentioned, in the real world, this is not what a lawyer actually does.

the actual job of a lawyer in the real world is to take control of a court room, and project a certain dominance over it's opponents. this is not a scholarly position, and is actually best inhabited by people we would usually think of as jocks, as it is reliant on a dominant personality style.

so, if you're telling me i'd make a good layer, you're wrong - i am not a dominant person, and i do not project power. i come off very weak in a court room. and, i have no interest in modifying how i project myself in this way - as i find that kind of thing to actually be quite revolting, and worthy of a great deal of contempt.

if you're telling me i'd make a good assistant, that's another question. but, the key point from my view is this: who would i be assisting?

i'd rather make music.

listings still suck.

still no ruling.

still stuck in time.

i did finish september early this morning, and crashed quite promptly.

the smoke was worse yesterday than it's been in a while - although still localized to the hole in the floor - and i think it's had an effect on my energy level.

i'm very tired, right now.