listen.

this is the right way that you approach this.

then, once the report is released, two things can happen:

1) it can be critiqued, to determine flaws and exaggerations. peer review.
2) action can be taken, where deemed appropriate.

the world can't be allowing the united states to go around bombing people based on gut instincts, and colloquialized applications of terms from probability theory - as disingenuous as that may even be, in the precise example.

can i see your hypothesis testing, ms. may? no? k. didn't think so.

i'm not even going to say the bombing shouldn't have happened, as that would be just as bad as jumping to the conclusion that it ought to have. the problem here is a lack of due process - and this is absolutely necessary to establish, in context.

the united nations doesn't appear to be working any more, and i don't have specific suggestions as to approaches or paths to reform, but we need to find a way to re-establish process. the world cannot be a macrocosm of the wild west; there must be a sheriff in town.

as far as i can tell, the only major western politician that has reacted intelligently to this is jeremy corbyn.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/04/13/47-groups-urge-un-secretary-general-act-syria

the smell tonight - and this isn't the first time - is overwhelming levels of garlic.

this is actually leading me back to meth; maybe they are smoking outside, but i can smell their armpits from here, kind of thing. meth users are known to smell like garlic - like, not from the smoke, but from the body odour.

nobody eats garlicy meals for hours straight. i guess somebody could have left something out, but it's happened repeatedly.

somebody could have terrible gas, and i could be smelling it over and over again. it's actually quite plausible.

it could be another distraction tactic - burning garlic so i can't smell the pot.

but, the reality is that all evidence points towards this building being some kind of meth centre - either through production, or through massive use.

is there some possibility that all of the potheads around me are smoking laced pot and don't know it? well, three months ago i'd have told you that the premise of meth-laced marijuana is crazy talk. you'll find it with pcp from time to time, unfortunately - it's unpleasant; you deal with it. but, meth? this isn't real, right?

maybe it is.

i may never figure out what the truth is around this. i've got clues, and i can put them together, but getting some kind of confirmation is going to be almost impossible. and, i'm no doubt just scratching the surface of something.

i don't need or even want to know, frankly.

but the clearer the meth connection gets, the more i want out.

it's possible that somebody just needs to shower more frequently. but, it's really one thing after another...

i need to be clear: i don't know if these leaves are being burned or cooked with.

i noticed a mild cheesy smell, as well.

it could be some kind of chili.

like i say: if the pot smell goes away, we'll deal with this as it is. i doubt that happens.

i don't care what your witch-doctor says.

smoke is never good for you.

ever.

"burn bay leaves in the house and see what happens after ten minutes"

i'm going to ask for an x-ray of your lungs, and observe that you're coughing your ass off.

smoke is smoke.

so, stop burning shit inside...it's all the same cancer-causing smut...

tobacco. marijuana. sage. now, bay leaves. it's all the same thing.

tonight was a little weird.

i took some of the tape off of the kitchen cabinets, and what it revealed was this overpowering smell of bay leaf, that i remember smelling when i first moved in - and which was in fact the initial reason that i taped up the cabinets. the smell of marijuana only presented itself once the smell of bay leaf had subsided.

see, here's the thing: i don't actually care about the smell. this is a rank, nasty smell - granted. but, it's a minor annoyance. what i care about is the damage caused by second hand smoke - which means that burning sage inside would be as bad as smoking pot. worse, really, because it's pointless.

as it is, i don't know if the request not to smoke was heeded or not because i couldn't smell anything over the bay leaves.

i'm not sure where the smell of bay leaves is coming from, but i suspect that re-opening the hole on the bottom of the cabinet has left me at the whim of a number of tenants. i remember concluding at the time that the cabinet must be connected to six units moving down, around the plumbing, and that it was just never properly finished - thereby meaning that i can plausibly smell the guy three floors down when he makes a burrito. it's maybe facile to suspect that the smell of indian food is coming from the indian tenant, but it could very well be true. at the least, this is the same stench that came in when i moved in, so it's not infrequent. and, in the end, whether this is by design (by the pothead) or by coincidence doesn't matter.

i need to reiterate that bad smalls are not the same thing as second-hand smoke, and that this is a fundamentally different type of problem.

nonetheless, while the tape was only partly successful in keeping the smell of marijuana smoke out of the cabinets, it was actually quite successful in keeping out the smell of everybody else's food. if she surprises me and continues to smoke outside for any length of time, if she even is at all right now, i'm still going to need to get somebody in to fix the cabinet. i had an easy solution that worked well, but we can go with a more expensive solution if the property owner would prefer. i don't expect this happens; i'll be surprised if she's not blazing all day tomorrow.

for right now, i'm going to have to suffer this, keeping in mind the following truth: if i can smell their stinky herbs, then they can smell my fresh citrus air fresheners, too. and, i can be pro-active in pushing nice smells down to ward off their evil ones.

i've got about 1/4 of the tape off, but in the process of everything happening over the last few days, i've aggravated an injury i suffered last week when i was cleaning up my bicycle. it's a small cut on my right thumb (the most important finger.....) that has reopened and that i'd like to close before i continue with the process of ripping up tape off of baseboards. so, i'm going to wait until monday before i get back to that.

i actually don't have anything planned this weekend; it seems to be quiet in detroit. i may change my mind at the last minute, but i'm expecting to stay in and type. i keep pointing out that december shouldn't take long, once i can sit down and do it. if the weekend goes through uneventfully, i guess i'll get to clearing off the tape on monday; if it doesn't, i guess i'll file the t2 on monday morning, and focus on looking for new apartments, then pull the rest of the tape off as i'm moving out.

i noticed something a bit like a really, really big truck driving by,

it could have actually been a really, really big truck driving by - although such a truck would have had to have been really, really big.

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/earthquake-amherstburg-ontario-southwestern-detroit-river-usgs-windsor-london/99803/

http://www.greenmunch.ca/straws/

the straw is a kind of useless thing, really, and i wouldn't mourn it's end.

but, if you are more smitten by it than i, we could always shift to making it out of something biodegradable, like hemp.

more broadly speaking, i would rather see the way we manufacture plastic transformed, even revolutionized, than the way we use it dictated by the state.

that was truly bizarre.

this enforcer of a man shows up, with a thick french accent, looking like denis coderre, that time he filled in for dave semenko, and declares, with a snort, that there shall be no smoking in the building.

he claims that there is a no smoking clause in the lease (there is not).
he claims that he could enforce such a clause (he could not).

and he has decided, by decree that this is the solution to the problem.

further, i am to remove all of the tape from the wall.

i'm going to take the tape down, but i hardly have faith in the outcome. it's just that i'd have to take the tape down anyways, so i'd might as well do it now.

regardless, that means they get another day or two to put off the t2.

note that tomorrow is 4/20.

i mean, don't get me wrong - i hope this works. is it "crazy enough that it just might work"? who knows. who knows. we'll see. but, i think the outcome is a foregone conclusion, and...

...i should really go ahead and start writing the t2 up tonight.

right now, i'm going to lose another day on the unit. ugh.

well, everything is in order in the space, or at least as much as it can be for now.

i'll find out in a few hours if my next step is to wait for renovations, or to file a t2 to end the tenancy.

at the least, i won't be spending any more time rearranging furniture in the other room; i should get back to this shortly, one way or another.

i'll have to continue to run through the files after jan 10th. but, it should pick up quite a bit after that, as the blog started when i picked back up in june; the direction of information then flips, and it becomes about pulling information down, rather than putting it up.

thankfully, the weather seems finally set to turn, so i should be able to keep the windows open most of the time.

well, there's my quarterly stomach wrench.

it's officially spring in windsor. finally. but i need to sit for a bit, too...

as with the last few days, i had difficulty getting out of bed this morning, no doubt due to the poor air quality in the unit. the property owner - from bc - woke me up, with a request to inspect the unit today.

this is actually what i want. sort of. i think. i mean, i put in the request for renovations. so, the next step is to inspect the two units - and i did hear the knock downstairs a few minutes before hand.

there's an off chance they could show up with an n5 or something, but if they do that i'm going to file a t2 anyways, so it's just a waste of time - that would be stupid of them. i've been clear that i want to leave, i'm just giving them a last opportunity to save my tenancy before i get the court to let me out. trying to evict me for trying to smoke-proof the apartment when i'm trying to get out of the lease due to second-hand smoke is likely to get me some judicial sympathy. it would make more sense for them to just buy me out.

i think they're worried about the duct tape. it's not the problem they're maybe imagining it is, partly because of the smoke, itself. the first place i taped up was the closet and the tape had been dried out by the smoke within three months. judging by that, the tape may fall off on it's own by the summer; even if it doesn't, it should come off cleanly with a wet rag.

so, if they try to do that, i'll have to countersue for the cost of the tape - which i was going to do anyways - and then disassemble all of the tape. i'll have to show up with some pictures indicating that there is no damage at all, but that i still want out of the lease, anyways. oops?

i decided that i'd spent the first part of the day rebuilding, get something to eat and clean the place up overnight. if the place is too cluttered, they could claim a fire code violation; obscure, but i didn't want to give that to them. and, if they come in tomorrow with a renovation plan, i could still salvage the tenancy - so why not set up the unit? there's still some chance i could get started on period 3 before i leave here.

i couldn't stay awake so i stopped to eat early and got to cleaning early. and i got a little optimistic about things. maybe this will work out?

but, i got the plumes coming up from downstairs around 21:00, and it was just too much - this place is not inhabitable.

still, i carried through to see, and i'm going to be sad to leave here, even though i must. i like this place for what it is, but it's just not a healthy place to live, and i'm getting to an age where i need to be concerned about my health. it would be negligent to my own well-being to let myself exist in this kind of environment any longer than necessary.

the immediate fire code issue is resolved, at least. i mean, the place was always navigable. but, i'm quite thin.

i'm hoping it's just a nap, but these stomach wrenches really require me to stop until they pass.

i've said this repeatedly: i am incapable of passing the workplace behaviour test.

that is supposed to be the easy one.

but, i've failed it repeatedly.

i simply don't understand it.

note that i've aced the competency tests, though. my iq scores are quite high; it's my behaviour that is unacceptable.

so, what i need is an isolated environment, where i can keep social interactions with others to an absolute minimum. this apartment is not that space...

somebody with a social aptitude as low as mine is going to require drugs and/or alcohol to function in a social situation, and will regularly abuse substances due to feelings of social inadequacy; somebody like me is consequently not well advised to medicate with mind-altering substances, as it is likely to trigger episodic behaviour rather than alleviate it.

i have never been (substantively) diagnosed with depression.

i have never experienced treatment for depression.

i do not believe that i suffer from depression.

i am diagnosed with "social anxiety disorder", which is like the lowest level of personality disorder. i do believe that i have a personality disorder. however, i've never been able to get this diagnosed because i supposedly am not episodic.

in fact, i believe that i am constantly episodic, but i just can't get a doctor to take the evidence i've provided seriously because it's not coming from a police report or a hospital. this is the catch-22: i can't get diagnosed until i do something crazy, but i've generally been able to utilize the resources available to me effectively enough to stop myself from going over the precipice. so, the more that the system works, the weaker my argument that i need it is.

unfortunately, i may need to go through a court process to get properly diagnosed - that's how a mental health system works in a calvinist society. and, if i never get through the court process, i may never get properly diagnosed - despite presenting myself repeatedly to mental health professionals for this purpose.

the basic understanding of the situation is that my social skills are too chronically underdeveloped to allow me to function in any kind of workplace. there's lots of jobs i could theoretically do, if i wanted to, but i can't handle the social component.

i'm going to argue with management. i'm going to argue with staff. my co-workers will dislike me, and i will dislike them, back. i will not want to spend time with them. i will be passed over for promotion, as i am unable to build social relationships. and, i will ultimately demonstrate little interest in what i'm doing, as a consequence of it.

we generally think of disability in terms of mental or physical aptitude. but, there is a third dimension - social aptitude - that is every bit as important in gaining and holding employment. in some ways, this is the most important skill of all.

and, my diagnosis is that my social aptitude is so low that you can label me socially retarded.

i would be willing to explore this further through treatment. but, there is not a solution to this problem.

i don't have a lot of positive things to say about the bush family, but i can't imagine what tomorrow looks like after 73 years.

that's something deserving of empathy, regardless of the topic of conversation.

i mentioned this the other day into my vlog camera. it'll come up to youtube, one day.

i'm walking by a cemetery and there's this old woman howling at the gravestone. i'm thinking to myself...

you howled at this poor bastard every day for how many years, and then you show up to his gravestone to keep at it? jesus, lady. it says rest in peace.

i'm an asshole, and i have a dark sense of humour, but i'm not heartless. and, the thought crosses my mind: i'm glad i'll never have to deal with that.

i could barely handle breaking up with somebody after a couple of years.

after 73 years? i don't think i'd make it a day.

not even if i hated the fucker, in the end.

the person that i smoked most often with as a teenager used to get it from his older brother.

we had a bit of a falling out, and the next friend i met got it from somebody he got in contact with through his older brother.

i was the oldest, and my dad wouldn't admit it, so i didn't have any contacts - i had to rely on my friends for it.

this is the reality: kids get it from family members or the family members of friends, not shady weirdos on school playgrounds. and, no amount of regulation, however well meaning, will stop somebody from smoking their kids or younger siblings, or their friends, when they feel the time is right.

my dad claimed he quit years ago, although i caught him red-eyed a few times. he wouldn't admit it; he had some kind of weird thing about it.

but, the first person i saw smoke a joint was my friend's dad. i think we were in the 7th grade - late, because i was a little sheltered, growing up on a military base.

a few years later, that same friend would bring pot to school and smoke it at lunch. and where'd he get it from? his dad.

this is the whole point, guys. it's a part of the culture. it's not some shady thing. the idea is that we can better address health & safety issues by normalizing and destigmatizing it on a legal level - while putting more of a focus on how absurdly unhealthy it is.

the idea that kids should be - or even could be - kept away from marijuana is simply not realistic. it is far too deeply embedded in the culture for this.

which is obvious.

so, why isn't it obvious to the premier?

ugh.

you know where kids get exposed to pot from, first and foremost?

their parents.

that's actually pretty normal.

i hate everybody the same, though; i'm an equal opportunity hater.

things like physical characteristics or ideological leanings won't make me hate you more or less.

i will acknowledge that i'm relatively good at pretending that i like people.

but, trust me: i don't like you.

at all.

i'm a humongous introvert.

i don't have any friends.

so, finding drugs is a difficult process. i have to go talk to people, pretend i like them, even hang out with them for a little while, sometimes.

i'd rather just go to the fucking store.

that's the point. that's why casual users support legalization: because we don't like the social requirements attached to finding drugs.

so, you've got this completely backwards.

i'm sorry.

i don't even know where it came from. was it my profile pic? the fact that i'm vocally pro-legalization?

did you have some desire to uphold me as a high-functioning drug addict?

all of it was a lie - but it wasn't a lie i told. i was clear about the truth, whenever i could be.

i am not and never have been a pothead. i've only ever smoked sporadically and recreationally. once in a while - and generally sparingly.

very little of the writing i've done has been under the influence of drugs. that's a false perception, and one i've never perpetuated - the misunderstanding is 100% on your side.

and, if you think about it, it's really the casual users that benefit the most from legalizing the drug, as we don't buy large amounts in bulk, anyways - we don't mind if we overpay a little, because we don't buy much, anyways. what's more important to us is being able to find it on the rare occasion we want to, because we don't have dealers and don't know where to go to find it.

heavy smokers generally tend to be pessimistic about this, and largely ok with the status quo. it's the infrequent users that want this to happen.

it's not my fault. i told you - again and again and again. you didn't listen.

there's an old cliche about not judging a book by it's cover. i suppose this needs to be updated slightly, but the idea is no less valid: don't judge an individual by their memes.

i shouldn't have slept another 10 hours this morning, and i'm actually going to blame it on the weather. we got some snow overnight...

all i can do is get going.

and, now, i'll have to put off eating until i get through the month, however long it takes.

also - for those that are curious, there will, in fact, be a youtube / music review blog, and it will go over all of the music discussions that i've skipped at the two existing blogs.

but, this will only become relevant when i launch the music review site, and that won't be for years, probably.

yes. there will be a point in the mid 2020s where i'll post youtube comments from 2014 to a blogspot archive - along with facebook posts from 2009.

the existing focus is really on building liner notes for inri000-inri074, and then tying them altogether into the aleph discs.

that gets me through november, 2015, which was still a heavy posting month. it took ten days to finish, but i didn't spend most of those 10 days posting, so, if i can keep up that kind of productivity, i could be done december in a day or two.

i didn't get my blast of smoke tonight around 21:30. that's a positive. i think i should be alert for a good while, then.

this is taking a long time, and i kind of knew it would, but it's not a choice i have to make. i need to at least follow this through up to mid 2016 in order to finish the liner notes for inri000. and, given that i'm coming up on inri015 in the alter-reality, that's going to push me through until late 2016, at least.

also, keep in mind that the next things to do are to finish the aleph discs, as well. the period 1 aleph disc should be ready to ship by the end of 2020. so, i'd might as well just push through.

i'll look back on this in a few years and be glad i did it.

also: i've been over this before...

if you're a free market libertarian type, you might misunderstand a lot of my arguments as being socially conservative. but, that's the restricted spectrum at work. i'm usually pretty good at pointing out why my arguments are on the actual left, rather than the pretend left that the restricted spectrum presents, but i'll admit it gets tiring to repeat myself. at the least, there's enough material here now that you should be able to put the logic together, if you've been reading this for any extended period of time....

the simple statement is that leftists find themselves more concerned about things like resource management than liberals do, because we reject the premise of infinite growth. we try to avoid scaremongering around artificial scarcity, but we're far more serious about the realities around actual scarcity, and consequently far more conscious of how to utilize scarce resources in ways that ensure everybody has access, not just those that have the financial ability.

as liberals tend to promote markets, they react to the problems around scarcity by merely increasing prices. that reduces access, thereby saving the scarce resource by only making it accessible to an elite. the more scarce the resource, the more expensive it becomes. leftists tend to argue that this doesn't seem very liberal, really; we insist that everybody should have access, which means we need to manage it better than just setting a price on it.

well, almost everybody should have access, anyways.

some restrictions are going to be necessary. and, this is the ideological breaking point between liberalism and the left: do you want access to scarce resources to be determined by wealth, or would you prefer it to be determined by need? and, if so, are you willing to put reasonable restrictions on access to scarce resources, to ensure that they are available to most - or will you allow those resources to be accessed at will by those that have the finances to pay for it?

in between liberalism and the left exist the hippies. in the distant european past, the hippies were actually fundamentalist christians; a little further back, and they become heathen peasants. marx called them "utopian socialists" and contrasted them with what he called "scientific socialism". these people want universal access to scarce resources, and the only argument they present to justify this is in the realm of magical thinking. they deny that scarce resources are actually scarce. these people are unfortunate, but they are also rather numerous, and they're largely outside the realm of meaningful discourse.

i need to repeat: i don't think the hydro rates are all that bad.

it's the service fees that strike me as ridiculous.

and, that's not the government's fault. that's the electricity company price gauging me...

who wants to be tired all of the time, and why?

i admit i drank a lot on friday night, but that doesn't explain why i can't stay awake on monday afternoon.

the air quality in here got better around midnight, but it's....it's weird...instead of getting these plumes of smoke, i'm getting this persistent dusty background, and the odd whiff of it.

i'm tired, not very alert, kind of slow-moving, groggy and stuck with a scratchy throat. i'm not sure where it's coming from, but i'm going to try opening the window overnight.

something changed, and it's for the better, but i'm still feeling it. let's hope i'm awake enough to get some serious rebuilding done tonight.

what about the hydro thing?

well, i'm currently getting free hydro due to the subsidies. that's right: free hydro. my last two bills had $39.02 & $40.14 credits on them - meaning the hydro company actually owes me $79.16. i don't know if i get a check at the end or not...

but, this is due to the fact that i barely use any.

the credit is $69. so, you can see that my hydro bill would be about $30. but, of that, about $25 is a flat rate set by the company.

i actually use less than $10 worth of actual electricity a month. it's more like $7.

so, i'm not going to benefit from cancelling this program, and i'm not going to benefit from a rate cut, either. i would benefit from stronger regulations on the transmission company - perhaps a law that outlaws base rate charges, or minimum fees.

so, i prefer the liberal plan on hydro.

but, i don't want to elect doug ford. so, i might have to make a difficult choice on that.

further, i suspect that horwath will backtrack on her hydro plans, which seem to be designed to win votes from low information voters (many of whom would actually be hurt by her proposals) rather than to lower rates.

it plays into the trust issue with the ndp - they're simply not being honest about this, leaving people to guess at what they're actually going to do.

she seems to be doing this correctly, but when is she going to get that traction?

i don't believe that ford is running in the high 30s. i think he's running in the mid to low 30s - about where harper was running. the problem right now is that the liberal base in ontario doesn't seem to want to budge below about 25%, and that doesn't give the ndp a lot of room to play with. when you take the greens into consideration, her maximum polling potential, if she swings every single undecided, ends up in the mid 30s. more likely is that you end up with this horrid three-way split, where they're all in the low 30s......

the vote could still fall in place nicely. ford is going to win some seats in toronto, but he's going to have a harder time in the suburbs, and that's going to balance things out. the ndp are almost certainly to be uncompetitive in the suburbs. so, you could conceivably end up in this situation where the liberals win a lot of upper class seats, the ndp win a lot of urban seats and the conservatives win the balance - and lose the election, while winning the popular vote.

or, it could fall in place terribly, and ford could sweep based on a total split.

but, remember this: the conservatives cannot win a minority in ontario. the liberals lean too far to the left. a conservative minority means a liberal-ndp coalition government. and, that means the conservatives have to be polling a lot higher than i think they're actually polling in order to actually take power...

given that a coalition may be the most likely outcome right now, there are a couple of ridings where the ndp & liberals may want to choose not to compete against each other in. not all, or even most. but a couple...

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/reevely-leaving-liberals-for-dead-andrea-horwath-out-lefts-kathleen-wynne-with-a-smile-on-her-face

if the liberals aren't the party of science - of rationalism, of secularism - then they are useless and will cease to exist.

we need science-based arguments, including laws minimizing second-hand smoke exposure, and not right-wing fear-mongering.

the scientific reality is that a mcdonald's near a school is more dangerous than a head shop is.

do they do this sort of analysis around fast food restaurants?

but, there's schools everywhere. and, do they do the same kind of consultation with liquor stores? or convenience stores?

this is empty politicking. and, it's going to alienate more people than it's going to appeal to.

i'm actually not entirely opposed to the idea of having giant warehouses rather than little head shops, if it means that the warehouses have less restrictive hours. but, there is probably literally nowhere in toronto that has the characteristics she's projecting.

she's not going to win this election by campaigning against pot.

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/04/16/premier-asks-for-community-consultation-on-cannabis-store-locations.html

i hope the provinces make a big deal about refusing to accept the costs, and it blows up in their face.

this is stupid.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4142592/trudeau-liberals-overhaul-discriminatory-immigration-law-disabilities/

it's actually really not at all surprising that trudeau is more interested in the will of international investors than in the will of the canadian people.

this basic fact - that what non-canadians think is more important than what canadians think - permeates every decision made by this government. i've been pointing it out for months.

for all the talk of post-colonialism, this is the most nakedly colonial government we've had in decades.

to be clear: my understanding is that one of these people leaves for work late in the evening, and that this person seems to be in control of the situation, when she's there - but that, as soon as she leaves, the other people light up.

see, and this is as disrespectful to the person on the lease as it is to me. but, she may feel as though she has no responsibility. that's just a bad friend, whatever kind of friend it is...

it was nice in here. warm. dry. clean.

it's a shame they had to ruin it.

i've suspected for a while that there's two people living there, taking shifts.

it may be that the night shift seems to be worse than the day shift and that the night shift only works weekdays or something. i dunno. but, it seems like it's that one is worse than the other.

the property manager insists there's only one person living there, but this isn't true. is the bigger problem even on the lease? and, if so, why is this woman letting this other woman create all of these problems for her?

about 21:30, they're back at it.

so, what happened over the weekend, and why did it change all of a sudden?

i'm going to guess that there's a point where they get too stoned to care; like i say, i know the psychology fairly well. they may even regret it when they wake up, but they'll decide it doesn't matter any more. and, this is a cycle - if they get another scary warning, they'll stop for a few days, and then get really stoned and stop caring again.

again: somehow, these people are being prescribed marijuana as a cure for depression and apathy. it's not clicking that it's at the root cause of their problems, rather than a solution to them. and, any doctors that are enabling them ought to be liable for this.

for right now, i have no choice but to open the windows and hope it clears out.

i don't know what changed, exactly, but i'm happy about the air quality this weekend.

is there some possibility that this could still work? well, i don't really know what happened. i know that the second letter appears to have had some effect, but who knows for how long.

i guess i should wait until may 1st before i finish cleaning up and setting up the studio.

it's been almost a week since i was at this, but here i go, back at it. let's get through 2015 before i do anything else....

it's known that rachel drinks a lot.

i think that's the key variable.

what are the betting odds on a trudeau-notley "thing" ongoing or developing?

i'm operating solely on body language. but, i think it's incriminating.

not that i even really care, i'm just saying.

so, it seems as though the pipeline meeting was pointless.

here's the thing: trudeau can write some new legislation if he'd like. but, that legislation will then be subject to a constitutional challenge, and that itself will be very lengthy.

even if the pipeline is owned by the feds and it only goes through federal land, that federal land is still in provincial jurisdiction, and, perhaps more importantly, surrounded by land that is, as well.

the division of powers in the constitution is not specific enough to make a clear deduction, and lawyers suggesting it is are in for a rude surprise when they get to court. these lands are probably mostly subject to the changes that occurred in the transfer agreements of 1930, which should give the provinces jurisdiction over natural resources; at the time, a part of the reason this was done was to minimize aboriginal influence, as their treaties were with the crown, rather than the province. now that the province is onside with the aboriginals, the fed wants to take control back again, by citing the 1867 documents. that's not going to work.

this is going to take some time to work out, and everybody will need to deal with it.

that said, trudeau has some leverage, in terms of withholding funding. but, if he were to withhold funding to build a pipeline, it would turn him into a pariah, the country over. that would be suicidal.

and, of course, if abbey road meant it was bed time, then sgt peppers meant it was time to wake up.

i blew the day, yesterday. it happens sometimes. i need to do a bit more cleaning and get back to work tonight.

the air quality in here has improved dramatically over the last 48 hours; we'll have to see if my second letter worked or not, but it's going to be a while before i can make any conclusions. for right now, it's better, at least. if it stays like this, i won't have to move.

if.

it's unclear to me why a city the size of toronto would be unable to recycle items that are recyclable elsewhere, and i'm frankly tired of being told that citizens are at blame for this, as though the recycling industry is above us in some way, and that it's alright if they can't be bothered to separate out things.

the coffee bins are a good example. there's a big market for these things. so, it should fall on the city to find a way to recycle them, if they end up in the bin - even if that means shipping them somewhere else.

if something is recyclable, the city should not be throwing it away just because it isn't locally recyclable; it should be making that effort to deal with the issue. and, if that costs money then they should ask for it; recycling is a core, essential service and not something that should be done on the cheap.

we need a change in culture, alright. and, it seems like the first culture that needs to change is the culture at the recycling plant.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/04/13/bringing-purity-to-torontos-blue-bins.html

what we should do is create an organization and model it after the mormons, who are known for posthumously baptizing people. i think this is a strange thing, but i don't imagine that a dead person would care much if they were baptized; there's not really a mechanism for it.

but, we should create an organization that posthumously awards all of the people that have died from drug overdoses with darwin awards, and have that organization keep detailed records in a deep library, as though they are monks, and the monastery they administer has a sacred purpose to remember the lives of all of the people that willingly removed themselves from the gene pool.

the liberals were never the stupid party. we'll see in a few weeks if they've become it or not.

non-users need to stop proselytizing like religious fundamentalists and rather come to terms with the fact that they can't help them, they need to move on.

my view on drugs is towards total state non-involvement.

the laws should not be changed, but they should not be enforced, either - which, in canada, is really the status quo. they only really arrest dealers, here.

but, no new money should be spent on treatment, prevention or enforcement. that money should be spent on more valid health care priorities to help people that aren't individually responsible for their own fucking problems.

and, i actually think that if the government gets completely out of the way then the industry will kill itself off; it's state involvement that keeps it going. by stepping in and saving the lives of addicts, and regulating use through various schemes, we're actually propping the industry up...

if you just step back and completely wash your hands of it, they'll eventually all die, and the problem will cease to exist.

but, this is no doubt why the industry wants state regulation - to maintain a customer base. the longer the state keeps you alive, the more drugs you buy. it's how you would expect the cartels would want to design the system.

the drug conglomerates of the future will have treatment subsidiaries, along with distribution subsidiaries. because, they are of course going to want to make a profit from the entire cycle of drug abuse - from first use right to death.

how many times have i told you that i'm not a christian?

i think the status quo regarding drug use is fine.

stupid people buy drugs; stupid people die from drug use. the result is less stupid people. what's the down side?

and, i feel no prerogative to save the lives of these people.

at all.

let them die.

see, this is really just a bunch of utter nonsense.

the reality is that treatment doesn't work. so, this idea that we have some kind of successful option in front of us rather than a failed option is a false dilemma - neither of these approaches will save lives, and they are both absurdly expensive.

the real difference is around two questions:

1) should we be socially sanctioning drug use? it's almost impossible to not do that in a society where drug use is legal.
2) who profits from the drug trade? this includes the treatment industry.

underneath every article like this is a financial trail. somebody stands to profit from legalization, and they are the people writing these pieces.

drug addicts don't get better, and it's irresponsible to suggest there's a way to fix them by spending a lot of public money. that is money that could be put into other areas with better likelihoods of successful outcomes, like cancer research.

you just need to let them go and move on with your own life.

i oppose the resolution and hope it fails.

but, ironically, if it passes, it would make the ndp less unattractive - because they're both supporting the same thing, anyways.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2018/04/15/the-case-for-decriminalizing-drugs.html

the author of this piece misunderstands the point.

the bill doesn't intend to place indigenous spiritual belief on the same footing as science in an epistemological sense, it merely codifies an existing judicial precedent that orders industry to have some respect for the religious beliefs of the indigenous inhabitants before they start fucking around with things.

i don't have a lot of patience for these spiritual beliefs. but, i don't have to believe in the premise of a land being sacred in order to respect that these other people do believe that and that, as the land ought to belong to them and only does not due to a historic injustice, they ought to have sovereignty to make those decisions, whether i accept the premise or not.

i can consequently make fun of them for their goofy beliefs and uphold their right to make sovereign decisions around those goofy beliefs, all at the same time - and stand in solidarity with members of their own community that may have their rights, as individuals, inflicted upon by those same goofy beliefs, when it is the case.

i don't know who the author of the piece is, but i suspect they don't know much about canadian law. and, i'd suggest to the washington post that the candian jurisprudence really is complicated enough that you actually do really have to get a canadian expert to talk about it; sending american lawyers after canadian jurisprudence (and legislation modelled after it) is just going to create some confused yankees.

but, the logic is simple enough: this is an additional requirement, and it may be no less important than the science as a requirement, but that doesn't place it on an equal footing with science on an epistemological level...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/04/13/how-trudeau-is-sacrificing-science-in-the-name-of-aboriginal-peace/

nobody outside of alberta is going to vote in favour of a pipeline; this does not affect non-albertans at all in any way.

however, plenty of people outside of bc will vote against a pipeline, because it certainly does affect everybody, and rather considerably.

so, while i'm not going to comment on the results of online "polling", which i consider to be so useless as to be no better than a random guess, the numbers that they are measuring are of little value in the first place.

trudeau can only lose seats by supporting the pipeline.

but, if he's lucky, the number of sophisticated voters like me - that expected him to support the oil industry, and are more interested in structural approaches towards transition - will outnumber the number that kneejerk against it.

but, he has to do a lot more on the transition file; he has to demonstrate concrete results.

the show last night was...

they play short sets. that's how it is.

it was good, but too short.

i was there way too early; my bike is ridable in the short term, but probably going to literally crumble in my hands at some point. i'm not going to bring it back to canada. i'll just ride it until it dies. i'll probably bring something to clean the rust off, next time. if i can get a year out of it, it was a bargain. it won't last another winter...unless i can get it in somewhere, like the trumbullplex.

they might let me do it. they have space.

as i was there early, i pre-drank a lot, and i ended up pretty drunk. so, i'm actually just coming to in any serious sense, just now. i smell like the fire pit at el club, and need to shower.

i'm developing a love-hate relationship with el club. the sound is great, and the crowd is always solid. but, the shows end before midnight. consistently. the band was done at 11:50, and i just don't know if the set was or could have been longer.

but, i know that they do this - that they have this attachment to half hour sets as an inherently punk thing.

and, they consequently rarely play older songs.

there were a few points in the show where i had this different understanding of them, as an off-broadway kind of operatic show tune act. her vocals are becoming the central focus of what the band is doing, and i do think that the whole thing is shifting in the process.

but, this isn't a full review, which i'm very behind on.

trump is complicit in the ongoing catastrophe in yemen and is responsible for a couple of stupid stunts in syria.

but, let us stop to pause for a moment.

clinton - yugoslavia
bush - iraq & afghanistan
obama - libya, yemen, ukraine & syria
trump - has not started a war, yet.

let that sink in for a minute.

right now, trump is the only president in modern history that hasn't started a war.

and, frankly, if he holds to that, he may end up the lesser evil in the next cycle.

it's a shame that he's so terrible on the climate....which is really what the democrats should be running on in the next cycle...

According to reports in the immediate aftermath of the attack, the strikes involved the first combat use of the JASSM advanced missile, reportedly fired from US B1-B Lancer heavy bombers.

i might actually suggest that these ads don't have a lot of reach anymore.

i don't have a tv, and i run an adblocker. that was the only time i'll see this ad. and, i'm likely to forget about it altogether in 5....4....3....2...1...

http://nationalpost.com/news/ontario-liberals-launching-first-campaign-ad-ahead-of-election-focus-on-ford

if you're of a certain age, you probably had paul mccartney sing you to sleep for a substantive amount of your childhood.

that's how you knew it was bedtime.

or, if you're really lucky, a drunk dad doing a paul mccartney impression, albeit only on select occasions.

what?

i have memories of my parents (my dad, actually...) using that song as a life lesson.

kids like music. they learn better through song. that's why kids shows are full of music.

i learned all kinds of things from classic rock. really.

but, somebody missed that life lesson, i think.

hey, justin.

did your mom ever play you this one?

this is a valid point.

but, it's an argument to pull out of nafta, not an argument to complete the pipeline.

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/terence-corcoran-ottawas-next-big-pipeline-problem-kinder-morgan-suing-us-through-nafta

this is a much better explanation than anything you'll see in the tory media.

https://www.desmog.ca/2018/04/13/they-re-not-getting-how-constitution-works-why-trudeau-notley-can-t-steamroll-b-c-kinder-morgan-pipeline

i agree.

justin trudeau is teaching us a very valuable lesson about aristocracy. the tory media, ever a mouthpiece for inherited wealth, really isn't helping the situation by confusing people - perhaps including the prime minister - about the nature of a federal system.

i don't actually think that it makes sense for alberta to be in a confederation with ontario.

but, what trudeau is showing us is that he doesn't understand the law. and, why would he? what training does he have?

he's operating solely on the "whining rich kid" level. and, that's exactly what he's going to do in this meeting he's scheduled with horgan - he's going to cry and whine and stamp his feet and yell that he's not getting his own way.

because he always gets his own way - that's the nature of the kind of privilege he grew up in.

and why he was always a terrible choice for any sort of executive position.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/04/14/news/quebec-warns-trudeau-about-kinder-morgan

geez, guys, everybody knows it's never the cook.

it's always the butler.

c'mon. those are the really important sanctions.

https://www.thestar.com/news/analysis/2018/02/17/russian-indictments-appear-to-target-putins-cook.html

i don't know if there were chemical weapons used in syria.

past attacks have been orchestrated by us-friendly rebels in order to instigate or justify american bombing runs.

it would not justify a unilateral airstrike, if there were. that should go through the united nations.

but, i don't believe a word that the united states says.

so, they bombed some empty factories.

now, trump can go on the talkshows and be the military guy for a few days. and the news can focus on something besides the scandals for a few days.

russia has to sound tough. but they shouldn't overreact. the key needs to be in using that deconfliction line to make sure the targets are understood beforehand.

and, hopefully the united states is not far from more responsible military oversight.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-attack-syria-1.4617438

the weather forecasters are being very scary.

but the radar suggests that the system might move south of here.

it turns out that this woman is smoking drugs with her grandkids in the unit, which confirms she's in her 40s. i don't think she's much older than that.

it's just hard to believe that somebody that old hasn't grown out of this yet, or plays top 40 radio at full blast on her stereo. she acts like a teenager.

must have had the kid very young. my own grandmother became a grandmother in her late thirties.

anyways, i got the letter to the property manager, who tried to guilt trip me on it, but that's not happening.

i can't believe she's chain-smoking pot in front of her grandson.

well, believe it lady, 'cause that's what's happening.

this property manager is not going to be of any use to me; she's clearly on the pothead's side. we'll have to see if i can get a more rational/honest response from the owner or not.

smoking is gross.

therefore, smokers are gross.

so, if smokers don't want to be treated as though they're gross then they should quit smoking.

deal with it.

but, i mean, really, here.

what is a better idea?

1) telling smokers to their face that they're disgusting and hoping it sinks in.
2) coddling them about being "bullied" and telling them they're not really disgusting, while secretly agreeing with the bully.

it's not bullying if it's true.

and, you know this is (almost certainly) somebody susceptible to peer pressure, because they're smoking in the first place.

if you follow this line of reasoning to it's end point, you're going to have to go back to the days where models and athletes advertised smoking on tv and in magazines (because that's realistic, right? which brand was most recommended by doctors...?), because you wouldn't want to offend children with all of those gory images of burnt out lungs and chemotherapy patients, right?

i'm not big on political correctness, anyways.

but, this is an issue where it's not just annoying - you are truly doing great harm to everybody by perpetuating the bullshit.

can you look me in the eye and claim it isn't disgusting?

then, why are you allowing your emotions to cloud your judgement?

the question of whether smoking inside is disgusting or not - and thereby whether the person engaging in the behaviour is disgusting or not - is an empirical question to be determined objectively using science.

and, given that cigarette smoke (or marijuana smoke. whatever.) is the most dangerous substance known to humanity, in terms of toxicity level as a consequence of chronic exposure, it would follow with very little ambiguity that smoking cigarettes inside any dwelling is, in fact, completely disgusting - and that it would follow that anybody that engages in that behaviour is also completely disgusting.

if that hurts your feelings, you're just denying the facts, and i have no patience for you and no interest in discussing the issue with you further.

...because i am on the side of science, first and foremost.

which i've been quite clear about.

you know, in canada we have a lot of data, because the society is so multicultural.

and, the numbers are correct - black students underperform everybody else. they underperform white students, east asian students, south indian students, arab students, eastern european students - they are dead last across the board on every metric.

and, most of our black students are not the descendants of slaves, either. they're not disproportionately lower class. they don't come from ghettos. they really start off with the same opportunities as everybody else, here.

so, why do they perform so poorly?

it's not aptitude. we've ruled that out.

i think the black community needs to look at itself - at it's role models, at it's culture. it doesn't uphold academic achievement, does it? it doesn't prioritize it.

and, where does this culture come from? it comes imported from american media, with the intent on constructing a certain kind of person.

and, this is the reality: middle class canadian blacks - the children of doctors and professors - are being niggerized by american media.

so, how do we push back on this?

it's not by attacking a woman that means well and has made positive changes, that's for sure.

https://ipolitics.ca/2018/04/12/kathleen-wynne-takes-heat-at-black-community-leaders-debate/

oh, dear.

who let them do this, and how do they still have jobs?

"no, we're not pandering. what makes you think that?"

nobody cares where the stores are.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/first-to-pot-shop-controversy-1.4617671

and, if you can't beat her?

that's democracy.

sorry.

you defeat this woman at the ballot box.

you don't tell her she can't run.

we don't do that, here.

these groups just continually demonstrate that their opponents are absolutely correct to be apprehensive about their commitment to freedom of expression, which is not present in their native cultures.

it would be weird if they did embrace these ideas, given that they're so foreign to them. they don't exist in their religious traditions, and they don't exist in their political culture.

it's a serious problem. and it's not something we can stop at this point - we're going to have to brace ourselves for a conflict over it.

liberals cannot be taking the wrong side on this. and, there must be a struggle within the liberal party to ensure they aren't.

you can't ban people from running because you don't like their views.

go back to iran.

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/04/12/doug-ford-not-banning-tanya-granic-allen-because-he-owes-her-for-leadership-race-support-wynne-says.html

i never smoked inside, when i was a smoker, ever. ever. ever.

i'd trudge out in -30.

because indoor smoke is up there with dog feces and drunken vomit as one of the most disgusting things you can do to your living space...

i can't stay here.

it's disgusting.

so, i know the psychology i'm dealing with.

well.

they don't care....

i moved in with my dad when i was 13, as my mom had to admit it was my choice. my sister did the same thing.

see, the complicated thing was this...

my mom got a certain amount of money from the state because she had kids. she didn't want to have kids, but she didn't want to give up the extra money (which she spent on drugs). so, she actually fought my dad for custody, and even received child support on top of it - and then took all that money and used it to fuel her drug habits.

the court should have given my dad custody and sent my mother to jail.

but, that was seen as "unnatural" at the time. children were seen as best left with their mothers, even if their mothers are negligent drug addicts. and, here i am, with chronic bronchitis, and uncountable other problems, thirty+ years later, as a result of it.

i can't stay here.

i remember coming home after school with my latch key around my neck, holding my breath before i opened the front door, unlocking it, running to the basement door, and not exhaling and breathing in until i got downstairs - like i was running through a toxic waste zone.

what eventually ended up happening was that my stepfather built me a bedroom in the basement, and the rule was that there was no smoking down there.

i would then pretend i was sleeping so i wouldn't have to sit through meals,  and then come up when everybody was asleep to make myself something to eat. this was when i was like 9.

in hindsight, that may have saved my life.

yeah - it was the teacher that sent me to a doctor.

i've been feeling it come in for a few days.

but, as of apr 13, 2018, the second hand smoke in the unit has officially triggered my bronchitis. this is going to put me in a fit of extreme coughing for the next 4-12 weeks.

once it hits, there is no solution. removing myself from the source of the smoke does not help. there is no way out of this. i will cough and hack and wheeze for weeks, whether anybody likes it or not.

the reason is that my lungs are quite seriously damaged from my mother's heavy smoking habits. they gave me a puffer when i was about seven or so, because i was disrupting the class. i still have one, but it has really never been effective. my mom seemed to understand what she was doing, but really simply didn't care - and may have even taken some pleasure in causing harm.

if abortion was legal at the time, i wouldn't exist; that's the kind of thing you get from mothers that really don't want to raise kids, but are forced to by the government, against their will. when i coughed from the smoke, she'd just yell at me to shut up and light another one.

and, that's all i'm likely to get from these tenants, too.

i can't do anything about the situation besides cough it out and hope i get a reasonable response from management, soon.

i think it's just too much calcium, actually - and i eat a lot of cheese and fortified soy milk as it is. i'd probably just be putting myself at risk for kidney stones, as i piss most of it out.

if i ever test deficient for calcium, i can try it, i guess.

for now, i'm thinking it'll likely end up in a park. just don't let your kids play in the dirt....

i decided against composting my eggshells at the community compost. i wasn't ever really sure those kids were doing it right...

should i just eat them?

i'm thinking i could microwave them to kill whatever's left (they've been left frozen.) and then mash them up and add them to my smoothies.

i need to do more research than this...

the other option, i'm thinking, is to leave them outside in a park. that might sound gross at first. but, the calcium takes a long time to breakdown, which is the reason it's maybe not the best thing for actual compost. so, you want to put them in places where the soil is more continually utilized, so they can replenish the soil as the calcium comes out.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/science/eating-the-shell-along-with-the-egg.html

they could always try and evict me, but it would be faster and cheaper to pay me out, considering i actually want to leave, so i'm not sure why they'd make a bad choice like that.

and, i think i was clear enough about that in my letter.

at the least, if he gets proper legal advice, it should get me a clear answer on an eviction attempt downstairs, which is not likely to be successful - which i pointed out clearly in the letter.

well, the property manager claims that the building owner is in the process of contacting his lawyer.

i don't know if that means that he's planning on carrying through with an eviction or planning on buying me out. but, that was pretty much the only answer i could accept without moving to the next step.

and, i guess they'll have until monday to get me a response.

the cheapest and easiest thing to do is to buy me out, and i'll happily take the offer.

how much do you figure a free elizabeth shirt is going to cost?

this might even bring back pemberton.

judges aren't usually this daft. must be a harper appointee. but, i'll take the free martyr.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/elizabeth-may-kennedy-stewart-kinder-morgan-arrest-court-appearance-1.4611437

i'm home.

compost run done; freezer clear. it actually feels good, for some reason.

and my grandmother called when i was out.

she does indeed sound pretty rough, which i'm noticing for the first time.

i've never meant to ignore her, i just live in my own head. so, i need to call nana first, and then the property manager second.

i had to pick between the university and the community centre, and i went with the community centre. it's where the community garden ought to be.

they do the free food thing. i like that...

if you have one of these things around, and you probably do, give them your food scraps.

it's really the least you can do. literally.

https://www.facebook.com/FordCityCommunityGarden/

you know, being able to bicycle to the tunnel kind of opens the city up, if i have to move.

it opens up a larger area to exist within...

i'm going to give the property manager to the end of the day before i call her, just to make sure she's received proper instructions - and because i'm curious about whether the banging i heard around 22:00 was my door or not (i was asleep, and not sure where it was coming from...nobody was there when i got up...but it was a while later...i sleep through anything and often literally can't get up when awoken, if not expecting it...).

yeah, well, they'd better have a nice tidy list in place by the next election.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/04/11/news/trudeau-government-puts-massive-investments-get-public-transit-track

maybe the buddhists got a few things right, in the mess of things they got wrong.

you check via the scientific method.

any similarities in thought are strictly coincidental, and of little concern to me.

"why don't you just get stoned and create?"

because you can't create anything when you're stoned - it is a condition that is antithetical to creative expression.

creativity requires clear thinking through the proper observation of sobriety.

what inebriation is good for is numbing the pain of repetitive tasks. it is good for low wage workers that just need something to help them through the day, or people that can't find a purpose in a system that is designed to make it impossible to find one.

but, nobody uses drugs to make music - or at least not to make music worth listening to.

and, perhaps you might want to actually listen to the music i create to hear how distant it is from marijuana culture. it's basically classical music.

there was a period, from 2011-2013, where i didn't have access to my gear, and i really did just get drunk and stoned all of the time. i spent this period living with my grandmother and hanging out with occupy protestors.

when you take away my ability to create, i lose focus. and it follows that if you insist that i get fucked up all of the time then the way to do that is to separate me from a purpose.

but, that changed over five years ago.

when i first moved to windsor, i stopped drinking & smoking almost altogether; although it took a few years to get a handle on the cigarettes, i really did quit smoking in the winter of 2015/2016. i have relapsed for a few weeks at a time since, but i have not and will not go back to this.

i have also since spent some extended periods partying on weekends, but this is actually mostly an act of depression. i would rather be sitting in my room by myself recording, but i haven't been able to do this, so i've gone out and gotten drunk instead.

i have never habitually smoked marijuana, nor have i ever wanted to do so. given that i have smoked it sporadically and recreationally for over 20 years without having developed any desire to convert it into a habit, i'm just about the lowest probability target you could imagine in terms of becoming a regular, daily-smoking marijuana addict. that is not going to happen.

however, the more separated i become from my art due to constant distraction and inability to create, the more likely i am to sink into daily alcohol use, as i become more and more depressed and more and more distraught. while marijuana may end up as a complement to this alcohol use, it is not going to reverse that depression. nor do i want to become a daily marijuana user, have i ever seen myself as a daily marijuana user or will i ever conceptualize myself in these terms.

this is simply not who i am.

i was in bed around 19:00 last night, but the smoke was so horrible that it woke me up around 22:00. i spent some time cleaning and slept all morning. so, i am going to follow through with the process within a few hours, and seek clarity on the building's approach: will they seek eviction or not?

any other answer besides "yes, we are seeking eviction" will leave me no choice but to assume they are not doing so, and to formally request repairs to the unit below me.

and, if they acknowledge they are seeking eviction, at whatever difficulty, i'll have to sit tight and wait it out.

i found some compost drop-offs for tomorrow...

but, i'm still convinced that this woman is smoking meth.

when i moved in, i noticed some difficult-to-get-off orange stains over the stove. i thought it was just a sloppy cook; it could have been ancient grease stains. but, i cleaned most of it.

these stains have reappeared today at the end point of the tarp over the kitchen, in the same place i was sitting when i got loopy on the stimulants.

that hasn't happened since; the contact high i got at the end of april was exactly that, and i recognized it for what it was. but, these orang stains are associated with meth use...

there's also the issue of the inch worth of stains i pulled out of the bathroom floor. i thought it was some kind of urine, maybe from a cat. but, this is also a potential build-up from a meth user.

hey, if i can use it to get the tenant out, i'll do it.

i may have to take this to detroit :\.

that said, this is why the rhetoric from the democrats on russia is so dangerous, and why they need to stop.

if he pushes any buttons, and anybody is left to record the history, it will be the democrats that will need to be held responsible for the carnage.

trump's projected bombing in syria is a political stunt.

the russians would be wise to get out of the way, as he'll lose interest in a few days.

but, they know that, and are no doubt just gritting their teeth for their own cameras.

don't get me wrong: syria is a dangerous situation. but, the russians need to be smart enough to know that trump is just wagging the dog, here, and react accordingly.

there's of course caveats.

but, he'll probably bomb an empty field, anyways.

dear tory media,

i know that you're convinced that the rule of law refers to the idea that the state is able to ensure it does what it wants by force.

but, as usual, you've got this backwards; the rule of law refers to the idea that the government is itself not above the law.

and, these absurd op-eds take on a more ominous tone when you understand this.

the elder trudeau once found himself in a situation where he felt he had to send the army in to arrest protestors without charge, a decision that is still attacked today as an egregious abuse of power - that is, a lapse in the rule of law - and that he came to realize was a terrible mistake. in response to his own mistake, he wrote a constitution for the country, so future leaders would not repeat that mistake, for whatever reason - influence from foreign powers, financial corruption or just plain stubborn arrogance and foolish pride.

the younger trudeau will need to follow these rules that were put in place by his father.

for, that is the rule of law, in this country.

as always,
deathtokoalas

i don't care about following trends or being cool or fitting in.

i care about science.

and, you may want to educate yourself on what it actually says, and re-evaluate your stance accordingly.

i haven't really been in this room this morning, and it still has a herby smell that i can't fully finger the source of, although it appears to be coming from directly under my bed, but the rest of the apartment seems to be ok.

i've decided to wait for the next episode to call. i expect that to be in a few days.

this morning was spent cleaning and rearranging, and i don't even know why - wishful thinking, i guess.

for this morning, i need to find a way to get the compost out of my freezer. it's just time to get it out...i'm running out of space...

so, how did we end up with this joke of an idea - this "medicinal marijuana" crock of shit?

it's a legal loophole. it's not science; there's no science upholding this, and plenty debunking it.

the reality is that it's hard to legalize pot, because of the international drug laws around it. that's ultimately the reason i don't expect it to happen here at all. so, you get around that by calling it a medicine and letting a doctor prescribe it.

but, smart people can see through this, and can see that the whole charade has done more to damage the medical profession than it has to legitimize the marijuana industry.

the right answer is to deregulate it like alcohol (it's harmless, in moderation.), to treat potheads like alcoholics (they need help.) and to stop selling it like snake oil.

and, for fuck's sake, don't smoke in the goddamned house.

listen.

i've smoked a lot of pot.

and, the idea that it would treat depression is retarded.

if there's any benefit of drug use on depression, it would be due to the fact that drug use is often social. so, you get the benefits of social interaction caught up in taking the drug. and, that's what these people need - friends, not drugs.

smoking mad amounts of pot by yourself is going to end with you crying in the corner while you're trying to masturbate. it's not just wrong; it's flatly moronic.

likewise, longterm chronic marijuana use - of the type associated with "medical" users - is thought to cause psychosis, not treat it.

there's no scientific excuse for this. and, if your doctor gave you marijuana, he belongs in jail - he's not a doctor, he's a drug dealer.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/medical-cannabis-guidelines-alberta-1.4537039

the first step for "medical marijuana patients" needs to be in getting them to admit that they have a problem.

and, you're not helping them in enabling their habits.

the more i complain, the more she smokes.

just doesn't get it....

again: i still don't know if they're going to follow through with this. what i know is that i need an answer, so i can plan to leave if they aren't going to.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/04/29/5-reasons-marijuana-is-not-medicine/?noredirect=on

what i'm learning from this is that the idea of "medical marijuana" should really be abolished.

it should be regulated like alcohol, and treated as a recreational drug that is mostly harmless in small dosages but potentially fatally toxic in large doses. daily smokers are drug addicts that need treatment, not patients that need access. doctors should not be prescribing this, and should not be normalizing it - and should be liable for negligence charges if they are. and, nobody should be getting subsidies for it.

the only exception i'm willing to allow for is people diagnosed with a terminal illness. in that case, nothing else really matters anymore.

but, the "doctors" that are prescribing this to healthy people and telling them it's ok to smoke all they want should be rounded up and shot. what a waste.

and, the only way she knows how to cope with anything is to smoke more drugs.

the pothead appears to be basically retarded. i don't know what she was like before they prescribed this to her, but she doesn't appear to be mentally capable of comprehending the situation, as it is. she's forty-something years old, but she's mentally comparable to a fourteen year old child.

the only response anybody is going to get out of her is going to be something like "so what if i smoke", "it's ok if i smoke", "i have a card", "i'm allowed to smoke", etc.

the only thing she's going to understand is her own behaviour. she's going to be convinced everybody is judging her, that the issue at hand is the morality of her own behaviour, etc.

she's never going to understand the premise of her behaviour affecting others. this is just too abstract, too complicated.

so, it's maybe unfair of me to call her selfish; she's not capable of understanding this, no doubt as a consequence of the drug use.

if they could detox her and send her to rehab, she might get better after a few weeks and be able to get her head around it. right now? this is pointless. it's just beyond her mental capabilities.

i can't get a clear answer from the property manager, so i've asked her to call her boss.

i suspect the truth may be something along the lines of the property owner wanting to kick the smokers out, and the property manager being on the side of the smokers. so, she's trying to stand in between and being obstructionist on purpose.

i mean, if i'm to take her at face value, she doesn't seem to understand her own job. and i don't think that's true; i think she's just playing stupid.

so, the manager is not a willing participant, here, and i may find myself with somewhat of a pyrrhic victory, as a result. but, it's not clear to me yet if they're going to follow through...

the owner may jump at it, while the manager drags her feet.

but, i need to be clear: i can't tolerate this situation. and, if i don't get a prompt response, i'm moving to the next step.

i quit smoking 2.5 years ago.

i have no patience for being sick like this.

:(

Request for Renovations in The Unit Below Me

this is a backup letter. she hasn't ruled out eviction, yet. i don't expect her to follow through, though....

===

In my previous letter, I identified four approaches to addressing the problem of continual plumes of second-hand marijuana smoke coming from the unit below me, which is making me sick/inebriated and rendering the unit uninhabitable.

I need to reiterate that this tenant chain smokes marijuana for hours at a time. She must smoke upwards of 30 thick joints a day. This is not casual or occasional use, but sustained drug addiction on a level that I can barely comprehend. I can’t imagine what kind of negligent doctor would prescribe this; it seems cartoonish, truly. I’m repeatedly getting really, really high on nights that I want to be completely sober; trying to read when you’re baked is extremely unpleasant. It’s hard to focus; it’s hard to stay awake. I’m also finding myself with a smoker’s cough. I can only imagine her own cognitive state, or lack thereof. So, my claim that the unit is uninhabitable is in no way an exaggeration, unless, perhaps, you’re a Rastafarian. No sane person would merely accept this.

I also now suspect that she may smoke cigarettes, after all. It’s just hard to tell because she smokes so many drugs...

It is obvious that the first approach - a simple request to smoke elsewhere - is not viable, and will not be mentioned further. This tenant does not appear to understand the health hazards of second-hand marijuana smoke, and/or does not appear to be even remotely concerned about the well-being of the people around her. She simply doesn’t care if her habits are making the other tenants sick and/or inebriated when they don’t want to be. Sadly, she may even think that the smoke is healthy.

You initially decided upon the path of removing this tenant below me, but have since decided against that option. I frankly did not expect you to pursue this option in the first place and am not surprised that you’re not following through with it.

That leaves us with two further paths to attempt: we could try and renovate the unit, or you could agree to release me from the lease (with compensation). This letter outlines my perceptions around renovating the unit, in a last attempt to maintain my tenancy in this building. I have decided that I will not sue to force these renovations, that I would rather sue to end the tenancy, so this is up to your discretion to pursue in order to maintain the tenancy; if these renovations end before they are successful, i will move directly to the next option of asking the board to end the tenancy in a reasonable time frame, and with compensation.

My sole concern is my health. This is the most important thing in life - maintaining one’s health. And, I frankly don’t expect the renovations to be successful.

To begin with, I should point out that i have already gone to great lengths to try and keep the smoke out of this space, and that it has ultimately not been successful. It took me some time to understand what was happening, but I believe the situation is as follows: whenever I block an area, it merely moves the smoke to another one. So, I do believe that I was initially successful in blocking the smoke from entering my bedroom, but this ultimately just pushed it into the hallway. When I tried to stop the smoke from entering the hallway, i merely pushed it back into the bedroom. Now, the seal I created in the bedroom is broken, and the smoke is coming in both spaces, once again. I think you might want to imagine this like a balloon filling up from two separate directions, and then popping on both sides - leaving me no better off than when i started.

So, it seems to be the case that once the smoke has entered the subfloor, it has nowhere to go except out; any serious attempts to block the many holes in my space will merely create more holes, as the smoke forces itself out elsewhere. Caulking this unit could actually damage the flooring further, as the substantive amount of smoke being produced merely finds other ways to escape the subfloor, by enlarging existing holes or creating new ones. So, in order to prevent the smoke from entering this unit, it will need to be kept out of the subfloor altogether. Any renovations must consequently be done in the smokers’ unit, rather than in mine.

If we are to embark upon this process, I would expect a continuing conversation, as it will take several attempts to resolve the problem. I’m not going to be able to give you an easy request - this is going to go on for a long time. I cannot concern myself with how this might affect the other tenant, as that basic concept of respect is not being and will not be reciprocated. But, to begin with, we can look at the following actions:

1) caulking holes in the unit downstairs - especially in the bathroom, bedroom, kitchen, closets and shelving units.
2) the shelving units in the downstairs unit may need to be rebuilt altogether, as this is one of the worst sources
3) the ceilings below me badly need to be sealed.
4) i suspect that the water closet downstairs is a major source of smoke entering the subflooring, as it is then coming in through the bathroom fixtures. this will need to be sealed. note that caulking the bathroom in my unit will just force the smoke into my bedroom, and that fixing my own water closet will just push it back into the bathroom.
5) the tenant appears to enjoy “hotboxing” the closet, which is sending smoke into both my living room and my kitchen. her closet will likely need to be rebuilt.

more generally, i suspect that there is substantial smoke damage in the downstairs unit and that the only serious solution is going to be in fixing that, where it is found. all that caulking up here will do is push the problem around under the floor. and, i suppose that you’ll have to talk to the tenant about those costs, as they are ultimately of her creation - this problem is ultimately rooted in the damage she’s already done to her own unit.

i need to reiterate that i will not sue to force renovations, because i’ve come to realize that the damage to the subfloors is too great, from however many years of smoking however many different things. i will work with management to resolve the issue for as long as they would like to try to resolve it, but my next step will be to ask the board to let me out of the lease. reasonable compensation will be enough to cover the costs i’ve put into smoke-proofing the unit and the expenses required to allow me to move somewhere else.

so, you shouldn't be surprised to learn that the high-speed rail plan in ontario isn't what the tory media is presenting it as.

unfortunately, it isn't really what i want it to be, either.

i look at the expanding toronto megacity, which is expanding quickly to it's west, and the most immediately pressing issue to me is in trying to figure out how we get all these cars off the road. downtown toronto has a large, successful & rather popular electric transit system (that doug ford seems to not like so much...). how do we expand that system to the rest of the mega-city?

& that's really the crux of the reality, here - that london is being absorbed into a suburb of toronto, and that the city needs expanded inter-city transit options.

what i'd like to see is consequently a kind of expansion of the subway system, with the purposes of easing congestion - and reducing emissions. a high speed rail system could in theory do that, by convincing people to take the train to work instead of driving.

and, i'm all in favour of that.

but, it seems a little pricey, for that end, and that seems to be the problem that these systems are facing, elsewhere: it just costs too much.

i'd be willing to see the province subsidize that. but, it seems to be pitching it as an economic driver instead of as a climate change plan, and the whole thing is consequently existing in this imaginary narrative - it's being pitched as something it won't be, and then deconstructed on terms it shouldn't be aspiring towards.

another aspect that is being overlooked is that, if the train is successful, it could conceivably help lower electricity costs. remember: electricity prices are high because the transition to electric vehicles never happened. at this point, it may be easier to get people to take the electric train than it is to get them to buy an electric car, but the effect should be more or less the same, if we can shift generation away from freeways and into windfarms.

we're currently just wasting all this generation, and then paying for it through higher rates. but, you won't see this discussion in the tory media, either - nor will you see it from the government, which doesn't want to talk about it.

so, i do support the rail line expansion - but i support it on climate grounds, not economic ones. and, i'd even like to see the province subsidize it to get it going, and ultimately treat it less like an exclusive cab system for the wealthy and more like an expansion of the subway system.

that money would be better spent on economic diversification.

the idea that it is in the national interest relies on the idea that we need a secondary oil market to lessen dependence on american oil purchases. but, this logic only holds in the context of the country existing as a petrostate, which is itself not in the national interest.

what is in the national interest, first and foremost, is to lessen our fiscal dependency on oil exports.

i think the courts need to remind trudeau that he has a set of rules, called a constitution, that he has to follow.

...and that the government is following a wrongheaded set of priorities that is outside of it's mandate, will harm itself electorally and will leave the country worse off, over all.

i expected him to support these pipelines, don't get me wrong; they all supported all the pipelines. but, he has apparently forgotten that he campaigned heavily on transition - and that this is where the country's focus and resources should be focused, first and foremost.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/04/09/trans-mountain-pipeline-extension-will-be-built-trudeau-vows.html

when she's not coughing and hacking and heaving, she's crying or cursing - but she sounds drunk more often than stoned, so who even knows what she's on. if it's medical, it's not helping with any symptoms, that's for sure - not with anything physical and not with anything emotional. and she has that patty/selma croak in her voice that makes her sound like she's on the brink of shooting up a playschool.

this is a scary person, through and through.

i mean....

i have to file the complaint before i can apply to get out of the lease.

and, even if i win, it could take forever.

i just want to get away from this person. now.

i'm actually hoping that they don't follow through with the secondary complaint, so i can just go ahead and apply to get out of the lease.

i just want to get out of this place, asap.

this woman appears to smoke upwards of a half ounce of pot a day. 

i'm continually astounded by this.

it's like something out of a cartoon.

but there's no end to it. there's no reprieve. it's just constant.

and, it's terrible for my skin :(.

i mean, i keep pointing out that i'm going to have the same problems in the next place: that there isn't a solution to this.

but, i'm living on top of what is probably the most disgusting person in town.

she's chain smoking marijuana, for hours. she's bringing people in to smoke with her. there might not be a perfect answer, but the status quo is almost the worst situation imaginable.

actually, i should...

this is just logic. i'm not an engineer. i can't even build a paper airplane.

but, if trying to tarp over the floor leads me to the conclusion that i'm just moving the smoke around, it follows that the problem is that the smoke is getting into the subfloor - and the actual renovations that need to be done are in the smoker's unit, not mine.

i'm just wondering to myself what kind of reaction that would produce in the smoker. if i could get a court order to renovate her unit, would she stick around for it?

and, would they just pay me to leave, instead?

but, this is what i need to present: that renovations need to occur in the unit below me.

i have nothing to lose by upsetting management; i don't want to be here.

i spent some time tossing and turning, but i'm ultimately still awake - tired and angry and frustrated, but still awake.

i'll have to give them until wednesday, but i'm going to be making a call on that day.

we initially had four options:

a) talk to her

that's clearly not going to work.

b) get rid of her.

i have to continue my due diligence on this, but it's a very difficult and probably unsuccessful process. and, it will no doubt embolden her, if she wins.

c) fix the unit.

i'm giving up on this.

i initially thought i had the bedroom fixed up, but what that did was push the smoke into the bathroom and hallway. so, i patched those areas up, and it just pushed the smoke back into the bedroom.

i patched up the closet the other day, and it just came up a few feet to the side of it.

i had to do the experiment to see how bad it really is, but it seems like i'm not just patching up holes, but in need of replacing the whole floor. i kind of realized i'd need to tear out some fixtures, but it's beyond that, i'd have to tear down the whole unit. really.

the smoke is just going to have to come out somewhere, eventually. and all i'm doing by putting down tarps and taping up spaces is moving it around - i need something much deeper than this.

so, i'm realizing that i can't win this fight on these grounds. it's really gotta be that one of us leaves.

d) let me out of the lease. 

this is going to have to be the option i pursue on around the 1st of may, unless i get a clearer response over the next few days.

so, it's not going to be a letter. it's just going to be a call. i'll have to update her on the situation: the n4 didn't work, and my attempts to smoke proof the unit have led me to the conclusion that this would require replacing the entire floor. i consequently need management to dedicate itself to removing the tenant below me, or prepare to have me try and escape the lease.

i can't live in filth, like this.

as should be obvious, i don't care if people smoke pot, in the abstract.

i just don't want them to plume smoke into my unit, which i've always kept completely smoke-free.

i have never smoked inside, anywhere.

and, when it's obvious that people are blowing smoke in my face to upset me, i'm willing to use whatever tools are available to me to get them to stop.

i don't grasp the intent of people that want to split the world into binary choices of smokers and non-smokers. that's like arguing that everybody who has a glass of wine now and again is an alcoholic. most people measure their alcohol intake on a monthly or yearly scale, not a weekly or daily one. so, it shouldn't be that hard to understand.

enjoying a glass of wine now and again doesn't mean you want your bedroom to smell like vomit and urine. likewise, enjoying a toke when i'm out at a concert doesn't mean i want my pillow to smell like a bong.

this is not binary.

there is a very wide spectrum.

and, i am an extremely infrequent smoker that doesn't want to live in a hazy environment.