and, i do think that there's an issue in this city with chinese landlords refusing to rent to non-chinese people - as there is in pretty much all cities - and perhaps also, increasingly, with muslim landlords refusing to rent to non-muslims, which i would suspect is also pretty normal (even if the chinese dwarf the muslims in terms of populations, here, meaning it's much less visible, as of right now).
the chinese landlords just simply don't return my calls or messages.
these are difficult cases to prosecute on circumstantial evidence.
but, the only way that's going to stop is if people start suing them when they're sure of it.
Monday, July 16, 2018
a second factor that seems to be screwing up the market here is that a lot of the houses near the ambassador bridge seem to have been bought up by asians looking to rent furnished rooms to asian students.
and, they're explicit about it.
"looking for indian student to share room."
it's not like i want to share a room with an indian teenager for $200/month. that's not the point. the point is that the market has been flooded - there is currently a dramatic oversupply of furnished rooms for students. and, this is eating into the normal market.
again: these people will eventually give up. but, for now, a lot of them have 416 numbers, and seem to be operating with toronto mindsets and toronto prices. they're asking for too much money, trying to tap into a market for international students that largely doesn't exist.
the result is that we're going to have a lot of empty, furnished rooms in houses that would have held low income people up until a few months ago - and the city is continuing to broadcast a low income housing shortage.
there should be more strenuous rules around things like offering shared rooms, or converting apartments into rooming houses. or, at the least, they need to crack down on landlords that refuse to rent to non-students.
again: the market will eventually sort this out.
but, i now have 2.5 months.
and, they're explicit about it.
"looking for indian student to share room."
it's not like i want to share a room with an indian teenager for $200/month. that's not the point. the point is that the market has been flooded - there is currently a dramatic oversupply of furnished rooms for students. and, this is eating into the normal market.
again: these people will eventually give up. but, for now, a lot of them have 416 numbers, and seem to be operating with toronto mindsets and toronto prices. they're asking for too much money, trying to tap into a market for international students that largely doesn't exist.
the result is that we're going to have a lot of empty, furnished rooms in houses that would have held low income people up until a few months ago - and the city is continuing to broadcast a low income housing shortage.
there should be more strenuous rules around things like offering shared rooms, or converting apartments into rooming houses. or, at the least, they need to crack down on landlords that refuse to rent to non-students.
again: the market will eventually sort this out.
but, i now have 2.5 months.
so, if the feds want to lay a pipeline from alberta to lake superior, they can use eminent domain (even in indigenous regions), run a bullshit consult process and be done with it, so long as they fight off the court challenge. they can do that because the area was ceded to the crown in the numbered treaties. these numbered treaties are contentious, but they do legally exist.
in british columbia, the land was never ceded to the crown, so eminent domain is illegal (although it does happen). the consultation process is not a rubber stamp, but a nation-to-nation dialogue about sovereign land rights. and, if the natives say "no", then the crown has no further authority - not under legislation, and not under a constitution that really shouldn't even be in force at all.
i'm taking things to extremes that they have yet to be taken to, but eventually must be taken to. and, i do suspect that it will be a resource conflict that eventually leads to constitutional collapse.
in british columbia, the land was never ceded to the crown, so eminent domain is illegal (although it does happen). the consultation process is not a rubber stamp, but a nation-to-nation dialogue about sovereign land rights. and, if the natives say "no", then the crown has no further authority - not under legislation, and not under a constitution that really shouldn't even be in force at all.
i'm taking things to extremes that they have yet to be taken to, but eventually must be taken to. and, i do suspect that it will be a resource conflict that eventually leads to constitutional collapse.
what legal basis does an unratified constitution have over an area that is being illegally occupied under international law?
we don't talk about this in canada. but, british columbia is really a special case.
a proper rule of law would immediately acknowledge that the tribes in british columbia should have full sovereignty. not even nisga'a sovereignty. absolute, full sovereignty.
they didn't sign anything. we didn't trick them into signing things, we didn't give them a bad deal - we just showed up and started building.
there is no legal reason why vancouver should be in canada.
it's a crisis waiting to happen.
we don't talk about this in canada. but, british columbia is really a special case.
a proper rule of law would immediately acknowledge that the tribes in british columbia should have full sovereignty. not even nisga'a sovereignty. absolute, full sovereignty.
they didn't sign anything. we didn't trick them into signing things, we didn't give them a bad deal - we just showed up and started building.
there is no legal reason why vancouver should be in canada.
it's a crisis waiting to happen.
i think i need a personal update.
i appear to have forgotten to mention that i finished rebuilding february, 2014 on the 10th; i think i thought i'd get through this fairly quickly, and not need to update. i guess i forget that i spent most of march with a broken recording machine. it was a heavy posting month. but it's done now...
how's the smoke? well, it has gotten dramatically better, but i wonder if the heat is a factor. the flip side of that is that the a/c might be off downstairs, which is a sign suggestive of the idea that she has left. that said, i've also been very ired this week for some reason, and my sweat smells alarmingly like marijuana. so, i don't know. it's weird all around, it really is.
i would expect that the posts will start to slow down again soon. i guess we'll have to see....
i'll need to stay in on monday because of the weird message about the electrical. i don't currently have any showings planned until saturday.
i appear to have forgotten to mention that i finished rebuilding february, 2014 on the 10th; i think i thought i'd get through this fairly quickly, and not need to update. i guess i forget that i spent most of march with a broken recording machine. it was a heavy posting month. but it's done now...
how's the smoke? well, it has gotten dramatically better, but i wonder if the heat is a factor. the flip side of that is that the a/c might be off downstairs, which is a sign suggestive of the idea that she has left. that said, i've also been very ired this week for some reason, and my sweat smells alarmingly like marijuana. so, i don't know. it's weird all around, it really is.
i would expect that the posts will start to slow down again soon. i guess we'll have to see....
i'll need to stay in on monday because of the weird message about the electrical. i don't currently have any showings planned until saturday.
the only legal claim that canada has to british columbia is the 1763 proclamation.
british columbia is actually, legally speaking, a canadian military occupation of unceded territory.
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2014/03/this-particular-group-is-not-signatory.html
british columbia is actually, legally speaking, a canadian military occupation of unceded territory.
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2014/03/this-particular-group-is-not-signatory.html
Sunday, July 15, 2018
well, let's forget about the silly religious nonsense for a second and ask a functional question: why do we dispose of dead bodies in such a wasteful fashion?
the reason is that we realized, apparently at some point very early on, that dead bodies can make us sick. we didn't come up with useful ways to understand this until the last century, but we realized that something about these dead bodies was causing us harm. so, we buried them, or we burned them.
even the zoroastrians, who insisted on feeding dead human bodies to wild animals, had the good sense to remove them from human contact by placing them on placards in the sky. a persian city in antiquity would have these fifty foot platforms with dead bodies on them, to be fed to eagles and vultures. gruesome, but arguably more holistic than cremation or burial.
now that we do understand this, why don't we adjust to it? because we also understand something else - all of that organic material is just going to waste inside of a metal coffin.
the reason is that we realized, apparently at some point very early on, that dead bodies can make us sick. we didn't come up with useful ways to understand this until the last century, but we realized that something about these dead bodies was causing us harm. so, we buried them, or we burned them.
even the zoroastrians, who insisted on feeding dead human bodies to wild animals, had the good sense to remove them from human contact by placing them on placards in the sky. a persian city in antiquity would have these fifty foot platforms with dead bodies on them, to be fed to eagles and vultures. gruesome, but arguably more holistic than cremation or burial.
now that we do understand this, why don't we adjust to it? because we also understand something else - all of that organic material is just going to waste inside of a metal coffin.
again: i'm not a utilitarian, but i think we need to be more rational about how we recycle human remains, and so there's something kind of inspiring about this.
http://www.critical-theory.com/jeremy-benthams-preserved-corpse-haunt-nightmares/
http://www.critical-theory.com/jeremy-benthams-preserved-corpse-haunt-nightmares/
if the situation were reversed, and somebody asked me to smoke away from the window, i wouldn't just get up and move, i'd check in to see if i was far enough away. i would register that concern and respect the request not to smoke in their window.
because that's just what canadians do in that kind of situation.
that's the cultural expectation in this country.
because that's just what canadians do in that kind of situation.
that's the cultural expectation in this country.
speaking of differences between american and canadian culture, what i'm dealing with with these smokers is a good example of it, and i've pointed this out before.
i have a neighbour who is smoking near my window, and it is bothering me. there is no reason she needs to smoke near my window other than that she wants to. i have asked her to smoke elsewhere repeatedly, and done various things to chase her off, but she doesn't care: she's going to smoke where she wants.
i simply don't understand this. i don't understand why somebody would reject the requests of their neighbours like this, and the reason i don't understand this is that i was raised in a more canadian manner - while this person may very well have been born in the united states.
a typical canadian response to a situation like this is to understand that smoking beside the window is causing your neighbour discomfort and to get up and move. canadians are generally concerned primarily with politeness, and rational means of conflict resolution. we place a high importance on the concept of compromise and are often willing to bend over backwards to keep the peace.
a typical american response is to make up a right to smoke on their property (in fact, canadian jurisprudence does not recognize anything like a right to smoke in your yard, nor does it have any constitutional protections for property, but does uphold ideas like nuisance, trespass and enjoyment insofar as it recognizes the damage caused by second-hand smoke) and tell their "annoying neighbour" that they can do what they want and to fuck off. and, american jurisprudence may actually be sympathetic to this viewpoint, in ways that the canadian jurisprudence simply isn't.
what's going on in my backyard here is really more than a conflict over smoking, and that's why it's proving so difficult to resolve. this is a cultural conflict. as a canadian, i expect this woman to be a good neighbour and smoke away from my window and can't comprehend why she won't relent. but, as an american, this woman is obsessed with her imaginary property rights, and unable to understand how i have any say in the question of where she's smoking.
i have a neighbour who is smoking near my window, and it is bothering me. there is no reason she needs to smoke near my window other than that she wants to. i have asked her to smoke elsewhere repeatedly, and done various things to chase her off, but she doesn't care: she's going to smoke where she wants.
i simply don't understand this. i don't understand why somebody would reject the requests of their neighbours like this, and the reason i don't understand this is that i was raised in a more canadian manner - while this person may very well have been born in the united states.
a typical canadian response to a situation like this is to understand that smoking beside the window is causing your neighbour discomfort and to get up and move. canadians are generally concerned primarily with politeness, and rational means of conflict resolution. we place a high importance on the concept of compromise and are often willing to bend over backwards to keep the peace.
a typical american response is to make up a right to smoke on their property (in fact, canadian jurisprudence does not recognize anything like a right to smoke in your yard, nor does it have any constitutional protections for property, but does uphold ideas like nuisance, trespass and enjoyment insofar as it recognizes the damage caused by second-hand smoke) and tell their "annoying neighbour" that they can do what they want and to fuck off. and, american jurisprudence may actually be sympathetic to this viewpoint, in ways that the canadian jurisprudence simply isn't.
what's going on in my backyard here is really more than a conflict over smoking, and that's why it's proving so difficult to resolve. this is a cultural conflict. as a canadian, i expect this woman to be a good neighbour and smoke away from my window and can't comprehend why she won't relent. but, as an american, this woman is obsessed with her imaginary property rights, and unable to understand how i have any say in the question of where she's smoking.
if i were to move back to ottawa...
i just spent an hour comparing, and the market might even be better in ottawa, right now. certainly, the advantage of relocation appears to no longer be apparent.
i have a long time before i need to take that idea seriously, and it relies on the premise that i get a large payout. but, how would i do it? is it feasible?
i guess i would sell as much furniture as i can and just ship back my electronics & books & clothes. that would avoid the need to hire actual movers; i could probably hire a taxi-van to get my stuff out in two or three trips.
i asked my aunt about this years ago, as she moved from ottawa to fernie, bc, and she said you can buy space in a train and have it shipped. i couldn't imagine another way to do it, short of convincing my mom to take a road trip. and, if it's just gear and books, and a bicycle, how much could that cost? a few hundred dollars?
so, if i get a $4000 payout, and the market here doesn't open up...
i'd then hitch back to ottawa. or, maybe take a bus, if i feel like splurging. could i hitch with the train and be a real hobo for a few days?
i guess the next step would be finding a place in ottawa to store the gear. this entire scheme is going to rely very heavily on my grandmother. can i use her storage bin? can i sleep in her spare room?
so, i have an algorithm. let's see if the inputs pan out.
i just saw an ad for something that is very enticing in an area of ottawa that i like quite a bit. windsor, you're losing me, here...
i just spent an hour comparing, and the market might even be better in ottawa, right now. certainly, the advantage of relocation appears to no longer be apparent.
i have a long time before i need to take that idea seriously, and it relies on the premise that i get a large payout. but, how would i do it? is it feasible?
i guess i would sell as much furniture as i can and just ship back my electronics & books & clothes. that would avoid the need to hire actual movers; i could probably hire a taxi-van to get my stuff out in two or three trips.
i asked my aunt about this years ago, as she moved from ottawa to fernie, bc, and she said you can buy space in a train and have it shipped. i couldn't imagine another way to do it, short of convincing my mom to take a road trip. and, if it's just gear and books, and a bicycle, how much could that cost? a few hundred dollars?
so, if i get a $4000 payout, and the market here doesn't open up...
i'd then hitch back to ottawa. or, maybe take a bus, if i feel like splurging. could i hitch with the train and be a real hobo for a few days?
i guess the next step would be finding a place in ottawa to store the gear. this entire scheme is going to rely very heavily on my grandmother. can i use her storage bin? can i sleep in her spare room?
so, i have an algorithm. let's see if the inputs pan out.
i just saw an ad for something that is very enticing in an area of ottawa that i like quite a bit. windsor, you're losing me, here...
Saturday, July 14, 2018
i got a letter that the landlord is "doing electrical work" on monday.
i'm mildly concerned, yes. but, i know my rights.
this is just a friendly reminder that landlord interference with hydro or water in ontario is a felony that is potentially punishable by imprisonment.
The following offences are reported most often:
For landlords:
http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/page142.aspx
i don't have time. i'm trying to plan a delicate move.
but, if necessary, i will send people to jail for their stupidity, and not think twice about it.
i'm mildly concerned, yes. but, i know my rights.
this is just a friendly reminder that landlord interference with hydro or water in ontario is a felony that is potentially punishable by imprisonment.
Common offences under the Act
The following offences are reported most often:
For landlords:
- disconnecting or interfering with a vital service that the landlord is required to supply to tenants (e.g. heat, electricity, fuel, gas or water)
- failing to provide rent receipts to tenants who request them
- illegally evicting a tenant without following the eviction process
- failing to make a tenant’s belongings available within 72 hours of eviction
- collecting unlawful security deposits
- altering the locking system for a rental unit or residential complex without giving the tenant replacement keys
- providing false or misleading information in documents filed with the Landlord and Tenant Board.
http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/page142.aspx
i don't have time. i'm trying to plan a delicate move.
but, if necessary, i will send people to jail for their stupidity, and not think twice about it.
it was july 29th, 2013 that i signed a lease for my basement apartment, starting on august 1, 2013, after having reached an agreement, in principle, on the 26th.
i don't expect the situation to be much different: if i find something, it will be on the 25th or the 26th or the 27th.
....or even the 28th.
or the 29th.
let's hope it's not the 30th.
that's how this city works.
i don't expect the situation to be much different: if i find something, it will be on the 25th or the 26th or the 27th.
....or even the 28th.
or the 29th.
let's hope it's not the 30th.
that's how this city works.
i've actually never bought anybody dinner before.
i've been on something like five dinner dates in my life, and it's actually very important to me that the bill is....it's less that i want to split it, and more that i want separate bills.
because, why the fuck would i buy you dinner?
buy your own fucking dinner...
i've been on something like five dinner dates in my life, and it's actually very important to me that the bill is....it's less that i want to split it, and more that i want separate bills.
because, why the fuck would i buy you dinner?
buy your own fucking dinner...
in a situation where a weinstein-type offers advancement in exchange for sexual favours, and an actress agrees, then the correct legal description of the situation is that the weinstein-type is soliciting prostitution from the actress, and the actress is consenting to the proposition.
so, we need to ask ourselves if this is permitted behaviour or not.
and, while i don't exactly like it, i'm not sure it should be illegal.
so, we need to ask ourselves if this is permitted behaviour or not.
and, while i don't exactly like it, i'm not sure it should be illegal.
i actually don't think i've commented on this since some more information has come out.
frankly, with the weinstein case and other cases like it, there are two scenarios that need to be separated:
1) situations where he blocked entrances or otherwise prevented disengagement. he should be charged with rape in these circumstances.
2) situations where he coerced sex in exchange for favours. in these situations, what he is actually doing is soliciting prostitution. and, the women involved need to acknowledge that they engaged in a form of prostitution - they consented to sex in exchange for career advancement.
the idea that they were unable to consent due to a power imbalance is neither consistent with any kind of feminism i'm aware of nor coherent in the context of english legal traditions. it's some kind of application of foucault's theory of power, in a way that denies women basic agency - which would be expected of foucault, as he was not a feminist.
in the first situation, i support full prosecution. rape is never ok.
in the second situation, we need to ask ourselves whether we want to enforce laws against prostitution or not. is this a situation where women should be free to make this choice on their own, or should this be considered criminal behaviour? should we be prosecuting both sides of this, or focusing solely on the johns?
personally, this is the kind of prostitution that i'm broadly not opposed to, as there is largely a real choice involved. where i am opposed to prostitution is when it is a false choice - a choice between prostitution and paying rent, for example.
frankly, with the weinstein case and other cases like it, there are two scenarios that need to be separated:
1) situations where he blocked entrances or otherwise prevented disengagement. he should be charged with rape in these circumstances.
2) situations where he coerced sex in exchange for favours. in these situations, what he is actually doing is soliciting prostitution. and, the women involved need to acknowledge that they engaged in a form of prostitution - they consented to sex in exchange for career advancement.
the idea that they were unable to consent due to a power imbalance is neither consistent with any kind of feminism i'm aware of nor coherent in the context of english legal traditions. it's some kind of application of foucault's theory of power, in a way that denies women basic agency - which would be expected of foucault, as he was not a feminist.
in the first situation, i support full prosecution. rape is never ok.
in the second situation, we need to ask ourselves whether we want to enforce laws against prostitution or not. is this a situation where women should be free to make this choice on their own, or should this be considered criminal behaviour? should we be prosecuting both sides of this, or focusing solely on the johns?
personally, this is the kind of prostitution that i'm broadly not opposed to, as there is largely a real choice involved. where i am opposed to prostitution is when it is a false choice - a choice between prostitution and paying rent, for example.
you just have to remember that the real bond of ownership is taxation, and the real people that own us - all of us, men and women together - are the people that tax us.
patriarchy is less a system schemed up by men to control women, and more a system schemed up by the state to ensure a steady stream of tax revenue.
abolishing patriarchy is consequently less about giving women freedom at the expense of men and more about giving serfs, peasants and slaves of both genders the freedom to define themselves in ways other than to maximize tax revenue for the elite.
patriarchy is less a system schemed up by men to control women, and more a system schemed up by the state to ensure a steady stream of tax revenue.
abolishing patriarchy is consequently less about giving women freedom at the expense of men and more about giving serfs, peasants and slaves of both genders the freedom to define themselves in ways other than to maximize tax revenue for the elite.
i think it's a little bit of both.
these critiques are not new. greer & her colleagues made them themselves.
but, the flip side of this is a little bit of existential dread, and that's the idea i think should be focused more strongly on. the people that are using ad hominems and dismissive language aren't helping in developing an understanding of what's actually happening.
so, let's be blunt: is it possible that a big component of what's happening with young women right now is that they're rejecting the freedom their mothers won for them and longing for an era where they were less free? that they are looking over the precipice and suffering extreme anxiety from it?
i mean, you can frame it however you want, you can use whatever language you wish - but is that not the real crux of it?
these reactions are fine, even expected in a broader view of history, it would just be useful if these people would understand that they're standing up for conservative value systems and stop pretending otherwise...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/02/thats-patriarchy-how-female-sexual-liberation-led-to-male-sexual-entitlement
these critiques are not new. greer & her colleagues made them themselves.
but, the flip side of this is a little bit of existential dread, and that's the idea i think should be focused more strongly on. the people that are using ad hominems and dismissive language aren't helping in developing an understanding of what's actually happening.
so, let's be blunt: is it possible that a big component of what's happening with young women right now is that they're rejecting the freedom their mothers won for them and longing for an era where they were less free? that they are looking over the precipice and suffering extreme anxiety from it?
i mean, you can frame it however you want, you can use whatever language you wish - but is that not the real crux of it?
these reactions are fine, even expected in a broader view of history, it would just be useful if these people would understand that they're standing up for conservative value systems and stop pretending otherwise...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/02/thats-patriarchy-how-female-sexual-liberation-led-to-male-sexual-entitlement
actually, i think that feminism - which i define as the abolition of patriarchy - is also the emancipation of men.
feminism also means that men don't have the responsibility to take care of women any more. this is usually articulated in terms of women being autonomous, but these statements are equivalent, because it's the relation that is the enslavement: patriarchy enslaves men and women equally in a bond of dominance and servitude to produce offspring to be taxed by the lords.
i don't fit into either side of this equation. i once told the only partner that i've ever had that i didn't own her and didn't want to own her, and she took it as an insult. she came to me to talk about a life decision once, expecting me to make it for her, and i just refused to do it - i told her she had to make that decision herself. i mean, we talked it through and stuff, but i made it clear that it wasn't my choice, and i didn't want it to be my choice. she just looked at me like i was hopelessly queer, which is what i told her from the start and what she'd spent the last two years denying - she wanted an alpha male to make decisions for her, and was just turned off when i refused to be that. but, broadly speaking, i haven't spent my life within or trying to escape from this relation, but just avoiding it altogether.
regardless, i think this discussion is often lost. men aren't losing control, so much as they're gaining the freedom of escaping from the role of being the controller. and, when you really understand that, you don't need to talk about "male allies to feminism", you can understand that they're being equally emancipated and equally benefiting from the collapse of the relation.
it's typical of capitalism to set everything up as a zero sum game. but, if that's how you're seeing gender equality, you're not really grasping it properly - and maybe you're not truly accepting it.
feminism also means that men don't have the responsibility to take care of women any more. this is usually articulated in terms of women being autonomous, but these statements are equivalent, because it's the relation that is the enslavement: patriarchy enslaves men and women equally in a bond of dominance and servitude to produce offspring to be taxed by the lords.
i don't fit into either side of this equation. i once told the only partner that i've ever had that i didn't own her and didn't want to own her, and she took it as an insult. she came to me to talk about a life decision once, expecting me to make it for her, and i just refused to do it - i told her she had to make that decision herself. i mean, we talked it through and stuff, but i made it clear that it wasn't my choice, and i didn't want it to be my choice. she just looked at me like i was hopelessly queer, which is what i told her from the start and what she'd spent the last two years denying - she wanted an alpha male to make decisions for her, and was just turned off when i refused to be that. but, broadly speaking, i haven't spent my life within or trying to escape from this relation, but just avoiding it altogether.
regardless, i think this discussion is often lost. men aren't losing control, so much as they're gaining the freedom of escaping from the role of being the controller. and, when you really understand that, you don't need to talk about "male allies to feminism", you can understand that they're being equally emancipated and equally benefiting from the collapse of the relation.
it's typical of capitalism to set everything up as a zero sum game. but, if that's how you're seeing gender equality, you're not really grasping it properly - and maybe you're not truly accepting it.
if you're pro-capitalist then you are, by definition, not a leftist - a leftist is an anti-capitalist, by definition. you can be a wide variety of things on the left, but a capitalist is not one of them.
so, you can call yourself a liberal or a progressive or a conservative or a moderate or whatever other right-wing ideology you'd like, but you need to stop pretending you're left of centre - because you're really not.
so, you can call yourself a liberal or a progressive or a conservative or a moderate or whatever other right-wing ideology you'd like, but you need to stop pretending you're left of centre - because you're really not.
the only way i'm able to interpret the labour market is as something you're forced to do to pay rent.
so, my goal, then, is to minimize the amount of time wasted - not maximize the "reward" i'm able to extract.
the only difference between being a teacher and being a janitor, to me, is that teachers have longer hours, and therefore less freedom. so, i'd rather be a janitor...
so, my goal, then, is to minimize the amount of time wasted - not maximize the "reward" i'm able to extract.
the only difference between being a teacher and being a janitor, to me, is that teachers have longer hours, and therefore less freedom. so, i'd rather be a janitor...
when i look at the labour market, i'm not looking for something "rewarding".
i guess i don't even think it's even possible - which is the basis of my rejection of labour.
so, people run statistics off about "rewarding labour", and i'm not really able to extrapolate an actual job title from that.
for example, i would consider teaching to be monotonous and degrading - really, anything with kids sounds like hell. is that a "rewarding job"? i don't think so...
i studied computer science for a while thinking it would at least be stimulating, but the actual job that programmers do is incredibly repetitive. likewise, what i learned from studying law is that it's 99% lying and utter bullshit, which is pretty much the opposite of what i'd consider "rewarding".
to me, the most rewarding job is the one i have.
it'd just be nice if there weren't fucking rentiers getting in the way of everything.
i guess i don't even think it's even possible - which is the basis of my rejection of labour.
so, people run statistics off about "rewarding labour", and i'm not really able to extrapolate an actual job title from that.
for example, i would consider teaching to be monotonous and degrading - really, anything with kids sounds like hell. is that a "rewarding job"? i don't think so...
i studied computer science for a while thinking it would at least be stimulating, but the actual job that programmers do is incredibly repetitive. likewise, what i learned from studying law is that it's 99% lying and utter bullshit, which is pretty much the opposite of what i'd consider "rewarding".
to me, the most rewarding job is the one i have.
it'd just be nice if there weren't fucking rentiers getting in the way of everything.
i'm neither white, nor am i male, nor am i interested in finding a job.
i was in a relationship many years ago, but i've literally never asked anybody out on a date before. ever. further, i prefer men to women.
i walked out on the only girl i've dated because i did not want to have children with her.
the issues i've had are related less to being unable to exist in a field and more to being unable to maintain interest in one. i did not want to be a mathematician, so i switched to computer science; i didn't want that, so i switched to law; i didn't want that either and just focused on music.
my interests for many years have been on working on my art projects, not on finding a job.
nor have i ever voted for anybody on the right, or done anything but criticize right-wing politicians. i explicitly endorsed hillary clinton, and i voted for justin trudeau. i voted for kathleen wynne a few times, and for the green party this year.
i've been as clear as i possibly can be that i'm a revolutionary leftist that seeks full emancipation through automation and redistribution - and that, as such, like all leftists, i understand that my single biggest opponent is religion, first and foremost.
you can save your pseudo-analysis for somebody else.
i was in a relationship many years ago, but i've literally never asked anybody out on a date before. ever. further, i prefer men to women.
i walked out on the only girl i've dated because i did not want to have children with her.
the issues i've had are related less to being unable to exist in a field and more to being unable to maintain interest in one. i did not want to be a mathematician, so i switched to computer science; i didn't want that, so i switched to law; i didn't want that either and just focused on music.
my interests for many years have been on working on my art projects, not on finding a job.
nor have i ever voted for anybody on the right, or done anything but criticize right-wing politicians. i explicitly endorsed hillary clinton, and i voted for justin trudeau. i voted for kathleen wynne a few times, and for the green party this year.
i've been as clear as i possibly can be that i'm a revolutionary leftist that seeks full emancipation through automation and redistribution - and that, as such, like all leftists, i understand that my single biggest opponent is religion, first and foremost.
you can save your pseudo-analysis for somebody else.
Friday, July 13, 2018
so, what do we do with all of these people?
broadly speaking, i don't think that most of them have valid claims. this is a fundamentally different issue than what the united states is seeing on it's own border. what the americans need is a good neighbour policy, to get to the root causes of all of the migration out of the area. in the short term, i'd like to see them convert the migrants into a peasant army and send them back to fight the gangs.
well, i mean, that's what the british did when people started escaping the continent - they armed them and sent them back. i understand that the ameicans are at the root of the problem, but if the migrants don't fight the gangs in central america, who will? and, why do we seem to think it's ok that nobody is fighting them?
the issues we're dealing with on our border are nothing like this, they're a mixture of desperation and hysteria. and, you need to kind of look at the issue, one by one.
regarding the haitian immigrants, i find it disturbing that trump is ordering them out - these are people that fled a catastrophe and have built new lives in a different country. but, the argument that they should be allowed to stay in america doesn't generalize to being allowed to stay in canada. they were brought to america as guests, and deporting them is inhumane and unjust, true; however, fleeing to canada doesn't fundamentally change the injustice of deporting them. the argument is that they have jobs and families in america. do they have jobs and families in canada? most of them don't. and, while i acknowledge that they have a right to trial, i do think that the end result in almost all cases should be to send them back to haiti. i may not like the administration's decision, but it is not canada's responsibility to step in and offer a consolation prize; the immediate danger to them has passed, so they should go home and help their country rebuild. in the mean time, they should be housed on the border in as humane conditions as are possible.
i don't know how accurate the anecdotes about migrants from nigeria or pakistan are, but these are more traditional claims, and need to be treated as such. i do understand that some of these people are fleeing actual violence, but the vast majority of them are economic migrants and should be sent back, at their own cost. under normal circumstances, i may be less inclined to insist on housing at the border, but the situation right now is extreme, and extreme measures need to be taken to address it.
and, insofar as whatever latin american refugees that appear on our border are concerned, i do believe that they should be sent back from here as well - with whatever help we can give them to fight the scourge that has driven them out. i want to be in solidarity with these migrants. it's just not sustainable to absorb them; it makes more sense to help them fight back. or, to put it another way: viva la revolucion.
i'm a leftist, not a liberal. i can only explain this plank by plank, i guess. maybe, i might even convince you...
broadly speaking, i don't think that most of them have valid claims. this is a fundamentally different issue than what the united states is seeing on it's own border. what the americans need is a good neighbour policy, to get to the root causes of all of the migration out of the area. in the short term, i'd like to see them convert the migrants into a peasant army and send them back to fight the gangs.
well, i mean, that's what the british did when people started escaping the continent - they armed them and sent them back. i understand that the ameicans are at the root of the problem, but if the migrants don't fight the gangs in central america, who will? and, why do we seem to think it's ok that nobody is fighting them?
the issues we're dealing with on our border are nothing like this, they're a mixture of desperation and hysteria. and, you need to kind of look at the issue, one by one.
regarding the haitian immigrants, i find it disturbing that trump is ordering them out - these are people that fled a catastrophe and have built new lives in a different country. but, the argument that they should be allowed to stay in america doesn't generalize to being allowed to stay in canada. they were brought to america as guests, and deporting them is inhumane and unjust, true; however, fleeing to canada doesn't fundamentally change the injustice of deporting them. the argument is that they have jobs and families in america. do they have jobs and families in canada? most of them don't. and, while i acknowledge that they have a right to trial, i do think that the end result in almost all cases should be to send them back to haiti. i may not like the administration's decision, but it is not canada's responsibility to step in and offer a consolation prize; the immediate danger to them has passed, so they should go home and help their country rebuild. in the mean time, they should be housed on the border in as humane conditions as are possible.
i don't know how accurate the anecdotes about migrants from nigeria or pakistan are, but these are more traditional claims, and need to be treated as such. i do understand that some of these people are fleeing actual violence, but the vast majority of them are economic migrants and should be sent back, at their own cost. under normal circumstances, i may be less inclined to insist on housing at the border, but the situation right now is extreme, and extreme measures need to be taken to address it.
and, insofar as whatever latin american refugees that appear on our border are concerned, i do believe that they should be sent back from here as well - with whatever help we can give them to fight the scourge that has driven them out. i want to be in solidarity with these migrants. it's just not sustainable to absorb them; it makes more sense to help them fight back. or, to put it another way: viva la revolucion.
i'm a leftist, not a liberal. i can only explain this plank by plank, i guess. maybe, i might even convince you...
well, i'm actually going to argue that my position on immigration is not right-wing, but unabashedly marxist - and that this is a good example of where liberals and leftists disagree. it's also just about the only thing that trudeau is really even a liberal on; he's a moderate conservative on everything else.
so, i'm once again arguing on the left of the liberals....but, that's ok - it's the ndp that are weird here, spectrum-wise.
regardless, nobody is 100% this or that, and you'll find plenty of liberals that lean to the right on immigration - as well as plenty of conservatives that lean to the centre. that's not where my head is, but that's the reality. and, so maybe the more important thing i'm pushing back on regarding spectrum politics is the idea of this as a ballot issue.
so, i'm not a liberal that's leaning right on immigration - i'm a leftist that is taking a pretty textbook marxist position on it, even if that's rare amongst leftists nowadays (who tend to be liberal on immigration,). i'm weird because i'm not mixing spectra - i'm weird because i'm ideologically pure on the point. but, if i was a liberal leaning right on immigration, i wouldn't see it as a ballot question.
if i disagree with doug ford on a hundred things, and agree with him on one (even though that's not actually even true, here - our positions are not at all the same.), i'm not going to ignore the hundred things and vote for the one. that would be rather foolish.
and, it would be just as foolish for you to define me that way, if it were even true in the first place.
so, i'm once again arguing on the left of the liberals....but, that's ok - it's the ndp that are weird here, spectrum-wise.
regardless, nobody is 100% this or that, and you'll find plenty of liberals that lean to the right on immigration - as well as plenty of conservatives that lean to the centre. that's not where my head is, but that's the reality. and, so maybe the more important thing i'm pushing back on regarding spectrum politics is the idea of this as a ballot issue.
so, i'm not a liberal that's leaning right on immigration - i'm a leftist that is taking a pretty textbook marxist position on it, even if that's rare amongst leftists nowadays (who tend to be liberal on immigration,). i'm weird because i'm not mixing spectra - i'm weird because i'm ideologically pure on the point. but, if i was a liberal leaning right on immigration, i wouldn't see it as a ballot question.
if i disagree with doug ford on a hundred things, and agree with him on one (even though that's not actually even true, here - our positions are not at all the same.), i'm not going to ignore the hundred things and vote for the one. that would be rather foolish.
and, it would be just as foolish for you to define me that way, if it were even true in the first place.
the value that the canadian immigration system is built around is that you should not be discriminated against while demonstrating your worth to the country.
so, you should be judged based on your abilities and talents, not by your nationality or race.
who is better upholding that idea, here?
sadly, it seems to be the tories.
so, you should be judged based on your abilities and talents, not by your nationality or race.
who is better upholding that idea, here?
sadly, it seems to be the tories.
canada is twice the size of the united states and has a tenth of the population.
it's understood that the weather has a little bit to do with this - it's cold here. that's true.
but, this is largely a reflection of the historical differences in immigration policy.
the united states let anybody and everybody in. we did things differently.
it's understood that the weather has a little bit to do with this - it's cold here. that's true.
but, this is largely a reflection of the historical differences in immigration policy.
the united states let anybody and everybody in. we did things differently.
we have both provincial and municipal levels of government indicating that we do not have the resources available to handle what is happening at the moment.
this is not a debate about values, it's an empirical question.
what tory should do is broadcast media images of refugees sleeping on the street, while canadians are turned away from the shelters due to crowding, and let the federal government deal with the fallout - both internationally and, increasingly, domestically.
this is not a debate about values, it's an empirical question.
what tory should do is broadcast media images of refugees sleeping on the street, while canadians are turned away from the shelters due to crowding, and let the federal government deal with the fallout - both internationally and, increasingly, domestically.
historically, canada has been a very hard country to cross into.
we didn't accept huddled masses yearning to be free - we subjected them to rigorous screening. this rigorous screening is what defines canadian values on the topic, not wide open borders.
perhaps hussen has his history confused, and is thinking of the united states when he imagines canada as an asylum for refugees - and perhaps what he meant to say was that mcleod is being unamerican.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/07/13/lisa-macleod-ahmed-hussen-ontario-asylum-seekers_a_23481772/
we didn't accept huddled masses yearning to be free - we subjected them to rigorous screening. this rigorous screening is what defines canadian values on the topic, not wide open borders.
perhaps hussen has his history confused, and is thinking of the united states when he imagines canada as an asylum for refugees - and perhaps what he meant to say was that mcleod is being unamerican.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/07/13/lisa-macleod-ahmed-hussen-ontario-asylum-seekers_a_23481772/
islam is a hetereopatriarchal, pro-capitalist, propertarian system of thought that keeps people in line through an elaborate hierarchy and a ruthless system of enforcement.
it is christianity on steroids; it is everything the left opposes.
it is the status quo. and, these people will align with the status quo.
that is the premise of the neo-liberal doctrine.
so, i mean, you can sit there and be a pro-muslim liberal if you want - you're just a status quo bourgeoisie. fine.
but, you can't do this, from the left - you're just stuck in a mess of contradictions.
maybe what's about to happen in the campaign to bring back sex ed will get some people to wake up...
it is christianity on steroids; it is everything the left opposes.
it is the status quo. and, these people will align with the status quo.
that is the premise of the neo-liberal doctrine.
so, i mean, you can sit there and be a pro-muslim liberal if you want - you're just a status quo bourgeoisie. fine.
but, you can't do this, from the left - you're just stuck in a mess of contradictions.
maybe what's about to happen in the campaign to bring back sex ed will get some people to wake up...
meanwhile, i'm looking for a sufficiently sized smoke-free apartment that i can afford and would request that people understand what i'm typing in this space if they're going to react to it.
and, all those apartments available for august 1st better not still be available on august 2nd, lest some human rights complaints appear with a zealous vengeance.
and, all those apartments available for august 1st better not still be available on august 2nd, lest some human rights complaints appear with a zealous vengeance.
the conservative party will trot a white face out to announce it's policies, and pretend that it's catering to a christian base that is, in actual truth, dwindling to the point of near extinction.
and, our tepid media will parrot the point, cowering in fear of being labelled critical of islam.
but, anybody paying the slightest bit of attention to the issue knows the reality: in getting the sex ed curriculum reversed, muslims in ontario just scored their first major victory under the new government.
and i can only continue to plead my case until it is acknowledged as correct.
and, our tepid media will parrot the point, cowering in fear of being labelled critical of islam.
but, anybody paying the slightest bit of attention to the issue knows the reality: in getting the sex ed curriculum reversed, muslims in ontario just scored their first major victory under the new government.
and i can only continue to plead my case until it is acknowledged as correct.
it is 2018, and activists in ontario now have to re-win a debate over whether sexual identity and gender identity are appropriate topics to teach to children.
that's absurd.
all of the progress we had on this topic is now gone.
and, the reason we are faced with this absurdity, the reason we have to fight battles we've already won, is that we let in too many refugees with right-wing attitudes, and they've overwhelmed us in terms of voting numbers.
this is going to keep happening if we don't take steps to address the imbalance we're continuing to create.
and, it is the most vulnerable people in our society that are going to suffer the consequences of this.
we need to face the facts and adjust to them.
that's absurd.
all of the progress we had on this topic is now gone.
and, the reason we are faced with this absurdity, the reason we have to fight battles we've already won, is that we let in too many refugees with right-wing attitudes, and they've overwhelmed us in terms of voting numbers.
this is going to keep happening if we don't take steps to address the imbalance we're continuing to create.
and, it is the most vulnerable people in our society that are going to suffer the consequences of this.
we need to face the facts and adjust to them.
if you introduce hundreds of thousands or even millions of religious conservatives into a secular liberal democracy., it's not going to be a liberal democracy much longer - because those religious conservatives will use the democratic (and non-democratic) institutions to enforce their religious beliefs, thereby overwhelming the secular institutions.
this is not an argument about race.
this is an argument about religion.
and, all you're doing is proving my point for me.
this is not an argument about race.
this is an argument about religion.
and, all you're doing is proving my point for me.
so, is the right-wing's latest excuse to attack queer people that they refuse to be erased by the religious views of conservative immigrants?
my argument against immigration from socially conservative societies is that it will/would strengthen the socially conservative movements that exist in this country, and lead to me being attacked, demeaned and discriminated against. i'm in an exceedingly vulnerable group that is only beginning to win rights in this society, so i need to be exceedingly pro-active about being attacked, and very pre-emptive about identifying threats to my well-being.
and, what exactly is happening to me, right now?
huh?
some of you are evil, and i can't get anywhere with you.
but, i reiterate the claim that a lot of you are beyond fucking naive about this, and repeat the claim to look at the actual evidence in front of you and pull your heads out of your asses.
my argument against immigration from socially conservative societies is that it will/would strengthen the socially conservative movements that exist in this country, and lead to me being attacked, demeaned and discriminated against. i'm in an exceedingly vulnerable group that is only beginning to win rights in this society, so i need to be exceedingly pro-active about being attacked, and very pre-emptive about identifying threats to my well-being.
and, what exactly is happening to me, right now?
huh?
some of you are evil, and i can't get anywhere with you.
but, i reiterate the claim that a lot of you are beyond fucking naive about this, and repeat the claim to look at the actual evidence in front of you and pull your heads out of your asses.
the ignorance is just astounding.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ontario-government-cancels-758-renewable-energy-contracts-says-it-will-save-millions-1.4012450
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ontario-government-cancels-758-renewable-energy-contracts-says-it-will-save-millions-1.4012450
california.
new york.
british columbia.
you paying attention?
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ford-repealing-sex-ed-curriculum-to-please-social-conservatives-horwath-1.4012116
new york.
british columbia.
you paying attention?
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ford-repealing-sex-ed-curriculum-to-please-social-conservatives-horwath-1.4012116
i'm a very different person than i was fifteen years ago.
at the time, i was still looking to experiment. i thought i had a good understanding of myself, but i wasn't sure. and, i learned a lot of things about who i am and what i want.
today, i know what i want, and i know that what i want is a solitary existence. i know that i'm not interested in exploring my sexuality any further, and i know that i'm going to respond violently to anybody that pushes the point.
you can listen to me and help me find a nice, isolated place where i don't have to socialize with people....or we can do this the hard way and leave a trail of frustration, tears and carnage on the way to me getting what i want - or dying trying.
at the time, i was still looking to experiment. i thought i had a good understanding of myself, but i wasn't sure. and, i learned a lot of things about who i am and what i want.
today, i know what i want, and i know that what i want is a solitary existence. i know that i'm not interested in exploring my sexuality any further, and i know that i'm going to respond violently to anybody that pushes the point.
you can listen to me and help me find a nice, isolated place where i don't have to socialize with people....or we can do this the hard way and leave a trail of frustration, tears and carnage on the way to me getting what i want - or dying trying.
i'm not a well adjusted young person looking to leave a cool, hipster lifestyle with lots of friends.
i'm a middle-aged hermit with extreme psychological conditions that make socializing almost impossible.
so, i'm not calling people in rooming houses and i'm not considering the possibility.
worst case scenario, i would prefer to sleep in a storage bin and spend my days in the library until something comes up.
i'm a middle-aged hermit with extreme psychological conditions that make socializing almost impossible.
so, i'm not calling people in rooming houses and i'm not considering the possibility.
worst case scenario, i would prefer to sleep in a storage bin and spend my days in the library until something comes up.
as with working, trying to coerce me into that kind of situation is a waste of everybody's time.
i'm not going to eat during normal hours. in fact, forcing me to live with other people would quickly lead me into a schedule where i sleep during the day so i can avoid people during normal hours. i would tend to eat at 3:30 am..
...and not leave my room during normal hours.
if the other tenants are socializing or having a party, i'm going to sit in my room with the doors closed.
if people try and hit on me, i'm going to yell at them.
i just simply don't want to be around other people in my living arrangements.
i'm not going to eat during normal hours. in fact, forcing me to live with other people would quickly lead me into a schedule where i sleep during the day so i can avoid people during normal hours. i would tend to eat at 3:30 am..
...and not leave my room during normal hours.
if the other tenants are socializing or having a party, i'm going to sit in my room with the doors closed.
if people try and hit on me, i'm going to yell at them.
i just simply don't want to be around other people in my living arrangements.
a pardon for latimer is tricky, as there are certain aspects of the case that indicate foresight. the problem here is clear intent, and the law doesn't tend to forgive that when the consequences are so severe. the pardoner may be less interested in these details.
but, for these reasons, a retrial is not worthwhile; whatever the merits (or lack thereof) of his actions, he admitted to a first degree murder, and there just isn't room for free speech, there.
i'd like to see arguments. it's one of those things where the reasons are more important than the outcome.
but, for these reasons, a retrial is not worthwhile; whatever the merits (or lack thereof) of his actions, he admitted to a first degree murder, and there just isn't room for free speech, there.
i'd like to see arguments. it's one of those things where the reasons are more important than the outcome.
i'm really hoping the order comes in soon, because i'm going to need to show it to people when they ask for references.
i mean, generally, one uses their existing landlord as a reference, with the premise being that the existing landlord has good judgement. i'm going to understand why they're going to not want to give me a good reference, that's fine, i'm not going to argue the point. but, the argument i'm going to have to make is that the court found them negligent.
so, they can claim i'm the tenant from hell if they want, but the fact is that the court ruled in my favour, so clearly their perception is flawed - it is rather the case that this is the landlord from hell, and that the property is terribly managed.
and, this is what the court does - it gets in between these matters.
i'm sure i'll run into people that are likely to take the landlord at face value and ignore the court, or even interpret the court ruling with disdain; i should interpret that as a red flag, and these kinds of managers as people i don't want to rent from...
i have time.
i can wait.
i need to be aggressive when i see an end point, though.
i mean, generally, one uses their existing landlord as a reference, with the premise being that the existing landlord has good judgement. i'm going to understand why they're going to not want to give me a good reference, that's fine, i'm not going to argue the point. but, the argument i'm going to have to make is that the court found them negligent.
so, they can claim i'm the tenant from hell if they want, but the fact is that the court ruled in my favour, so clearly their perception is flawed - it is rather the case that this is the landlord from hell, and that the property is terribly managed.
and, this is what the court does - it gets in between these matters.
i'm sure i'll run into people that are likely to take the landlord at face value and ignore the court, or even interpret the court ruling with disdain; i should interpret that as a red flag, and these kinds of managers as people i don't want to rent from...
i have time.
i can wait.
i need to be aggressive when i see an end point, though.
assad was in the process of stepping down when the saudis invaded by stealth, with the attempt to prevent the transfer of power to a constitutional republic.
the propaganda around syria is really absurd; you have been fed a fantasy reality, and most of what you believe is probably false.
while the saudis ended up losing this war, largely because the turks pushed them back, the chaos in syria prevented assad from stepping down.
if the war is coming to an end, it is reasonable to assume that assad will quite quickly put in place the transfer of power that the war was intended to prevent - this time with russian protection.
so, if your primary consideration was the removal of assad, the russian victory will facilitate this, rather than prevent it.
the propaganda around syria is really absurd; you have been fed a fantasy reality, and most of what you believe is probably false.
while the saudis ended up losing this war, largely because the turks pushed them back, the chaos in syria prevented assad from stepping down.
if the war is coming to an end, it is reasonable to assume that assad will quite quickly put in place the transfer of power that the war was intended to prevent - this time with russian protection.
so, if your primary consideration was the removal of assad, the russian victory will facilitate this, rather than prevent it.
Thursday, July 12, 2018
listen.
i'm going to acknowledge that it's very unfortunate that the industry has created this class of drug addict that has been taught to deny their addiction, under the cover that it's not actually a drug but a medicine.
this is the kind of denial of reality that we generally associate with joining a cult - which is the argument i'm going to make for the human rights commission if i have to do it. it really is. there really is a kind of "cult of pot".
well, that's pretty human really - i've argued that much of religion is a ufo cult, but the other dominant component of religion is drugs. the dominant christian ritual appears to have come from a greek wine cult - a 'mystery religion', perhaps that of dionysus - where one is initiated by getting shit-faced. as religion becomes more conservative and institutionalized, it tends to drop these associations, which appear to be deeply indigenous. rainforest tribes tend to centre their religion around psychedelic use. it's kind of a human universal...
so, it's unfortunate.
but, its not the first time this has happened in human history. and, we need a public education program that stops this absurdity in it's tracks, reverses it and teaches people that it is wrong.
that is going to be hard for some people, but sometimes the best medicine is tough medicine, right?
i'm going to acknowledge that it's very unfortunate that the industry has created this class of drug addict that has been taught to deny their addiction, under the cover that it's not actually a drug but a medicine.
this is the kind of denial of reality that we generally associate with joining a cult - which is the argument i'm going to make for the human rights commission if i have to do it. it really is. there really is a kind of "cult of pot".
well, that's pretty human really - i've argued that much of religion is a ufo cult, but the other dominant component of religion is drugs. the dominant christian ritual appears to have come from a greek wine cult - a 'mystery religion', perhaps that of dionysus - where one is initiated by getting shit-faced. as religion becomes more conservative and institutionalized, it tends to drop these associations, which appear to be deeply indigenous. rainforest tribes tend to centre their religion around psychedelic use. it's kind of a human universal...
so, it's unfortunate.
but, its not the first time this has happened in human history. and, we need a public education program that stops this absurdity in it's tracks, reverses it and teaches people that it is wrong.
that is going to be hard for some people, but sometimes the best medicine is tough medicine, right?
why would i want to be stoned, in my apartment, by myself, at 10:00 pm on a thursday night?
but, i am. against my will. in violation of the security of my person. in contravention of my basic rights as a human being.
if that sounds like "fun" to you, you need a psychiatrist. it's hellish.
all i can do is drink coffee and hope something acceptable comes up soon.
but, i am. against my will. in violation of the security of my person. in contravention of my basic rights as a human being.
if that sounds like "fun" to you, you need a psychiatrist. it's hellish.
all i can do is drink coffee and hope something acceptable comes up soon.
on second thought, i do think she's still down there, because the air conditioner is still in, and i can smell what i think is third hand smoke.
seriously.
it's kind of a measure of how much this woman smokes that i can smell her coming in from downstairs. it's more of a measure of how bad the floors are, though.
the third hand smoke is dangerous, still - but it's not getting me stoned, at least.
seriously.
it's kind of a measure of how much this woman smokes that i can smell her coming in from downstairs. it's more of a measure of how bad the floors are, though.
the third hand smoke is dangerous, still - but it's not getting me stoned, at least.
there is no question that the ideal outcome of the previous move would have been to stay here; i'll take the payout in lieu of it, but what i really want is stability.
that's clearly not an option, as i'm being bombarded with smoke from every direction and nobody seems to care.
so, i have to make the best of a bad situation and accept compensation for negligence; but, sure, i'd rather people weren't negligent, and i'd rather people were respectful of my rights to breathe carcinogen-free air and not get randomly stoned when i'm trying to read. yeah. sure. that's too much to ask of these people, apparently.
but, i can't repeat the same mistake of moving into a smoky apartment, either.
in the end, i'm not concerned about "winning". this isn't a game. there aren't "winners" and "losers" in most things in life, that's a bunch of fucking neo-liberal stupidity, there are compromises and consequences and adjustments and settling for reality.
and, what i want is stability, at some point, in the end.
that's clearly not an option, as i'm being bombarded with smoke from every direction and nobody seems to care.
so, i have to make the best of a bad situation and accept compensation for negligence; but, sure, i'd rather people weren't negligent, and i'd rather people were respectful of my rights to breathe carcinogen-free air and not get randomly stoned when i'm trying to read. yeah. sure. that's too much to ask of these people, apparently.
but, i can't repeat the same mistake of moving into a smoky apartment, either.
in the end, i'm not concerned about "winning". this isn't a game. there aren't "winners" and "losers" in most things in life, that's a bunch of fucking neo-liberal stupidity, there are compromises and consequences and adjustments and settling for reality.
and, what i want is stability, at some point, in the end.
i've stated before that i don't really expect this company to actually pay me the court's order.
and, so, maybe i should take the fact that the market is so slow with a bit of positivity - as, if i'm here until october, it will at least help me recoup two months rent.
....because the court order will surely allow me to withhold rent until the debt is paid down.
that is obviously not what i want. i want to be gone on august 1st, and send the company to collections if they won't pay.
but. the other upside of this possibility is that it will allow me to move immediately, which is what the market seems to want. if i don't pay rent for august, i won't have to wait until september to move, because i won't have already paid rent for august. and, they can try and sue me on a per-day basis in the end if they want, but they'll have a hard time winning that argument if they're in arrears, and that would be preferable to paying the whole month, in the end.
and, so, maybe i should take the fact that the market is so slow with a bit of positivity - as, if i'm here until october, it will at least help me recoup two months rent.
....because the court order will surely allow me to withhold rent until the debt is paid down.
that is obviously not what i want. i want to be gone on august 1st, and send the company to collections if they won't pay.
but. the other upside of this possibility is that it will allow me to move immediately, which is what the market seems to want. if i don't pay rent for august, i won't have to wait until september to move, because i won't have already paid rent for august. and, they can try and sue me on a per-day basis in the end if they want, but they'll have a hard time winning that argument if they're in arrears, and that would be preferable to paying the whole month, in the end.
people want to believe in backwards republican economics, so what they're doing is inflating a bubble via unjustified "consumer confidence".
it has nothing to do with global trade. investors really, honestly believe in the economy right now. somehow, trump is a great salesperson for financial stability.
...because most people are complete fucking idiots. you really can't understand the situation in any other terms.
you can't create money and destroy money at the same time, that's a contradiction.
it's a bubble that should have burst by now. i'm surprised it's taking this long, but so be it. and, we'll see how long it takes, in the end. but, understand this - the longer it takes, the worse it ends up.
you can't destroy money and create money at the same time.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-stock-markets-next-step-could-be-its-most-pivotal-2018-07-12
it has nothing to do with global trade. investors really, honestly believe in the economy right now. somehow, trump is a great salesperson for financial stability.
...because most people are complete fucking idiots. you really can't understand the situation in any other terms.
you can't create money and destroy money at the same time, that's a contradiction.
it's a bubble that should have burst by now. i'm surprised it's taking this long, but so be it. and, we'll see how long it takes, in the end. but, understand this - the longer it takes, the worse it ends up.
you can't destroy money and create money at the same time.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-stock-markets-next-step-could-be-its-most-pivotal-2018-07-12
no, i need to be clear.
if i'm going to take a job, it's because i don't have another choice. if there was any way out...
so, i'm not looking for advancement.
i'm not looking to "climb my way up".
i'm not looking to save for retirement.
and, i'm certainly not looking to get off of odsp.
i'm just looking to minimize the amount of time i have to waste as a slave, for the shortest amount of time possible.
it's just a trick for the rental applications.
i would turn down a promotion if offered.
i would reject full time hours.
i will not attend social gatherings with staff.
i will not socialize with staff on breaks.
it's just in & out with the least amount of energy expended possible - the bare minimum.
because i don't want to be there. at all.
but i understand that we have to do things we don't want to, sometimes.
i just want to stress the have to. as in - being forced to. being coerced to. against my will.
& until i don't have to, any more.
if i'm going to take a job, it's because i don't have another choice. if there was any way out...
so, i'm not looking for advancement.
i'm not looking to "climb my way up".
i'm not looking to save for retirement.
and, i'm certainly not looking to get off of odsp.
i'm just looking to minimize the amount of time i have to waste as a slave, for the shortest amount of time possible.
it's just a trick for the rental applications.
i would turn down a promotion if offered.
i would reject full time hours.
i will not attend social gatherings with staff.
i will not socialize with staff on breaks.
it's just in & out with the least amount of energy expended possible - the bare minimum.
because i don't want to be there. at all.
but i understand that we have to do things we don't want to, sometimes.
i just want to stress the have to. as in - being forced to. being coerced to. against my will.
& until i don't have to, any more.
Wednesday, July 11, 2018
it was the east german tribes that the huns took control of.
and, we now no longer have east german tribes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germanic_languages
and, we now no longer have east german tribes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germanic_languages
the thing we often forget about the huns, and this is so important, is that they were really just an aristocratic elite. if they hadn't evaporated, they could have maybe been understood using renfrew's model. but, they left very scattered traces, mostly in german mythology. "hungarian" as we understand it as a kind of corruption of history; these people were never the historical huns.
when the huns attacked the empire, they did so using a very broad coalition of the willing that was composed of an assortment of german and iranian tribes, most notably the goths and the burgundians, and the alans. the huns themselves, famous for their archery, were not the foot soldiers. they just provided air power. it was white people that did the pillaging and slaughtering...
the mongols were something else, and separated by several centuries. they famously upped and turned around for reasons that have never been clear to history, leaving an ad-hoc system of tribute that took eastern europe centuries to emancipate themselves from.
regardless, you can't describe these people as indigenous to eastern europe - for they are clearly indigenous to the eastern steppe, which is where they first appear to history as the barbarians that the chinese built a great wall to keep out, and were also eventually subsumed by.
when the huns attacked the empire, they did so using a very broad coalition of the willing that was composed of an assortment of german and iranian tribes, most notably the goths and the burgundians, and the alans. the huns themselves, famous for their archery, were not the foot soldiers. they just provided air power. it was white people that did the pillaging and slaughtering...
the mongols were something else, and separated by several centuries. they famously upped and turned around for reasons that have never been clear to history, leaving an ad-hoc system of tribute that took eastern europe centuries to emancipate themselves from.
regardless, you can't describe these people as indigenous to eastern europe - for they are clearly indigenous to the eastern steppe, which is where they first appear to history as the barbarians that the chinese built a great wall to keep out, and were also eventually subsumed by.
listen.
white people came from somewhere right?
and, where they came from is eastern europe, specifically the steppe forests that stretch from poland to kazakhstan. they then invaded western europe, displacing what were probably quite tanned farmers. this shouldn't be shocking to you - the southern parts of europe have always been dark skinned, except during periods of heavy migration from the north, which has happened a few times (the fall of the roman empire is the most documented case, but we know it happened several times in pre-history, too).
and, if white people came from somewhere then they are indigenous to that region. and, that place they came from and are indigenous to is what we could call greater russia - the areas of eastern europe that are today occupied by slavic speakers, pretty much inclusively and almost exclusively. and, the most ancestral of all of these regions is what we today call ukraine.
all you need to do is look at a turkic speaker for a few seconds to realize that they came from the far east - that they are ethnically related to the japanese, the chinese, the mongols. we have written records that explain their expansion. and, we can trace their movements using archaeological digs. this is actually not an obscure or ambiguous point - it's about as established as history gets.
the media is going to lie to you over and over again. it's not independent from the military - that is itself a lie. it's your responsibility to educate yourself, or to at least listen to people that know better.
white people came from somewhere right?
and, where they came from is eastern europe, specifically the steppe forests that stretch from poland to kazakhstan. they then invaded western europe, displacing what were probably quite tanned farmers. this shouldn't be shocking to you - the southern parts of europe have always been dark skinned, except during periods of heavy migration from the north, which has happened a few times (the fall of the roman empire is the most documented case, but we know it happened several times in pre-history, too).
and, if white people came from somewhere then they are indigenous to that region. and, that place they came from and are indigenous to is what we could call greater russia - the areas of eastern europe that are today occupied by slavic speakers, pretty much inclusively and almost exclusively. and, the most ancestral of all of these regions is what we today call ukraine.
all you need to do is look at a turkic speaker for a few seconds to realize that they came from the far east - that they are ethnically related to the japanese, the chinese, the mongols. we have written records that explain their expansion. and, we can trace their movements using archaeological digs. this is actually not an obscure or ambiguous point - it's about as established as history gets.
the media is going to lie to you over and over again. it's not independent from the military - that is itself a lie. it's your responsibility to educate yourself, or to at least listen to people that know better.
i just want this move to be long term, so i want to fail proof it.
if i move into another one of these walk-ups, convinced that it seems ok, and it actually is, and a pothead moves in in six months or a year, i'm going to be going through this all over again.
if i'm on top of a business, that can't happen.
if i'm in a basement, that can't happen.
if it's a single house, that can't happen.
and, make no mistake - it will happen. i will sue again.
if i move into another one of these walk-ups, convinced that it seems ok, and it actually is, and a pothead moves in in six months or a year, i'm going to be going through this all over again.
if i'm on top of a business, that can't happen.
if i'm in a basement, that can't happen.
if it's a single house, that can't happen.
and, make no mistake - it will happen. i will sue again.
hardwood is fucking terrible, alright?
i want four layers of concrete reinforced by steel at the corners, and covered over with three layers of carpet.
that said... i understand that the reason this is hard to find is that smokers ruin carpets and everybody's just given up. whatever. i'll wait it out.
i want four layers of concrete reinforced by steel at the corners, and covered over with three layers of carpet.
that said... i understand that the reason this is hard to find is that smokers ruin carpets and everybody's just given up. whatever. i'll wait it out.
so, these are the types of units that i am interested in:
- high rises
- well built low rises (not ground floor)
- detached houses
- basement units in duplexes
- apartments on top of commercial units
these are the types of units i'm not interested in:
- ground floor apartments
- walk up buildings with hardwood flooring throughout
- upper level duplexes
- high rises
- well built low rises (not ground floor)
- detached houses
- basement units in duplexes
- apartments on top of commercial units
these are the types of units i'm not interested in:
- ground floor apartments
- walk up buildings with hardwood flooring throughout
- upper level duplexes
yeah, but what emperor trump actually wants is for his vassals to pay tribute.
i keep pointing this out...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-trump-nato-brussels-1.4741585
i keep pointing this out...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-trump-nato-brussels-1.4741585
so, i have an appointment today.
i would have liked to take a shower before going to that appointment, so that i don't smell badly - specifically so that i don't smell like pot.
unfortunately, she's been chain smoking in the bathroom all morning, to the point that i can't even stand in the bathroom - i'm just going to get stoned, if i do.
so, i'm going to have to show up to this appointment unshowered, unshaved and smelling like a bong - and i'm going to have to explain the situation to her as it is. i'll have to present myself as evidence as to the severity of the problem, and have to ask her to believe me when i say it.
if i was taking rental applications, and somebody showed up smelling like pot, i would deny them on the spot - i would not want them in my building.
but, what can i do about this? i have no choice but to show up smelling and looking like a fucking drug addict.
i would have liked to take a shower before going to that appointment, so that i don't smell badly - specifically so that i don't smell like pot.
unfortunately, she's been chain smoking in the bathroom all morning, to the point that i can't even stand in the bathroom - i'm just going to get stoned, if i do.
so, i'm going to have to show up to this appointment unshowered, unshaved and smelling like a bong - and i'm going to have to explain the situation to her as it is. i'll have to present myself as evidence as to the severity of the problem, and have to ask her to believe me when i say it.
if i was taking rental applications, and somebody showed up smelling like pot, i would deny them on the spot - i would not want them in my building.
but, what can i do about this? i have no choice but to show up smelling and looking like a fucking drug addict.
i'm looking at a unit with free wifi, and i'm wondering what i'd even do with it.
i have three pcs, and none of them have wireless cards in them. i decided some time ago, though, that i would no longer be connecting my pcs to the internet. such is the depth of my concern about spying. these are production machines, and i do not want them to be corrupted.
i'm currently using my 90s laptop as my tv, and it does not have a wireless card in it. so, to continue to use this laptop for tv purposes, i would need to get a wired connection or find a way to connect it to the wireless network. can routers work backwards like that? i'm sure this is less difficult than my mind is imagining right now.
one of my modern laptops is currently broken and will eventually be turned into a video editing console. this will connect to the access point via rj-45. i have removed the wireless card from this device and do not want it connected to a wireless network..
the other modern laptop is my current access point, but i'm not comfortable with doing banking over an insecure wifi. these packets could be picked up by anybody in the building.
but, what i could do with free wifi is finally set up my phone and start using it as a phone. and, i might actually prefer that, as it keeps the phone traffic off of my internet network.
what i was going to do, eventually, was set up three routers in sequence, so that the networks couldn't see each other. a free access point is better than that...
a bigger question is whether "free wifi" means "i don't want you to install a wired connection" or not.
i have three pcs, and none of them have wireless cards in them. i decided some time ago, though, that i would no longer be connecting my pcs to the internet. such is the depth of my concern about spying. these are production machines, and i do not want them to be corrupted.
i'm currently using my 90s laptop as my tv, and it does not have a wireless card in it. so, to continue to use this laptop for tv purposes, i would need to get a wired connection or find a way to connect it to the wireless network. can routers work backwards like that? i'm sure this is less difficult than my mind is imagining right now.
one of my modern laptops is currently broken and will eventually be turned into a video editing console. this will connect to the access point via rj-45. i have removed the wireless card from this device and do not want it connected to a wireless network..
the other modern laptop is my current access point, but i'm not comfortable with doing banking over an insecure wifi. these packets could be picked up by anybody in the building.
but, what i could do with free wifi is finally set up my phone and start using it as a phone. and, i might actually prefer that, as it keeps the phone traffic off of my internet network.
what i was going to do, eventually, was set up three routers in sequence, so that the networks couldn't see each other. a free access point is better than that...
a bigger question is whether "free wifi" means "i don't want you to install a wired connection" or not.
again....why?
we did this, in the first place, to appease obama. we made the right choice, historically, in not participating in iraq - which was also an overwhelmingly popular decision in canada. but, it did upset the americans, and harper did cave on it. the nature of the threat was always questionable, but it did seem for a while like isis was something we had to fight, so these debates kind of disappeared. but, isis is gone now, so this debate is pertinent again: let's start withdrawing.
has canada become the more belligerent, more hawk-like nation? and, how the fuck did the liberals end up supporting bombing iraq?
yuck.
no.
yuck.
get this fucking idiot out of office.
https://www.cp24.com/news/pm-trudeau-announces-new-canada-led-training-mission-in-iraq-1.4008501
we did this, in the first place, to appease obama. we made the right choice, historically, in not participating in iraq - which was also an overwhelmingly popular decision in canada. but, it did upset the americans, and harper did cave on it. the nature of the threat was always questionable, but it did seem for a while like isis was something we had to fight, so these debates kind of disappeared. but, isis is gone now, so this debate is pertinent again: let's start withdrawing.
has canada become the more belligerent, more hawk-like nation? and, how the fuck did the liberals end up supporting bombing iraq?
yuck.
no.
yuck.
get this fucking idiot out of office.
https://www.cp24.com/news/pm-trudeau-announces-new-canada-led-training-mission-in-iraq-1.4008501
i'm unable to interpret children as anything more or less than a burden. it's not really a revulsion on the basic level, although i'll admit to being afraid that my clumsy nature may accidentally harm them, especially when very young, but just the premise of responsibility that i find incomprehensible. i may actually be taking the responsibility too seriously; i'm essentially interpreting parenting as the death of the individual, and there may be some exaggeration in that. but, even admitting as much, i just can't make room for this in my life.
we live finite existences that are far too short. and, while i understand that so many of us can't find anything to do at all, i'm constantly struggling with the futility of completion, and the certainty of running out of time.
i would be absent in spirit and in fact; absent-minded and absent-bodied. and, i wouldn't blame anybody for resenting me, a priori. i'd just hope that they can understand, in the end.
we live finite existences that are far too short. and, while i understand that so many of us can't find anything to do at all, i'm constantly struggling with the futility of completion, and the certainty of running out of time.
i would be absent in spirit and in fact; absent-minded and absent-bodied. and, i wouldn't blame anybody for resenting me, a priori. i'd just hope that they can understand, in the end.
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
wanna hire me for a few weeks?
i really just don't want a full time job.
Jason/Jessica Parent
i really just don't want a full time job.
Jason/Jessica Parent
Windsor, Ontario
Postal Code:
Phone:
ODSP
Post-Traumatic Stress &
Social Anxiety Disorder & Gender Dysphoria February, 2013 - Present
- Moved to Windsor in Aug, 2013.
Computer Science & Law
(BSc / BA) & Mathematics (Masters)
- 19.5/20 credits in Computer Science. Did not pursue further due to lack of interest.
- 15/20 credits in Law. Did not pursue further due to lack of interest.
- Did not formally apply to graduate, after completing more than five credits in mathematics at the graduate level from 2003-2013.
R.A. Malatest and
Associates April, 2008 - July, 2008
Survey Interviewer
(Outbound/Survey) and General Office Worker
- Outbound cold calling, both business and residential.
- Contacted diverse individuals by phone and asked them to complete surveys over the phone.
- Faxing, typing, data entry, spreadsheet, proofreading, general quality control.
- Applications Used: Microsoft Office (Word, Excel), Mozilla Firefox, Windows XP, Google Docs
Hewlett-Packard September, 2007 –
March, 2008
Help Desk Agent for AT&T
Employees (Inbound/Support)
- Network Troubleshooting: VPN, ISP, Wireless, 3G, Cellular, Global Network Client.
- Software Troubleshooting: Windows, Office, Acrobat, McAfee, Outlook.
- Acting Active Directory Administrator on AT&T machines.
- Orchestrated the deployment of local technicians to solve issues related to large network outages.
- Applications used: Internet Explorer, Office Outlook, Notepad, Jabber, AT&T Global Network Client.
Microsoft November, 2006
– August, 2007
Windows Vista
Level 2 Technical Support Agent (Outbound/Support/Research/Supervisory)
- Researched and solved escalated issues relating to the installation and use of Windows Vista.
- Contacted users to help them implement the determined solution.
- Provided resulting information for inclusion into the Microsoft Knowledge Base.
- Took some inbound calls when irate customers demanded to speak to Level 2 Techs.
- Supervisory: Assigned newly escalated cases to other Level 2 agents, rescheduled and reassigned missed or tardy callbacks, compiled nightly statistical reports.
- Applications used: Microsoft CAP, Office Outlook, Internet Explorer, Microsoft Excel, Windows Live (Search, Messenger, Hotmail), Sysinternals Tools, Various Microsoft Tools, Windows Vista, Microsoft Knowledge Base.
Compaq September, 2006
– November, 2006
Level 1 Technical Support
Representative (Inbound/Support)
- Logical hardware troubleshooting.
- Ordered replacements for malfunctioning parts.
- Some software troubleshooting.
- Applications used: Clarify, Internet Explorer, Citrix, HP Knowledge Base.
Carleton University
September, 2000 - August, 2006
B. Mathematics (Honours)
- Took some semesters off.
- Was also enrolled as a physics student, an english student & a gender studies student.
so, i think i'm better off trying something like this...
- i've been on odsp since 2013 for ptsd & sad.
- i'm going to try working, to see if i can handle it
- i'm going to not be able to handle it. at all.
that could help with the renewal when it comes up, too.
i'm not being dishonest, i'm just helping the process along. there's no value in forcing me to flip burgers when i could be making art.
- i've been on odsp since 2013 for ptsd & sad.
- i'm going to try working, to see if i can handle it
- i'm going to not be able to handle it. at all.
that could help with the renewal when it comes up, too.
i'm not being dishonest, i'm just helping the process along. there's no value in forcing me to flip burgers when i could be making art.
if i can't find anything before august 1st, i'll take a part time job - like 10-20 hours a week..
that should increase my monthly income to over $1500, making it hard for anybody to deny me of a $700-800 apartment.
then, once i sign a lease for september or october, i'll quit the job.
i have to play the stupid game, and i didn't write the stupid rules.
that should increase my monthly income to over $1500, making it hard for anybody to deny me of a $700-800 apartment.
then, once i sign a lease for september or october, i'll quit the job.
i have to play the stupid game, and i didn't write the stupid rules.
and, i'll state this again, if you didn't get it the first twenty times.
i do not believe that i'm psychologically capable of safely operating a motorized vehicle.
that's not why i don't have a license; i made a moral choice to keep my carbon footprint down, and decided against it.
there is no legal reason that i couldn't learn how to drive.
but, i have never driven a car before. seriously....
...and i think that this is in the best interests of everybody.
it's a non-issue; i can't drive. deal with it.
i do not believe that i'm psychologically capable of safely operating a motorized vehicle.
that's not why i don't have a license; i made a moral choice to keep my carbon footprint down, and decided against it.
there is no legal reason that i couldn't learn how to drive.
but, i have never driven a car before. seriously....
...and i think that this is in the best interests of everybody.
it's a non-issue; i can't drive. deal with it.
i actually want to live in a very conservative building, with a very conservative landlord. no smoking. no drinking. no drugs. no parties. no music after 10:00. etc.
if i want to go to a party, i want to go out somewhere. i don't want it in my living space; i want my living space to be quiet, clean and free of intoxicants. somewhere to retreat to, to relax in, to think in, to create in - not somewhere to get fucked up in.
i think i've been crystal clear about that.
if you're just cluing in now, you weren't paying attention.
if i want to go to a party, i want to go out somewhere. i don't want it in my living space; i want my living space to be quiet, clean and free of intoxicants. somewhere to retreat to, to relax in, to think in, to create in - not somewhere to get fucked up in.
i think i've been crystal clear about that.
if you're just cluing in now, you weren't paying attention.
her business model is obviously on the brink of failure; the tenants she wants don't exist. instead, we've got units sitting empty forever, and homeless shelters at capacity.
stupid.
so, you've got city council changing the laws to try and ease the market. what they really need to do is go after marda.
eventually...
....but, i only have three months.
stupid.
so, you've got city council changing the laws to try and ease the market. what they really need to do is go after marda.
eventually...
....but, i only have three months.
...and it even seems like i'm the only person that even wants to.
somebody that's working full time is going to want a nice apartment, and there's more than enough supply. i'm not looking at nice units here, i'm looking at old dilapidated dumps. the whole point of moving here was that there was an oversupply of substandard housing at below market rent. so, then this dumb wench shows up and starts buying up old units and jacking up the rent, so they end up sitting empty. and, she keeps buying more and more up.
i have not seen this woman's assets, but i suspect she's sitting on a bubble and that things will crash here once it finally bursts.
there's not an actual shortage of low-income housing, here - there's a problem with a specific management company buying up old units and keeping low income people out of them.
somebody that's working full time is going to want a nice apartment, and there's more than enough supply. i'm not looking at nice units here, i'm looking at old dilapidated dumps. the whole point of moving here was that there was an oversupply of substandard housing at below market rent. so, then this dumb wench shows up and starts buying up old units and jacking up the rent, so they end up sitting empty. and, she keeps buying more and more up.
i have not seen this woman's assets, but i suspect she's sitting on a bubble and that things will crash here once it finally bursts.
there's not an actual shortage of low-income housing, here - there's a problem with a specific management company buying up old units and keeping low income people out of them.
to an extent, it's supply side economics - instead of adjusting the rent to the market, they're trying to create some kind of idealized tenant to adhere to the prices they pull out of their asses. then, they make stupid arguments about percentages of income - and, to the extent that they have a point, misunderstand that the problem is that they're charging too much in rent.
if you want to make these arguments, the proper deduction is that these units should come down 25-30% to meet my income, not that i can't afford to live in them - because i can.
if you want to make these arguments, the proper deduction is that these units should come down 25-30% to meet my income, not that i can't afford to live in them - because i can.
it would be one thing if the only thing i could afford was a room.
but, i can easily afford a nice two bedroom apartment - and they're telling me they won't rent to me because i won't have enough pocket change to waste on beer and popcorn. and, it's no doubt a consequence of some stupid concept of hierarchy.
it's the stupidity of it that i'm constantly enraged by.
but, i can easily afford a nice two bedroom apartment - and they're telling me they won't rent to me because i won't have enough pocket change to waste on beer and popcorn. and, it's no doubt a consequence of some stupid concept of hierarchy.
it's the stupidity of it that i'm constantly enraged by.
there's no listings today, so i'm stuck thinking about this stupid property management company again, and it's just really frustrating that they're putting through these income screening checks.
let's imagine i take a small apartment for something like $600/month.
this would be my budget:
rent: $600
food: $200
estrogen: $20
internet: $30
laundry: $20
============
$870
ok.
but, my income is $1215.
that would leave me with $345 a month to spend on....what, exactly?
i don't smoke.
i don't drink.
i don't have a driver's license (and don't want a car).
i don't watch tv.
i don't want a cell phone.
i don't have or want kids.
i don't want to date.
i'd rather make my own meals, thank you.
should i start donating money to charity? sponsor a kid from africa?
i honestly wouldn't know what to do with that money. and, if i'm stuck in a 300 square foot apartment, i wouldn't have space to buy things, anyways.
i don't need more spending money, i'm fine as i am, i need somewhere to stay that's big enough to put my stuff in and safe enough to keep it in. and, they have places that are acceptable, but i don't pass the screening, so they won't call me.
see, and this doesn't help them, either, because they end up with units sitting empty.
it's just an all around stupid way to manage property - by enforcing frankly absurd assumptions, they're actively preventing people from renting spaces they'd be happy in.
let's imagine i take a small apartment for something like $600/month.
this would be my budget:
rent: $600
food: $200
estrogen: $20
internet: $30
laundry: $20
============
$870
ok.
but, my income is $1215.
that would leave me with $345 a month to spend on....what, exactly?
i don't smoke.
i don't drink.
i don't have a driver's license (and don't want a car).
i don't watch tv.
i don't want a cell phone.
i don't have or want kids.
i don't want to date.
i'd rather make my own meals, thank you.
should i start donating money to charity? sponsor a kid from africa?
i honestly wouldn't know what to do with that money. and, if i'm stuck in a 300 square foot apartment, i wouldn't have space to buy things, anyways.
i don't need more spending money, i'm fine as i am, i need somewhere to stay that's big enough to put my stuff in and safe enough to keep it in. and, they have places that are acceptable, but i don't pass the screening, so they won't call me.
see, and this doesn't help them, either, because they end up with units sitting empty.
it's just an all around stupid way to manage property - by enforcing frankly absurd assumptions, they're actively preventing people from renting spaces they'd be happy in.
Monday, July 9, 2018
the thing about the germans (and also the italians) is that you're kind of stuck with them if you want a serious defense pact with france. that region was in a perpetual civil war from the death of charlemagne until the death of hitler. if you want peace there, you need a reich.
but, this country has no historical attachment to either germany or italy, and so the defense pact is pragmatic rather than ideological - it's not because i care about germany or italy, but because i care about france.
then, you get a country like austria, which shouldn't really exist; it's literally the eastern march, the boundary. if it weren't for feudalism, it would have been in germany the whole time.
but, there's this gigantic cultural line that opens up through europe at this point, that really does open up into a historical east. there is absolutely no way that a western empire will hold countries like poland and slovakia, let alone latvia and lithuania, in the long run (although the balts are not the slavs).
we basically have the choice between losing a war, or withdrawing before we lose a war. and, we can overthrow the government in russia first, if we want - but we're still going to eventually lose a war, or withdraw before we do.
well, there's a third option, of course - ethnic cleansing.
but, we fought a world war to stop that.
i'm not interpreting trudeau's insistence on playing army in this way at all. i understand that this is more about chrystia freeland essentially being corrupted by her ukrainian nationalism - that our foreign policy has been taken over by a foreign agent, and trudeau is basically too ignorant to stop it.
so, this is really just base stupidity. again.
it's going to cost him a lot of votes, though.
but, this country has no historical attachment to either germany or italy, and so the defense pact is pragmatic rather than ideological - it's not because i care about germany or italy, but because i care about france.
then, you get a country like austria, which shouldn't really exist; it's literally the eastern march, the boundary. if it weren't for feudalism, it would have been in germany the whole time.
but, there's this gigantic cultural line that opens up through europe at this point, that really does open up into a historical east. there is absolutely no way that a western empire will hold countries like poland and slovakia, let alone latvia and lithuania, in the long run (although the balts are not the slavs).
we basically have the choice between losing a war, or withdrawing before we lose a war. and, we can overthrow the government in russia first, if we want - but we're still going to eventually lose a war, or withdraw before we do.
well, there's a third option, of course - ethnic cleansing.
but, we fought a world war to stop that.
i'm not interpreting trudeau's insistence on playing army in this way at all. i understand that this is more about chrystia freeland essentially being corrupted by her ukrainian nationalism - that our foreign policy has been taken over by a foreign agent, and trudeau is basically too ignorant to stop it.
so, this is really just base stupidity. again.
it's going to cost him a lot of votes, though.
i can support a mutual defense pact with the historical colonizers of north america, and am even interested in expanding it into south america.
so, that would be a pact that includes the us & canada, as well as france & britain, and potentially spain & most of latin america. you could throw in the dutch & the belgians.
but, i don't have any interest in fighting an imperialist war against the russians in eastern europe.
...or even in defending berlin.
sorry.
so, that would be a pact that includes the us & canada, as well as france & britain, and potentially spain & most of latin america. you could throw in the dutch & the belgians.
but, i don't have any interest in fighting an imperialist war against the russians in eastern europe.
...or even in defending berlin.
sorry.
canada is ripe for a serious protest movement, that articulates the following political positions:
- skepticism towards nafta
- minimal involvement in nato (and other imperialist adventures)
- state secularism
- a rapid transition away from carbon
- public ownership of natural resources
- state subsidies for economic diversification
- a serious poverty reduction strategy
- a shift away from providing a safe haven for refugees and towards immigration as a way to fill labour shortages.
it's not going to come from the ndp.
- skepticism towards nafta
- minimal involvement in nato (and other imperialist adventures)
- state secularism
- a rapid transition away from carbon
- public ownership of natural resources
- state subsidies for economic diversification
- a serious poverty reduction strategy
- a shift away from providing a safe haven for refugees and towards immigration as a way to fill labour shortages.
it's not going to come from the ndp.
there's a lull right now, i won't pretend otherwise.
but i've learned that this is how this works: nothing comes up until the end of the month, then it either goes immediately, or it bleeds into the next month.
so, i won't see serious listings for august 1st until after july 16th.
for right now, it's been a struggle to stay awake all day because she is, once again, smoking directly under my bed. i'd move my bed, but she'll follow, so why bother?
i'll write your report for you. again.
i'm tired. sluggish. unproductive. broadly miserable. frustrated that the coffee isn't working. coughing. having difficulty focusing.
it's pretty much my worst nightmare.
but i've learned that this is how this works: nothing comes up until the end of the month, then it either goes immediately, or it bleeds into the next month.
so, i won't see serious listings for august 1st until after july 16th.
for right now, it's been a struggle to stay awake all day because she is, once again, smoking directly under my bed. i'd move my bed, but she'll follow, so why bother?
i'll write your report for you. again.
i'm tired. sluggish. unproductive. broadly miserable. frustrated that the coffee isn't working. coughing. having difficulty focusing.
it's pretty much my worst nightmare.
who exactly is justin trudeau attempting to appeal to in extending a canadian mission to latvia?
canadians won't approve of such blatant militarism. the american administration isn't keen on it.
you would normally explain this kind of thing as unfortunate, but necessary. but, strangely, the dauphin seems to have a napoleonic streak, or something.
nobody voted for this.
it's starting to look like a bloodbath in 2019....
canadians won't approve of such blatant militarism. the american administration isn't keen on it.
you would normally explain this kind of thing as unfortunate, but necessary. but, strangely, the dauphin seems to have a napoleonic streak, or something.
nobody voted for this.
it's starting to look like a bloodbath in 2019....
these people that rent rooms in their house, it's just...
how do you work through the contradiction of paying rent to be a part of the family?
maybe i'm overthinking this, but it's likely to get me a little loopy - even ignoring all the other factors that make it impossible.
is the property owner going to yell at you to make your bed and clean your room? do you share meals?
fucking weird.
how do you work through the contradiction of paying rent to be a part of the family?
maybe i'm overthinking this, but it's likely to get me a little loopy - even ignoring all the other factors that make it impossible.
is the property owner going to yell at you to make your bed and clean your room? do you share meals?
fucking weird.
the only thing i've ever been able to handle is sporadic entry-level call centre work because there's really very minimal face-to-face interaction. but, they'll take half of everything over $200. and, i simply don't think i'm getting anywhere by working a shift or two a week to hand it to a landlord.
i think i can find something if i keep looking.
that said...
what's out there for $900-1000 instead of $700-800? i dunno. really. but, i doubt it's that substantive.
i think i can find something if i keep looking.
that said...
what's out there for $900-1000 instead of $700-800? i dunno. really. but, i doubt it's that substantive.
the last time i had a job was the spring and summer of 2008.
i was working in a call centre doing surveys around the corner from my house. i actually kind of liked this, because it had very low travel time: i could leave five minutes before my shift started. the hours were also fairly relaxed. i really only needed 20-25 hours to pay rent, so i only had to work 2 or 3 days a week. this was a huge increase in freedom for me, after spending months trying to get to kanata to work 50 hour weeks in call centres (which i hated.).
i told them not to schedule me on july 1st, because i wouldn't show up. they scheduled me on july 1st. i did not show up. i got fired.
then, i went back to school in september.
i was working in a call centre doing surveys around the corner from my house. i actually kind of liked this, because it had very low travel time: i could leave five minutes before my shift started. the hours were also fairly relaxed. i really only needed 20-25 hours to pay rent, so i only had to work 2 or 3 days a week. this was a huge increase in freedom for me, after spending months trying to get to kanata to work 50 hour weeks in call centres (which i hated.).
i told them not to schedule me on july 1st, because i wouldn't show up. they scheduled me on july 1st. i did not show up. i got fired.
then, i went back to school in september.
i admit i haven't applied for a job since i moved here, but what's the point? i don't want one.
i'd be taking hours away from somebody else that needs them.
i'd show up angry, wishing i was somewhere else. i'd yell at the staff, get into arguments with management, and ultimately get fired.
i know this because it's what has happened over and over again.
and, if i can somehow force myself to behave, i'll do a shitty job.
forcing people to do things they don't want to doesn't benefit anybody.
i'd be taking hours away from somebody else that needs them.
i'd show up angry, wishing i was somewhere else. i'd yell at the staff, get into arguments with management, and ultimately get fired.
i know this because it's what has happened over and over again.
and, if i can somehow force myself to behave, i'll do a shitty job.
forcing people to do things they don't want to doesn't benefit anybody.
Sunday, July 8, 2018
With 10-per-cent annual turnover, Whittal expects it will take 10 years
or more for almost all the units to become entirely smoke-free.
it's a step forward, anyways.
i should get that info updated.
https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/social-housing-starts-forbidding-smoking-in-units-with-little-protest
it's a step forward, anyways.
i should get that info updated.
https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/social-housing-starts-forbidding-smoking-in-units-with-little-protest
what i really want is an apartment in an institution.
and, it doesn't have to be locked down, and it doesn't have to be isolated - it just has to be a building that is dedicated for disabled people.
i don't need a nurse, and i don't need a maid, and i don't need somebody to make me food. but, i need an acknowledgement that i can't exist in a market-based society, and a way to safely escape from it.
and, it doesn't have to be locked down, and it doesn't have to be isolated - it just has to be a building that is dedicated for disabled people.
i don't need a nurse, and i don't need a maid, and i don't need somebody to make me food. but, i need an acknowledgement that i can't exist in a market-based society, and a way to safely escape from it.
i am absolutely willing to prosecute a smoker under nuisance laws.
are you going to argue that she's not endangering my health?
what year is it?
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-180.html
are you going to argue that she's not endangering my health?
what year is it?
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-180.html
i don't have time to prosecute a nuisance charge. but, i'm collecting evidence in case i have to.
i will defend myself on free speech grounds, if attacked.
and, i will retaliate with a criminal nuisance charge, arguing that somebody that is wilfully blowing smoke into my air supply - despite being asked not to repeatedly - is negligently endangering m health.
i will not act first. i don't have time. i'm leaving as soon as possible. but, i will retaliate accordingly.
i will defend myself on free speech grounds, if attacked.
and, i will retaliate with a criminal nuisance charge, arguing that somebody that is wilfully blowing smoke into my air supply - despite being asked not to repeatedly - is negligently endangering m health.
i will not act first. i don't have time. i'm leaving as soon as possible. but, i will retaliate accordingly.
this is the great irony, right?
the tory establishment in canada just spent the last twenty years doing everything it could to get rid of the country's liberal traditions, to scatter it's voices, and to essentially convert the party into a "progressive conservative" party - even going so far as to win the son of the party's glory years over to the cause of red tory obama/clinton style moderate conservativism.
they finally get their stooge in place...
....and the republicans elect a liberal president.
now, they have no idea what to do, because all the liberals are gone, under the bus.
the tory establishment in canada just spent the last twenty years doing everything it could to get rid of the country's liberal traditions, to scatter it's voices, and to essentially convert the party into a "progressive conservative" party - even going so far as to win the son of the party's glory years over to the cause of red tory obama/clinton style moderate conservativism.
they finally get their stooge in place...
....and the republicans elect a liberal president.
now, they have no idea what to do, because all the liberals are gone, under the bus.
if you want to see how donald trump will treat doug ford, look at how he treated chris christie.
i think maybe the issue is that so many people are interpreting trump through the filter of alec baldwin. they're getting this caricature of him, blurring reality with fiction and ultimately missing the point.
donald trump is not a conservative; doug ford is quite textbook. trump will instantly interpret doug ford as the complete idiot that he is, and treat him like it - because that's how donald trump has always treated conservatives, like idiots.
if you want a kindred spirit?
send chretien.
donald trump is the complete opposite of doug ford; he is, rather, the mirror image of jean chretien. and, he's ultimately not that dissimilar from trudeau's father, either.
in canada, he'd be a fucking liberal. and, the liberals are so lost in their worship of the democratic party under obama that they can't see their own reflection when placed right in front of them.
they're failing the mirror test.
i think maybe the issue is that so many people are interpreting trump through the filter of alec baldwin. they're getting this caricature of him, blurring reality with fiction and ultimately missing the point.
donald trump is not a conservative; doug ford is quite textbook. trump will instantly interpret doug ford as the complete idiot that he is, and treat him like it - because that's how donald trump has always treated conservatives, like idiots.
if you want a kindred spirit?
send chretien.
donald trump is the complete opposite of doug ford; he is, rather, the mirror image of jean chretien. and, he's ultimately not that dissimilar from trudeau's father, either.
in canada, he'd be a fucking liberal. and, the liberals are so lost in their worship of the democratic party under obama that they can't see their own reflection when placed right in front of them.
they're failing the mirror test.
this is utter stupidity.
to begin with, doug ford is the actual village idiot. he's both outrageously ignorant and legitimately an incredibly stupid person. trump is unread, and proud of it, but not an actual idiot. the difference between ford and trump is the difference between ignorance (trump) and stupidity (ford).
in that sense, it's like sending an angry chimp after a lion.
further, you're talking about sending the premier of a subnational state after what is theoretically the most powerful person in the world (trump is likely to end up dead , quickly, if he were to use that power). what leverage does doug ford have? is he going to sit on him?
so, this is utter stupidity. we need game theory, not football game theatrics.
but, we're in the era of stupidity...
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2018/07/07/sick-doug-ford-on-donald-trump.html
to begin with, doug ford is the actual village idiot. he's both outrageously ignorant and legitimately an incredibly stupid person. trump is unread, and proud of it, but not an actual idiot. the difference between ford and trump is the difference between ignorance (trump) and stupidity (ford).
in that sense, it's like sending an angry chimp after a lion.
further, you're talking about sending the premier of a subnational state after what is theoretically the most powerful person in the world (trump is likely to end up dead , quickly, if he were to use that power). what leverage does doug ford have? is he going to sit on him?
so, this is utter stupidity. we need game theory, not football game theatrics.
but, we're in the era of stupidity...
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2018/07/07/sick-doug-ford-on-donald-trump.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)