and, regarding the cheese wrappers...
i'm thinking i should wait it out. it seems like the technology is currently in development.
an apparent problem is that the fda won't allow for the recycling of food packaging into more food packaging for contamination reasons, which is perhaps overly cautious - they are melting the stuff down. nonetheless, it means that you can't recycle cheese wrappers back into cheese wrappers. as a lot of this packaging is actually engineered for specific purposes, that makes finding something to do with it somewhat challenging. some cursory research suggests that you could convert this particular blend primarily into plastic bags, at this timer.
it would be nice if somebody would just warehouse it, then. well, the idea is to keep it out of the fucking landfill as much as it is to actually reuse it. i'd be just as happy to send it to an empty warehouse in detroit until somebody figures it out. you know?
so if anybody wants a pile of pet/evoh black diamond parmalat cheese wrappers...
Friday, November 16, 2018
ok.
so, if i were to try this, the question i'd have to put to judicial review is not whether the officer should have made the arrest, but whether the officer should have sought a warrant. and, i'd be looking at a correctness standard primarily, and a reasonableness standard, second.
the thing is that you can't determine what a judge would have ruled, right. there's a spectrum. and, judges - unlike cops - have independence.
so, the intent would be to get a ruling that states that the officer acted outside of his authority in making the arrest - and i think this is actually blatantly obvious, in canadian law. i was not caught in the act. and, there was no evidence that i posed anybody any harm. i was at home. so, he's supposed to get a warrant. clearly.
then, what? do we send it to a justice for a ruling? do we use the justice's statements at the bail hearing? do the reviewing judges make the decision?
i think this is novel, granted. but, i think it's a good, idea, too - and that this kind of enforced oversight is something worth fighting for.
so, if i were to try this, the question i'd have to put to judicial review is not whether the officer should have made the arrest, but whether the officer should have sought a warrant. and, i'd be looking at a correctness standard primarily, and a reasonableness standard, second.
the thing is that you can't determine what a judge would have ruled, right. there's a spectrum. and, judges - unlike cops - have independence.
so, the intent would be to get a ruling that states that the officer acted outside of his authority in making the arrest - and i think this is actually blatantly obvious, in canadian law. i was not caught in the act. and, there was no evidence that i posed anybody any harm. i was at home. so, he's supposed to get a warrant. clearly.
then, what? do we send it to a justice for a ruling? do we use the justice's statements at the bail hearing? do the reviewing judges make the decision?
i think this is novel, granted. but, i think it's a good, idea, too - and that this kind of enforced oversight is something worth fighting for.
what would happen if i made a request for judicial review to determine whether the officer had a right to make an arrest?
i feel like this is the fundamental question at hand.
it would perhaps be unusual, but would it be wrong?
i guess i need to see the bail hearing transcript, first. and, i need to get a response from the opird, too.
i feel like this is the fundamental question at hand.
it would perhaps be unusual, but would it be wrong?
i guess i need to see the bail hearing transcript, first. and, i need to get a response from the opird, too.
so, to recap, we're looking at a civil case over:
- s. 7 & 9 & 10a & 12, arbitrary detainment. warrantless arrest on a hybrid charge, and no cause presented for detainment. the arrest shouldn't have happened at all, as no evidence could be produced to prosecute with.
- s. 8, illegal search/seizure. if it is true that i was illegally detained, and that the arrest was unjustified, i was illegally printed while illegally detained.
- s. 6, mobility rights. the illegally obtained prints are preventing me from travelling abroad.
- s. 2b), freedom of speech/expression. i am not looking for a law to be changed, as there is no law to change.
- s. 7 & 9 & 10a & 12, arbitrary detainment. warrantless arrest on a hybrid charge, and no cause presented for detainment. the arrest shouldn't have happened at all, as no evidence could be produced to prosecute with.
- s. 8, illegal search/seizure. if it is true that i was illegally detained, and that the arrest was unjustified, i was illegally printed while illegally detained.
- s. 6, mobility rights. the illegally obtained prints are preventing me from travelling abroad.
- s. 2b), freedom of speech/expression. i am not looking for a law to be changed, as there is no law to change.
again, i'm left to wonder if my situation is so egregious as to be unique, because i'm not immediately finding information on s. 6 related to the question of fingerprinting on withdrawn charges.
the charter was written in 1982, so the americans have two hundreds of precedent on us, here. but, what i'm looking for is an argument around the idea of due process, which seems to be more developed in the american jurisprudence.
i was arrested without a warrant, and charged while in custody without a judge ever even looking at the evidence. when the justice looked at it, i was released with no meaningful conditions. so, there's no due process, there, and i am, in fact, currently being denied mobility rights in the absence of it.
it's as strong an argument as the rest of it.
and, it goes back to the question of a lack of judicial oversight in the arrest process.
the answer is that you shouldn't print somebody until or unless a judge or justice orders it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law
the charter was written in 1982, so the americans have two hundreds of precedent on us, here. but, what i'm looking for is an argument around the idea of due process, which seems to be more developed in the american jurisprudence.
i was arrested without a warrant, and charged while in custody without a judge ever even looking at the evidence. when the justice looked at it, i was released with no meaningful conditions. so, there's no due process, there, and i am, in fact, currently being denied mobility rights in the absence of it.
it's as strong an argument as the rest of it.
and, it goes back to the question of a lack of judicial oversight in the arrest process.
the answer is that you shouldn't print somebody until or unless a judge or justice orders it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law
but, if i haven't been clear, the place where the system failed here was that the cop arrested me without seeking a warrant, or even obtaining the evidence - it was purely on hearsay.
i was arrested and fingerprinted on hearsay, and no judge would have allowed that to happen.
we need to reassert the necessity of judicial oversight in the arrest process.
i was arrested and fingerprinted on hearsay, and no judge would have allowed that to happen.
we need to reassert the necessity of judicial oversight in the arrest process.
ok.
there's a process, and i'll be pushing it forward as far as i can take it. let's hope they just delete them quickly.
but, i'm going to include mobility rights in the charter challenge, anyways, as a mitigating factor - because i have already had them impacted by the frivolous charges. i mean, this isn't a hypothetical that kicks in if the application is denied - this has already happened.
in the worst case scenario, am i willing to appeal a judicial review to a real court in order to challenge the law that says you can't destroy prints on a secondary offence? well, i think i'm evidence that the law is overly broad - this is essentially a rule that says that any accusation of this sort, however frivolous, must be maintained, forever. and, if i find myself in that situation, it would necessitate that i would have to do it, and demonstrate that the law needs to be changed, as evidenced by the fact that i can't get my prints destroyed. i guess it's sort of circular logic if you're coming at it from a certain perspective, but i can't let the system get away with this.
there should obviously be a discretionary process. even if the nature of the accusations are very serious, that doesn't mean a false accusation should have lifelong consequences.
there's a process, and i'll be pushing it forward as far as i can take it. let's hope they just delete them quickly.
but, i'm going to include mobility rights in the charter challenge, anyways, as a mitigating factor - because i have already had them impacted by the frivolous charges. i mean, this isn't a hypothetical that kicks in if the application is denied - this has already happened.
in the worst case scenario, am i willing to appeal a judicial review to a real court in order to challenge the law that says you can't destroy prints on a secondary offence? well, i think i'm evidence that the law is overly broad - this is essentially a rule that says that any accusation of this sort, however frivolous, must be maintained, forever. and, if i find myself in that situation, it would necessitate that i would have to do it, and demonstrate that the law needs to be changed, as evidenced by the fact that i can't get my prints destroyed. i guess it's sort of circular logic if you're coming at it from a certain perspective, but i can't let the system get away with this.
there should obviously be a discretionary process. even if the nature of the accusations are very serious, that doesn't mean a false accusation should have lifelong consequences.
criminal harassment is listed as a secondary offence, which means i may get my print destruction request denied.
yet, the charges should not have been filed. there was no warrant. they were dropped due to a lack of evidence.
if they deny the request, i'll have to include it in the constitutional challenge, as a denial of mobility rights.
yet, the charges should not have been filed. there was no warrant. they were dropped due to a lack of evidence.
if they deny the request, i'll have to include it in the constitutional challenge, as a denial of mobility rights.
so, i finished with my calls yesterday and decided to take a nap from 15:00 until 19:00 to try and cycle myself back around to an overnight schedule, so i'm taking advantage of lower time-of-use rates. there's no longer any reason that i have to be awake during any specific part of the day, so why not just stay up all night?
unfortunately, i crashed until around 23:00, woke up to get a smoothie and then crashed again until 5:00 - partly because i was cold. shit.
i was at the point where i was so hungry i was going blind, and possibly undergoing ketosis. i had two of those kid's meal burgers on monday night and snacked on those raisins all day tuesday, but i hadn't had an actual meal since early on monday morning. i mentioned that my schedule dropped a week, which will be good for my budget in the long run, but i was at the point where i just didn't have the choice. so, i got up to eat, and then crashed again until around 15:00.
i need to have longer than 12 hour days, certainly. but, i need to be eating in off peaks, and i need to not be sleeping during down peaks, if i'm getting my point across. i can't and don't want to sleep from 7:00 to 19:00 every day, but i want to make sure that the period that i do sleep is always in that space.
at this point, i'm no longer interested in taking a shower or putting those clothes away until i get back from my errands on monday. i'm just waiting for the bail hearing transcript before i put in the file destruction request, file the discrimination suit & do the foia requests for the civil suit. right now, i want to get back to the rebuild, and try to get close to the hook-up by monday.
i still can't get through to the health unit to get the file destroyed. i'm getting the idea that this may take a while, and that i may have to find a way to get a judge to order them to do it. ugh.
i got some information back on those cheese wrappers, though - they are pet (#1), but with an evoh coating. i'm now trying to figure out what i can do with them.
but, if things go according to plan, i should be awake and focused on the rebuild for most of the weekend - and should get a lot done.
unfortunately, i crashed until around 23:00, woke up to get a smoothie and then crashed again until 5:00 - partly because i was cold. shit.
i was at the point where i was so hungry i was going blind, and possibly undergoing ketosis. i had two of those kid's meal burgers on monday night and snacked on those raisins all day tuesday, but i hadn't had an actual meal since early on monday morning. i mentioned that my schedule dropped a week, which will be good for my budget in the long run, but i was at the point where i just didn't have the choice. so, i got up to eat, and then crashed again until around 15:00.
i need to have longer than 12 hour days, certainly. but, i need to be eating in off peaks, and i need to not be sleeping during down peaks, if i'm getting my point across. i can't and don't want to sleep from 7:00 to 19:00 every day, but i want to make sure that the period that i do sleep is always in that space.
at this point, i'm no longer interested in taking a shower or putting those clothes away until i get back from my errands on monday. i'm just waiting for the bail hearing transcript before i put in the file destruction request, file the discrimination suit & do the foia requests for the civil suit. right now, i want to get back to the rebuild, and try to get close to the hook-up by monday.
i still can't get through to the health unit to get the file destroyed. i'm getting the idea that this may take a while, and that i may have to find a way to get a judge to order them to do it. ugh.
i got some information back on those cheese wrappers, though - they are pet (#1), but with an evoh coating. i'm now trying to figure out what i can do with them.
but, if things go according to plan, i should be awake and focused on the rebuild for most of the weekend - and should get a lot done.
so, it seems like the most recent chinese containment plan is to arm extremists in central asia to push back against communist expansionism into the region.
that kind of sounds vaguely familiar.
but, it seems reasonable, so i'm not worried. what could possibly go wrong?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/world/asia/congress-uighurs-china-detention.html
it's easy to trot out that old definition of insanity, again - except that one questions whether a different outcome is desirable.
but, this isn't isolated. it's part of a centuries long struggle. and the only real intent is to produce instability.
that kind of sounds vaguely familiar.
but, it seems reasonable, so i'm not worried. what could possibly go wrong?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/world/asia/congress-uighurs-china-detention.html
it's easy to trot out that old definition of insanity, again - except that one questions whether a different outcome is desirable.
but, this isn't isolated. it's part of a centuries long struggle. and the only real intent is to produce instability.
Thursday, November 15, 2018
conservatives just aren't very good at budgeting, huh?
i think the issue here is the time requirement. he appears to be arguing that he shouldn't go to jail over unpaid fines - which is what is about to happen - rather than that he should be allowed to pay the fines down personally. the payment option being presented is just a scheme to avoid jail time.
and, debtors' prisons would be a pretty unconstitutional - and pretty uncanadian - concept, for sure.
it follows that the judge can skip the issue discussed in the article by striking down the criminality around indebtedness, which is the more direct question. but, i might suggest that it is overstepping it's bounds by striking down the law, in the absence of a clearer breach - merely stating "but, i'm in debt and i can't pay it off" isn't a demonstration of a rights restriction so much as it is a demonstration of mr. leary's fiscal incompetence, and perhaps why it is that he was unsuccessful as a candidate. mr. o'leary made those choices.
there is a valid point, here - he shouldn't go to jail over this. that's too much. he should just be forced to raise the money, until he succeeds in paying it off - or until the parliament decides to change the law.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/powerandpolitics/pnp-tasker-oleary-suing-elections-canada-1.4905684
i think the issue here is the time requirement. he appears to be arguing that he shouldn't go to jail over unpaid fines - which is what is about to happen - rather than that he should be allowed to pay the fines down personally. the payment option being presented is just a scheme to avoid jail time.
and, debtors' prisons would be a pretty unconstitutional - and pretty uncanadian - concept, for sure.
it follows that the judge can skip the issue discussed in the article by striking down the criminality around indebtedness, which is the more direct question. but, i might suggest that it is overstepping it's bounds by striking down the law, in the absence of a clearer breach - merely stating "but, i'm in debt and i can't pay it off" isn't a demonstration of a rights restriction so much as it is a demonstration of mr. leary's fiscal incompetence, and perhaps why it is that he was unsuccessful as a candidate. mr. o'leary made those choices.
there is a valid point, here - he shouldn't go to jail over this. that's too much. he should just be forced to raise the money, until he succeeds in paying it off - or until the parliament decides to change the law.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/powerandpolitics/pnp-tasker-oleary-suing-elections-canada-1.4905684
what?
it's a classical position on the anarchist left to suggest that stamping religion out by force is a nice idea, but it doesn't work, and that anarchists need to be very careful not to alienate themselves from a backlash by appearing to be too harsh on religion, even as they understand that they must be. this is a discussion that goes all the way back to bakunin.
the short answer is that you have to get the people to do it themselves, somehow - and not due to some moral opposition to the destruction of faith, but as a pragmatic reality. if you want a backlash, you use force; if you want to actually do away with faith once and for all, you have to use ideas.
hey, i didn't say i had a good solution, i'm just towing the party line, here.
it's a classical position on the anarchist left to suggest that stamping religion out by force is a nice idea, but it doesn't work, and that anarchists need to be very careful not to alienate themselves from a backlash by appearing to be too harsh on religion, even as they understand that they must be. this is a discussion that goes all the way back to bakunin.
the short answer is that you have to get the people to do it themselves, somehow - and not due to some moral opposition to the destruction of faith, but as a pragmatic reality. if you want a backlash, you use force; if you want to actually do away with faith once and for all, you have to use ideas.
hey, i didn't say i had a good solution, i'm just towing the party line, here.
it's no surprise - any halfways intelligent person could have predicted that a ford government would run an absurd deficit, as it hands out goodies to it's cronies.
try to get somebody to walk you through the argument that removing rent control will incentivize building low income units. i'm not sure i could even deconstruct that, because i'm not sure i could understand the logical errors built into coming to such a ridiculous conclusion in the first place. obviously, the exact opposite is true, and it's just a policy that awards developers for their generous campaign donations.
now, that said, i actually think that $30,000 is too low of a cut-off for taxation - that number should be something closer to $50,000. but, it should be offset by steep tax increases on the higher income levels. and, they're actually cutting taxes for high income earners...
is this a disaster? sure. but, you could only be surprised if you haven't seen this film before, and i've seen it more than once, already.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-pc-fall-economic-outlook-cuts-tax-lcbo-1.4906718
try to get somebody to walk you through the argument that removing rent control will incentivize building low income units. i'm not sure i could even deconstruct that, because i'm not sure i could understand the logical errors built into coming to such a ridiculous conclusion in the first place. obviously, the exact opposite is true, and it's just a policy that awards developers for their generous campaign donations.
now, that said, i actually think that $30,000 is too low of a cut-off for taxation - that number should be something closer to $50,000. but, it should be offset by steep tax increases on the higher income levels. and, they're actually cutting taxes for high income earners...
is this a disaster? sure. but, you could only be surprised if you haven't seen this film before, and i've seen it more than once, already.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-pc-fall-economic-outlook-cuts-tax-lcbo-1.4906718
my only suggestion to the chinese government is that they learn from the mistakes of the past and ensure that their policies to root out religion are not counter-productive. they have made some good progress in rooting out the superstitious beliefs in the tibetan plateau, and should use their successes there as a model.
i've been repeatedly clear about this in the past - i see "religious freedom" as a contradiction in terms, and am in favour of destroying religion using any and all means possible. but, these kinds of tactics have historically not just been unsuccessful but have been counterproductive. today, religion is as powerful in russia as it has ever been. it is important that they don't overextend their hand and in the process produce a backlash against secularism.
and, it is disturbing to me that our prime minister is so intent on aligning himself with the religious right, and the forces of religious backwardsness, in stoking a reactionary push against secularist policies.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/china-canada-uighurs-letter-1.4906522
i've been repeatedly clear about this in the past - i see "religious freedom" as a contradiction in terms, and am in favour of destroying religion using any and all means possible. but, these kinds of tactics have historically not just been unsuccessful but have been counterproductive. today, religion is as powerful in russia as it has ever been. it is important that they don't overextend their hand and in the process produce a backlash against secularism.
and, it is disturbing to me that our prime minister is so intent on aligning himself with the religious right, and the forces of religious backwardsness, in stoking a reactionary push against secularist policies.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/china-canada-uighurs-letter-1.4906522
so, i sat down yesterday to take a nap and i ended up passed out instead. i've spent the morning tying together loose ends on some things, a lot of it focused on the question of recycling excess plastic.
back in july of 2017, i took a recycling run into detroit to try and get rid of a few things. the recycling complex on holden (near the marble bar) took a number of items, but i couldn't get the whole foods to take anything. i was on my way to a dj set by jello biafra, and didn't want to try and get into the bar with a bag full of used razors, so i gave up and tossed them out. i told myself i'd call ahead next time...
i still haven't called the whole foods, but i understand the situation better, now. what they have is a #5 plastic recycling program drop-off through their house brand, preserve. they should take razors, brita filters and toothbrushes - so long as they're #5. if the store in downtown detroit doesn't take it - and i'll call before i go again - i can try one of the other stores, or even mail it to new york. i didn't really know what i was looking for, i just asked around, and nobody knew what i was talking about. but, they should also take the plastic bottle caps, which is a problem i didn't have an answer to.
i knew they don't take them in the blue boxes, but i've been leaving them in there, anyways, as a kind of act of protest - because they are recyclable, and they should take them. there wasn't a better answer. this might be the answer i wanted.
so, i'll put aside a little box for #5 plastics and plan to take it to detroit, when i can.
i still don't know what to do with the cheese or plastic wrappers, but they may take it on holden if i can get a # for it. and, i have at least found a few places in windsor that will take soft plastic bags, so that i don't have to take them to detroit.
i'm going to put off constructing the other room until the 1st, and do it as a part of the end of the month cleaning.
and, i was going to do groceries today, but i'm going to put it off until monday, because i've cycled around on the meals - i have officially skipped a week of meals. *shrug*. i can wait until monday. so, i'll just wait until after 19:00 before i get everything in motion.
i'm going to try to get through september on the rebuild for monday.
i can't get through to that mental health unit to get a file destruction. but, besides that, the last thing to do is call my grandmother.
back in july of 2017, i took a recycling run into detroit to try and get rid of a few things. the recycling complex on holden (near the marble bar) took a number of items, but i couldn't get the whole foods to take anything. i was on my way to a dj set by jello biafra, and didn't want to try and get into the bar with a bag full of used razors, so i gave up and tossed them out. i told myself i'd call ahead next time...
i still haven't called the whole foods, but i understand the situation better, now. what they have is a #5 plastic recycling program drop-off through their house brand, preserve. they should take razors, brita filters and toothbrushes - so long as they're #5. if the store in downtown detroit doesn't take it - and i'll call before i go again - i can try one of the other stores, or even mail it to new york. i didn't really know what i was looking for, i just asked around, and nobody knew what i was talking about. but, they should also take the plastic bottle caps, which is a problem i didn't have an answer to.
i knew they don't take them in the blue boxes, but i've been leaving them in there, anyways, as a kind of act of protest - because they are recyclable, and they should take them. there wasn't a better answer. this might be the answer i wanted.
so, i'll put aside a little box for #5 plastics and plan to take it to detroit, when i can.
i still don't know what to do with the cheese or plastic wrappers, but they may take it on holden if i can get a # for it. and, i have at least found a few places in windsor that will take soft plastic bags, so that i don't have to take them to detroit.
i'm going to put off constructing the other room until the 1st, and do it as a part of the end of the month cleaning.
and, i was going to do groceries today, but i'm going to put it off until monday, because i've cycled around on the meals - i have officially skipped a week of meals. *shrug*. i can wait until monday. so, i'll just wait until after 19:00 before i get everything in motion.
i'm going to try to get through september on the rebuild for monday.
i can't get through to that mental health unit to get a file destruction. but, besides that, the last thing to do is call my grandmother.
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
i have to point something out about my brief, and hopefully final, experience in the criminal justice system.
i was arrested by male officers. but, the officers i dealt with in the cell were all female - perhaps by intent. i mean, i would have expected to go to a female prison, and they seemed to realize how i ought to be identifying, as well. so, female cops with female-identifying inmates is probably not an accident. after i left the cell, though, these reasons are less compelling.
i dealt with three duty counsels, and they were all female. i dealt with three justices of the peace, and they were all female, too. all of the court staff were female. the staff in the attorney general's office were female. the crown prosecutors were primarily female. and, even most of the lawyers were female, as well. it was frequently the case that the only men in the court room were accused people.
now, i don't know why that is, exactly - and i'm not pointing this out to present an argument against it. my individual experiences do not a systematic analysis make; it could have been a huge coincidence. i'm just pointing out my observations of the situation.
i was arrested by male officers. but, the officers i dealt with in the cell were all female - perhaps by intent. i mean, i would have expected to go to a female prison, and they seemed to realize how i ought to be identifying, as well. so, female cops with female-identifying inmates is probably not an accident. after i left the cell, though, these reasons are less compelling.
i dealt with three duty counsels, and they were all female. i dealt with three justices of the peace, and they were all female, too. all of the court staff were female. the staff in the attorney general's office were female. the crown prosecutors were primarily female. and, even most of the lawyers were female, as well. it was frequently the case that the only men in the court room were accused people.
now, i don't know why that is, exactly - and i'm not pointing this out to present an argument against it. my individual experiences do not a systematic analysis make; it could have been a huge coincidence. i'm just pointing out my observations of the situation.
i'll budget it as costs, for now. i should get it recouped one way or another. i'll just have to wait a month to buy the shelves, which is fine - i'd rather be rebuilding right now, anyways.
and, when i sit down to do that in the next few days, i won't have an artificial boundary i have to work around any more, either. i can sleep during the day, again - and stay up over night when the rates are cheaper.
speaking of which, there's a weird spike last night around 11:00 that i can't make sense of. i was asleep. the only possibility is that the freezer flung open, and it was in fact loose when i woke up :\. it's not a lot, it's just inexplicable.
i should hopefully get the electronic document first, and print off parts for the fingerprint destruction request. what's a few days, right? everything - in theory. but, i think it's worth waiting it out to make the point.
and, when i sit down to do that in the next few days, i won't have an artificial boundary i have to work around any more, either. i can sleep during the day, again - and stay up over night when the rates are cheaper.
speaking of which, there's a weird spike last night around 11:00 that i can't make sense of. i was asleep. the only possibility is that the freezer flung open, and it was in fact loose when i woke up :\. it's not a lot, it's just inexplicable.
i should hopefully get the electronic document first, and print off parts for the fingerprint destruction request. what's a few days, right? everything - in theory. but, i think it's worth waiting it out to make the point.
so, it turns out that my bail hearing is roughly 35 pages. that's expensive.
but, it's what? 2-3 minutes per page? that's at least an hour.
i was only there for around 10 minutes - indicating that a very lengthy process took place without me.
i didn't want to pay $150 for this. really. but, now i feel like i kind of need to know.
hrmmn.
yeah.
*sigh*.
but, it's what? 2-3 minutes per page? that's at least an hour.
i was only there for around 10 minutes - indicating that a very lengthy process took place without me.
i didn't want to pay $150 for this. really. but, now i feel like i kind of need to know.
hrmmn.
yeah.
*sigh*.
so, i have to send a letter to the windsor police.
ok.
====
I am requesting a file destruction on prints that should not have happened, and I’m going to explain why. While I’m not a member of the bar, I do have a legal background, and this should be interpreted as a letter from a lawyer. If the officer had listened to me in the first place, none of this would have happened.
A part of me wishes that I would have gone to trial so that I could attach a scathing denouncement of the situation by a judge. As it is, I have to point this out - the evidence in the case was never presented to a judge for analysis. How can I be in a situation where I have prints on file that are going to affect my border travel, when the issue was never put before a judge? That is preposterous. & yet, this is the reality I am faced with, due to the actions of a rogue officer.
On Sept 12th, 2018, an officer that I had had previous negative encounters with appeared at my door and asked me to stop applying to an advertisement for an apartment, under threat of being charged with harassment. Now, harassment in canada is very explicit - it specifically refers to threatening behaviour that causes a victim to fear for their safety, and does not apply to behaviour that is merely annoying. Fully aware that my behaviour would simply not qualify as harassment in a canadian legal context (and that attempts to define behaviour that is similar to mine as harassment have been declared unconstitutional by the united states supreme court), I asked the officer to define the term ‘harassment’ under the law. He told me that harassment was behaviour that is repeatedly annoying - and that is wrong. I told him that was incorrect, and invited him to write a report, fully aware that, under canadian law, an officer is required to obtain a warrant to make a charge on a hybrid offence, and that an arrest should not happen, even if charges are filed. I expected that the officer would fail to obtain a warrant, because a judge would understand what harassment is.
Unfortunately, the officer came back ten days later and arrested me without a warrant. I was then held without cause and fingerprinted while in custody, aware that struggling or refusing would be futile, and perhaps harmful. I think the most cursory observation of the evidence suggests that I was illegally detained, and because I was illegally detained I was also illegally printed. I will be dealing with this in the upcoming months.
After seven weeks of obfuscation by the crown, the charges were eventually dropped due to a lack of evidence - no reasonable chance of conviction. Great. Yet, I could have told you that in the first place - and a judge would have certainly stated as much, had the officer sought a warrant, as he is required to under the law.
It is one thing to have the officer(s) make an honest mistake and for an acquitted person to request a destruction after vindication through trial. It is another thing altogether for a person’s constitutional rights to be completely trampled over, and end up printed in a case that no judge would have ever issued a warrant for, and that ends up withdrawn over a lack of evidence. Had the officer sought a warrant, as he was required to, it would have been denied and the prints would have never been taken.
As mentioned, I will be pursuing this assault on my constitutional rights to various ends.
In the mean time, I have had my access to detroit severely restricted by these prints, which should have clearly never been taken. I am a disabled person on a fixed income. Why should I pay for the officer’s error? And why should I be subject to any waiting period at all? Have I not already (unjustly) suffered enough due to the officer’s incompetence, or malice?
Please note that I will also be applying to renew my nexus card in the new year - that I have expedited border clearance as a consequence of my flawless record. Why should I lose that over withdrawn charges that should have never been filed?
I am consequently requesting an immediate destruction, as well as a fee waiver on it.
While I am willing to accept an apology, what I want is immediate action; I would like to be able to get to detroit for new year’s eve at the latest, please. My life has already been disrupted enough, as it is.
ok.
====
Fee Waiver and Expedition Request
I am requesting a file destruction on prints that should not have happened, and I’m going to explain why. While I’m not a member of the bar, I do have a legal background, and this should be interpreted as a letter from a lawyer. If the officer had listened to me in the first place, none of this would have happened.
A part of me wishes that I would have gone to trial so that I could attach a scathing denouncement of the situation by a judge. As it is, I have to point this out - the evidence in the case was never presented to a judge for analysis. How can I be in a situation where I have prints on file that are going to affect my border travel, when the issue was never put before a judge? That is preposterous. & yet, this is the reality I am faced with, due to the actions of a rogue officer.
On Sept 12th, 2018, an officer that I had had previous negative encounters with appeared at my door and asked me to stop applying to an advertisement for an apartment, under threat of being charged with harassment. Now, harassment in canada is very explicit - it specifically refers to threatening behaviour that causes a victim to fear for their safety, and does not apply to behaviour that is merely annoying. Fully aware that my behaviour would simply not qualify as harassment in a canadian legal context (and that attempts to define behaviour that is similar to mine as harassment have been declared unconstitutional by the united states supreme court), I asked the officer to define the term ‘harassment’ under the law. He told me that harassment was behaviour that is repeatedly annoying - and that is wrong. I told him that was incorrect, and invited him to write a report, fully aware that, under canadian law, an officer is required to obtain a warrant to make a charge on a hybrid offence, and that an arrest should not happen, even if charges are filed. I expected that the officer would fail to obtain a warrant, because a judge would understand what harassment is.
Unfortunately, the officer came back ten days later and arrested me without a warrant. I was then held without cause and fingerprinted while in custody, aware that struggling or refusing would be futile, and perhaps harmful. I think the most cursory observation of the evidence suggests that I was illegally detained, and because I was illegally detained I was also illegally printed. I will be dealing with this in the upcoming months.
After seven weeks of obfuscation by the crown, the charges were eventually dropped due to a lack of evidence - no reasonable chance of conviction. Great. Yet, I could have told you that in the first place - and a judge would have certainly stated as much, had the officer sought a warrant, as he is required to under the law.
It is one thing to have the officer(s) make an honest mistake and for an acquitted person to request a destruction after vindication through trial. It is another thing altogether for a person’s constitutional rights to be completely trampled over, and end up printed in a case that no judge would have ever issued a warrant for, and that ends up withdrawn over a lack of evidence. Had the officer sought a warrant, as he was required to, it would have been denied and the prints would have never been taken.
As mentioned, I will be pursuing this assault on my constitutional rights to various ends.
In the mean time, I have had my access to detroit severely restricted by these prints, which should have clearly never been taken. I am a disabled person on a fixed income. Why should I pay for the officer’s error? And why should I be subject to any waiting period at all? Have I not already (unjustly) suffered enough due to the officer’s incompetence, or malice?
Please note that I will also be applying to renew my nexus card in the new year - that I have expedited border clearance as a consequence of my flawless record. Why should I lose that over withdrawn charges that should have never been filed?
I am consequently requesting an immediate destruction, as well as a fee waiver on it.
While I am willing to accept an apology, what I want is immediate action; I would like to be able to get to detroit for new year’s eve at the latest, please. My life has already been disrupted enough, as it is.
the chatham office sent an email to the windsor office last night indicating that they acknowledge that they can't proceed without the "emails". they couldn't get this from the complainant. so the charges are now dropped.
it's a mixed outcome, as i have none of the disclosure i wanted and will need to file a series of foias to get it. and, trust me - i'm just getting started with this.
my immediate concern is in getting the prints destroyed. there is an ongoing investigation related to the officer. i have a bail hearing transcript coming for the discrimination suit. and, i'll need to evaluate the kind of evidence i need for the civil suit.
do i want to do this one thing at a time? well, the outcome of all of these things leads to the civil case, which might be better left put off for a bit.
and i need to call my grandmother tonight, too.
it's a mixed outcome, as i have none of the disclosure i wanted and will need to file a series of foias to get it. and, trust me - i'm just getting started with this.
my immediate concern is in getting the prints destroyed. there is an ongoing investigation related to the officer. i have a bail hearing transcript coming for the discrimination suit. and, i'll need to evaluate the kind of evidence i need for the civil suit.
do i want to do this one thing at a time? well, the outcome of all of these things leads to the civil case, which might be better left put off for a bit.
and i need to call my grandmother tonight, too.
for the record.
i have not had more than a handful of conversations with my mother about anything at all in roughly 15 years, and if you take out a brief period of six months when i did stay with her, i hadn't spoken to her for the ten years previously, either. i'm nearly 38 years old, and i haven't had a meaningful conversation with my mother since i was about 12 or 13.
while i was close to my father until his death in 2013, and actually have a better relationship with my maternal grandmother than i do with my mother, i haven't had a meaningful conversation with my younger sister in that time frame, either - and have really not spoken to her at all since my father's death.
what i'm trying to get across is that, while these people are technically my family, they are in every meaningful sense actually factually strangers. they don't know anything about me at all, and cannot be relied upon to provide the slightest bit of insight about me.
in the absence of any evidence, my mother no doubt interprets me through the filter of my father, which she interpreted through the filter of her own father. it is not possible for this process to lead to anything besides a fantastical projection, which, in the presence of her myriad mental health problems, can only produce a schizophrenic fantasy. the fact is that she would be unable to identify my thoughts or viewpoints from that of a complete stranger - because i am, in truth, a complete stranger, to her. she is not a reliable source of information.
my step-mother and i did not get along well, but at least she is not a stranger. yet, i would not present her as a reliable source of information, either.
if you must, please ignore my mother and especially ignore my sister and consult my grandmother or even my step-mother, instead.
i have not had more than a handful of conversations with my mother about anything at all in roughly 15 years, and if you take out a brief period of six months when i did stay with her, i hadn't spoken to her for the ten years previously, either. i'm nearly 38 years old, and i haven't had a meaningful conversation with my mother since i was about 12 or 13.
while i was close to my father until his death in 2013, and actually have a better relationship with my maternal grandmother than i do with my mother, i haven't had a meaningful conversation with my younger sister in that time frame, either - and have really not spoken to her at all since my father's death.
what i'm trying to get across is that, while these people are technically my family, they are in every meaningful sense actually factually strangers. they don't know anything about me at all, and cannot be relied upon to provide the slightest bit of insight about me.
in the absence of any evidence, my mother no doubt interprets me through the filter of my father, which she interpreted through the filter of her own father. it is not possible for this process to lead to anything besides a fantastical projection, which, in the presence of her myriad mental health problems, can only produce a schizophrenic fantasy. the fact is that she would be unable to identify my thoughts or viewpoints from that of a complete stranger - because i am, in truth, a complete stranger, to her. she is not a reliable source of information.
my step-mother and i did not get along well, but at least she is not a stranger. yet, i would not present her as a reliable source of information, either.
if you must, please ignore my mother and especially ignore my sister and consult my grandmother or even my step-mother, instead.
but, listen - i don't want to come down too hard around the question of potential prostitution. remember: i'm on the left. and, it's a classical marxist argument that all sexual relations in a capitalist society are necessarily prostitution. i've been over this before: once you reduce the actual issue to the question of prostitution, the next question to ask is whether or not that's worth prosecuting anybody over, and i'm not likely to agree that it is so long as consent is easily established, which it usually is.
the court isn't likely to accept the argument, granted. but, this classical marxist perspective actually pushes the idea rather forcefully that consent is incompatible with capitalism. but, then, what you need to do is look beyond the person soliciting; taking this perspective doesn't indict all men on solicitation charges, or all women on prostitution charges, so much as it indicts the system for making any relationship between the sexes (and much intrasex relations, as well) reducible to a financial transaction. it follows that if you want to establish ideas like love and consent - real consent - then you need to do away with capitalism altogether. for all the pablum that hallmark wants to push, the marxist view is that love and capitalism are in contradiction with each other.
so, the cynic on the left is actually likely to shrug it off - well, you wanted capitalism, didn't you? then, this is what you'll have. no policing can change the capitalist relation, power must be redistributed. and, if you flip the gender, you just change who is holding the whip - preferable to the capitalist female perhaps, but not a real answer, on the left.
the court isn't likely to accept the argument, granted. but, this classical marxist perspective actually pushes the idea rather forcefully that consent is incompatible with capitalism. but, then, what you need to do is look beyond the person soliciting; taking this perspective doesn't indict all men on solicitation charges, or all women on prostitution charges, so much as it indicts the system for making any relationship between the sexes (and much intrasex relations, as well) reducible to a financial transaction. it follows that if you want to establish ideas like love and consent - real consent - then you need to do away with capitalism altogether. for all the pablum that hallmark wants to push, the marxist view is that love and capitalism are in contradiction with each other.
so, the cynic on the left is actually likely to shrug it off - well, you wanted capitalism, didn't you? then, this is what you'll have. no policing can change the capitalist relation, power must be redistributed. and, if you flip the gender, you just change who is holding the whip - preferable to the capitalist female perhaps, but not a real answer, on the left.
the ck example at least could have been workplace harassment, but let's look at what would have been harassment, and what actually happened (as far as i've read).
suppose your boss calls you up and asks if he can jerk off when you're on the phone. you say no. then, you get fired or demoted the next day. ok - this is a scenario that would have been wrong, and the correct thing to do is sue.
and, suppose your boss calls you over and over again and asks to jerk off when you're on the phone, even though you've said no. well, that's certainly harassment, even if you get promoted the next day.
but, if you say no and nothing happens - or you maybe even get promoted - then i don't think there's anything wrong with that. that would neither be morally wrong, nor would it be against the law, in my estimation. a very strict workplace may interpret it as a problem, but it would probably be the boss that gets to sue for wrongful termination, in such a scenario. if i were the judge, i would consider that wrongful dismissal.
further, if the boss asks and you say yes then that's not anything more or less than a consensual encounter. so, this idea that you were forced into it by some kind of imagined system of hierarchy or something is not an argument for anything except schizophrenia. the hierarchy is an abstraction, useful for certain arguments on the left, but it is not a concrete thing that actually exists, and it cannot be referenced as an actual entity in a legal context. that is an argument from conspiracy; it's like blaming aliens, or the illuminati. perhaps the consent was attached to an assumption of favouritism, but insofar as that is true, it's a type of prostitution, and the wrongdoing would fall upon the person consenting under questionable premises. and, in situations where people are promoted in exchange for sexual favours - which i believe was the case in the weinstein fiasco - the correct charges are related to solicitation, because that's what is actually happening.
but, to have a consensual encounter and then decide afterwards that it didn't have the intended outcome is not a coherent accusation of harassment under any existing concept of the law. and, it follows that i don't actually think that louis ck is guilty of anything at all - except, perhaps, behaving in poor taste.
suppose your boss calls you up and asks if he can jerk off when you're on the phone. you say no. then, you get fired or demoted the next day. ok - this is a scenario that would have been wrong, and the correct thing to do is sue.
and, suppose your boss calls you over and over again and asks to jerk off when you're on the phone, even though you've said no. well, that's certainly harassment, even if you get promoted the next day.
but, if you say no and nothing happens - or you maybe even get promoted - then i don't think there's anything wrong with that. that would neither be morally wrong, nor would it be against the law, in my estimation. a very strict workplace may interpret it as a problem, but it would probably be the boss that gets to sue for wrongful termination, in such a scenario. if i were the judge, i would consider that wrongful dismissal.
further, if the boss asks and you say yes then that's not anything more or less than a consensual encounter. so, this idea that you were forced into it by some kind of imagined system of hierarchy or something is not an argument for anything except schizophrenia. the hierarchy is an abstraction, useful for certain arguments on the left, but it is not a concrete thing that actually exists, and it cannot be referenced as an actual entity in a legal context. that is an argument from conspiracy; it's like blaming aliens, or the illuminati. perhaps the consent was attached to an assumption of favouritism, but insofar as that is true, it's a type of prostitution, and the wrongdoing would fall upon the person consenting under questionable premises. and, in situations where people are promoted in exchange for sexual favours - which i believe was the case in the weinstein fiasco - the correct charges are related to solicitation, because that's what is actually happening.
but, to have a consensual encounter and then decide afterwards that it didn't have the intended outcome is not a coherent accusation of harassment under any existing concept of the law. and, it follows that i don't actually think that louis ck is guilty of anything at all - except, perhaps, behaving in poor taste.
so, why are all of these men just stepping aside and letting themselves by destroyed by ridiculous charges? franken is the worst example - he didn't do anything wrong. so, he should have pushed back. hard. and, you'll notice that the media narrative around the ck issue (and, i don't know anything about louis ck, nor do i think i'd find him very funny, based on what little i know about him) has shifted from "consensual" to "non-consensual" masturbation, due to some kind of neo-hobbesian, post-modernist claptrap about being unable to consent in the existence of a hierarchy, which is essentially an argument for slavery.
"i was just following orders, sir.".
the reason they're just rolling over is that they're sexists. they may not have done anything wrong, but they don't want to fight against the girls - because they're men, and men don't do that.
i'm neither a man nor a sexist, so i don't have any problems hitting back at a girl, when attacked - although that has nothing to do with my situation. i'm being charged by a faceless corporation, which i communicated with solely through an employee named "ryan". and, i'm being accused of repeated communication for the purposes of filling out a rental application. nonetheless, understand this - gender equality means that a man has the obligation to retaliate when attacked by a female. if you're just going to rollover and take it, you're just a stupid sexist idiot and you deserve what you get.
but, that is the change that needs to be asserted - men need to get used to the fact that women are going to fight them now, and they're going to have to defend themselves, when they do. that's equality.
"i was just following orders, sir.".
the reason they're just rolling over is that they're sexists. they may not have done anything wrong, but they don't want to fight against the girls - because they're men, and men don't do that.
i'm neither a man nor a sexist, so i don't have any problems hitting back at a girl, when attacked - although that has nothing to do with my situation. i'm being charged by a faceless corporation, which i communicated with solely through an employee named "ryan". and, i'm being accused of repeated communication for the purposes of filling out a rental application. nonetheless, understand this - gender equality means that a man has the obligation to retaliate when attacked by a female. if you're just going to rollover and take it, you're just a stupid sexist idiot and you deserve what you get.
but, that is the change that needs to be asserted - men need to get used to the fact that women are going to fight them now, and they're going to have to defend themselves, when they do. that's equality.
Tuesday, November 13, 2018
what's the update on disclosure?
the crown is delaying. i gave them a request for further disclosure on the 24th of october, and requested i come back for a follow-up on the 31st. they were insistent that they needed until the 14th, and the justice agreed.
the request never made it to chatham - meaning we just wasted the last the three weeks. and, they're going to get shit for it tomorrow.
so, what is going to happen tomorrow? well, i was supposed to schedule a resolution meeting, once the crown had analyzed the request. but, the crown never received the request. so, i'm going to have to go in tomorrow and complain about an unreasonable delay, then basically state the same thing i stated previously. the crown may claim there is no further disclosure, but how can the crown respond when it didn't receive the request? and, this opens up a more complex set of circumstances, as there is a conflict on the file. did the crown withhold the request on purpose?
so, i'm going to make my first formal request for a dismissal; the crown isn't taking this seriously.
i've also made a request for a transcript of the bail hearing, and plan to file discrimination charges within days of it getting here. i was waiting for documents, but they're clearly dragging their feet for a reason.
i haven't heard back from the office investigating the officer.
this is annoyingly stupid. and it's just going escalate from here.
the crown is delaying. i gave them a request for further disclosure on the 24th of october, and requested i come back for a follow-up on the 31st. they were insistent that they needed until the 14th, and the justice agreed.
the request never made it to chatham - meaning we just wasted the last the three weeks. and, they're going to get shit for it tomorrow.
so, what is going to happen tomorrow? well, i was supposed to schedule a resolution meeting, once the crown had analyzed the request. but, the crown never received the request. so, i'm going to have to go in tomorrow and complain about an unreasonable delay, then basically state the same thing i stated previously. the crown may claim there is no further disclosure, but how can the crown respond when it didn't receive the request? and, this opens up a more complex set of circumstances, as there is a conflict on the file. did the crown withhold the request on purpose?
so, i'm going to make my first formal request for a dismissal; the crown isn't taking this seriously.
i've also made a request for a transcript of the bail hearing, and plan to file discrimination charges within days of it getting here. i was waiting for documents, but they're clearly dragging their feet for a reason.
i haven't heard back from the office investigating the officer.
this is annoyingly stupid. and it's just going escalate from here.
so, i got the oesp to confirm that the credit is gone.
i called the hydro office to explain the plan of letting the oesp cut down the bill month over month and ask what they'd do if i followed through with it, and they had no meaningful response. "just check your bill". ok. i guess that's what i'm going to do.
the process is apparently rather mechanized, so i don't have a lot of space to talk to a person, or get a human response, and that's sort of what i was concerned about. if they mail a disconnection in february, can i talk to a human being to get a straight answer? i think that i should be able to get the point across well enough. i mean, they can see my usage, they can see the oesp, etc - it's a convincing argument. but, you can't argue with an algorithm.
i tried to insult an algorithm once, and i was impressed with myself, but i don't think it had much of an impact.
i did learn something, though - i learned that they can't disconnect in the winter. so, i'm kind of safe until probably march. and, the argument should just get stronger as it goes, and the balance comes down.
i just need to be conscious about usage for the next few months - the less i use, the faster it flips, despite very diminished returns over the $27 service fee.
so, that's the first thing for the day.
i called the hydro office to explain the plan of letting the oesp cut down the bill month over month and ask what they'd do if i followed through with it, and they had no meaningful response. "just check your bill". ok. i guess that's what i'm going to do.
the process is apparently rather mechanized, so i don't have a lot of space to talk to a person, or get a human response, and that's sort of what i was concerned about. if they mail a disconnection in february, can i talk to a human being to get a straight answer? i think that i should be able to get the point across well enough. i mean, they can see my usage, they can see the oesp, etc - it's a convincing argument. but, you can't argue with an algorithm.
i tried to insult an algorithm once, and i was impressed with myself, but i don't think it had much of an impact.
i did learn something, though - i learned that they can't disconnect in the winter. so, i'm kind of safe until probably march. and, the argument should just get stronger as it goes, and the balance comes down.
i just need to be conscious about usage for the next few months - the less i use, the faster it flips, despite very diminished returns over the $27 service fee.
so, that's the first thing for the day.
i have meet queer arabs and queer turks, but they didn't identify as muslims. and, no, you can't be a gay muslim - or at least not genuinely. you're just a living a lie, and if your family still talks to you, they're waiting it out.
but, i need to be clear on the point, if i haven't been (and i have been): i'm not arguing for racial intolerance or racial inequality. what i'm arguing for is a greater level of social coercion towards open apostasy.
i want the women to burn their hijabs in giant festivals denouncing patriarchal oppression, and i want the men to feel comfortable embracing each other.
....because it is these right-wing social values that threaten me, not their fashion decisions or their skin colour.
but, i need to be clear on the point, if i haven't been (and i have been): i'm not arguing for racial intolerance or racial inequality. what i'm arguing for is a greater level of social coercion towards open apostasy.
i want the women to burn their hijabs in giant festivals denouncing patriarchal oppression, and i want the men to feel comfortable embracing each other.
....because it is these right-wing social values that threaten me, not their fashion decisions or their skin colour.
it's a waste of time for everybody, as there's only two possible outcomes. the first is a secularization process, which leads to an end point where we're not talking about muslims anymore but arabs or pakistanis or somalis or whatever that have apostatized and denounced the faith, and then it's no longer a discussion - they're just some liberals with some brown skin, and nobody on the left is going to care about that. the other is that they hold hard to their religion, in which case that wall needs to come up, and it just needs to be explained to them that their views are not consistent with a secular, liberal or, dare i shudder to say, "progressive" view of western democracy - that they're going to find their values better reflected in the republican party.
see, and then the solidarity lies on a racial level and it starts to get weird, because the left should support the rights of muslims to be republicans and be accepted by conservative institutions. and, then what? do democrats write laws that force the republican institutions to accept muslims as equals? in a functional sense, this is what democrats and leftists are actually arguing for - the right to register these people as republican voters.
...because there has to be a breaking point, eventually. the left can only stand up for people they are fundamentally in opposition to for so long, and if there is ever any level of actual success, the muslims themselves are not shy in admitting that they will instantly bolt to the right.
so, what's the point?
the left needs to give the muslims a choice - convert or get lost.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/opinion/sunday/do-muslims-have-to-be-democrats-now.html
see, and then the solidarity lies on a racial level and it starts to get weird, because the left should support the rights of muslims to be republicans and be accepted by conservative institutions. and, then what? do democrats write laws that force the republican institutions to accept muslims as equals? in a functional sense, this is what democrats and leftists are actually arguing for - the right to register these people as republican voters.
...because there has to be a breaking point, eventually. the left can only stand up for people they are fundamentally in opposition to for so long, and if there is ever any level of actual success, the muslims themselves are not shy in admitting that they will instantly bolt to the right.
so, what's the point?
the left needs to give the muslims a choice - convert or get lost.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/opinion/sunday/do-muslims-have-to-be-democrats-now.html
expressions of moral outrage are comical - it's the comedy jackpot, the higher plane, the whole point of telling a joke.
and, i mean - do you not realize that i'm trying to offend you?
do you think it's some kind of accident that you're upset? because the joke is less in the offence, and more in the reaction of being offended - that's the part that's really funny, the puritanical reactions against moral turpitude and statements of self-righteous superiority. that's where the laugh is. that's what i want to hear.
a few decades ago, i would have jokingly asked a sarcastic question, "what are you going to do? put me in jail?". nowadays, that's becoming increasingly less farfetched. so, these arguments need to be had in the legal arena, and these attacks need to be beaten back.
people need to STOP APOLOGIZING and start FIGHTING BACK. you take these freedoms for granted. but, freedom is not something to put on a shelf and forget about, it is something that must be constantly exercised. and, when people challenge your rights, you need to assert them, not apologize for having them.
and, i mean - do you not realize that i'm trying to offend you?
do you think it's some kind of accident that you're upset? because the joke is less in the offence, and more in the reaction of being offended - that's the part that's really funny, the puritanical reactions against moral turpitude and statements of self-righteous superiority. that's where the laugh is. that's what i want to hear.
a few decades ago, i would have jokingly asked a sarcastic question, "what are you going to do? put me in jail?". nowadays, that's becoming increasingly less farfetched. so, these arguments need to be had in the legal arena, and these attacks need to be beaten back.
people need to STOP APOLOGIZING and start FIGHTING BACK. you take these freedoms for granted. but, freedom is not something to put on a shelf and forget about, it is something that must be constantly exercised. and, when people challenge your rights, you need to assert them, not apologize for having them.
and, i just don't understand how we got to this point where the left is complaining about being offended. that's supposed to be a right-wing thing.
nobody imagines the young liberal activist as clutching her pearls - that's what the old conservative woman is supposed to do. and, the young liberal activist is supposed to enjoy watching her squirm, and laugh at her for being uptight.
i really think the (real) left needs to stop giving a fuck, and start poking people in the eyes. when somebody says "don't say that, it's offensive", the proper response should be to yell it into that person's face 40 times, and laugh at them when they start crying.
and, i intend to lead the way.
so, go ahead and tell me you're offended - that's just an affirmation that i'm doing something right.
nobody imagines the young liberal activist as clutching her pearls - that's what the old conservative woman is supposed to do. and, the young liberal activist is supposed to enjoy watching her squirm, and laugh at her for being uptight.
i really think the (real) left needs to stop giving a fuck, and start poking people in the eyes. when somebody says "don't say that, it's offensive", the proper response should be to yell it into that person's face 40 times, and laugh at them when they start crying.
and, i intend to lead the way.
so, go ahead and tell me you're offended - that's just an affirmation that i'm doing something right.
"j, did you actually make the football team?"
yeah.
"matt didn't make it though."
matt needs to either lose some weight or gain some weight if he wants to play football.
"i see. and, dave didn't make it?"
dave was apparently lacking in skills. i dunno. i didn't talk to him about it.
"but, you made it? really. i'm just surprised. you don't come across as somebody that would be interested in football."
well, i'm not, really. it's more a dad thing.
"right. but i still can't believe you made the team."
well, i'm a fast runner, and i can actually catch. i'm very healthy; i'm in very good shape. i know football is thought of as this violent sport, but the fact is that there's always going to be a place on a football team for people that can outrun the field.
"right. i guess that not everybody on the field has to be physical and confrontational. so, what position do you play, again?"
left bench. they tried to move me to the right side a few times, but it didn't really fit. i'm a natural on the left bench, though.
=============
i actually quit the team midway through the year because i didn't want to skip out on math class. that was the excuse i needed.
yeah.
"matt didn't make it though."
matt needs to either lose some weight or gain some weight if he wants to play football.
"i see. and, dave didn't make it?"
dave was apparently lacking in skills. i dunno. i didn't talk to him about it.
"but, you made it? really. i'm just surprised. you don't come across as somebody that would be interested in football."
well, i'm not, really. it's more a dad thing.
"right. but i still can't believe you made the team."
well, i'm a fast runner, and i can actually catch. i'm very healthy; i'm in very good shape. i know football is thought of as this violent sport, but the fact is that there's always going to be a place on a football team for people that can outrun the field.
"right. i guess that not everybody on the field has to be physical and confrontational. so, what position do you play, again?"
left bench. they tried to move me to the right side a few times, but it didn't really fit. i'm a natural on the left bench, though.
=============
i actually quit the team midway through the year because i didn't want to skip out on math class. that was the excuse i needed.
Monday, November 12, 2018
it's actually going to be closer to $30 in service charges.
there's a fixed rate of $26.94. so, even if i don't use any electricity at all, i still have to pay $27. then, they charge $0.0174/kwh - which is no doubt the actual cost. that $27 is just theft.
but, on 75 kwh, i'd be paying 26.94 + 0.0174*75 = $28.25 on service fees, on what is a $5-6 dollar electrical bill. so, it's going to come to around $35, after the taxes cancel out.
that means i'm looking at saving something more like $10-15 a month, rather than $25 a month, and it might take all year to balance it out.
but, it still doesn't make sense to pay the bill. if anything, it makes less sense to pay the bill, because i'm just paying exorbitant service fees.
there's a fixed rate of $26.94. so, even if i don't use any electricity at all, i still have to pay $27. then, they charge $0.0174/kwh - which is no doubt the actual cost. that $27 is just theft.
but, on 75 kwh, i'd be paying 26.94 + 0.0174*75 = $28.25 on service fees, on what is a $5-6 dollar electrical bill. so, it's going to come to around $35, after the taxes cancel out.
that means i'm looking at saving something more like $10-15 a month, rather than $25 a month, and it might take all year to balance it out.
but, it still doesn't make sense to pay the bill. if anything, it makes less sense to pay the bill, because i'm just paying exorbitant service fees.
presuming that $270 credit is truly lost, i just want to work out the logic in not paying the bill - or why paying the bill doesn't make any sense.
suppose i pay the bill in full, tomorrow, and that i'm able to cut my usage down to around 2-3 kwh for the next few months by just closing the lid on the laptop when i'm not using it. 2.5*30 = 75 kwh, which is going to be some like $5.00 in actual electricity. but, then they're going to charge me $15 in service charges, so the bill will be around $20. the credit is $45, so i'd be building up $25/month.
if that works itself out, i'll have a credit of $25 for november, $50 for december, $75 for january, $100 for february, etc. but, what i've learned is that i can't access this money, so it will just continue to build. i made $270 in credits over ten months in the last apartment - after paying down the first bill.
if i don't pay the bill, i'm going to be down $47 for september ($30 setup...) and i'm going to be looking at around a $60 bill for october, minus the $20. let's say it's $100, even, together. but, that will $75 when the bill gets calculated for november, $50 for december, $25 for january and then breaks even when the bill gets calculated for february, some time in mid march.
you could say "that's a long wait. just pay the $100.", but you're missing the point - i can't do anything with that money, otherwise.
now, if i have access to the other credit, then that's different. i can take the $270 and use it to pay the difference off right away. but, if i don't, i'm just throwing away $100 for no discernible reason.
it's not clear why the province designed the system they way it did, other than hoping that most people wouldn't know about it and wouldn't apply. but, i think you need to blame them, and not me, as they designed the system in such a way that incentivizes me to miss payments.
i'll call them tomorrow to get a straight answer.
suppose i pay the bill in full, tomorrow, and that i'm able to cut my usage down to around 2-3 kwh for the next few months by just closing the lid on the laptop when i'm not using it. 2.5*30 = 75 kwh, which is going to be some like $5.00 in actual electricity. but, then they're going to charge me $15 in service charges, so the bill will be around $20. the credit is $45, so i'd be building up $25/month.
if that works itself out, i'll have a credit of $25 for november, $50 for december, $75 for january, $100 for february, etc. but, what i've learned is that i can't access this money, so it will just continue to build. i made $270 in credits over ten months in the last apartment - after paying down the first bill.
if i don't pay the bill, i'm going to be down $47 for september ($30 setup...) and i'm going to be looking at around a $60 bill for october, minus the $20. let's say it's $100, even, together. but, that will $75 when the bill gets calculated for november, $50 for december, $25 for january and then breaks even when the bill gets calculated for february, some time in mid march.
you could say "that's a long wait. just pay the $100.", but you're missing the point - i can't do anything with that money, otherwise.
now, if i have access to the other credit, then that's different. i can take the $270 and use it to pay the difference off right away. but, if i don't, i'm just throwing away $100 for no discernible reason.
it's not clear why the province designed the system they way it did, other than hoping that most people wouldn't know about it and wouldn't apply. but, i think you need to blame them, and not me, as they designed the system in such a way that incentivizes me to miss payments.
i'll call them tomorrow to get a straight answer.
checking the electricity usage from last week, i've figured out the following:
both halogen type j bathroom lights - 0.24
just 100 W - .11
just 150 W - 0.13-0.15
*just fan - 0.1
fan + grow lamp - 0.24
fan + led - .06
both kitchen spotlights - 0.04
just halogen kitchen spotlight. - 0.04
led kitchen spotlight < 0.01
two kitchen leds - .02
inside hallway (two halogens, 1 led) - .10
*given that the led is negligible, i must have had something else interfering with the fan,initially. later testing seems to uphold the second reading, indicating the fan alone was probably half the initial reading.
since fixing the lights in the bathroom, my usage has fallen back to more normal levels, which is around 3.5-4.0 kwh. that should give me a monthly bill around $30.
so, what am i going to do? am i going to pay this thing?
well, i'm guessing the bill is going to be around $60 in total, and that i should get about $20 on the rebate, indicating it should be around $40. but, that amount is entirely in fees.
likewise, the first bill only used about $7 in electricity, and the rebate would have covered it, but it's $47 due to service fees.
i've done this analysis before. the problem is not that the cost of electricity is high, it's that the utility company is adding on service fees and gauging customers for no apparent reason.
if i don't pay the bill before wednesday, i'm going to have something like $100 owing, and it's all going to be in service fees. i'll have paid the cost of the actual electricity. this is really ridiculous.
i'm considering paying for the setup fee and letting the oesp catch up ojn the rest, which i'll be able todo by being extra careful with the laptop. even if the laptop is only running around .07, which is probably a little low, that's still 1.68 a day, which is about 45-50% of the daily total. if i can cut that by a third for the first couple of months, it should help me catch up.
i just don't want to reward then for the service charges. rather, i want to cut usage to compensate for them.
both halogen type j bathroom lights - 0.24
just 100 W - .11
just 150 W - 0.13-0.15
*just fan - 0.1
fan + grow lamp - 0.24
fan + led - .06
both kitchen spotlights - 0.04
just halogen kitchen spotlight. - 0.04
led kitchen spotlight < 0.01
two kitchen leds - .02
inside hallway (two halogens, 1 led) - .10
*given that the led is negligible, i must have had something else interfering with the fan,initially. later testing seems to uphold the second reading, indicating the fan alone was probably half the initial reading.
since fixing the lights in the bathroom, my usage has fallen back to more normal levels, which is around 3.5-4.0 kwh. that should give me a monthly bill around $30.
so, what am i going to do? am i going to pay this thing?
well, i'm guessing the bill is going to be around $60 in total, and that i should get about $20 on the rebate, indicating it should be around $40. but, that amount is entirely in fees.
likewise, the first bill only used about $7 in electricity, and the rebate would have covered it, but it's $47 due to service fees.
i've done this analysis before. the problem is not that the cost of electricity is high, it's that the utility company is adding on service fees and gauging customers for no apparent reason.
if i don't pay the bill before wednesday, i'm going to have something like $100 owing, and it's all going to be in service fees. i'll have paid the cost of the actual electricity. this is really ridiculous.
i'm considering paying for the setup fee and letting the oesp catch up ojn the rest, which i'll be able todo by being extra careful with the laptop. even if the laptop is only running around .07, which is probably a little low, that's still 1.68 a day, which is about 45-50% of the daily total. if i can cut that by a third for the first couple of months, it should help me catch up.
i just don't want to reward then for the service charges. rather, i want to cut usage to compensate for them.
i will say this, though - given that marijuana is now legal in both michigan and ontario, it is plausible that i may have smoked my last cigarette, ever.
i'm sure i'll probably smoke a joint again at some time in the future, and i'm sure i'll probably have a beer again, some day. but, i'm not sure i'll ever smoke another cigarette, and would be just as happy if i never do.
i'm sure i'll probably smoke a joint again at some time in the future, and i'm sure i'll probably have a beer again, some day. but, i'm not sure i'll ever smoke another cigarette, and would be just as happy if i never do.
i was hoping to get through september by the end of the weekend, but i lost most of saturday to a systematic link update over the review site and i've spent most of the last 12 hours sleeping. i hadn't really slept since thursday afternoon, so i guess i was catching up.
i'm beginning to conclude that the remaining smoky smell in here is a combination of dry air and dust. i might change my mind, still. i mean, it's certainly making me cough and irritating my throat and nose, but, since i finished the laundry last week, the only thing i've been able to really tie it to is the heaters. the heat gradient (it's below freezing.) right now should be defining negative pressure, so i shouldn't really be getting pollution from outside, although it does seem to be a continuing annoyance.
i'm going to hope that the dust comes down as the place is put in order. it will probably never go away entirely, but hopefully it gets a lot better. and, i'm just going to have to get used to drinking a lot of water to offset the extreme aridity.
is there still some chance that somebody is smoking upstairs? i can't rule it out. but, if that's a part of the problem, it doesn't seem to be the totality of it. i'm more concerned about the pollution in the neighbourhood, right now, even if somebody is up there smoking. i'm going to have to find a way to seal the windows up.
the immediate solution is to drink more water - a lot more water.
i'm going to get through a bit more this morning, stopping before i get to the major vlog from the night that i may have been roofied, and woke up in some stranger's car. but, i need to put it aside for the day, at least - and i might not get back to it until thursday.
i'm beginning to conclude that the remaining smoky smell in here is a combination of dry air and dust. i might change my mind, still. i mean, it's certainly making me cough and irritating my throat and nose, but, since i finished the laundry last week, the only thing i've been able to really tie it to is the heaters. the heat gradient (it's below freezing.) right now should be defining negative pressure, so i shouldn't really be getting pollution from outside, although it does seem to be a continuing annoyance.
i'm going to hope that the dust comes down as the place is put in order. it will probably never go away entirely, but hopefully it gets a lot better. and, i'm just going to have to get used to drinking a lot of water to offset the extreme aridity.
is there still some chance that somebody is smoking upstairs? i can't rule it out. but, if that's a part of the problem, it doesn't seem to be the totality of it. i'm more concerned about the pollution in the neighbourhood, right now, even if somebody is up there smoking. i'm going to have to find a way to seal the windows up.
the immediate solution is to drink more water - a lot more water.
i'm going to get through a bit more this morning, stopping before i get to the major vlog from the night that i may have been roofied, and woke up in some stranger's car. but, i need to put it aside for the day, at least - and i might not get back to it until thursday.
another thing that people don't realize (and i had no idea, either, until i looked into it) is that the leading cause of homelessness amongst youth is not addiction or mental illness but....
homosexuality.
that's the sad truth: a very strong plurality of the kids you see on the street were kicked out of their homes for the crime of being queer. it follows that addressing attitudes around this very specific issue should cut homelessness rates by nearly 50%, and also that the shelters should be organizing themselves around the very specific issue of dealing with queer youths.
but, you have to take the time to figure that out before you realize it.
homosexuality.
that's the sad truth: a very strong plurality of the kids you see on the street were kicked out of their homes for the crime of being queer. it follows that addressing attitudes around this very specific issue should cut homelessness rates by nearly 50%, and also that the shelters should be organizing themselves around the very specific issue of dealing with queer youths.
but, you have to take the time to figure that out before you realize it.
the comment about staying in school was unfortunately ignorant, enough that this idiot should probably get fired, as the people getting hit by this are mostly dealing with mental or physical disabilities.
but, it's encouraging to see the right narrative being presented.
https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/lack-of-affordable-housing-blamed-for-windsor-s-homelessness-1.4082229
but, it's encouraging to see the right narrative being presented.
https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/lack-of-affordable-housing-blamed-for-windsor-s-homelessness-1.4082229
Sunday, November 11, 2018
it's easy to look at the vlogs and claim i had a perfect living arrangement and was stupid to screw it up, but that is wrong.
1) the unit was infested with bugs.
2) the building was full of second-hand smoke.
3) there was some kind of chemical leak - probably a natural gas leak - that was giving me migraines. i haven't had a migraine since i moved out of there.
4) the neighbourhood was infested with stray cats, who left piles of feces in the backyard.
5) the neighbours were continually chain smoking in the backyard, making it hard to keep the window open, to fight the a/c.
6) the building owners were constantly harassing me.
7) the neighbourhood was becoming increasingly dangerous, and at this point is flat out unsafe.
8) there was some kind of magnetic field in the neighbourhood that was disrupting my equipment.
the harassment was not minor; it ranged from leaving feces on my window sill (which i have video evidence of) to leaving cigarette butts at my front door to entering my unit when i was gone. the intent was clearly to try to get me to move out. i had no choice but to try and push back, but i could not have kept any money awarded to me as compensation (unless in the form of rent reduction), so the attempt from the start was to try and change behaviour.
what do you do when the building you live in gets bought out by a pathological liar that is harassing you on a daily basis and wants you to move out? there's no good answer, it's just a terrible turn of events. your only real options are to either try and force the owners to sell by bankrupting them and/or sending them to jail, or to relent and move out. i initially picked the first option, then stepped back when they made what seemed like a legitimate step to change their behaviour - only to realize within days that it was simply another example of pathological dishonesty, and antisocial behaviour, indicating that there wasn't a solution besides bleeding them dry, and staying there would be a long slog of constant court battles - i was going to have to sue them over and over again until they had to sell.
i have argued in this space that the ruling against me (eviction for personal use) was incorrect, and i do believe that i would have won an appeal. i even suspect some corruption on the court, unfortunately. but, i was living in a roach-infested ashtray that was giving me headaches and had bad wiring that was interfering with my ability to record. i had a moment of clarity: staying there no longer felt worth fighting for.
i did not lose money on the move, in fact i gained last month's rent from the city, so i did not have any damages to recoup, but came out ahead by $700. they also covered moving costs. on the other hand, the process must have cost them between $5,000-$10,000.
so, i could have re-opened the harassment case after i moved, but i wouldn't have been able to benefit from it. on winning the case, i would have had to declare the money as income, and handed it back to the odsp office. so, why bother? i wanted to look forwards. the purpose of the case was to try and get them to stop the constant harassment intending to get me to move, or to bankrupt them if they wouldn't. once i had moved, the purpose became purely punitive, and it seemed like they had already been punished via the costs of hiring representation and appealing to the board. things were looking up; i had better things to do.
i did keep an eye on the unit to see if they were renting it, as that would give me a path to damages i could claim via rent reduction. it doesn't look like they did. i suspect they realized that the unit was not half as valuable as they thought, after all. who knows how much money they've sunk into it, trying to renovate it...
as we know, the living situation in the apartment was not good for me. but, the difficulties i had in the apartment do not negate the problems i had in the previous basement, which were a consequence of a number of changes: installing the gas furnace seems to have created leaks that gave me headaches and broke the electrical wiring, my decision to quit smoking made the unit difficult to live in, gross neighbours moved in and the building changed ownership, with a new owner that was a dishonest, capitalistic nihilist. it would have been better if i would have gotten it right the first time, but i had to move out of there, and would have even if i hadn't quit smoking.
hopefully, it works out better, here, once i do the things i need to do to get the unit in proper order.
but, i don't look back at that as something lost - i'm better off being out of there.
1) the unit was infested with bugs.
2) the building was full of second-hand smoke.
3) there was some kind of chemical leak - probably a natural gas leak - that was giving me migraines. i haven't had a migraine since i moved out of there.
4) the neighbourhood was infested with stray cats, who left piles of feces in the backyard.
5) the neighbours were continually chain smoking in the backyard, making it hard to keep the window open, to fight the a/c.
6) the building owners were constantly harassing me.
7) the neighbourhood was becoming increasingly dangerous, and at this point is flat out unsafe.
8) there was some kind of magnetic field in the neighbourhood that was disrupting my equipment.
the harassment was not minor; it ranged from leaving feces on my window sill (which i have video evidence of) to leaving cigarette butts at my front door to entering my unit when i was gone. the intent was clearly to try to get me to move out. i had no choice but to try and push back, but i could not have kept any money awarded to me as compensation (unless in the form of rent reduction), so the attempt from the start was to try and change behaviour.
what do you do when the building you live in gets bought out by a pathological liar that is harassing you on a daily basis and wants you to move out? there's no good answer, it's just a terrible turn of events. your only real options are to either try and force the owners to sell by bankrupting them and/or sending them to jail, or to relent and move out. i initially picked the first option, then stepped back when they made what seemed like a legitimate step to change their behaviour - only to realize within days that it was simply another example of pathological dishonesty, and antisocial behaviour, indicating that there wasn't a solution besides bleeding them dry, and staying there would be a long slog of constant court battles - i was going to have to sue them over and over again until they had to sell.
i have argued in this space that the ruling against me (eviction for personal use) was incorrect, and i do believe that i would have won an appeal. i even suspect some corruption on the court, unfortunately. but, i was living in a roach-infested ashtray that was giving me headaches and had bad wiring that was interfering with my ability to record. i had a moment of clarity: staying there no longer felt worth fighting for.
i did not lose money on the move, in fact i gained last month's rent from the city, so i did not have any damages to recoup, but came out ahead by $700. they also covered moving costs. on the other hand, the process must have cost them between $5,000-$10,000.
so, i could have re-opened the harassment case after i moved, but i wouldn't have been able to benefit from it. on winning the case, i would have had to declare the money as income, and handed it back to the odsp office. so, why bother? i wanted to look forwards. the purpose of the case was to try and get them to stop the constant harassment intending to get me to move, or to bankrupt them if they wouldn't. once i had moved, the purpose became purely punitive, and it seemed like they had already been punished via the costs of hiring representation and appealing to the board. things were looking up; i had better things to do.
i did keep an eye on the unit to see if they were renting it, as that would give me a path to damages i could claim via rent reduction. it doesn't look like they did. i suspect they realized that the unit was not half as valuable as they thought, after all. who knows how much money they've sunk into it, trying to renovate it...
as we know, the living situation in the apartment was not good for me. but, the difficulties i had in the apartment do not negate the problems i had in the previous basement, which were a consequence of a number of changes: installing the gas furnace seems to have created leaks that gave me headaches and broke the electrical wiring, my decision to quit smoking made the unit difficult to live in, gross neighbours moved in and the building changed ownership, with a new owner that was a dishonest, capitalistic nihilist. it would have been better if i would have gotten it right the first time, but i had to move out of there, and would have even if i hadn't quit smoking.
hopefully, it works out better, here, once i do the things i need to do to get the unit in proper order.
but, i don't look back at that as something lost - i'm better off being out of there.
the guy that i signed the lease with was honest, if not very smart.
the woman that took over was neither intelligent nor honest, but a pathological liar that would repeatedly balls out lie to me to my face in ways that were not difficult to detect. she seemed to think she was smart, and that her intelligence level was correlated with her ability to trick people into thinking things that were not true. but, she wasn't fooling anybody, she was just an obvious liar.
i've been over this point in this space repeatedly and don't see the use in continuing on with it. i guess the truth will come out when i finally get to publishing the vlogs from that space.
i just need to state it again: this woman is not merely a little bit dishonest, she is constantly lying, and cannot be trusted to state the most basic truths.
the woman that took over was neither intelligent nor honest, but a pathological liar that would repeatedly balls out lie to me to my face in ways that were not difficult to detect. she seemed to think she was smart, and that her intelligence level was correlated with her ability to trick people into thinking things that were not true. but, she wasn't fooling anybody, she was just an obvious liar.
i've been over this point in this space repeatedly and don't see the use in continuing on with it. i guess the truth will come out when i finally get to publishing the vlogs from that space.
i just need to state it again: this woman is not merely a little bit dishonest, she is constantly lying, and cannot be trusted to state the most basic truths.
and, listen - there is no ambiguity on the point. the bugs in the previous basement were oriental roaches and looked like this:
oriental roaches live in drains and sewage systems, cannot climb walls, and move very slowly because they eat a low nutrition diet of sewage. so, they are both the grossest type of roach and the easiest to deal with.
as i am not an etymologist., and bugs can be difficult to id, there was an initial point of less than certainty. but, it was a short amount of time before i was certain about it. and, looking back, there is really no ambiguity.
further, it's not like the property owners denied it - they were forthright about it, and willing to work with me to help me contain it. they claimed they were 'american roaches', and i did see a couple of roaches that i think were german, but i was able to deal with them by blocking holes in the electrical heating. these ones were faster and more reactive to stimuli; they would jump into holes in the wall before you could get them. i was there from mid-2013 to late 2017, and i don't remember seeing these roaches - at all - after the first few months of living there. the steel wool worked like a charm.
the ones that kept coming back were the orientals. what the property owner told me was that they came in through the sewer lines, which were open in the back room. i was able to get a look at it at one point, when i finally forced them to get an eel in to clear the drain, and it's some kind of ancient system that is really an open sewer. i agreed with the analysis, but i was convinced they were coming in around the back of the unit, rather than under the front door.
we decided that it would be best if they let me deal with it, i just requested that they buy me the pesticides. so, i'd ask for some more spray every once in a while and liberally go over the back spaces with it.
there's quite a bit of documented evidence over the course of the vlog - i kill roaches, take pictures of their dead bodies, etc. i'd invite some analysis. but, it's not an open question, and not a debate i had when i lived there - they readily conceded the point.
oriental roaches live in drains and sewage systems, cannot climb walls, and move very slowly because they eat a low nutrition diet of sewage. so, they are both the grossest type of roach and the easiest to deal with.
as i am not an etymologist., and bugs can be difficult to id, there was an initial point of less than certainty. but, it was a short amount of time before i was certain about it. and, looking back, there is really no ambiguity.
further, it's not like the property owners denied it - they were forthright about it, and willing to work with me to help me contain it. they claimed they were 'american roaches', and i did see a couple of roaches that i think were german, but i was able to deal with them by blocking holes in the electrical heating. these ones were faster and more reactive to stimuli; they would jump into holes in the wall before you could get them. i was there from mid-2013 to late 2017, and i don't remember seeing these roaches - at all - after the first few months of living there. the steel wool worked like a charm.
the ones that kept coming back were the orientals. what the property owner told me was that they came in through the sewer lines, which were open in the back room. i was able to get a look at it at one point, when i finally forced them to get an eel in to clear the drain, and it's some kind of ancient system that is really an open sewer. i agreed with the analysis, but i was convinced they were coming in around the back of the unit, rather than under the front door.
we decided that it would be best if they let me deal with it, i just requested that they buy me the pesticides. so, i'd ask for some more spray every once in a while and liberally go over the back spaces with it.
there's quite a bit of documented evidence over the course of the vlog - i kill roaches, take pictures of their dead bodies, etc. i'd invite some analysis. but, it's not an open question, and not a debate i had when i lived there - they readily conceded the point.
so, i do, in fact, appear to be in the northern range of the boxelder bug, as i'm in that little bit of canadian range around detroit.
i'm not an etymologist, and identifying bugs can be tricky, so i might be wrong, but i'm pretty sure it's not a roach - i spent quite a while studying roaches in the last basement, and this doesn't fit the description of any i've seen. to begin with, it's very small compared to most species of roaches. but, this picture is pretty close to spot on:
i just caught it stumbling around in my blanket when i was napping; woke up to it, initially thought it was a phantom. i'd never seen one before....
and, it is in fact the first bug i've seen in here - excluding a couple of small centipedes.
apparently, they live on trees and winter inside and it's not something to be concerned about until i start seeing a few more of them. but, i'm wondering if this was the smell i was noticing.
i can chase some bugs out if i have to; if this is the worst of it, it seems like a minor annoyance.
i'm not an etymologist, and identifying bugs can be tricky, so i might be wrong, but i'm pretty sure it's not a roach - i spent quite a while studying roaches in the last basement, and this doesn't fit the description of any i've seen. to begin with, it's very small compared to most species of roaches. but, this picture is pretty close to spot on:
and, it is in fact the first bug i've seen in here - excluding a couple of small centipedes.
apparently, they live on trees and winter inside and it's not something to be concerned about until i start seeing a few more of them. but, i'm wondering if this was the smell i was noticing.
i can chase some bugs out if i have to; if this is the worst of it, it seems like a minor annoyance.
she got a friend to do it, in the hallway. i think it was before algebra class, because i remember it was in the c building, the old building at pius, which was still haunted by the ghost of dan akroyd (and who you gonna call when it's the ghost of dan akroyd?) from the days when it was a real catholic school, with nuns and priests, and i don't remember taking any other classes in the c building that year.
hopefully, the remaining aura of dan akroyd's sense of humour is helping the dead souls of the people that were killed there, years ago, by an angry child. this was all years before my time.
finite math was in the portable. calculus was in the new building, which was what? a? b? i don't remember. so was english, physics, bio & chem - although i think i took bio & chem the year before. computer science was downstairs. and that's the eight i took.
most people took 6 pre-university courses; i took 8 because i didn't know what i wanted to study, and i wanted my options open. clearly, i was leaning towards a science-based education. that said, i would have liked to have taken a music course as well, but there wasn't really an option. a lot of people took geography, but i felt this was pointless. i somewhat regret not taking history. were there other options? i think economics was an option. the only mandatory course to graduate was english.
so, it was definitely algebra class.
i remember coming in after i told her friend 'no', and she was shaking and distraught and embarrassed and...not exactly crying, but clearly on the brink of it. again: still a teenage girl, and on some level the smart ones are the manic ones, right? she was visibly very upset.
so, i tried to be rational, and i think it worked.
"listen, i don't want to go to prom. i have my own reasons. that doesn't mean i hate you. i'm a little surprised by the request, but i'm not going to get weird about this. and, we can keep it between the three of us. so, let's just be rational about it and move forwards. i'm sure you'll find somebody else."
she was a smart kid, and she instantly perked up and went back to her normal self - stoic, distant, introverted and kind of barely there.
but, i don't remember actually speaking to her again after that.
hopefully, the remaining aura of dan akroyd's sense of humour is helping the dead souls of the people that were killed there, years ago, by an angry child. this was all years before my time.
finite math was in the portable. calculus was in the new building, which was what? a? b? i don't remember. so was english, physics, bio & chem - although i think i took bio & chem the year before. computer science was downstairs. and that's the eight i took.
most people took 6 pre-university courses; i took 8 because i didn't know what i wanted to study, and i wanted my options open. clearly, i was leaning towards a science-based education. that said, i would have liked to have taken a music course as well, but there wasn't really an option. a lot of people took geography, but i felt this was pointless. i somewhat regret not taking history. were there other options? i think economics was an option. the only mandatory course to graduate was english.
so, it was definitely algebra class.
i remember coming in after i told her friend 'no', and she was shaking and distraught and embarrassed and...not exactly crying, but clearly on the brink of it. again: still a teenage girl, and on some level the smart ones are the manic ones, right? she was visibly very upset.
so, i tried to be rational, and i think it worked.
"listen, i don't want to go to prom. i have my own reasons. that doesn't mean i hate you. i'm a little surprised by the request, but i'm not going to get weird about this. and, we can keep it between the three of us. so, let's just be rational about it and move forwards. i'm sure you'll find somebody else."
she was a smart kid, and she instantly perked up and went back to her normal self - stoic, distant, introverted and kind of barely there.
but, i don't remember actually speaking to her again after that.
so, a muslim, a republican and a liberal walk into a film festival. the popcorn-tender asks them - who is your favourite director, oliver stone or david lynch?
the muslim immediately responds "oliver stone".
the republican says "david lynch".
the liberal says "neither. i don't believe in capital punishment.".
the muslim immediately responds "oliver stone".
the republican says "david lynch".
the liberal says "neither. i don't believe in capital punishment.".
Saturday, November 10, 2018
no, listen.
this is what i need you to do.
if you go through my blog and replace the term "muslim" with the term "republican", you need to ask yourself if you're still upset or not - because my criticism of muslims is exactly the same as my criticism of republicans, or of christians in general, and if you react differently then you need to explain why. so, if it upsets you when i say it about muslims, but it doesn't upset you when i say it about christians, or republicans, then you need to ask yourself why that is.
& to be as clear as i can be, if i haven't already been, my opposition is to any kind of organized religion, or, more broadly, any kind of conservative institution - including the democratic party, itself. that is, i'm not making the argument you hear on the right that criticism of christianity should be held to the same standards as criticism of islam, but am rather introducing an argument from the left that criticism of islam should be as deep and as frivolous and normal and routine as the widespread criticism of christianity is. and, yes that is the correct argument from the left. if you want to argue that islam should not be criticized because it might offend some muslims, that is an exceedingly right-wing position.
i have pointed out before that there are two reasons that you might react differently to a criticism of islam than you would to a criticism of the republican party (and, again, i criticize both in this space). the first is that you don't actually realize that republicans and muslims are essentially the same thing, with the caveat that muslims are far more extreme than republicans, in general. there are neither moderate republicans nor are there moderate muslims. so, the first explanation is ignorance, and i suspect that this is the proper explanation when dealing with most activists on the ground - whether they've been taught to see the issue as racial rather than ideological, or they're just mindlessly following a trend, the basic point is that they actually don't have the slightest idea what they're talking about, they just think they're doing something good. this is a broader cultural problem that needs to be addressed at the organizing level - the debate that needs to be had here is about the longterm consequences of renormalizing these value systems. and, this is where the second explanation asserts itself - there may actually be some people organizing on the left that actually uphold these values, and see islam as a way to reverse a moral decline in society. it is these people that are most dangerous to the left-wing project, and that need to be defeated in open debate, not the mindless foot soldiers on the ground, who will shift allegiances with the wind.
i've spent my whole life fighting against religious value systems, and i'm not going to stop or tone it down or dial it back just because it is unpopular this month. rather, i intend to win the debate, over time, and put the left back on a proper footing towards increasing secularism.
this is what i need you to do.
if you go through my blog and replace the term "muslim" with the term "republican", you need to ask yourself if you're still upset or not - because my criticism of muslims is exactly the same as my criticism of republicans, or of christians in general, and if you react differently then you need to explain why. so, if it upsets you when i say it about muslims, but it doesn't upset you when i say it about christians, or republicans, then you need to ask yourself why that is.
& to be as clear as i can be, if i haven't already been, my opposition is to any kind of organized religion, or, more broadly, any kind of conservative institution - including the democratic party, itself. that is, i'm not making the argument you hear on the right that criticism of christianity should be held to the same standards as criticism of islam, but am rather introducing an argument from the left that criticism of islam should be as deep and as frivolous and normal and routine as the widespread criticism of christianity is. and, yes that is the correct argument from the left. if you want to argue that islam should not be criticized because it might offend some muslims, that is an exceedingly right-wing position.
i have pointed out before that there are two reasons that you might react differently to a criticism of islam than you would to a criticism of the republican party (and, again, i criticize both in this space). the first is that you don't actually realize that republicans and muslims are essentially the same thing, with the caveat that muslims are far more extreme than republicans, in general. there are neither moderate republicans nor are there moderate muslims. so, the first explanation is ignorance, and i suspect that this is the proper explanation when dealing with most activists on the ground - whether they've been taught to see the issue as racial rather than ideological, or they're just mindlessly following a trend, the basic point is that they actually don't have the slightest idea what they're talking about, they just think they're doing something good. this is a broader cultural problem that needs to be addressed at the organizing level - the debate that needs to be had here is about the longterm consequences of renormalizing these value systems. and, this is where the second explanation asserts itself - there may actually be some people organizing on the left that actually uphold these values, and see islam as a way to reverse a moral decline in society. it is these people that are most dangerous to the left-wing project, and that need to be defeated in open debate, not the mindless foot soldiers on the ground, who will shift allegiances with the wind.
i've spent my whole life fighting against religious value systems, and i'm not going to stop or tone it down or dial it back just because it is unpopular this month. rather, i intend to win the debate, over time, and put the left back on a proper footing towards increasing secularism.
i've always wondered if tony clement is related to the great avogadro.
it's the bugged-out eyes. they're quite unsettling.
well, the other option is that he's a massive cokehead. and, how far is his riding from helena guergis', anyways?
i don't really care about whether he's guilty or not - he doesn't deserve due process. he wouldn't allow it to his opponents.
good riddance.
it's the bugged-out eyes. they're quite unsettling.
well, the other option is that he's a massive cokehead. and, how far is his riding from helena guergis', anyways?
i don't really care about whether he's guilty or not - he doesn't deserve due process. he wouldn't allow it to his opponents.
good riddance.
so, why don't we just fund social assistance via market dividends, then?
we'd have to put down an initial investment. but, isn't that what a wealthy family does when it has a disabled child? so, why shouldn't a wealthy province do the same thing, for it's disabled population?
you could use the teacher's fund as a model.
and, the next government can pick it up when it brings back the ubi - which it will do. after all - isn't this the capitalist way to socialize production in the face of mechanization?
we'd have to put down an initial investment. but, isn't that what a wealthy family does when it has a disabled child? so, why shouldn't a wealthy province do the same thing, for it's disabled population?
you could use the teacher's fund as a model.
and, the next government can pick it up when it brings back the ubi - which it will do. after all - isn't this the capitalist way to socialize production in the face of mechanization?
so, i finished the bureaucracy through august - that is done now - and i need to ask...should i just go to september?
well, i wanted to make some calls and get to cleaning in the other room - but it assumed i would have been done with this by monday or tuesday, and i'd be able to get back to september for the weekend. i can't make those calls, at this point. i'd might as well just push through september...
if i can get september done by monday morning, i can switch gears for the start of the week.
well, i wanted to make some calls and get to cleaning in the other room - but it assumed i would have been done with this by monday or tuesday, and i'd be able to get back to september for the weekend. i can't make those calls, at this point. i'd might as well just push through september...
if i can get september done by monday morning, i can switch gears for the start of the week.
Friday, November 9, 2018
i've pointed this out before: if i were to go back to school today on a serious basis, my interest would neither be in art nor in science but in financial markets. but, i wouldn't be looking to get a job in the industry, so much as i'd be looking to find a way to live off of a small investment - stocks, bonds, etc. and, i wouldn't be looking to actively trade to maximize profit, so much as i'd be looking for a way to properly finance my activities as an artist.
i never planned to end up on disability, but, once i ended up on it, i realized that it is, in fact, what i wanted - with the caveat that it could always be a little more. and, it could always be a little more. it's the nature of it.
at this stage in life, i would be looking towards the education system as a way to emulate my existing living situation, rather than to abolish it or transform it. where i am right now is a lot better than where i was, but my only real concern about living in low income housing is trying to avoid the second-hand smoke. but, see...i don't think this is limited to low-income housing, at least not in this city. buying a house probably wouldn't resolve the issue - i'd just end up with neighbours smoking on their porches.
if i had a larger nest egg, a modern condo in a newer building would be a way out. hopefully.
but, do i want to change my lifestyle? my thrust of existence? what i do? no. this is exactly what i want. i just need to catch up and get back on track - and hope the government doesn't ruin it.
i never planned to end up on disability, but, once i ended up on it, i realized that it is, in fact, what i wanted - with the caveat that it could always be a little more. and, it could always be a little more. it's the nature of it.
at this stage in life, i would be looking towards the education system as a way to emulate my existing living situation, rather than to abolish it or transform it. where i am right now is a lot better than where i was, but my only real concern about living in low income housing is trying to avoid the second-hand smoke. but, see...i don't think this is limited to low-income housing, at least not in this city. buying a house probably wouldn't resolve the issue - i'd just end up with neighbours smoking on their porches.
if i had a larger nest egg, a modern condo in a newer building would be a way out. hopefully.
but, do i want to change my lifestyle? my thrust of existence? what i do? no. this is exactly what i want. i just need to catch up and get back on track - and hope the government doesn't ruin it.
is the simpsons "problematic"?
well, i'm going to flip the situation over: perhaps the reason that the stereotypes it uses resonated with people so dominantly was because they accurately reflected their lived experiences, at the time.
now, these things are subject to change. i don't want to create a linear model, here, or think that trying to understand social progress through representations in prime time cartoons is very useful (i think the gender streotypes in children's programming today are far more offensive than anything i've ever seen in a simpsons episode, and that we've broadly moved very far backwards on gender since the mid-90s), but i can recognize that people have different experiences, both shared and individually. so, if you're younger, it's ok to look at a simpsons episode and say "this was created before i could walk, and i don't understand the social context around it.". i don't understand harry potter, or miley cyrus, or any of the other things that define the generation of people younger than me - nor do i understand archie bunker, or three's company, or mash, or the effects that this programming had on people older than me. i don't even understand south park, to use a somewhat worthwhile comparison. so, we're all going to have some difficulties understanding each other, and that's ok. it's when we say "i don't understand this. therefore, it's wrong." that we start turning into self-righteous, moralistic zealots that deserve to be laughed at. and, you know who was always really good at taking on self-righteous moralistic zealots, by laughing at them?
that said, as it is the case that things change, one wonders why this show is still on the air. i haven't watched it in over 15 years. you will find that the people that identify with it the strongest are also the loudest voices for cancellation, and that has been true for a long time.
so, is the show "problematic"? i guess it's all relative, isn't it?
but, it's mostly an irrelevant question.
well, i'm going to flip the situation over: perhaps the reason that the stereotypes it uses resonated with people so dominantly was because they accurately reflected their lived experiences, at the time.
now, these things are subject to change. i don't want to create a linear model, here, or think that trying to understand social progress through representations in prime time cartoons is very useful (i think the gender streotypes in children's programming today are far more offensive than anything i've ever seen in a simpsons episode, and that we've broadly moved very far backwards on gender since the mid-90s), but i can recognize that people have different experiences, both shared and individually. so, if you're younger, it's ok to look at a simpsons episode and say "this was created before i could walk, and i don't understand the social context around it.". i don't understand harry potter, or miley cyrus, or any of the other things that define the generation of people younger than me - nor do i understand archie bunker, or three's company, or mash, or the effects that this programming had on people older than me. i don't even understand south park, to use a somewhat worthwhile comparison. so, we're all going to have some difficulties understanding each other, and that's ok. it's when we say "i don't understand this. therefore, it's wrong." that we start turning into self-righteous, moralistic zealots that deserve to be laughed at. and, you know who was always really good at taking on self-righteous moralistic zealots, by laughing at them?
that said, as it is the case that things change, one wonders why this show is still on the air. i haven't watched it in over 15 years. you will find that the people that identify with it the strongest are also the loudest voices for cancellation, and that has been true for a long time.
so, is the show "problematic"? i guess it's all relative, isn't it?
but, it's mostly an irrelevant question.
i mean, it might feel good to get a result like this, but it's not really what i'm angling at.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-cop-pot-charges-1.4899645
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-cop-pot-charges-1.4899645
again, i'm kind of struck by how forward thinking that last track i posted was.
i will get back to posting music asap. i promise. life took an unexpected turn, and i think i'm back on track, now. but, there's a process, and i need to have it done in sequence. i have an absolute deadline of the end of '99 to finish this period disc, remember.
you may listen to the track and hear something that is foreshadowing something like this:
but, it is probably better to see it as a missing link. the alpha document is here:
i will get back to posting music asap. i promise. life took an unexpected turn, and i think i'm back on track, now. but, there's a process, and i need to have it done in sequence. i have an absolute deadline of the end of '99 to finish this period disc, remember.
you may listen to the track and hear something that is foreshadowing something like this:
but, it is probably better to see it as a missing link. the alpha document is here:
otherwise, i guess i've been in a down swing over the last few days - i didn't really wake up yesterday, or finish the last parts of the august rebuild. the day is now done, so i guess we'll have to put those things off until monday.
it's dry in here, but i doubt that is the reason i've been tired. more likely is that i'm behind on my eating - i just had my scheduled tuesday meal, this morning. but i also have a habit of getting unfocused between projects. otherwise, i'm still a little concerned about the pollution in the neighbourhood, even if the direct issue of second-hand smoke seems to have largely disappeared, for now. or, maybe i can't tell.
the first half of the airwalk order came in yesterday - the red ones. these appear to be decently constructed shoes, but we'll find out over time. they may have been returns, but there's a sticker for $80 on them. again - it said they were new shoes. but, they were marked right down to $30. i don't see anything obviously wrong with them, besides a little bit of dirt on the bottom. so, i guess you mark returned shoes down when they're like this, but it would have been better if the store was honest. we'll see what the second pair looks like. if the second pair is brand brand new, i think i have an argument to replace the red ones, but it might not be actually possible - everybody else was out of stock, and it doesn't seem like they're going to keep doing this.
listen, i get it - the brand name is unpopular. but, i was always the kid with the cheap shoes. i'll wear the unpopular shoes if they're more comfortable, and happily call you stupid for buying into the marketing.
i guess the weekend is now here, so i just need to get to the list of stuff and get to it.
i should get through the bureaucracy first. one thing at a time.
it's dry in here, but i doubt that is the reason i've been tired. more likely is that i'm behind on my eating - i just had my scheduled tuesday meal, this morning. but i also have a habit of getting unfocused between projects. otherwise, i'm still a little concerned about the pollution in the neighbourhood, even if the direct issue of second-hand smoke seems to have largely disappeared, for now. or, maybe i can't tell.
the first half of the airwalk order came in yesterday - the red ones. these appear to be decently constructed shoes, but we'll find out over time. they may have been returns, but there's a sticker for $80 on them. again - it said they were new shoes. but, they were marked right down to $30. i don't see anything obviously wrong with them, besides a little bit of dirt on the bottom. so, i guess you mark returned shoes down when they're like this, but it would have been better if the store was honest. we'll see what the second pair looks like. if the second pair is brand brand new, i think i have an argument to replace the red ones, but it might not be actually possible - everybody else was out of stock, and it doesn't seem like they're going to keep doing this.
listen, i get it - the brand name is unpopular. but, i was always the kid with the cheap shoes. i'll wear the unpopular shoes if they're more comfortable, and happily call you stupid for buying into the marketing.
i guess the weekend is now here, so i just need to get to the list of stuff and get to it.
i should get through the bureaucracy first. one thing at a time.
so, i seem to have succeeded in getting the file pulled from the windsor police. we'll see where it goes from there. it's the conflict of interest that is at the crux of this, because i suspect it has to do with the property owner.
i can't talk like this in official communications because i can't prove it yet, but it's pretty obvious to me that what is going on is that this property owner tossed me in jail to prevent me from suing her for discrimination in housing. the conditions on the recognizance are that i'm not to communicate indirectly or directly for a year - which technically means i can't file, but i'd like to see the cops bring me before a judge and argue i should be imprisoned for filing a discrimination lawsuit, against the recognizance terms. that would be so outrageous that i might even be willing to go through with it for the benefit of the discrimination case - it would just help the case. and, the reason i'm holding off is to wait until more information comes out - although what i really want is the "victim impact statement" that was read to me, where the property owner literally stated "you are not welcome here". that is the smoking gun i needed to file.
so, i suspect that the conflict of interest has to do with the cop's relationship with the property owner. getting this in some kind of writing is fundamental to the various claims i'm going to be pursuing. but, we'll see what kind of information comes up through the official investigation. and, if i can get a good, unbiased investigation from the oiprd, i should be able to use it in multiple contexts.
so, i'm pushing for the possibility of charges against the cop, and i'm not unserious - i think what he did was harassment in the literal sense, and he should face some kind of punishment for it. but, what i really want is that report.
it's similar to the issue with the woman smoking drugs in the last apartment. i never expected anybody to arrest this woman. however, i was hoping that creating a paper trail would help with an eviction process - and, in the end, it did help with the court process that gave me a rent reduction and got me out of the lease. so, it worked. but, i was explicit over the call - and it is actually in the report - that when i called the police to the apartment, it was not because i wanted this person sent to jail, but because i wanted documentation to use for the housing tribunals. it is obviously the case that i had no interest in this woman's well-being in any way at all - that i was perfectly willing to drag her through the mud for my own purposes. but, i actually made it clear to the cops when they showed up that i wasn't seeking criminal charges, i was just building a legal case.
i don't really care what happens to this cop - which means that i don't care if i have to get him fired to get what i want, in the end. i mean, he clearly doesn't understand what harassment is, in a legal sense, and needs some training on the topic, sure. and, he clearly should have gone to a judge to get a warrant. the sum of this is probably legally harassment in itself, but can a cop plead ignorance over malice? my concern is more related to getting the documentation required to seek compensation.
like i say - we'll see what the director says. but, i don't know how he could put the police in charge of this investigation, given that they've already declared themselves in conflict. i'm not sure exactly what the next step should be, but that the cops themselves can't be in charge of this is really a no-brainer.
if it goes to a different office, it probably shouldn't be the chatham office, either.
i can't talk like this in official communications because i can't prove it yet, but it's pretty obvious to me that what is going on is that this property owner tossed me in jail to prevent me from suing her for discrimination in housing. the conditions on the recognizance are that i'm not to communicate indirectly or directly for a year - which technically means i can't file, but i'd like to see the cops bring me before a judge and argue i should be imprisoned for filing a discrimination lawsuit, against the recognizance terms. that would be so outrageous that i might even be willing to go through with it for the benefit of the discrimination case - it would just help the case. and, the reason i'm holding off is to wait until more information comes out - although what i really want is the "victim impact statement" that was read to me, where the property owner literally stated "you are not welcome here". that is the smoking gun i needed to file.
so, i suspect that the conflict of interest has to do with the cop's relationship with the property owner. getting this in some kind of writing is fundamental to the various claims i'm going to be pursuing. but, we'll see what kind of information comes up through the official investigation. and, if i can get a good, unbiased investigation from the oiprd, i should be able to use it in multiple contexts.
so, i'm pushing for the possibility of charges against the cop, and i'm not unserious - i think what he did was harassment in the literal sense, and he should face some kind of punishment for it. but, what i really want is that report.
it's similar to the issue with the woman smoking drugs in the last apartment. i never expected anybody to arrest this woman. however, i was hoping that creating a paper trail would help with an eviction process - and, in the end, it did help with the court process that gave me a rent reduction and got me out of the lease. so, it worked. but, i was explicit over the call - and it is actually in the report - that when i called the police to the apartment, it was not because i wanted this person sent to jail, but because i wanted documentation to use for the housing tribunals. it is obviously the case that i had no interest in this woman's well-being in any way at all - that i was perfectly willing to drag her through the mud for my own purposes. but, i actually made it clear to the cops when they showed up that i wasn't seeking criminal charges, i was just building a legal case.
i don't really care what happens to this cop - which means that i don't care if i have to get him fired to get what i want, in the end. i mean, he clearly doesn't understand what harassment is, in a legal sense, and needs some training on the topic, sure. and, he clearly should have gone to a judge to get a warrant. the sum of this is probably legally harassment in itself, but can a cop plead ignorance over malice? my concern is more related to getting the documentation required to seek compensation.
like i say - we'll see what the director says. but, i don't know how he could put the police in charge of this investigation, given that they've already declared themselves in conflict. i'm not sure exactly what the next step should be, but that the cops themselves can't be in charge of this is really a no-brainer.
if it goes to a different office, it probably shouldn't be the chatham office, either.
as mentioned, it's probably the case that i would have horribly disappointed her and she'd have cried all night and never spoken to me again...although, she had never really spoken to me in the first place, so i guess it would have been a minimal loss, on a purely conversational level.
i also suspect that i may have been in some kind of physical danger from her father, if i were to have actually gone within a fifty foot radius of her house. and, i wouldn't have really blamed him - at the time, even. i had no business being in that neighbourhood for any reason other than to mow the lawn, not even on his daughter's invitation.
worse, i don't know how many years of imagining the future came into this, or what kind of completely off-base projections were put into it. teenage girls with 99.5% averages are still teenage girls, after all. obviously. maybe she thought i wanted to be an engineer, or something. who knows. really.
but, if we had hit it off that night, due to some fluke, would it have changed my future path? this is one of those alternate history games, i guess.
i would have to assume that deciding that i enjoy spending time with this girl would require me to actually take my schooling seriously, for once. but, see, here's the twist on that - if i had decided to take my schooling more seriously, i would have probably transferred into an arts program. my whole way through university, i always saw it as some kind of back-up plan. i spent years in a math program, but i didn't really want to be a mathematician, whatever that means - i never intended to work for the government, or to be a professor, or to even be a high school teacher, or at least not seriously. the key point is that i really didn't know what i wanted to study, or if i wanted to study anything at all, so i just stumbled through it, without any real desired end point - and then, when i got to the end of it, the only reason i bothered finishing it was just for the sake of finishing it. i haven't looked at a math text book since.
because i've never been interested in dating or starting a family, i've never been incentivized to do well in school or get a good job in order to make me more attractive to potential mates or partners. i've actually made the opposite argument - that because i'm not interested in dating, it follows that i have little interest in climbing up the hierarchies in the labour force; my disinterest in labour is a consequence of my disinterest in relationships. but, this is all an analysis from a distance, so to say. there is a possibility that i may have had a stronger incentive system open up in the presence of a concrete set of options, rather than an abstraction of possibilities.
the truth is that it's more likely that i would have become intimidated by the bourgeois nature of her lifestyle and retreated, or that she would have grown impatient with me for being lower class, but there is some possibility that it may have driven me - and that even if it didn't work out, it may have had a longer term effect on me.
if the encounter would have been effective in altering my incentive system, the flip side of that is that i would have no doubt spent much less time on music over the next few years. i'm not convinced that would be a net positive in the broader arch of my life, even if others think it might be - the sum of it may have been a more normal path through these years, at the expense of a deeper level of depression.
so, would i be better off today if i had had stronger incentives during my university years to actually participate and perform? on paper, perhaps. but i think i'd have ended up miserable, in the end, and not despite it but because of it.
yet, this is all very speculative, and i think little would have been accomplished outside of me smashing down her preconceptions and false projections of me - and that would have been difficult for any teenage girl to go through on prom night.
i also suspect that i may have been in some kind of physical danger from her father, if i were to have actually gone within a fifty foot radius of her house. and, i wouldn't have really blamed him - at the time, even. i had no business being in that neighbourhood for any reason other than to mow the lawn, not even on his daughter's invitation.
worse, i don't know how many years of imagining the future came into this, or what kind of completely off-base projections were put into it. teenage girls with 99.5% averages are still teenage girls, after all. obviously. maybe she thought i wanted to be an engineer, or something. who knows. really.
but, if we had hit it off that night, due to some fluke, would it have changed my future path? this is one of those alternate history games, i guess.
i would have to assume that deciding that i enjoy spending time with this girl would require me to actually take my schooling seriously, for once. but, see, here's the twist on that - if i had decided to take my schooling more seriously, i would have probably transferred into an arts program. my whole way through university, i always saw it as some kind of back-up plan. i spent years in a math program, but i didn't really want to be a mathematician, whatever that means - i never intended to work for the government, or to be a professor, or to even be a high school teacher, or at least not seriously. the key point is that i really didn't know what i wanted to study, or if i wanted to study anything at all, so i just stumbled through it, without any real desired end point - and then, when i got to the end of it, the only reason i bothered finishing it was just for the sake of finishing it. i haven't looked at a math text book since.
because i've never been interested in dating or starting a family, i've never been incentivized to do well in school or get a good job in order to make me more attractive to potential mates or partners. i've actually made the opposite argument - that because i'm not interested in dating, it follows that i have little interest in climbing up the hierarchies in the labour force; my disinterest in labour is a consequence of my disinterest in relationships. but, this is all an analysis from a distance, so to say. there is a possibility that i may have had a stronger incentive system open up in the presence of a concrete set of options, rather than an abstraction of possibilities.
the truth is that it's more likely that i would have become intimidated by the bourgeois nature of her lifestyle and retreated, or that she would have grown impatient with me for being lower class, but there is some possibility that it may have driven me - and that even if it didn't work out, it may have had a longer term effect on me.
if the encounter would have been effective in altering my incentive system, the flip side of that is that i would have no doubt spent much less time on music over the next few years. i'm not convinced that would be a net positive in the broader arch of my life, even if others think it might be - the sum of it may have been a more normal path through these years, at the expense of a deeper level of depression.
so, would i be better off today if i had had stronger incentives during my university years to actually participate and perform? on paper, perhaps. but i think i'd have ended up miserable, in the end, and not despite it but because of it.
yet, this is all very speculative, and i think little would have been accomplished outside of me smashing down her preconceptions and false projections of me - and that would have been difficult for any teenage girl to go through on prom night.
so, if i didn't want to go to prom with the valedictorian, where was my head in the early summer of 2000?
i didn't work that summer. it was a part of a bribe to get me to go to school, because i wasn't otherwise interested in going. at that point in my life, i would have been perfectly happy to work 30 hours a week at the wendy's and spend most of my time in my basement creating art, so i actually didn't even initially intend to go to the pre-university year at all - i intended to just graduate grade 12 and be done with it. because i had never really had a conversation with this girl, i suppose she had no idea of what my longterm perspective on life really was - but it certainly was not to go to school and get a good job at that particular point, and the fact is that it really never was. but, my dad had decided quite some time before this that i ought to be an engineer (something i at no point in my life ever expressed the slightest interest or inclination towards), so he bribed me into going to grade 13 by giving me spending money on an as-needs basis.
it was over this summer that i picked up the classical guitar for the first time, but i think that would have been after prom. july, i think.
what i was doing that night was probably working out parts for this track, and i was probably very immersed in it, and disinterested in doing much of anything else:
there is also some possibility that i may have spent some time in a friend's basement smoking marijuana with a group of kids in the neighbourhood from low income families, but i don't have any explicit memory of doing so.
like i say - it caught me off guard. she wasn't my type; it didn't really make any sense. and, i never really worked through what she was imagining.
but, yeah. that's true - i turned down the valedictorian for prom, and stayed home and played guitar, instead.
i didn't work that summer. it was a part of a bribe to get me to go to school, because i wasn't otherwise interested in going. at that point in my life, i would have been perfectly happy to work 30 hours a week at the wendy's and spend most of my time in my basement creating art, so i actually didn't even initially intend to go to the pre-university year at all - i intended to just graduate grade 12 and be done with it. because i had never really had a conversation with this girl, i suppose she had no idea of what my longterm perspective on life really was - but it certainly was not to go to school and get a good job at that particular point, and the fact is that it really never was. but, my dad had decided quite some time before this that i ought to be an engineer (something i at no point in my life ever expressed the slightest interest or inclination towards), so he bribed me into going to grade 13 by giving me spending money on an as-needs basis.
it was over this summer that i picked up the classical guitar for the first time, but i think that would have been after prom. july, i think.
what i was doing that night was probably working out parts for this track, and i was probably very immersed in it, and disinterested in doing much of anything else:
there is also some possibility that i may have spent some time in a friend's basement smoking marijuana with a group of kids in the neighbourhood from low income families, but i don't have any explicit memory of doing so.
like i say - it caught me off guard. she wasn't my type; it didn't really make any sense. and, i never really worked through what she was imagining.
but, yeah. that's true - i turned down the valedictorian for prom, and stayed home and played guitar, instead.
to be clear: i'm not technically a virgin.
i've had sex something like 350 times, all with the same person, in the period from 2002-2006. it was actually a lot of sex, in a short amount of time. but, she seemed to be enjoying it more than i was.
she liked sex. a lot.
but, it was never "heterosexual sex" in any kind of understood way. which is perhaps hard to grasp without getting graphic. you know the way you imagine boys and girls having sex, when you think of it? not necessarily missionary, but the general idea, anyways. well, it was never anything remotely like that. ever. at all. she seemed to want that, but realized it wasn't coming from me - and the mutual dissatisfaction just rendered the thing pointless, after a while. she used to complain that i was very good at getting her extremely worked up, like crazy aroused, but that i had no ability to finish the job - that i wasn't able to do the thing boys are supposed to do in that situation, and that we all imagine sex is like when we think of it. but, of course i wasn't able to do that - because i didn't want her to interpret me as a boy at all. i had a penis hanging there the whole time, but i was continually making a very conscious effort to avoid using it. she had to pin me down.
i've sworn off of it since. entirely.
so, i can say i'm a virgin in the sense of never really having sex in a male role - of never actually having intercourse in a masculine way. and, i haven't. but, i'm not a virgin in a technical sense, and i may have had more sex over those three or so years than a lot of people have in a decade.
i've had sex something like 350 times, all with the same person, in the period from 2002-2006. it was actually a lot of sex, in a short amount of time. but, she seemed to be enjoying it more than i was.
she liked sex. a lot.
but, it was never "heterosexual sex" in any kind of understood way. which is perhaps hard to grasp without getting graphic. you know the way you imagine boys and girls having sex, when you think of it? not necessarily missionary, but the general idea, anyways. well, it was never anything remotely like that. ever. at all. she seemed to want that, but realized it wasn't coming from me - and the mutual dissatisfaction just rendered the thing pointless, after a while. she used to complain that i was very good at getting her extremely worked up, like crazy aroused, but that i had no ability to finish the job - that i wasn't able to do the thing boys are supposed to do in that situation, and that we all imagine sex is like when we think of it. but, of course i wasn't able to do that - because i didn't want her to interpret me as a boy at all. i had a penis hanging there the whole time, but i was continually making a very conscious effort to avoid using it. she had to pin me down.
i've sworn off of it since. entirely.
so, i can say i'm a virgin in the sense of never really having sex in a male role - of never actually having intercourse in a masculine way. and, i haven't. but, i'm not a virgin in a technical sense, and i may have had more sex over those three or so years than a lot of people have in a decade.
got a letter from the cops.
I am currently in receipt of your OIPRD complaint,
received by the Windsor Police Professional Standards office on November
5, 2018. If at all possible, I would like to discuss with you your
wishes regarding this complaint, and how to resolve
it and or investigate further. I am under the impression that you were
informed by the OIPRD of the Informal Resolution program, which I would
be happy to discuss with you further. It has been my experience that
the Informal Resolution program is an excellent
measure to resolve public complaints about the police and most often
leaves both the complainant and the involved police officer with a
better understanding of each other. If you wish, you may speak with the
officer directly or I can shuttle your concerns
to the officer involved as well. If this is not something that interests
you, I would be happy to explain the investigative process, and arrange
a time to conduct an interview with you in regards to your complaint.
Please feel free to contact me by email or at the phone number below.
Kind regards,
this is my response:
i do not have confidence in the windsor police to conduct a review of
this matter, as you have already declared yourself in a conflict of
interest on this file. this is in your own omission, and i expect you
to excuse yourself, as you already have.
i am not interested in an informal resolution process; i want a
thorough review by an outside body.
i will follow up with ======== by phone in the morning.
this matter, as you have already declared yourself in a conflict of
interest on this file. this is in your own omission, and i expect you
to excuse yourself, as you already have.
i am not interested in an informal resolution process; i want a
thorough review by an outside body.
i will follow up with ======== by phone in the morning.
===
i meant to say admission rather than omission. i apologize; my
"morning" coffee is just kicking in.
i want to be more explicit as to why i'm rejecting an informal
resolution, and why i'm pushing for an outside review.
i made a complaint about what was essentially police harassment on
sept 14th. on sept 24th, i was arrested without a warrant on a hybrid
charge and held without cause for nearly 24 hours. on the day after my
first appearance, i was told that the case would be being moved to
chatham due to a conflict of interest in the windsor office. the
chatham office is not seeking jail time but a year of probation on a
summary conviction; i claim that there is no evidence against me in
the case, and i expect the charges to either be dropped or for the
case to be dismissed.
i do not know details regarding the conflict of interest at this time,
however i believe that the reasons i was both arrested and charged on
behaviour that i claim is not criminal are due to the nature of this
conflict of interest. at the least, it does not make sense for the
department to excuse itself from a prosecution based on a conflict of
interest, and then carry out an investigation of the circumstances
leading to charges around that prosecution. if it feels that the
conflict is serious enough that it cannot prosecute - as it has
already stated - then it must also feel that the conflict is serious
enough that it cannot investigate. nor could the results of such an
investigation be taken seriously, if presented in a court of law - and
you should expect that the results of this investigation will be
presented in a court of law, in time.
i feel that i was harassed by the officer, but it will not be clear if
the harassment is substantive enough to press charges until the
investigation is completed, including a full understanding of the
nature of the conflict on the file. i do, however, believe that there
is a very good reason to think that charges against the officer will
eventually be laid.
i am a model citizen with a clean record, advanced university degrees
and a nexus card, and am not going to just go away. i don't want this
dealt with as quickly as possible, i want the officer held fully
accountable in as lengthy and as thorough a process as is necessary.
this cannot happen again.
so, i will repeat the following:
1) the windsor police have already declared a conflict of interest on
this file and are consequently obligated to excuse themselves from
investigating the matter further.
2) no reasonable person would be able to express confidence in the
ability of the windsor police to carry out this review, nor would the
findings hold up in a court of law, as they must, eventually.
3) i claim that there is a reasonable possibility that charges may be
led against the officer, and that an independent investigation is
required to get to the facts of the matter, before doing so.
please excuse yourself from the file, ======.
and, i will follow-up with ===== by phone in the morning.
"morning" coffee is just kicking in.
i want to be more explicit as to why i'm rejecting an informal
resolution, and why i'm pushing for an outside review.
i made a complaint about what was essentially police harassment on
sept 14th. on sept 24th, i was arrested without a warrant on a hybrid
charge and held without cause for nearly 24 hours. on the day after my
first appearance, i was told that the case would be being moved to
chatham due to a conflict of interest in the windsor office. the
chatham office is not seeking jail time but a year of probation on a
summary conviction; i claim that there is no evidence against me in
the case, and i expect the charges to either be dropped or for the
case to be dismissed.
i do not know details regarding the conflict of interest at this time,
however i believe that the reasons i was both arrested and charged on
behaviour that i claim is not criminal are due to the nature of this
conflict of interest. at the least, it does not make sense for the
department to excuse itself from a prosecution based on a conflict of
interest, and then carry out an investigation of the circumstances
leading to charges around that prosecution. if it feels that the
conflict is serious enough that it cannot prosecute - as it has
already stated - then it must also feel that the conflict is serious
enough that it cannot investigate. nor could the results of such an
investigation be taken seriously, if presented in a court of law - and
you should expect that the results of this investigation will be
presented in a court of law, in time.
i feel that i was harassed by the officer, but it will not be clear if
the harassment is substantive enough to press charges until the
investigation is completed, including a full understanding of the
nature of the conflict on the file. i do, however, believe that there
is a very good reason to think that charges against the officer will
eventually be laid.
i am a model citizen with a clean record, advanced university degrees
and a nexus card, and am not going to just go away. i don't want this
dealt with as quickly as possible, i want the officer held fully
accountable in as lengthy and as thorough a process as is necessary.
this cannot happen again.
so, i will repeat the following:
1) the windsor police have already declared a conflict of interest on
this file and are consequently obligated to excuse themselves from
investigating the matter further.
2) no reasonable person would be able to express confidence in the
ability of the windsor police to carry out this review, nor would the
findings hold up in a court of law, as they must, eventually.
3) i claim that there is a reasonable possibility that charges may be
led against the officer, and that an independent investigation is
required to get to the facts of the matter, before doing so.
please excuse yourself from the file, ======.
and, i will follow-up with ===== by phone in the morning.
Thursday, November 8, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)