marijuana users aren't generally bad students. i mean, they might be, or they might not be. most of them will be average students. it's hard to study this right now, but i'd expect a bell curve.

what the article is missing is that the current reality is that apprehending kids for being stoned requires calling the cops, because it's a controlled substance. do you want to do that to the A student in the back that has anxiety issues and has difficulty meeting friends?

i went to a catholic school, which meant i had to take a religion course every year. there was one semester where they scheduled the class right after lunch. i ended up attending that class stoned fairly regularly. the teacher was aware, and sometimes gave me concerning glances, but he made it clear to me that he wasn't going to address the issue for that precise reason. and, he gave me an A at the end of it.

i'm maybe a bad test case, because i was never a heavy user. but, i could have been struggling. and, he wouldn't have intervened when he should have.

removing the stigma will allow for greater options.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/what-will-legal-marijuana-pot-mean-for-schools-1.4044583

apparently, acidosis is usually associated with tiredness.

i'm probably just stressed out.

also, i've barely slept since tuesday. am i stressed out, or wired from the vinegar? hear me out...

this is speculative.

but, if you pump your body full of vinegar (i am unclear how this scenario would change in the catalyst of piss), what you're doing is saturating your body with the chemical that kickstarts the process that produces energy in your body.

it's probably not going to work if you drink it. and, you obviously want to avoid snorting vinegar. but, there's some logic to inhaling it from a certain distance, and expecting it to keep you wired for long periods. it's probably the only way it would work, because it's going right into the bloodstream.

acidosis? hrmmn.

i've tried to force myself to sleep and truly cannot, and i'm not zombified - i'm actually very alert. so, i could be stressed out and wired due to it, but this seems like more than that.

it's an interesting suggested experiment, anyways. but, now i'm worried about the ph of my blood...

i'm irritated with myself. i want to put the fan back and fight it in court. i just know that the right decision is to temporarily pull back.

i think i've made my protest at the situation loud and clear and it will need to work it's way through the board, now. and, see, while the cops were wrong on the face of it, their ignorance has a sort of warped logic to it, in the same way that any intuitive but ultimately wrong analysis always does. it's not that it make me look better, so much as it makes her look that much worse.

the principle of it isn't worth the risk, or at least isn't without exploring other options like the wall fan or my own mounting process. no matter how right you are, and no matter how much you know you're right, there's always that aspect of risk when you put a question like this in front of a judge. it's just inherent to the process. the risk might be low, but the outcome of eviction is dramatic.

i mean, there might only be a 0.314% chance that the judge is a three-pack a day smoker with $100,000 invested in cigarettes and a daughter on the board of a tobacco company. but, if that's the card i draw...

i'm not a capitalist, so i don't adhere to philosophies about the value of risk, or the drawbacks of risk aversion. i don't gain a whole lot by being overly aggressive to start. but, in the unlikely chance that i get the worst judge ever, i'm going to look stupid pushing myself to the street.

the right thing to do is to fight the court battle on the front i've opened up (which is essentially on the basis of their negligence to address the problem), and let them hang themselves with their own rope by refusing to mitigate, while making my displeasure as clear as possible.

so, i know i've taken this as far as i should, and i know i'm doing the right thing in pulling back.

i'm just unhappy with myself, about it. i feel like i'm abandoning a set of principles for pragmatic gain. and, despite knowing it's smart, it's leaving me with a bad taste in my own mouth.

it was the first hit at google. follow the links.

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/most-palestinians-are-descendants-of-jews/

and, once again: jesus did not speak arabic or hebrew but aramaic (syrian) and greek and would have looked like a modern syrian, kurd or iranian.

...if he wasn't a fictional character, that is.

jesus existed around the year 0.

the substantial arab migration into palestine began around the year 650, although the genetics suggest that palestinians (who exist in a gradient - many are very light-skinned) are largely not arabs at all but descended from jews. yes, blow your mind: the palestinians are jews. what they are is jews that converted to islam - because the jews were not scattered like some fairy tale, but conquered and assimilated like everybody else. notwithstanding some diaspora, of course. excluding these endogamous diasporas, most populations take in some diversity over time, so pointing out that the palestinians are the descendants of the indigenous hebrews doesn't imply there wasn't arab inflow, or that it hasn't affected phenotypes.

jesus would not have looked like a british person either, but demanding that jesus look like an arab is like demanding that pocahontas be white: you're applying the characteristics of a colonizing force to the group that lived in the region before hand, and it is just plain out historically wrong.

i endorsed ralph nader more than once, guys.

again: i'm a huge advocate of tort law. it's about the only law i actually think is useful.

if i had my way, i'd do "code reform" and burn the legislated law and just rely solely on case law. it's the only legal system i've ever run into that is actually rooted in sound principles of evidentiary obligation, rather than just brute force by the use of violence.

call me a barbarian, but fuck the empire and fuck their laws.

The sidewalks, passages, public halls, stairways, fire escapes and vestibules shall not be obstructed

ok.

obstruct.

1. to block or close up with an obstacle; make difficult to pass:

not a problem, there. 

2. to interrupt, hinder, or oppose the passage, progress, course, etc., of.

nope. not doing that...

3. to block from sight; to be in the way of (a view, passage, etc.).

negative. nein.

there's obviously some level of ambiguity in the wording, but i admit no level of ambiguity in the fact of it: i was not preventing passage through the hall in any way, and no judge would say i was. tersely: that's bullshit.

so, if i'm not obstructing the hallway, what else is in the cited clause?

or used for any other purpose other than gaining access to and from the leased premise.

surely, they don't claim that putting a fan in the hallway is using it for some other purpose? but, they probably don't know what this part of the clause is actually about: what this is doing is forbidding somebody from setting up an office in the hallway, or using their residence as a place of business. by extension, it forbids using the hallways for things like movie shoots, parties and concerts. to suggest that this bans me from running a fan is preposterous.

again: i'm going to give them the opportunity to install a wall fan. i would obviously rather have a fan mounted on the wall than placed on a chair, too.

but, if this were to actually end up in a court, their arguments would not hold up. and, if i don't get some movement on their duty of care, and don't find placing the fans elsewhere to be as effective, i will place the fans back where they were.