the ruling is coming via mail.

it's not at all clear when that will be. by june, if i'm lucky, i think. so, i want to say i'm glad it's over, buuuut....

i think the judge accepted the basic premise of my position: if the area has a second hand smoke problem, they are obligated to "do something", and this whole refusal to do anything thing is bullshit. i could get the wall, and have the smokers pay for it. or, they could just let me run the fucking fan, already, and pay me costs for wasting my time. but, have i established that there's actually a problem?

she pushed the idea of an air quality test, and i'm all about empiricism, of course, but i had to push back that there are limits to empiricism and that the tort i'm suing over has generally accepted a lesser standard of subjective experience, in the form of journals or witnesses. is there an established ppm?

it took me some convincing to get her to take the usb key seriously. but, i'm convinced that she did, in the end, and that the reason she's doing this by mail is that she wants to examine the video evidence, to determine if i've made my case or not.

i think it would be hard to deduce i haven't.

but, i think this is the basic premise: she agrees that i'm right, if i've demonstrated a problem exists, but she left open the idea, because she seemed apprehensive about the vlog as evidence.

i'll find out in a few weeks.

do you know what you call culling wild canids to prevent them from roaming around your neighbourhood, creating a nuisance and danger to others?

that's called civilization.

i'm sorry if you're not into it. but, i'd suggest moving up north or something.

see, this isn't the right way to deal with it. what we need to do is keep them out of the cities, not open up hunting season in the outback.

why do we have to do everything in such extremes, and reduce everything down into these caricatures?

we don't need to exterminate them in order to cull them. we just need more freedom to deal with the problem in urban regions. and, we need more leadership by the proper authorities - animal control, law enforcement, etc.

there's no benefit to having coyotes running around in cities. they're going to eat your pets. and, don't tell me to lock up my dog; i shouldn't have to live in fear or reduce my dog's freedom for the benefit of a fucking coyote. it's like telling your daughter to wear pants if she doesn't want to get raped.

as far as i'm concerned, they should be treated like serial killers. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/wolves-mnrf-hunting-coyotes-1.3522065

there's a coyote problem in this province, and it apparently needs to get politicized because the ministry won't act on it.

we should have a no tolerance policy in city limits: all coyotes that enter any city in the province should be shot by law enforcement on contact.

i just want to say something about the bc election, though.

it's easy to have a culture shock when you look at the results:

liberals - 41%
socialists - 40%
greens - 17%

there is a conservative party in bc, and it got around 2%.

oh - canada! ...?

well, not really, actually.

the story actually lies in watching the bc conservatives go up and down in pre-election cycles, and they might be a part of the reason that bc is so hard to predict (although i'll state it flat out - i think the liberals routinely carry out massive voter fraud, too). the same thing happens every cycle. the conservatives peak around 10% a few weeks before the election, which moves the socialists ahead in the polls - and then the conservatives all come running back to the liberals.

in fact, the conservatives and liberals once formed a coalition to keep the socialists out of power, although that was a long time ago, when the socialists were actually socialists. the liberal party in the province has since absorbed everything to the right of center, which is partly why the greens are doing so well in the first place.

so, the party labels make the province seem dreamy - sure. but, if you were to convert the party policies into more realistic labels, it would look more like this:

progressive conservatives - 41%   [they're conservatives. but, they're moderates, too.]
liberals - 40%
socialists - 17%

it's still a nice place to live. but, it's more like washington than it is like sweden.

what the reaction to the comey fiasco truly demonstrates is just how feeble-minded and willing to prostrate to power it is that democrats and progressives truly are.

it was just a few weeks ago that this guy interfered in the election. people will make other arguments, but i don't agree: james comey is probably the single biggest reason that clinton lost. then, he makes a play on behalf of the pentagon and they're willing to rally around him, as though he's now on their side.

he was never on trump's side, and he's not now on the democrat's side. he was a pretend republican appointed by a pretend democrat; the only side he was ever on was the side of power.

and, by standing up for comey, you are standing up for power.

but, that's what you really want to do, anyways.

because you're a fucking tool.