Tuesday, July 31, 2018
but, lisa.
i'm disabled.
that means i can't work - i don't need incentives. i went to university for thirteen years. i did graduate once, even, too. there's nothing you can do to "help me succeed" - i cannot "succeed"; i'm disabled.
it's like saying you're going to help an ostrich to fly, or you're going to help the blind to see. it's absurdity.
disabled people are disabled.
i don't need stupid christian rhetoric; what i need is affordable, smoke-free housing.
i'm disabled.
that means i can't work - i don't need incentives. i went to university for thirteen years. i did graduate once, even, too. there's nothing you can do to "help me succeed" - i cannot "succeed"; i'm disabled.
it's like saying you're going to help an ostrich to fly, or you're going to help the blind to see. it's absurdity.
disabled people are disabled.
i don't need stupid christian rhetoric; what i need is affordable, smoke-free housing.
this is actually breaking a campaign promise; he said he wasn't going to do that.
i mean, you would have been daft to believe him, but nonetheless.
it's disappointing, but it was obvious, and there's no use in feigning dismay over it: we elected a conservative government, and this is the kind of thing conservative governments do.
at least i know what they're doing, for the next year or two.
it remains to be seen whether the immigrant voters that elected ford are getting what they expected or not. we know they lean a little right on a swath of issues. they like the market rhetoric, and they don't like the gays. but, cuts to social services isn't one of those issues; i'd suspect that this actually comes out unpopular in the 905, where a good number of voters didn't have the cultural understanding of british toryism to know better than to believe ford when he said he'd "take care of people". he really didn't campaign on cutting services - the opposition tried to get the point across, but it may have been interpreted by what you might call naive voters as smears. they don't have the cultural hubris in opposing conservatives, they weren't raised in it, so they may have been easily misled.
i think that what these people voted for was a pro-business government with a social conscience. these people take their religions seriously. and, that's going to piss me off most of the time, but the thing i'm going to agree with them on is social assistance for the poor - because their mosque or their temple insists on it.
for me? right now? knowing that cuts are not imminent is helpful.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/lisa-macleod-announcement-1.4768626
i mean, you would have been daft to believe him, but nonetheless.
it's disappointing, but it was obvious, and there's no use in feigning dismay over it: we elected a conservative government, and this is the kind of thing conservative governments do.
at least i know what they're doing, for the next year or two.
it remains to be seen whether the immigrant voters that elected ford are getting what they expected or not. we know they lean a little right on a swath of issues. they like the market rhetoric, and they don't like the gays. but, cuts to social services isn't one of those issues; i'd suspect that this actually comes out unpopular in the 905, where a good number of voters didn't have the cultural understanding of british toryism to know better than to believe ford when he said he'd "take care of people". he really didn't campaign on cutting services - the opposition tried to get the point across, but it may have been interpreted by what you might call naive voters as smears. they don't have the cultural hubris in opposing conservatives, they weren't raised in it, so they may have been easily misled.
i think that what these people voted for was a pro-business government with a social conscience. these people take their religions seriously. and, that's going to piss me off most of the time, but the thing i'm going to agree with them on is social assistance for the poor - because their mosque or their temple insists on it.
for me? right now? knowing that cuts are not imminent is helpful.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/lisa-macleod-announcement-1.4768626
this isn't a controversial situation. the controversy arises when people are doing things away from the office, with no meaningful connection to their employer. this guy was either literally working, or driving around in the company van - they have every right to fire him for either slacking off at work or fucking around with company property.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/van-driver-black-macdonald-fired-splashing-pedestrians-1.4766304
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/van-driver-black-macdonald-fired-splashing-pedestrians-1.4766304
there appears to be a ruling.
unfortunately, the agent on the phone wasn't able to access it. she suggested that it may have been uploaded incorrectly.
if i'm lucky, i'll get something in my inbox before sunset.
more likely is that i'll need to call in the morning.
there's a lot revolving around this. i'm prepared for a smallish sum (while holding out for a bigger one), but it's going to be a problem if it's nothing at all.
it's clear enough that i'm going to either need the cash to move me out of windsor or to pay for the difference in rental costs. the kind of thing i need is probably running closer to $900 than $700 - which is not very affordable on $1200. but, if i have $4000-5000 in the bank to chip at, it becomes more realistic.
the other option is to spend a few thousand dollars getting out of here.
if i get nothing, i'm going to need to hope the market falls for october, and sit tight for it to happen.
unfortunately, the agent on the phone wasn't able to access it. she suggested that it may have been uploaded incorrectly.
if i'm lucky, i'll get something in my inbox before sunset.
more likely is that i'll need to call in the morning.
there's a lot revolving around this. i'm prepared for a smallish sum (while holding out for a bigger one), but it's going to be a problem if it's nothing at all.
it's clear enough that i'm going to either need the cash to move me out of windsor or to pay for the difference in rental costs. the kind of thing i need is probably running closer to $900 than $700 - which is not very affordable on $1200. but, if i have $4000-5000 in the bank to chip at, it becomes more realistic.
the other option is to spend a few thousand dollars getting out of here.
if i get nothing, i'm going to need to hope the market falls for october, and sit tight for it to happen.
i can only assign one of two explanations to a government that wants to impose stress-tests on mortgages, in a default-free environment:
1) the people creating policy are so lost in american politics, that they literally don't understand how the canadian system works - which i think is the correct answer, or
2) they're planning to deregulate the system.
stress tests are an idea that was created for the american market. if you have a memory, you'll recall that the canadian system was praised for it's inability to collapse, due to being properly regulated. so, why are they bringing in this deeply american policy, to fix a deeply american problem that simply does not exist in this country?
again, it's either because:
1) the party is literally fully of people that went to school in the united states, studied the american housing system and just don't understand how canada works - which i think is the sad truth, as it is consistent with many other things we've seen from this government, or
2) the government is preparing to dismantle the system that the rest of the world upheld as superior in the face of the 2008 crash.
the liberals are no longer the smart party. it's clear.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/07/30/permanent-generation-middle-class-renters_a_23492177/?ncid=other_trending_qeesnbnu0l8&utm_campaign=trending
1) the people creating policy are so lost in american politics, that they literally don't understand how the canadian system works - which i think is the correct answer, or
2) they're planning to deregulate the system.
stress tests are an idea that was created for the american market. if you have a memory, you'll recall that the canadian system was praised for it's inability to collapse, due to being properly regulated. so, why are they bringing in this deeply american policy, to fix a deeply american problem that simply does not exist in this country?
again, it's either because:
1) the party is literally fully of people that went to school in the united states, studied the american housing system and just don't understand how canada works - which i think is the sad truth, as it is consistent with many other things we've seen from this government, or
2) the government is preparing to dismantle the system that the rest of the world upheld as superior in the face of the 2008 crash.
the liberals are no longer the smart party. it's clear.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/07/30/permanent-generation-middle-class-renters_a_23492177/?ncid=other_trending_qeesnbnu0l8&utm_campaign=trending
so, a lawyer has to be able to do two jobs - although, in truth, most lawyers hire assistants to help them do the thing people associate with them.
when people think of the vocation of a lawyer, they think of somebody that is able to come up with good arguments, and apply those arguments to existing law. this is a scholarly vocation that requires a lot of research and a lot of analysis and a lot of creative thought. and, i do think i would be pretty good at this role.
but, as mentioned, in the real world, this is not what a lawyer actually does.
the actual job of a lawyer in the real world is to take control of a court room, and project a certain dominance over it's opponents. this is not a scholarly position, and is actually best inhabited by people we would usually think of as jocks, as it is reliant on a dominant personality style.
so, if you're telling me i'd make a good layer, you're wrong - i am not a dominant person, and i do not project power. i come off very weak in a court room. and, i have no interest in modifying how i project myself in this way - as i find that kind of thing to actually be quite revolting, and worthy of a great deal of contempt.
if you're telling me i'd make a good assistant, that's another question. but, the key point from my view is this: who would i be assisting?
i'd rather make music.
when people think of the vocation of a lawyer, they think of somebody that is able to come up with good arguments, and apply those arguments to existing law. this is a scholarly vocation that requires a lot of research and a lot of analysis and a lot of creative thought. and, i do think i would be pretty good at this role.
but, as mentioned, in the real world, this is not what a lawyer actually does.
the actual job of a lawyer in the real world is to take control of a court room, and project a certain dominance over it's opponents. this is not a scholarly position, and is actually best inhabited by people we would usually think of as jocks, as it is reliant on a dominant personality style.
so, if you're telling me i'd make a good layer, you're wrong - i am not a dominant person, and i do not project power. i come off very weak in a court room. and, i have no interest in modifying how i project myself in this way - as i find that kind of thing to actually be quite revolting, and worthy of a great deal of contempt.
if you're telling me i'd make a good assistant, that's another question. but, the key point from my view is this: who would i be assisting?
i'd rather make music.
Monday, July 30, 2018
my views are not different than they were a few years ago.
but, society has moved it's goal posts rather far to the right, making me seem much more liberal - relatively speaking - than i did a few years ago.
and, i will readily acknowledge this point: the society has become more conservative than it used it to be.
but, society has moved it's goal posts rather far to the right, making me seem much more liberal - relatively speaking - than i did a few years ago.
and, i will readily acknowledge this point: the society has become more conservative than it used it to be.
guys, listen.
the university of windsor is the 26th rated school....in canada.
so, even if you're just looking for an excuse to get here, there are still 25 other schools listed ahead of it that you couldn't get into.
it's one thing if you grew up in amherstburg or something. i went to the university down the street from where i grew up, too - and for the reason that it was down the street. i get that.
it's another to fly around the world to get the opportunity to attend classes in a school that is not even well known enough to have a bad reputation.
so, i'm not exaggerating when i call it a diploma mill. but, i understand that it's the only thing pulling people into the city, too.
the university of windsor is the 26th rated school....in canada.
so, even if you're just looking for an excuse to get here, there are still 25 other schools listed ahead of it that you couldn't get into.
it's one thing if you grew up in amherstburg or something. i went to the university down the street from where i grew up, too - and for the reason that it was down the street. i get that.
it's another to fly around the world to get the opportunity to attend classes in a school that is not even well known enough to have a bad reputation.
so, i'm not exaggerating when i call it a diploma mill. but, i understand that it's the only thing pulling people into the city, too.
again: where are the ndp?
have they read any naomi klein?
i mean, forget about calling her and asking her for advice - which they can do, quite easily. have they even read anything she's written?
i expect the liberals to tell everybody to stay calm and pocket the rent - because this is the side of the class war the liberals are on. unfortunately. liberals are supposed to rail against rentiers, but in canada they work for the banks. so, a housing crisis, to them, is neither a challenge nor a crisis but an opportunity to make a profit.
that's fine. it's understood. really.
but, the ndp should be yelling from the trees that this is an incredible crisis of unheard of proportions and using it as a means to push for more subsidized housing.
they aren't. they're just saying the same things the liberals are, because they don't want to be the party of the working poor any more, they want to be the party of brown conservatives - who, as a rule, stand to profit from increasing rents.
have they read any naomi klein?
i mean, forget about calling her and asking her for advice - which they can do, quite easily. have they even read anything she's written?
i expect the liberals to tell everybody to stay calm and pocket the rent - because this is the side of the class war the liberals are on. unfortunately. liberals are supposed to rail against rentiers, but in canada they work for the banks. so, a housing crisis, to them, is neither a challenge nor a crisis but an opportunity to make a profit.
that's fine. it's understood. really.
but, the ndp should be yelling from the trees that this is an incredible crisis of unheard of proportions and using it as a means to push for more subsidized housing.
they aren't. they're just saying the same things the liberals are, because they don't want to be the party of the working poor any more, they want to be the party of brown conservatives - who, as a rule, stand to profit from increasing rents.
building new houses will create construction jobs, which is something that actually has a multiplier effect. it'll be good for the economy.
and, when the refugees move on, we'll have more supply for people on disability - a problem we've been grappling with for decades.
the feds have announced a program recently, but they need to get on it immediately. and, they need to force the cities to make sure they're spending the money appropriately.
and, when the refugees move on, we'll have more supply for people on disability - a problem we've been grappling with for decades.
the feds have announced a program recently, but they need to get on it immediately. and, they need to force the cities to make sure they're spending the money appropriately.
maybe, one day, months from now, somebody will launch a commission into what went wrong here, and try to figure out what they should have done differently.
but, i can tell you the report's findings well ahead of time: rather than plan how and where to build the appropriate housing, there was an ethereal assumption that the market would deal with it.
you won't find anybody stating those words, explicitly. no minister has stated "the market will take care of it" - because no journalist had the foresight to ask the appropriate question.
everybody, everywhere, just assumed this would be the case.
but, the homeless crisis that is now upon us - as we slowly hurtle towards the canadian winter - belies that assumption.
the market is not going to take care of this.
the government needed to plan this out.
but, i can tell you the report's findings well ahead of time: rather than plan how and where to build the appropriate housing, there was an ethereal assumption that the market would deal with it.
you won't find anybody stating those words, explicitly. no minister has stated "the market will take care of it" - because no journalist had the foresight to ask the appropriate question.
everybody, everywhere, just assumed this would be the case.
but, the homeless crisis that is now upon us - as we slowly hurtle towards the canadian winter - belies that assumption.
the market is not going to take care of this.
the government needed to plan this out.
the problem that they're causing is not financial. currency is a social construct; this is not a real concern.
the problem they're causing is in the availability of low rent housing.
this guy is just assuming that the housing to absorb them already exists. this is the fundamental error everybody is making; the fact is that this housing does not exist.
and, so, if you want to cost this properly - if that means something to you - you have to include the cost of building new housing at the appropriate income levels.
so, how much does it cost to build thousands of new housing complexes that families on welfare can afford to live in? tens or hundreds of millions?
you can't increase the population by 200,000 people in a few months and expect not to have to build houses for them. that's crazy.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/armstrong-refugee-costs-1.4762930
the problem they're causing is in the availability of low rent housing.
this guy is just assuming that the housing to absorb them already exists. this is the fundamental error everybody is making; the fact is that this housing does not exist.
and, so, if you want to cost this properly - if that means something to you - you have to include the cost of building new housing at the appropriate income levels.
so, how much does it cost to build thousands of new housing complexes that families on welfare can afford to live in? tens or hundreds of millions?
you can't increase the population by 200,000 people in a few months and expect not to have to build houses for them. that's crazy.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/armstrong-refugee-costs-1.4762930
the upcoming danger is that a lot of these rentiers from out of town are going to shutter properties rather than take losses on them.
windsorites need to push back, and try not to overpay. i know that's hard. i might get stuck in the end, too. but we have a fight on our hands. and, we need to work together to put these bastards out of business.
windsorites need to push back, and try not to overpay. i know that's hard. i might get stuck in the end, too. but we have a fight on our hands. and, we need to work together to put these bastards out of business.
see, this is an example of why i'm waiting.
it's a two bedroom apartment cut out of a house. before the influx of international students, these units would run in the high 600s or low 700s. i had a similar basement unit, initially at 650 (and up to 680 before i moved out). i might be apprehensive about a unit at ground level, but this is similar to what i'm looking for - and should be in my price range.
the place was no doubt bought by some asian guy from toronto, and he no doubt wants to rent exclusively to asian students. so, he's splitting up a two bedroom apartment into rooms and charging $500 a head. but, then he insists on renting the unit together, probably because he legally has to. so, he's trying to rent a two bedroom apartment, but insisting on charging market rent for a room in a big house. i don't want a room in a big house, but a room in a big house comes with certain things - peers, a kitchen, a living room, a backyard. there's none of that, here.
so, he can't rent it - because it's not a room in a house, it's a two bedroom apartment, and market rent for two bedroom apartments of this nature is much less than $1000. it's closer to $700. as he's from toronto, that sounds too cheap to him. so, he's going to let it sit empty in august, because he's trying to charge toronto rent in windsor...
maybe he cuts the price to $300-350 a head for september 1st and rents the unit out.
but, if he stays stubborn and can't rent the unit, what happens on sept 1st?
if it was a basement, i'd offer him $700, unfurnished. that's what the place is worth.
and, there's not a small number of these, either.
rentiers are getting greedy trying to capitalize on this diploma mill, and they're artificially inflating the rent, creating a crisis. a lot of them are going to fail, lose tens of thousands of dollars and ultimately sell the property for nothing. windsor is still an economic backwater with a high unemployment rate and next to no employment prospects. you have to charge below-market rent here, or you're just going to lose a lot of money.
do i have time to wait this out?
https://www.kijiji.ca/v-room-rental-roommate/windsor-area-on/2-full-bedrooms-beautiful-private-all-inclusive-5-min-to-u/1366820048?enableSearchNavigationFlag=true
it's a two bedroom apartment cut out of a house. before the influx of international students, these units would run in the high 600s or low 700s. i had a similar basement unit, initially at 650 (and up to 680 before i moved out). i might be apprehensive about a unit at ground level, but this is similar to what i'm looking for - and should be in my price range.
the place was no doubt bought by some asian guy from toronto, and he no doubt wants to rent exclusively to asian students. so, he's splitting up a two bedroom apartment into rooms and charging $500 a head. but, then he insists on renting the unit together, probably because he legally has to. so, he's trying to rent a two bedroom apartment, but insisting on charging market rent for a room in a big house. i don't want a room in a big house, but a room in a big house comes with certain things - peers, a kitchen, a living room, a backyard. there's none of that, here.
so, he can't rent it - because it's not a room in a house, it's a two bedroom apartment, and market rent for two bedroom apartments of this nature is much less than $1000. it's closer to $700. as he's from toronto, that sounds too cheap to him. so, he's going to let it sit empty in august, because he's trying to charge toronto rent in windsor...
maybe he cuts the price to $300-350 a head for september 1st and rents the unit out.
but, if he stays stubborn and can't rent the unit, what happens on sept 1st?
if it was a basement, i'd offer him $700, unfurnished. that's what the place is worth.
and, there's not a small number of these, either.
rentiers are getting greedy trying to capitalize on this diploma mill, and they're artificially inflating the rent, creating a crisis. a lot of them are going to fail, lose tens of thousands of dollars and ultimately sell the property for nothing. windsor is still an economic backwater with a high unemployment rate and next to no employment prospects. you have to charge below-market rent here, or you're just going to lose a lot of money.
do i have time to wait this out?
https://www.kijiji.ca/v-room-rental-roommate/windsor-area-on/2-full-bedrooms-beautiful-private-all-inclusive-5-min-to-u/1366820048?enableSearchNavigationFlag=true
Sunday, July 29, 2018
again - i'm not saying i want to share a room with a teenage girl from india.
but, these ads are really overwhelmingly egregious.
this is happening in a city with a very low vacancy rate, and you see a dozen ads like this come up every day, specifying that they'll only rent to people of a certain age, certain vocation, certain gender and certain ethnicity - while the shelters are overflowing with white people.
it's not a single issue that can be referred to a human rights board - it's endemic. judging from the ads i'm seeing, there must be hundreds of houses run by these people. and they appear to mostly be empty.
some kind of law enforcement really needs to step in and put a stop to this.
but, these ads are really overwhelmingly egregious.
this is happening in a city with a very low vacancy rate, and you see a dozen ads like this come up every day, specifying that they'll only rent to people of a certain age, certain vocation, certain gender and certain ethnicity - while the shelters are overflowing with white people.
it's not a single issue that can be referred to a human rights board - it's endemic. judging from the ads i'm seeing, there must be hundreds of houses run by these people. and they appear to mostly be empty.
some kind of law enforcement really needs to step in and put a stop to this.
so long as they're secular atheists - which is a reasonable assumption in an oecd country in 2018 - i don't care what the ethnicity of people i'm living with or renting from are.
so, i wouldn't have any issues with renting from or living with an indian or arab or african person or family, just so long as they don't believe in god.
and, likewise, i'm not going to get along well with white christians, either.
but, i've been over this a million times, haven't i? i don't care about ethnicity. what i have an aversion to is religion.
so, i wouldn't have any issues with renting from or living with an indian or arab or african person or family, just so long as they don't believe in god.
and, likewise, i'm not going to get along well with white christians, either.
but, i've been over this a million times, haven't i? i don't care about ethnicity. what i have an aversion to is religion.
i'm not going to fight you on gun control; i don't like guns, i don't want one, and i'm not interested in fighting for people that do have guns and do want them.
i would not shed a tear if the government rounded up all of the guns tomorrow.
this is not about gun rights for me, it's about effective public policy. and, we know that guns laws simply do not reduce gun violence.
that doesn't mean we shouldn't have gun laws, anyways - as mentioned, i'm not going to fight you on this. i'm just going to sit back, criticize your proposals, dissent on your projections and instead suggest that your policies will have the opposite effects of what you're proposing.
i'm going to ask the hard questions about culture that the media is afraid to ask. and, i'm going to finger the actual problem: our gun violence is increasing because our culture is americanizing. the root problem is the importation of gun culture values from south of the border. and, to reverse the problem, we need to reverse the process of americanization that is taking place, here.
i want to end gun violence, too. but i understand that prohibition does not solve problems, but causes problems.
we need to get to the root causes through effective social policies and deep self-analysis, not pass well-meaning authoritarian laws that won't work.
i would not shed a tear if the government rounded up all of the guns tomorrow.
this is not about gun rights for me, it's about effective public policy. and, we know that guns laws simply do not reduce gun violence.
that doesn't mean we shouldn't have gun laws, anyways - as mentioned, i'm not going to fight you on this. i'm just going to sit back, criticize your proposals, dissent on your projections and instead suggest that your policies will have the opposite effects of what you're proposing.
i'm going to ask the hard questions about culture that the media is afraid to ask. and, i'm going to finger the actual problem: our gun violence is increasing because our culture is americanizing. the root problem is the importation of gun culture values from south of the border. and, to reverse the problem, we need to reverse the process of americanization that is taking place, here.
i want to end gun violence, too. but i understand that prohibition does not solve problems, but causes problems.
we need to get to the root causes through effective social policies and deep self-analysis, not pass well-meaning authoritarian laws that won't work.
so, let's say you ban guns completely.
the next thing that happens is you end up with illegal gun cartels gun-running through neighbourhoods. i think this is obvious enough that it doesn't require elaboration, but that is not my point, right now.
what happens when the cops move in to take down the gun cartel?
the next thing that happens is you end up with illegal gun cartels gun-running through neighbourhoods. i think this is obvious enough that it doesn't require elaboration, but that is not my point, right now.
what happens when the cops move in to take down the gun cartel?
Saturday, July 28, 2018
again: i had a sega genesis when i was like 10, and i played a few pc games in (junior) high school - civ 2, wolfenstein, doom, quake. but, i am not and have never identified as a gamer. and the gamer that posts as 'deathtokoalas' is simply not me; it's some high school kid from new york. i, on the other hand, am a middle aged transperson from canada.
i've confronted him on stealing the handle, and he denied it.
all i can do is wait for him to grow out of stealing my name.
i've confronted him on stealing the handle, and he denied it.
all i can do is wait for him to grow out of stealing my name.
the best case scenario is that you get rentiers buying the housing up and renting it out to people on a room-by-room basis.
i was at a subdivision in east windsor the other day, where you had exactly that happening. the house hadn't even been finished yet, and the guy was subdividing it into rental properties.
i was at a subdivision in east windsor the other day, where you had exactly that happening. the house hadn't even been finished yet, and the guy was subdividing it into rental properties.
if those houses were empty before the flood of refugees because nobody could afford to buy them, they're still going to be empty after the flood of unskilled refugees with few job prospects, because people still can't afford to buy them.
we don't need more people to solve the affordability crisis, what we need is more affordable housing.
we don't need more people to solve the affordability crisis, what we need is more affordable housing.
these refugess are not bringing wealth with them.
they are not creating jobs.
broadly speaking, they are neither educated nor skilled workers.
so, what's happening is that we're recycling property taxes back into the economy through welfare, and sending it out of the country via multinational firms and into the pockets of rentiers. there's really no benefit to the local economy.
there's no increase in local production. no jobs created. no multiplier effects. just more people in poverty, and more people in general.
they are not creating jobs.
broadly speaking, they are neither educated nor skilled workers.
so, what's happening is that we're recycling property taxes back into the economy through welfare, and sending it out of the country via multinational firms and into the pockets of rentiers. there's really no benefit to the local economy.
there's no increase in local production. no jobs created. no multiplier effects. just more people in poverty, and more people in general.
the unemployment rate in southern ontario has been very high, now, for years.
it's not a prosperous area.
and, rents are not increasing due to the economy getting better - they're increasing due to dwindling demand, as a consequence of a huge increase in welfare recipients.
if we continue on this trajectory, these cities are all going to go bankrupt. and i don't exactly care. i'm just trying to get the point across.
it's not a prosperous area.
and, rents are not increasing due to the economy getting better - they're increasing due to dwindling demand, as a consequence of a huge increase in welfare recipients.
if we continue on this trajectory, these cities are all going to go bankrupt. and i don't exactly care. i'm just trying to get the point across.
the entire southern half of the province has a 1% vacancy rate right now, or lower.
the "free market" is not going to solve that problem. that is going to require government intervention.
and, we're going to have crisis levels of homelessness, now. for a long time.
it's not complicated: if you let tens of thousands of people into the country without a housing plan, you're going to create a housing crisis.
you can argue they shouldn't have let them in, or you can argue they should have had a plan, but you need to do the obvious math of letting them in without a plan and then prepare for the obvious consequences.
the "free market" is not going to solve that problem. that is going to require government intervention.
and, we're going to have crisis levels of homelessness, now. for a long time.
it's not complicated: if you let tens of thousands of people into the country without a housing plan, you're going to create a housing crisis.
you can argue they shouldn't have let them in, or you can argue they should have had a plan, but you need to do the obvious math of letting them in without a plan and then prepare for the obvious consequences.
and, what about montreal?
well.
i'd have to live in quebec for a fixed amount of time before i'm eligible for disability there, and i would not be eligible for disability here, if i go. i don't know the exact rules. but, in order for me to keep the check i have, i have to have a mailing address in ontario.
the way that would have to work is i'd have to go with a bank account and hope for the best. that's a hail mary.
so, i want to stay in ontario. if the last two tazs have been in montreal and detroit, where's the next one? buffalo?
niagara / st catherine's is something i should seriously look at....
...but, all of southern ontario appears to have been flooded by cheap labour, right now. & the north is poorly developed.
the refugees want to live in cities. the government would apparently actually like to direct them to the north, where the population density is extremely low, but they don't seem to understand that there isn't any housing up there, because it's largely undeveloped. are they going to start handing out plots of land like it's the nineteenth century? because, they seem to want them to act like settler colonists, without giving them the resources that the state gave the settler colonists. they can't buy land living on welfare.
this government operates on broad principles, and doesn't do the actual research. this is weird for the liberals, and is going to hurt their branding, long term. their reputation as the 'smart party' is pretty much in tatters, at this point. they didn't do any planning around housing at all, they just let thousands of people in without thinking twice about it - that's not smart.
wherever they end up, there's going to need to be housing built, and it's hard to understand what kind of private sector actor is going to build housing for largely illiterate refugees on welfare - or the disabled and other low income people they're displacing.
this might be a long term mess. and, all the government wants to talk about is free markets. so, it might require an election to fix the vacancy rate. sadly.
and, if my goal is to escape capitalism, rather than participate in it, my best guess in the short term may actually be too look for a small town, as the refugees don't want to go to small towns.
we may end up in a situation, for example, where housing in windsor is non-existent, but housing in the smaller towns around windsor starts to open up. &, likewise, i might be able to find cheap housing in smaller ontario towns like brantford or paris than i would in larger ones like windsor or london.
& if i want access to toronto, without living in toronto, i should start looking at something scattered around the 905 - something with go train access into toronto to see the odd show now and again.
we just brought in thousands of people with poor job prospects, which is not really going to change the economy. they'll take tax revenue and use it to pay for housing and buy imported food and imported clothes. this is not likely to have much of a multiplier effect - it's just more people on welfare. so, the basic premise of the taz in this region does still exist, it's just being pushed out of the population centres. we're not all of a sudden a prosperous region with good job prospects, but just being flooded with unemployed people, making it that much harder to exist.
a reasonable question is how many of these people stay here, in the long run. there's still no jobs here. the influx of refugees may help some grocery stores, but that isn't much of an economic driver. any jobs created will be in store fronts and restaurants and likely to add up to a net deficit.
some of these people legitimately just want to sit on welfare, and i guess we're stuck with them. but, it takes quite a bit of ambition to move across the world to claim status as a refugee. and, you'd think many of them are going to want more than that.
they won't find it here...
i don't have a good suggestion as to where to go. we used to send our surplus labour to the oil sands, but there's no future, there, either. this region will be automated before it is reindustrialized. do they want to work in agriculture?
we're left with the same set of solutions that we needed to the same set of problems in the first place, it's just more obvious now than it was before. we still need more subsidized housing. we still need more state funding for industry. adding thousands - tens of thousands - of illiterate people just exacerbates everything...
so, in the end, the government will need to step in, one way or another - or we're going to have a homelessness crisis of both refugees and non-refugees.
but, if it takes ten years for subsidized housing to materialize, the way, in the short run, may be to escape the cities for cheap rent in the towns...
well.
i'd have to live in quebec for a fixed amount of time before i'm eligible for disability there, and i would not be eligible for disability here, if i go. i don't know the exact rules. but, in order for me to keep the check i have, i have to have a mailing address in ontario.
the way that would have to work is i'd have to go with a bank account and hope for the best. that's a hail mary.
so, i want to stay in ontario. if the last two tazs have been in montreal and detroit, where's the next one? buffalo?
niagara / st catherine's is something i should seriously look at....
...but, all of southern ontario appears to have been flooded by cheap labour, right now. & the north is poorly developed.
the refugees want to live in cities. the government would apparently actually like to direct them to the north, where the population density is extremely low, but they don't seem to understand that there isn't any housing up there, because it's largely undeveloped. are they going to start handing out plots of land like it's the nineteenth century? because, they seem to want them to act like settler colonists, without giving them the resources that the state gave the settler colonists. they can't buy land living on welfare.
this government operates on broad principles, and doesn't do the actual research. this is weird for the liberals, and is going to hurt their branding, long term. their reputation as the 'smart party' is pretty much in tatters, at this point. they didn't do any planning around housing at all, they just let thousands of people in without thinking twice about it - that's not smart.
wherever they end up, there's going to need to be housing built, and it's hard to understand what kind of private sector actor is going to build housing for largely illiterate refugees on welfare - or the disabled and other low income people they're displacing.
this might be a long term mess. and, all the government wants to talk about is free markets. so, it might require an election to fix the vacancy rate. sadly.
and, if my goal is to escape capitalism, rather than participate in it, my best guess in the short term may actually be too look for a small town, as the refugees don't want to go to small towns.
we may end up in a situation, for example, where housing in windsor is non-existent, but housing in the smaller towns around windsor starts to open up. &, likewise, i might be able to find cheap housing in smaller ontario towns like brantford or paris than i would in larger ones like windsor or london.
& if i want access to toronto, without living in toronto, i should start looking at something scattered around the 905 - something with go train access into toronto to see the odd show now and again.
we just brought in thousands of people with poor job prospects, which is not really going to change the economy. they'll take tax revenue and use it to pay for housing and buy imported food and imported clothes. this is not likely to have much of a multiplier effect - it's just more people on welfare. so, the basic premise of the taz in this region does still exist, it's just being pushed out of the population centres. we're not all of a sudden a prosperous region with good job prospects, but just being flooded with unemployed people, making it that much harder to exist.
a reasonable question is how many of these people stay here, in the long run. there's still no jobs here. the influx of refugees may help some grocery stores, but that isn't much of an economic driver. any jobs created will be in store fronts and restaurants and likely to add up to a net deficit.
some of these people legitimately just want to sit on welfare, and i guess we're stuck with them. but, it takes quite a bit of ambition to move across the world to claim status as a refugee. and, you'd think many of them are going to want more than that.
they won't find it here...
i don't have a good suggestion as to where to go. we used to send our surplus labour to the oil sands, but there's no future, there, either. this region will be automated before it is reindustrialized. do they want to work in agriculture?
we're left with the same set of solutions that we needed to the same set of problems in the first place, it's just more obvious now than it was before. we still need more subsidized housing. we still need more state funding for industry. adding thousands - tens of thousands - of illiterate people just exacerbates everything...
so, in the end, the government will need to step in, one way or another - or we're going to have a homelessness crisis of both refugees and non-refugees.
but, if it takes ten years for subsidized housing to materialize, the way, in the short run, may be to escape the cities for cheap rent in the towns...
so, did the refugees ruin it?
yeah. pretty much.
but, i remember reading up on this idea of temporary autonomous zones when i moved in here. i'm stretching the concept; i need something approaching "normal housing" for as long as i need studio space. this is taking forever, and i don't like it, but so be it. but, the idea i can pull out of this theory is that the spaces are impermanent; they dissolve when capital identifies them. and, this is irreversible, until capitalism is abolished.
the idea is that, while revolution is necessary, struggle kind of sucks. we have finite lives. so, instead of fighting against capitalism, it may make more sense to just try and avoid it - at least until the social revolution brings us to critical mass.
if windsor was something like a taz, it was impermanent by definition. and, capital was always bound to expel me, eventually.
the challenge is in finding the next zone - and in cobbling together the resources required to get there.
yeah. pretty much.
but, i remember reading up on this idea of temporary autonomous zones when i moved in here. i'm stretching the concept; i need something approaching "normal housing" for as long as i need studio space. this is taking forever, and i don't like it, but so be it. but, the idea i can pull out of this theory is that the spaces are impermanent; they dissolve when capital identifies them. and, this is irreversible, until capitalism is abolished.
the idea is that, while revolution is necessary, struggle kind of sucks. we have finite lives. so, instead of fighting against capitalism, it may make more sense to just try and avoid it - at least until the social revolution brings us to critical mass.
if windsor was something like a taz, it was impermanent by definition. and, capital was always bound to expel me, eventually.
the challenge is in finding the next zone - and in cobbling together the resources required to get there.
again, what's confusing and disappointing is the ndp.
we expect the conservatives to be xenophobic, and we expect the...we expect the liberals to do the math first, which they didn't do this time, but we expect them to react against the xenophobia. so, you get this dumb argument about racism and pointless finger-pointing that just distracts from the actual problem on the ground, which then never gets fixed.
as a left-leaning canadian, i would expect the ndp to stand up and demand more funding for socialized housing. that's what they did in the past. that's where they're supposed to be on the spectrum. & i would expect them to draw attention to the difficulties being faced by low income canadians, as vacancies fall & rents rise.
this pressure from the ndp then forces the liberals to act. that's how this works.
instead, they're basically just repeating the same lines as the liberals, and just trying to say it louder and more forcefully. and, the weird thing about it is that it actually makes the liberals seem further left, even though they're just pushing the standard bourgeois policies around population increases, to drive down wages and increase rents.
if the ndp won't be a left-wing party, we're going to have to build a new one from scratch. & let us be clear: the left-wing response to this situation is to push the government very hard to get shovels in the ground for more subsidized housing.
we expect the conservatives to be xenophobic, and we expect the...we expect the liberals to do the math first, which they didn't do this time, but we expect them to react against the xenophobia. so, you get this dumb argument about racism and pointless finger-pointing that just distracts from the actual problem on the ground, which then never gets fixed.
as a left-leaning canadian, i would expect the ndp to stand up and demand more funding for socialized housing. that's what they did in the past. that's where they're supposed to be on the spectrum. & i would expect them to draw attention to the difficulties being faced by low income canadians, as vacancies fall & rents rise.
this pressure from the ndp then forces the liberals to act. that's how this works.
instead, they're basically just repeating the same lines as the liberals, and just trying to say it louder and more forcefully. and, the weird thing about it is that it actually makes the liberals seem further left, even though they're just pushing the standard bourgeois policies around population increases, to drive down wages and increase rents.
if the ndp won't be a left-wing party, we're going to have to build a new one from scratch. & let us be clear: the left-wing response to this situation is to push the government very hard to get shovels in the ground for more subsidized housing.
the city is really, legitimately trapped in a time warp - and the attitudes people have to smoking are one of the most obvious components of it.
the young people seem to be a bit better.
but, the sad and pathetic fact is that most of the people over 40 here were never told "you can't smoke here" until 2015-ish, and are still having trouble adjusting to it.
they just don't think it's a serious issue.
the young people seem to be a bit better.
but, the sad and pathetic fact is that most of the people over 40 here were never told "you can't smoke here" until 2015-ish, and are still having trouble adjusting to it.
they just don't think it's a serious issue.
the reality is that you'll need to pay for premium housing to avoid smoking, in this town. you're looking at rents over $1000/month, for a bachelor apartment.
you might get lucky.
i'm hoping...but....
and, you can't walk down the street without bumping into a smoker, either.
you could smoke in the restaurants here until a few years ago. the culture shock that the rest of the world went through 20-30 years ago is just beginning to happen, here. people don't get it; non-smokers aren't bothered by it.
people smoke with their kids around, like it's not a big deal.
it's just still considered "normal" to smoke, here.
there are neighbourhoods downtown where it just hangs. for blocks.
i didn't think it would be this difficult to get away from it, but i didn't realize the preponderance of it, either. it's ubiquitous...
you might get lucky.
i'm hoping...but....
and, you can't walk down the street without bumping into a smoker, either.
you could smoke in the restaurants here until a few years ago. the culture shock that the rest of the world went through 20-30 years ago is just beginning to happen, here. people don't get it; non-smokers aren't bothered by it.
people smoke with their kids around, like it's not a big deal.
it's just still considered "normal" to smoke, here.
there are neighbourhoods downtown where it just hangs. for blocks.
i didn't think it would be this difficult to get away from it, but i didn't realize the preponderance of it, either. it's ubiquitous...
so, what is my plan, here?
if i have to leave the city, i'll have to place things in storage - or just move straight out. so, even if i get the payout, i still can't be really seriously looking outside the area, because i won't be able to see anything. and, who is going to rent to me over the phone, right?
the fact that i don't have a laptop right now is kind of a really big problem...
regardless of the outcome, my options until october 1st are really mostly within biking distance. i'm not going to be able to seriously hitch out to waterloo or niagara or wherever else until i'm able to get my things in a safe space, first.
if i have to hit the street, i'll need a new (used) laptop, first.
and, i may have to get used to sleeping on the streets for a little while...
i have two months, still. but, i'm coming to terms with the increasingly clear reality that if i want to start over again post-smoking, then there's really nothing available here. i'm going to have to leave...and that's going to require a stay in some hostels until i figure it out...
if i have to leave the city, i'll have to place things in storage - or just move straight out. so, even if i get the payout, i still can't be really seriously looking outside the area, because i won't be able to see anything. and, who is going to rent to me over the phone, right?
the fact that i don't have a laptop right now is kind of a really big problem...
regardless of the outcome, my options until october 1st are really mostly within biking distance. i'm not going to be able to seriously hitch out to waterloo or niagara or wherever else until i'm able to get my things in a safe space, first.
if i have to hit the street, i'll need a new (used) laptop, first.
and, i may have to get used to sleeping on the streets for a little while...
i have two months, still. but, i'm coming to terms with the increasingly clear reality that if i want to start over again post-smoking, then there's really nothing available here. i'm going to have to leave...and that's going to require a stay in some hostels until i figure it out...
Friday, July 27, 2018
with inflation over 650, i should be looking at units in the 700-725 range.
if i were still on marion, i'd be paying a little less than 700 all inclusive right now. maybe closer to 690. i'd expect to be paying around $710-720 in december. so, that's what i should be looking at - under $725.
but, if i get a big enough settlement, i can interpret it as paying the inflation, which is a real thing.
so, i'm currently looking at units under $799, including utilities. if i get a few thousand dollars, i can start looking at units pushing $899 - but they'd better be perfect, kind of thing
if i do not win a settlement, my hard max is going to be $799. period.
if i were still on marion, i'd be paying a little less than 700 all inclusive right now. maybe closer to 690. i'd expect to be paying around $710-720 in december. so, that's what i should be looking at - under $725.
but, if i get a big enough settlement, i can interpret it as paying the inflation, which is a real thing.
so, i'm currently looking at units under $799, including utilities. if i get a few thousand dollars, i can start looking at units pushing $899 - but they'd better be perfect, kind of thing
if i do not win a settlement, my hard max is going to be $799. period.
i need the ruling before i can start looking at more pricey units and/or start to plan to move out of town.
right now, it doesn't seem like the tardiness of the ruling is fucking me over for august 1st.
i might find out later that it did.
i will say, however, that if this process were not so slow, i may have found something for july 1st - there was a very good option that i had to skip because i couldn't secure last month's rent.
right now, it doesn't seem like the tardiness of the ruling is fucking me over for august 1st.
i might find out later that it did.
i will say, however, that if this process were not so slow, i may have found something for july 1st - there was a very good option that i had to skip because i couldn't secure last month's rent.
shovels.
in.
the.
ground.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/04/10/affordable-housing-crisis-canada_a_23407878/
in.
the.
ground.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/04/10/affordable-housing-crisis-canada_a_23407878/
i mean, this is what i said from the start: if we have 25,000 empty houses for these 25,000 refugees, why do we have people in shelters?
it turns out that we didn't have 25,000 empty houses, after all.
and, today, we have refugees in hotels, and overflowing shelters - because we've created a crisis in low-income housing by taking in too many people too fast.
these are the facts: the infrastructure is lacking.
we can fix this by building.
but we have to actually do that.
and, they should have fucking known that from the start.
it turns out that we didn't have 25,000 empty houses, after all.
and, today, we have refugees in hotels, and overflowing shelters - because we've created a crisis in low-income housing by taking in too many people too fast.
these are the facts: the infrastructure is lacking.
we can fix this by building.
but we have to actually do that.
and, they should have fucking known that from the start.
it's not a difficult equation.
if you're going to let in x refugee families, you need to build x low rent rental units for them. at least.
if you don't do that, you're going to get social unrest, as low income canadians fight with refugees over dwindling access to cheap housing.
i understand that your typical upper class liberal has no idea, but the actual politicians need to figure this out and get to fixing it - or deal with the consequences.
if you're going to let in x refugee families, you need to build x low rent rental units for them. at least.
if you don't do that, you're going to get social unrest, as low income canadians fight with refugees over dwindling access to cheap housing.
i understand that your typical upper class liberal has no idea, but the actual politicians need to figure this out and get to fixing it - or deal with the consequences.
there is a difference between saying "you're not welcome here" and saying "we do not have the infrastructure in place to accommodate your request".
i'm not happy about letting in religious people, don't misunderstand me. there's lots of people i'd look in the eye and tell to take a hike.
but, that's only half the crisis in front of us. and, even if 100% of these people are wonderful egalitarian leftists, there's still nowhere to put them at the moment...
i'm not happy about letting in religious people, don't misunderstand me. there's lots of people i'd look in the eye and tell to take a hike.
but, that's only half the crisis in front of us. and, even if 100% of these people are wonderful egalitarian leftists, there's still nowhere to put them at the moment...
people both inside and outside of canada need to get their heads around this point: we honestly quite literally don't have anywhere to put these people.
we're not "full". we have one of the lowest population densities in the world. there's lots of space.
but, we don't currently have the infrastructure in place to accommodate thousands of refugees.
we just don't.
and, that's what trudeau needs to get on twitter and say.
we're not "full". we have one of the lowest population densities in the world. there's lots of space.
but, we don't currently have the infrastructure in place to accommodate thousands of refugees.
we just don't.
and, that's what trudeau needs to get on twitter and say.
so, are the border crossers in quebec illegal?
well, it depends on whether the claims get processed in their favour or not. if they succeed in getting status, they're not illegal - they're refugees. if they fail in getting status, they're illegal aliens under the law.
i think that what i'm demonstrating is that the question isn't really useful..
listen: i don't really believe in borders. i don't like deporting people. and, i do believe that nobody is illegal. but, you have to weigh these considerations very carefully with real world issues around vacancy rates and the cost and availability of low income housing.
in 2013, cheap housing was plentiful in windsor. i talked to a manager at the local slumlord monopoly today that claimed this city now has a 1% vacancy rate. that is probably not exactly right, in that it doesn't take into consideration the dilapidated housing that is currently off the market.
but the answer to "what has changed in the last five years?" is "we let in thousands of refugees.".
in 2014, we elected an openly gay premier, and nobody cared that she was gay. we recently elected a premier that makes george w. bush look intelligent, on a promise to reverse a sex ed curriculum because it acknowledges that queer people exist. what the fuck happened? we let in way too many people with regressive social policy outlooks and low levels of education.
it's not a question of legality, it's a question of sustainability. and, that is the idea we need to be getting across.
if we had infinite space, or a post-propertarian economy, i wouldn't even want a border to exist at all.
but, we live in a capitalist reality. property rights are not ideologically enforced here, but they do exist. our vacancy rates are very low. our shelters are at capacity. we have the ability to build, but we need time to do it.
we need to slow this down. and, we need time to assimilate what we've allowed in.
well, it depends on whether the claims get processed in their favour or not. if they succeed in getting status, they're not illegal - they're refugees. if they fail in getting status, they're illegal aliens under the law.
i think that what i'm demonstrating is that the question isn't really useful..
listen: i don't really believe in borders. i don't like deporting people. and, i do believe that nobody is illegal. but, you have to weigh these considerations very carefully with real world issues around vacancy rates and the cost and availability of low income housing.
in 2013, cheap housing was plentiful in windsor. i talked to a manager at the local slumlord monopoly today that claimed this city now has a 1% vacancy rate. that is probably not exactly right, in that it doesn't take into consideration the dilapidated housing that is currently off the market.
but the answer to "what has changed in the last five years?" is "we let in thousands of refugees.".
in 2014, we elected an openly gay premier, and nobody cared that she was gay. we recently elected a premier that makes george w. bush look intelligent, on a promise to reverse a sex ed curriculum because it acknowledges that queer people exist. what the fuck happened? we let in way too many people with regressive social policy outlooks and low levels of education.
it's not a question of legality, it's a question of sustainability. and, that is the idea we need to be getting across.
if we had infinite space, or a post-propertarian economy, i wouldn't even want a border to exist at all.
but, we live in a capitalist reality. property rights are not ideologically enforced here, but they do exist. our vacancy rates are very low. our shelters are at capacity. we have the ability to build, but we need time to do it.
we need to slow this down. and, we need time to assimilate what we've allowed in.
i don't know why my father had this obsession with me owning a vehicle.
he put a lot of hubris into owning a car. for him, it was a big part of going to work everyday. i'd make the argument that he worked his whole life for no gain - that he largely wasted his life on unrewarding labour, and in the end accomplished nothing of value. but, in his mind, car ownership was a big part of the reason he went to work every day. and, if you asked him what he accomplished in life, he would say "i owned my own car".
it seems trivial, to me. almost stupid, really.
but, he found my rejection almost hurtful. this is something he never understood. he'd fix up my bike for me every year, and he'd bite his tongue, but it ate at him inside: why didn't his kid want a car?
he seemed to think i'd "grow out of it", without fully grasping the depth of my commitment to fighting climate change, and my aversion to buying oil and funding all of the hell that buying oil funds.
and, i actually think the position he took was extremely selfish. he had the ability to pay my loan down; instead, he insisted on buying me a car, and pouted like a child when i told him i didn't want it and would rather have my debt cleared off, like the responsible young adult that i was.
he's been dead for years, and i still don't want a car - and still have a large student loan.
he put a lot of hubris into owning a car. for him, it was a big part of going to work everyday. i'd make the argument that he worked his whole life for no gain - that he largely wasted his life on unrewarding labour, and in the end accomplished nothing of value. but, in his mind, car ownership was a big part of the reason he went to work every day. and, if you asked him what he accomplished in life, he would say "i owned my own car".
it seems trivial, to me. almost stupid, really.
but, he found my rejection almost hurtful. this is something he never understood. he'd fix up my bike for me every year, and he'd bite his tongue, but it ate at him inside: why didn't his kid want a car?
he seemed to think i'd "grow out of it", without fully grasping the depth of my commitment to fighting climate change, and my aversion to buying oil and funding all of the hell that buying oil funds.
and, i actually think the position he took was extremely selfish. he had the ability to pay my loan down; instead, he insisted on buying me a car, and pouted like a child when i told him i didn't want it and would rather have my debt cleared off, like the responsible young adult that i was.
he's been dead for years, and i still don't want a car - and still have a large student loan.
my father tried to give me a car for free once, and i told him i didn't want it and asked him to pay off my student loan, instead.
he didn't pay off the loan, and, i never accepted the car.
i was told it would sit until i wanted it, but he must have eventually traded it in or something. i don't know what happened to it...
he didn't pay off the loan, and, i never accepted the car.
i was told it would sit until i wanted it, but he must have eventually traded it in or something. i don't know what happened to it...
and, the apartment has disappeared again.
i spoke with the people at the management company, and they told me a likely story. at the least, it's no longer available, so i can't do much about it.
i kind of expect it to pop back up again after august 1st.
there's a very high chance that i'll still be here. but, i guess i'm better off if i find something better, right....
it's very frustrating, because i don't know how somebody got in to see it. i tried. several times.
*sigh*.
i have lots of time, still...
i spoke with the people at the management company, and they told me a likely story. at the least, it's no longer available, so i can't do much about it.
i kind of expect it to pop back up again after august 1st.
there's a very high chance that i'll still be here. but, i guess i'm better off if i find something better, right....
it's very frustrating, because i don't know how somebody got in to see it. i tried. several times.
*sigh*.
i have lots of time, still...
if i show up on sandwich street, and i get the slightest hint of smoke, i'm walking out.
slightest.
hint.
gone...
i have not seen pictures of this unit, which is not very confidence-building. the pictures i've seen suggest the unit is too small; as it is, i don't know how big it is. and, it's consequently very low probability.
slightest.
hint.
gone...
i have not seen pictures of this unit, which is not very confidence-building. the pictures i've seen suggest the unit is too small; as it is, i don't know how big it is. and, it's consequently very low probability.
i need to be clear.
i do not want a challenging job.
if forced to do it - and i mean that, literally - i would want to stumble in on no sleep, and sleepwalk through the most boring and repetitive task i can imagine, so i can go home and work on something i care about.
i do not want a sexual partner.
sex takes a lot of energy, regardless of how you're approaching it. and, it's really dramatically overrated. i have better things to do than focus tremendous resources on a twenty second high. when it comes down to it, cocaine is probably more efficient, resource-wise.
i do not want to have children.
children are expensive, time-consuming, stressful and leave you with little material benefits, in the end. i would be more likely to kill myself than accept any sort of parental responsibilities - as i would consider it a death sentence, anyways.
i do not want a challenging job.
if forced to do it - and i mean that, literally - i would want to stumble in on no sleep, and sleepwalk through the most boring and repetitive task i can imagine, so i can go home and work on something i care about.
i do not want a sexual partner.
sex takes a lot of energy, regardless of how you're approaching it. and, it's really dramatically overrated. i have better things to do than focus tremendous resources on a twenty second high. when it comes down to it, cocaine is probably more efficient, resource-wise.
i do not want to have children.
children are expensive, time-consuming, stressful and leave you with little material benefits, in the end. i would be more likely to kill myself than accept any sort of parental responsibilities - as i would consider it a death sentence, anyways.
again: if i were to get something for $489/month, this is what my budget would look like:
rent: $489
food: $200
internet: $28
estrogen: $21
============
738
my income is $1215.
1215 - 738 = 477.
i do not have a driver's license, have never driven a car before and do not want to purchase an automobile. sorry.
i do not have any friends, do not speak to my family, do not have a job and do not want to purchase a cell phone plan. sorry.
i have not watched tv since the 90s, and have never paid for cable, not even when i had a full-time job in the 00s. i do not want to pay for cable, now. sorry.
i am exceedingly health-conscious, would prefer to make my own meals and simply don't like sitting in restaurants. that is, if we ignore the absurdity of telling me to rent a room so i can eat out more. sorry.
i quit smoking in january, 2016.
i have never drank much.
i never was and do not want to become a habitual marijuana user.
so, i have absolutely no idea what you want me to spend that money on.
honestly.
i'm at a complete loss.
i want to spend it on housing - because that is what is important to me.
if you forced me to, i'd probably spend it on hair removal. honestly. that's what i would do - i'd focus on transitioning.
now, let's say i actually did have a full time minimum wage job (and i wouldn't want to work in an intellectually stimulating environment, too stressful - i would want simple drone work, so i could go home and work on something i care about without being too drained). nowadays, that's a take-away of what? $1500/month, roughly?
and, let's say i got an apartment for $750 + hydro.
this is what my budget would look like:
rent: $750
hydro: $30 [i'd lose my subsidy, but i use almost no hydro.]
internet: $28
estrogen: $100 [i'd lose my subsidy]
food: $200
================
$1108
so, i'd have $392 leftover after rent - less than i would if i had a room for $479, on disability.
i still wouldn't want a car.
i might be forced to get a phone. i don't even know how much that would cost. i'd do it pay as you go, probably. so, let's say $20/month.
i still wouldn't want cable.
i'd still rather make my own meals.
i still wouldn't smoke....hopefully. it's probably the biggest single risk factor, for me.
i still wouldn't drink.
i still wouldn't do drugs.
so, i'd still have hundreds of dollars to waste, on what? well, probably hair removal, and then what?
now, this is what my budget would look like with a $750 + hydro lease, on disability:
rent: $750
hydro: $0
food: $200
internet: $28
estrogen: $21
================
$999.
so, i have $215 leftover.
if ford cancels the hydro subsidy, it'll cost me $30/month. trivial.
and, what i do with this?
the truth is: not much.
i can do my own accounting. i can do my own budgeting. and, when i say i can afford it, i'm not blustering.
i paid $650-680 for years, and pay $700 now, and have never had problems with rent.
rent: $489
food: $200
internet: $28
estrogen: $21
============
738
my income is $1215.
1215 - 738 = 477.
i do not have a driver's license, have never driven a car before and do not want to purchase an automobile. sorry.
i do not have any friends, do not speak to my family, do not have a job and do not want to purchase a cell phone plan. sorry.
i have not watched tv since the 90s, and have never paid for cable, not even when i had a full-time job in the 00s. i do not want to pay for cable, now. sorry.
i am exceedingly health-conscious, would prefer to make my own meals and simply don't like sitting in restaurants. that is, if we ignore the absurdity of telling me to rent a room so i can eat out more. sorry.
i quit smoking in january, 2016.
i have never drank much.
i never was and do not want to become a habitual marijuana user.
so, i have absolutely no idea what you want me to spend that money on.
honestly.
i'm at a complete loss.
i want to spend it on housing - because that is what is important to me.
if you forced me to, i'd probably spend it on hair removal. honestly. that's what i would do - i'd focus on transitioning.
now, let's say i actually did have a full time minimum wage job (and i wouldn't want to work in an intellectually stimulating environment, too stressful - i would want simple drone work, so i could go home and work on something i care about without being too drained). nowadays, that's a take-away of what? $1500/month, roughly?
and, let's say i got an apartment for $750 + hydro.
this is what my budget would look like:
rent: $750
hydro: $30 [i'd lose my subsidy, but i use almost no hydro.]
internet: $28
estrogen: $100 [i'd lose my subsidy]
food: $200
================
$1108
so, i'd have $392 leftover after rent - less than i would if i had a room for $479, on disability.
i still wouldn't want a car.
i might be forced to get a phone. i don't even know how much that would cost. i'd do it pay as you go, probably. so, let's say $20/month.
i still wouldn't want cable.
i'd still rather make my own meals.
i still wouldn't smoke....hopefully. it's probably the biggest single risk factor, for me.
i still wouldn't drink.
i still wouldn't do drugs.
so, i'd still have hundreds of dollars to waste, on what? well, probably hair removal, and then what?
now, this is what my budget would look like with a $750 + hydro lease, on disability:
rent: $750
hydro: $0
food: $200
internet: $28
estrogen: $21
================
$999.
so, i have $215 leftover.
if ford cancels the hydro subsidy, it'll cost me $30/month. trivial.
and, what i do with this?
the truth is: not much.
i can do my own accounting. i can do my own budgeting. and, when i say i can afford it, i'm not blustering.
i paid $650-680 for years, and pay $700 now, and have never had problems with rent.
if i was making the kind of money they're trying to screen for, i'd buy a fucking condo somewhere.
really.
what do you want, a lawyer to move in to your falling down unit on top of a hair salon in walkerville? get fucking real.
this is low rent housing - best suited for struggling artists and other people that require assistance to exist.
and, they're just being stupid about it.
totally fucking stupid...
at best, they'll find some kids that'll pay for it with mommy's credit card, and trash the place because they don't give a fuck. and, the idiots seem to actually want that.
really.
what do you want, a lawyer to move in to your falling down unit on top of a hair salon in walkerville? get fucking real.
this is low rent housing - best suited for struggling artists and other people that require assistance to exist.
and, they're just being stupid about it.
totally fucking stupid...
at best, they'll find some kids that'll pay for it with mommy's credit card, and trash the place because they don't give a fuck. and, the idiots seem to actually want that.
i NEED a non-smoking apartment that is BIG ENOUGH to store my gear.
i don't care where it is, within reason.
i don't care what it looks like inside. at all.
falling down, in need of a paint job, full of bugs - i don't care.
what i care about is the size of the unit, because i NEED the space, & the fact that it's non-smoking because i don't want to die young from second-hand smoke - & that fact that it's under $800.
living in a smoke-free environment is not a privilege. second-hand smoke is not an annoyance. every day i stay here, i increase my chances of getting cancer. if i stay here long term, i will almost certainly die of cancer. and, i can't believe that there are people alive today that don't understand that.
what i'm looking for is very hard to find.
in fact, as far as i can tell, only one acceptable unit currently exists.
yet, as far as i can tell, these people are lying to me about the situation, too.
and, if this is the way i take these slumlords down, so be it.
note to the bigots and classist assholes of the world: it's easier for everybody if you give up.
there is almost no chance that i'm going to find something else. i need this space. and, i'm not going to give up because somebody thinks a tenant should make $2000/month+ to live in dilapidated slumlord housing.
this is stupid, and we're going to fight about it until i win.
i don't care where it is, within reason.
i don't care what it looks like inside. at all.
falling down, in need of a paint job, full of bugs - i don't care.
what i care about is the size of the unit, because i NEED the space, & the fact that it's non-smoking because i don't want to die young from second-hand smoke - & that fact that it's under $800.
living in a smoke-free environment is not a privilege. second-hand smoke is not an annoyance. every day i stay here, i increase my chances of getting cancer. if i stay here long term, i will almost certainly die of cancer. and, i can't believe that there are people alive today that don't understand that.
what i'm looking for is very hard to find.
in fact, as far as i can tell, only one acceptable unit currently exists.
yet, as far as i can tell, these people are lying to me about the situation, too.
and, if this is the way i take these slumlords down, so be it.
note to the bigots and classist assholes of the world: it's easier for everybody if you give up.
there is almost no chance that i'm going to find something else. i need this space. and, i'm not going to give up because somebody thinks a tenant should make $2000/month+ to live in dilapidated slumlord housing.
this is stupid, and we're going to fight about it until i win.
Thursday, July 26, 2018
i mean, how do you even know that an empty room is really a bedroom?
if it's empty, is it not void of bed?
and, if a room has not bed, from whence does this idea of it being a "bedroom" even come?
it could just as easily be a one bedroom + an office, or a one bedroom + a studio - both of which have some relevance in my proposed utilization of the particular space.
a room is a room is only a bedroom if you insist on it; it could be anything at all, if you want it to be.
so, stop oppressing me with your arbitrary prejudices and idealized preconceptions.
if it's empty, is it not void of bed?
and, if a room has not bed, from whence does this idea of it being a "bedroom" even come?
it could just as easily be a one bedroom + an office, or a one bedroom + a studio - both of which have some relevance in my proposed utilization of the particular space.
a room is a room is only a bedroom if you insist on it; it could be anything at all, if you want it to be.
so, stop oppressing me with your arbitrary prejudices and idealized preconceptions.
my preferred option has again reappeared in the listings.
this is very unusual, captain. it almost seems as though the apartment has developed some kind of cloaking technology. but, how this happened - and what developed it - is not entirely clear at all.
what to do?
have to call again.
why do i need a two bedroom apartment? well, i don't. i need a relatively big non-smoking apartment. it can have one or two bedrooms. it can even be a loft. it's total footage i'm looking at.
what i'm looking at is the price - $750 + hydro, and the floor size - 600 square feet.
now, it should be obvious how i'll arrange a two bedroom apartment, granted.
but, no i don't need two bedrooms, exactly - i need the space.
and, focusing on how the number of rooms is to be enumerated or classified is missing the point.
this is very unusual, captain. it almost seems as though the apartment has developed some kind of cloaking technology. but, how this happened - and what developed it - is not entirely clear at all.
what to do?
have to call again.
why do i need a two bedroom apartment? well, i don't. i need a relatively big non-smoking apartment. it can have one or two bedrooms. it can even be a loft. it's total footage i'm looking at.
what i'm looking at is the price - $750 + hydro, and the floor size - 600 square feet.
now, it should be obvious how i'll arrange a two bedroom apartment, granted.
but, no i don't need two bedrooms, exactly - i need the space.
and, focusing on how the number of rooms is to be enumerated or classified is missing the point.
when i came down to windsor initially, i made it abundantly clear that i was looking for my own space to live.
i came down with two unemployed people: one on short term ei and the other with no discernible income at all. the reason these people were unable to find accommodations is that they were unable to provide a reliable income source.
i was on full time disability, which is a small but reliable source.
i made it clear that i was not particularly interested in signing a lease with these people, as they seemed shifty and untrustworthy. i made it clear that i had expensive gear that i needed to keep in a locked space, and flatly didn't trust leaving them alone with. further, as i was the only one of us with an actual income source, i would have been the primary lessor - and taken on liability for two unemployed people. i could not reasonably do that, and nobody would have reasonably allowed me to do that, either.
i became aware some time later that these people badly misinterpreted the scenario. these are the kinds of people that interpret the world through the lens of hierarchy and dominance, so they found it unacceptable that a loser such as myself could find an apartment, while their superior innate coolness couldn't. but, i had an income source and they didn't. it was really that simple.
again: my intent was to find a one bedroom apartment, because i needed a safe space to store my gear. i was willing to entertain other suggestions, but i did not at any point take them very seriously. i did not and still do not want to live in a house with other tenants.
and, suggestions otherwise are a combination of malice and poorly placed jealousy.
i came down with two unemployed people: one on short term ei and the other with no discernible income at all. the reason these people were unable to find accommodations is that they were unable to provide a reliable income source.
i was on full time disability, which is a small but reliable source.
i made it clear that i was not particularly interested in signing a lease with these people, as they seemed shifty and untrustworthy. i made it clear that i had expensive gear that i needed to keep in a locked space, and flatly didn't trust leaving them alone with. further, as i was the only one of us with an actual income source, i would have been the primary lessor - and taken on liability for two unemployed people. i could not reasonably do that, and nobody would have reasonably allowed me to do that, either.
i became aware some time later that these people badly misinterpreted the scenario. these are the kinds of people that interpret the world through the lens of hierarchy and dominance, so they found it unacceptable that a loser such as myself could find an apartment, while their superior innate coolness couldn't. but, i had an income source and they didn't. it was really that simple.
again: my intent was to find a one bedroom apartment, because i needed a safe space to store my gear. i was willing to entertain other suggestions, but i did not at any point take them very seriously. i did not and still do not want to live in a house with other tenants.
and, suggestions otherwise are a combination of malice and poorly placed jealousy.
see, this is the kind of listing that is pissing me off...
i don't want to share a room with a hindi teenager, and i don't really want to live in a female-only rooming house, either. nor do i want a furnished space. but, a non-smoking basement apartment for $700 is pretty much exactly what i want.
it says "near university", but it's not like it's on a campus or anything. it's just downtown.
three or four years ago, this would have been rented to a low income person for $500-600, unfurnished. but this influx of students has created what almost seems like an immigration ring. i mean, you can tell from the grammar that this person is chinese. and, they're not merely looking for a student, but an asian one.
i'm not being alarmist. i'm not making things up. these ads are quite plentiful. the truth is that there's lots of housing available....
...it's just being sat on by international buyers, who are building some kind of business model on this diploma mill. what they really want is a commercial relationship with the sponsor. and, it's a good guess that the different landlord have different agreements with the different sponsors...
so, what is going to happen in september when classes start? are they going to open up what's left? sit on it?
if this is the reality here, so be it - i'll need to start looking in niagara, or waterloo, or london. but, i need my fucking court order, first.
i don't want to share a room with a hindi teenager, and i don't really want to live in a female-only rooming house, either. nor do i want a furnished space. but, a non-smoking basement apartment for $700 is pretty much exactly what i want.
it says "near university", but it's not like it's on a campus or anything. it's just downtown.
three or four years ago, this would have been rented to a low income person for $500-600, unfurnished. but this influx of students has created what almost seems like an immigration ring. i mean, you can tell from the grammar that this person is chinese. and, they're not merely looking for a student, but an asian one.
i'm not being alarmist. i'm not making things up. these ads are quite plentiful. the truth is that there's lots of housing available....
...it's just being sat on by international buyers, who are building some kind of business model on this diploma mill. what they really want is a commercial relationship with the sponsor. and, it's a good guess that the different landlord have different agreements with the different sponsors...
so, what is going to happen in september when classes start? are they going to open up what's left? sit on it?
if this is the reality here, so be it - i'll need to start looking in niagara, or waterloo, or london. but, i need my fucking court order, first.
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
i know we have this kind of backwards concept of this in canada, because we're culturally used to sending our best students to american schools. or, even, just to a different city - we "go away to college", and that means we're good students, when we do.
but, most countries in the world actually want to retain their best students, not send them away to a different country. china doesn't want to send it's best students to yale, although it loses some of them. rather, it wants to get rid of the worst students, by sending them to canada. we could maybe learn something from that.
but, at the same time, we're also the "new world" - we're the colony. and, that's what colonies have always been used as - a way to release excess population.
it's just a necessary mental shift - the chinese and indians don't send us their best and brightest, they do everything they can to hold on to them. isn't that rational, actually? what they send us is their overflow...as the british did before them...
but, most countries in the world actually want to retain their best students, not send them away to a different country. china doesn't want to send it's best students to yale, although it loses some of them. rather, it wants to get rid of the worst students, by sending them to canada. we could maybe learn something from that.
but, at the same time, we're also the "new world" - we're the colony. and, that's what colonies have always been used as - a way to release excess population.
it's just a necessary mental shift - the chinese and indians don't send us their best and brightest, they do everything they can to hold on to them. isn't that rational, actually? what they send us is their overflow...as the british did before them...
i mean, you have to understand that a lot of these kids are actually coming from countries where they have free tuition for kids that belong in the university system.
when i say that they can't get in anywhere else, understand that the first place they got rejected from is their country's own education systems; if the systems in china or india or wherever else they're coming from thought these were quality students, they would have retained them in their home countries, and sent them to school for as long as they wanted to go for free.
when you see a kid coming in from these countries, that's the first thing to understand: their own government rejected them, first.
so, they end up at a diploma mill at the centre of the heartland's industrial decay, because they can't get in anywhere else. which is, whatever. i don't care on the face of it.
but, they're fucking up the rental market by sitting on all of the low income housing, and even warping supply to fit their demand.
can i get my ruling soon, please?
i think it's becoming obvious that i'm getting out of here.
when i say that they can't get in anywhere else, understand that the first place they got rejected from is their country's own education systems; if the systems in china or india or wherever else they're coming from thought these were quality students, they would have retained them in their home countries, and sent them to school for as long as they wanted to go for free.
when you see a kid coming in from these countries, that's the first thing to understand: their own government rejected them, first.
so, they end up at a diploma mill at the centre of the heartland's industrial decay, because they can't get in anywhere else. which is, whatever. i don't care on the face of it.
but, they're fucking up the rental market by sitting on all of the low income housing, and even warping supply to fit their demand.
can i get my ruling soon, please?
i think it's becoming obvious that i'm getting out of here.
here's an idea: we should legislate a minimum entrance requirement for international students.
and, it should be pretty high, too. like, 90.
i'd even support legislating a minimum entrance requirement for domestic students, to at least 80%.
if you can't get 80% in high school, you should really try the college. you're just wasting your time, anyways.
and, if you're a university teaching mostly B or C students, you should really be demoted to a college.
and, it should be pretty high, too. like, 90.
i'd even support legislating a minimum entrance requirement for domestic students, to at least 80%.
if you can't get 80% in high school, you should really try the college. you're just wasting your time, anyways.
and, if you're a university teaching mostly B or C students, you should really be demoted to a college.
i just checked and the entrance requirements are like 70%.
so, you're going to send your kid to a different continent to attend a school where the entrance requirement is to just be an average student?
i know that the third world puts a lot of emphasis on education. but, this is desperation.
no wonder i see these ads for two or three students per room. yikes.
so, you're going to send your kid to a different continent to attend a school where the entrance requirement is to just be an average student?
i know that the third world puts a lot of emphasis on education. but, this is desperation.
no wonder i see these ads for two or three students per room. yikes.
i spent the first 33 years of my live in ottawa, 13 of them at carleton, and i had never heard of the university of windsor until i moved here.
i'd heard of western.
i'd heard of mcmaster.
i'd heard of waterloo.
i'd even heard of brock.
but, the university of windsor is something that i did not know existed. at all.
i'd heard of western.
i'd heard of mcmaster.
i'd heard of waterloo.
i'd even heard of brock.
but, the university of windsor is something that i did not know existed. at all.
toronto is a big, successful city with a strong economy and overwhelming wealth.
windsor is a decaying suburb of a dying industrial centre, with an economy driven by a third rate university attended largely by international students that couldn't get in anywhere else and that is probably even worse than the local college.
it's an absurd comparison.
windsor is a decaying suburb of a dying industrial centre, with an economy driven by a third rate university attended largely by international students that couldn't get in anywhere else and that is probably even worse than the local college.
it's an absurd comparison.
if you're from out of town and want to buy property in windsor to rent, you should look at prices and profit margins in detroit, not prices and profit margins in toronto.
i mean, i avoided moving to toronto for a reason. it's expensive.
and, this is not just language: windsor will not support a rental market priced similarly to toronto, your property will sit empty. or you'll rent to a group. and you'll have to adjust, eventually.
i mean, i avoided moving to toronto for a reason. it's expensive.
and, this is not just language: windsor will not support a rental market priced similarly to toronto, your property will sit empty. or you'll rent to a group. and you'll have to adjust, eventually.
i think that the misconception a lot of people have is this idea that windsor is "just outside toronto".
windsor is in the greater detroit area, which is a 5-6 hour drive to toronto.
it's closer to cleveland, and maybe even closer to chicago.
it's a suburb of detroit; it's not in any obscure way a part of toronto.
this is a bubble, and it's set to burst, but i now only have two months to wait it out. ugh.
watch it burst the day after i sign.
i suspect good things will happen in the first week of september, it's just scary to imagine waiting that long.
windsor is in the greater detroit area, which is a 5-6 hour drive to toronto.
it's closer to cleveland, and maybe even closer to chicago.
it's a suburb of detroit; it's not in any obscure way a part of toronto.
this is a bubble, and it's set to burst, but i now only have two months to wait it out. ugh.
watch it burst the day after i sign.
i suspect good things will happen in the first week of september, it's just scary to imagine waiting that long.
i'm not sure the math adds up, anyways.
let's say you rent to a student 10 months a year and jack the price up in between. if you start at 700, and jack it up $50 a year, then after three years, you'd get
700*10 = 7000.
750*10 = 7500.
800*10 = 8000.
===============
22500
now let's say you rent to me at 700 for the whole year, and can increase by inflation:
700*12 = 8400
700*1.015*12 = 8526
700*(1.015)^2*12 = 8654
================
25580
so, you'd actually make $3000 more over those years.
10*3(700 + x) > 25500 ====> x > 150.
& that's an unreasonable expectation.
but, i'll wait until the end of august to make the case.
let's say you rent to a student 10 months a year and jack the price up in between. if you start at 700, and jack it up $50 a year, then after three years, you'd get
700*10 = 7000.
750*10 = 7500.
800*10 = 8000.
===============
22500
now let's say you rent to me at 700 for the whole year, and can increase by inflation:
700*12 = 8400
700*1.015*12 = 8526
700*(1.015)^2*12 = 8654
================
25580
so, you'd actually make $3000 more over those years.
10*3(700 + x) > 25500 ====> x > 150.
& that's an unreasonable expectation.
but, i'll wait until the end of august to make the case.
i was thinking august 1st would be a good moving date because it would help me get in before the influx of students, over the summer - and i was fully aware from the start that i'd be competing with students for spots. that's why i picked this date....i didn't want to deal with the problems around september 1st...
what i'm learning is that there's a lot of people that have set up basement apartments, explicitly hoping for students. a lot of them are overcharging.
what i'm learning is that there's as lot of furnished rooms available in badly cut-up housing, and these people are explicitly looking for students, as well. these people are overcharging.
& what i'm also learning is that even people with normal apartments are prioritizing students over non-students. & these people are overcharging, too.
it's easy to understand why, after a moment's thought: renting to students means they're going to move out in ten months, and you can jack the rent up for next year. or, at least, that's what people are thinking..
yet, it's abundantly clear to me that these people are getting greedy, and the fact that they're overcharging in the presence of an oversupply of student housing is just going to leave them with empty units.
i want to avoid the professionals...these people are scum bags...
but, given that the whole city wants to rent to students, to the point they don't call non-students back, it seems like october might be the better choice than august.
that's what i'm learning.
i guess we'll see.
but, i'm going to wait until the end of august before i started pitching to mom in the suburbs about renting that basement suit unfurnished.
what i'm learning is that there's a lot of people that have set up basement apartments, explicitly hoping for students. a lot of them are overcharging.
what i'm learning is that there's as lot of furnished rooms available in badly cut-up housing, and these people are explicitly looking for students, as well. these people are overcharging.
& what i'm also learning is that even people with normal apartments are prioritizing students over non-students. & these people are overcharging, too.
it's easy to understand why, after a moment's thought: renting to students means they're going to move out in ten months, and you can jack the rent up for next year. or, at least, that's what people are thinking..
yet, it's abundantly clear to me that these people are getting greedy, and the fact that they're overcharging in the presence of an oversupply of student housing is just going to leave them with empty units.
i want to avoid the professionals...these people are scum bags...
but, given that the whole city wants to rent to students, to the point they don't call non-students back, it seems like october might be the better choice than august.
that's what i'm learning.
i guess we'll see.
but, i'm going to wait until the end of august before i started pitching to mom in the suburbs about renting that basement suit unfurnished.
workers in europe should get ready for class war like they've never seen it before.
that was the real point of this...
hey, don't like your job? that's fine - that nice muslim refugee over there with a grade three education is eager to work for half your wages.
you don't think this is all a coincidence, do you?
that was the real point of this...
hey, don't like your job? that's fine - that nice muslim refugee over there with a grade three education is eager to work for half your wages.
you don't think this is all a coincidence, do you?
it seems like renting to a pothead creates a deadzone in the units around it that can only be sustainably filled by other potheads.
so, what i would suspect you'll see begin to happen is that these units will begin to form blocks, and expand to take over entire buildings.
the conclusion is undeniably that a single pothead can irreversibly ruin an entire building very quickly.
so, what i would suspect you'll see begin to happen is that these units will begin to form blocks, and expand to take over entire buildings.
the conclusion is undeniably that a single pothead can irreversibly ruin an entire building very quickly.
but, a pattern may be developing: all the empty rental units in what
is currently a tight market are in close proximity to marijuana users,
it seems.
it makes it seem like everybody smokes pot.
but, we know that's not true...
when this unit opens up, it will fit that pattern.
maybe, the truth is that nobody wants to live near dirty potheads.
it makes it seem like everybody smokes pot.
but, we know that's not true...
when this unit opens up, it will fit that pattern.
maybe, the truth is that nobody wants to live near dirty potheads.
yeah. that unit was basically the same thing as this one. slightly
smaller bedroom, slightly bigger kitchen, but the same floor space.
same old flooring that doesn't keep anything out...
and, i could smell the pothead below me, walking by the door.
the only substantive difference is that it is $50 more expensive....
i asked the tenant if he could smell the smoke, and at first he said "sometimes", but then backtracked immediately.
listen...
if you're a property manager, or a tenant, and somebody asks you about smoke, please be honest. if you tell me there's no smoke, and there is, i'm going to sue the fuck out of you. it's not sneaky. it's not smart. it's not a save. it's false advertising, and i'll make you pay for it.
non-smokers do not want to live with smokers.
deal with it.
i took an application, but i'm viewing it as a last resort, and expect it to actually begone fairly quickly - if i was a smoker, i'd be all over it. but, then again, if i smoked, i wouldn't need to move in the first place...
same old flooring that doesn't keep anything out...
and, i could smell the pothead below me, walking by the door.
the only substantive difference is that it is $50 more expensive....
i asked the tenant if he could smell the smoke, and at first he said "sometimes", but then backtracked immediately.
listen...
if you're a property manager, or a tenant, and somebody asks you about smoke, please be honest. if you tell me there's no smoke, and there is, i'm going to sue the fuck out of you. it's not sneaky. it's not smart. it's not a save. it's false advertising, and i'll make you pay for it.
non-smokers do not want to live with smokers.
deal with it.
i took an application, but i'm viewing it as a last resort, and expect it to actually begone fairly quickly - if i was a smoker, i'd be all over it. but, then again, if i smoked, i wouldn't need to move in the first place...
i'm really not apprehensive about calling myself middle-aged at all.
i've been keenly aware for my whole life that i have noting in common with my own age group. and, i think i've demonstrated clearly enough that putting me in close proximity with young people is just going to lead to conflict.
i'd love to move to a seniors home, if they'd have me.
i've been keenly aware for my whole life that i have noting in common with my own age group. and, i think i've demonstrated clearly enough that putting me in close proximity with young people is just going to lead to conflict.
i'd love to move to a seniors home, if they'd have me.
july's done.
i'll wait until tonight before i get a start on august.
i've got a few showings in the next few days, but i'm not really excited about any of them. i expect the building i'm going to see this afternoon to be full of drugs, for example. but at least i'll be able to cross it off...
i've been completely straight edge (except coffee.) since memorial day, fwiw - which is not particularly unusual for me, even if it's not reflective of recent habits. i have a history of staying sober for months at a time. so, have i officially grown out of intoxicants? i guess we'll see. probably not. but, i plan on staying completely smoke & alcohol free until i move, at least.
that should make it easier to identify smoky apartments, i hope.
i'm going to be extremely picky. i have to be. i don't want to do this again. but, if i end up in the same situation, i will do it again, too.
i'll wait until tonight before i get a start on august.
i've got a few showings in the next few days, but i'm not really excited about any of them. i expect the building i'm going to see this afternoon to be full of drugs, for example. but at least i'll be able to cross it off...
i've been completely straight edge (except coffee.) since memorial day, fwiw - which is not particularly unusual for me, even if it's not reflective of recent habits. i have a history of staying sober for months at a time. so, have i officially grown out of intoxicants? i guess we'll see. probably not. but, i plan on staying completely smoke & alcohol free until i move, at least.
that should make it easier to identify smoky apartments, i hope.
i'm going to be extremely picky. i have to be. i don't want to do this again. but, if i end up in the same situation, i will do it again, too.
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
see, this is political, and everybody looks stupid.
what i want to see is shovels in the ground for affordable housing.
and i don't care what level of government writes the checks.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-tories-accuse-trudeau-of-stoking-fear-to-silence-critics-questioning/
what i want to see is shovels in the ground for affordable housing.
and i don't care what level of government writes the checks.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-tories-accuse-trudeau-of-stoking-fear-to-silence-critics-questioning/
whether i'm able to find a small office in a safe building or not, i think that my ideas around what is feasible with this should expose my thought process on the matter - i am not looking for a fancy apartment or a bourgeois neighbourhood or even a dedicated bathroom, so much as i am seeking a place to store my gear. that is the #1 priority, and will remain so until i can finish the discography.
the problem with this scheme is that the availability of small office space in this town appears to be low.
office space is cheap and plentiful, but you have to buy it by the thousands of square feet. i'd be looking for less than 500. that simply doesn't seem to exist.
i found one add that is exactly what i want, but it's a little old. i'll see if i can follow up tomorrow....
office space is cheap and plentiful, but you have to buy it by the thousands of square feet. i'd be looking for less than 500. that simply doesn't seem to exist.
i found one add that is exactly what i want, but it's a little old. i'll see if i can follow up tomorrow....
the reason this is reasonable to me is that i have every desire to spend essentially all of my time working, anyways. i want 130 hour work weeks, and 40 hour days. it's what i do. what's pissing me off is that i've been so unproductive...
if you put me in a room with my stuff, like this, i'm not going to want to leave very often, and i'm not going to want to sleep very often, either.
i'm honestly only going to want to sleep once a week, and i'm honestly only going to want to shower once a week. so, why pay for this stuff full time?
but, see, renting a room is a shitty deal when you want to fill it up with gear - you can't find a 300+ square foot room, and, if you somehow could, you don't want to leave that gear in a house with other tenants that you know almost nothing about.
and, while i guess i don't need a private bathroom all of the time, i'd like it to be private when i do use it.
this would obviously not be feasible if i had to get up to go to work every day, or i otherwise had some kind of serious schedule. but, the weirdness of my life, and the singularity of my focus, makes it something i want to think seriously about.
the downside of this is storage & convenience. i'll take an acceptable apartment if i can find one. but, if i can't...
...i'm going to need to get creative. and, with a little luck on the market, i think this can work.
i just remain skeptical that the worker will approve this.
if you put me in a room with my stuff, like this, i'm not going to want to leave very often, and i'm not going to want to sleep very often, either.
i'm honestly only going to want to sleep once a week, and i'm honestly only going to want to shower once a week. so, why pay for this stuff full time?
but, see, renting a room is a shitty deal when you want to fill it up with gear - you can't find a 300+ square foot room, and, if you somehow could, you don't want to leave that gear in a house with other tenants that you know almost nothing about.
and, while i guess i don't need a private bathroom all of the time, i'd like it to be private when i do use it.
this would obviously not be feasible if i had to get up to go to work every day, or i otherwise had some kind of serious schedule. but, the weirdness of my life, and the singularity of my focus, makes it something i want to think seriously about.
the downside of this is storage & convenience. i'll take an acceptable apartment if i can find one. but, if i can't...
...i'm going to need to get creative. and, with a little luck on the market, i think this can work.
i just remain skeptical that the worker will approve this.
there is really only one place on the market that i'm taking seriously right now, and it's through that screwy management company, and the tenants won't let me in.
new crazy plan.
i can probably get a nice 300-500 square foot office space in a secure building for under $500. the catch is it won't have a bedroom or a kitchen, it'll just be an office space.
but, i can get a mini-fridge. and, i can get a heating pad. and i have a microwave, too. in fact, i could conceivably share a kitchen - this bothers me much less than sharing a bathroom.
and, i could sleep on the couch in the studio/office.
everything is solved, except the bathroom. what to do about that?
well, i actually don't shower every day, and there's no use in pretending that i do. i shower five or six times a month - either when i'm going out somewhere, or when i really need it. and, if i'm spending 95% of my time in an air-conditioned studio, i'm not going to need to shower often.
let's say i can get an office for exactly $489/month, all inclusive. i'm budgeting $700-800 for living expenses. that means i'd have $200-300/month to spend on hotel rooms (in fact, probably air bnbs...), when necessary.
so, let's say i want to hit a concert in detroit @ 8:00 pm. i could check in somewhere at 2:00, do a small amount of laundry, clean myself up and be out the door by 18:00. i could then be back in the hotel by 9:00 am at the latest, take a shower and make it back to the office to crash - or crash in the room if i'm back earlier, whatever. the going price for this seems to be about $40-50.
if i average a shower once a week, whether i need it or not, that's <$200/month.
so, that's <$700 on living expenses - and i'm very much in the clear.
crazy?
i dunno.
it's probably both the safest possible place for my gear, and the nicest possible place to get some sleep, at the same time. and, in the process i may be turning this gig economy thing on it's head.
my disability worker says there's no problem with this. hrmmn. i dunno....
new crazy plan.
i can probably get a nice 300-500 square foot office space in a secure building for under $500. the catch is it won't have a bedroom or a kitchen, it'll just be an office space.
but, i can get a mini-fridge. and, i can get a heating pad. and i have a microwave, too. in fact, i could conceivably share a kitchen - this bothers me much less than sharing a bathroom.
and, i could sleep on the couch in the studio/office.
everything is solved, except the bathroom. what to do about that?
well, i actually don't shower every day, and there's no use in pretending that i do. i shower five or six times a month - either when i'm going out somewhere, or when i really need it. and, if i'm spending 95% of my time in an air-conditioned studio, i'm not going to need to shower often.
let's say i can get an office for exactly $489/month, all inclusive. i'm budgeting $700-800 for living expenses. that means i'd have $200-300/month to spend on hotel rooms (in fact, probably air bnbs...), when necessary.
so, let's say i want to hit a concert in detroit @ 8:00 pm. i could check in somewhere at 2:00, do a small amount of laundry, clean myself up and be out the door by 18:00. i could then be back in the hotel by 9:00 am at the latest, take a shower and make it back to the office to crash - or crash in the room if i'm back earlier, whatever. the going price for this seems to be about $40-50.
if i average a shower once a week, whether i need it or not, that's <$200/month.
so, that's <$700 on living expenses - and i'm very much in the clear.
crazy?
i dunno.
it's probably both the safest possible place for my gear, and the nicest possible place to get some sleep, at the same time. and, in the process i may be turning this gig economy thing on it's head.
my disability worker says there's no problem with this. hrmmn. i dunno....
my opinion on the topic - and i've been clear about this for many years - is that government policy should be to ensure that clean hydro is a less expensive alternative than dirty fossil fuels.
electrical base board heating should be less expensive than gas heating, and it's up to the government to interfere with the market until this is true.
electrical base board heating should be less expensive than gas heating, and it's up to the government to interfere with the market until this is true.
mark my words: if you recently spent thousands of dollars on a gas furnace to avoid electrical heating costs, it will not be much more than a couple of years before the price of gas has increased so that the cost of gas heating is comparable to the cost of electrical heating.
and, the gas companies will just eat the difference as profit.
because that's capitalism.
suckers....
and, the gas companies will just eat the difference as profit.
because that's capitalism.
suckers....
what economics 101 will actually teach you is that, once the market settles, the owner of the natural gas company and the owner of the electricity company will then get together and collude with each other to keep the prices high.
it is not in their rational self-interest to compete. rather, it is in their rational self-interest to cartelize, and then set prices in co-ordination with each other.
so, if the electricity company wants to increase rates, it will call the gas company, which will also increase it's rates.
economics 101, guys.
and, you can try to get the government to stop them from doing that with regulatory bodies, but those bodies just end up in the cartel, in the end.
the only real solution is public ownership....
it is not in their rational self-interest to compete. rather, it is in their rational self-interest to cartelize, and then set prices in co-ordination with each other.
so, if the electricity company wants to increase rates, it will call the gas company, which will also increase it's rates.
economics 101, guys.
and, you can try to get the government to stop them from doing that with regulatory bodies, but those bodies just end up in the cartel, in the end.
the only real solution is public ownership....
if you run a natural gas company, you're not going to look at the situation and say "gee, my product costs less than my competitor. hooray!".
rather, you're going to look at the situation and say "my competitor charges a higher price than i do, so i have the ability to increase my prices, until they are roughly comparable to my competitor. that is an opportunity for profit that i must take advantage of."
rather, you're going to look at the situation and say "my competitor charges a higher price than i do, so i have the ability to increase my prices, until they are roughly comparable to my competitor. that is an opportunity for profit that i must take advantage of."
it's economics 101.
if you have a situation where two replaceable commodities are competing with each other on a market where demand is inelastic (like heating homes.), the cheaper one always rises to meet the cost of the more expensive one, in the long run. the reason is that producers make pricing decisions under inelastic demand, not consumers. consumers cannot do without heat to bring the price down. so, the cheaper producer may undercut the market in the short term, but will have infinite leverage in increasing prices, until it catches up to the more expensive one. and, because producers exist to maximize profit, they will do so.
in the end, buying natural gas is not cheaper than buying electricity - but it may be more profitable to sell it.
it is consequently not rational to convert to the cheaper production option, unless you can find some way to recoup the costs, quickly. and, if you're going to switch, you should ensure you can switch back at minimal effort.
what that means is that what these people should have done is keep the electrical baseboards in place, and let the tenants decide what to use based on what is cheaper at the time. and, if such an arrangement were to become widespread, the (relative) elasticity of the demand would increase, and market forces may have some effect on price.
if you have a situation where two replaceable commodities are competing with each other on a market where demand is inelastic (like heating homes.), the cheaper one always rises to meet the cost of the more expensive one, in the long run. the reason is that producers make pricing decisions under inelastic demand, not consumers. consumers cannot do without heat to bring the price down. so, the cheaper producer may undercut the market in the short term, but will have infinite leverage in increasing prices, until it catches up to the more expensive one. and, because producers exist to maximize profit, they will do so.
in the end, buying natural gas is not cheaper than buying electricity - but it may be more profitable to sell it.
it is consequently not rational to convert to the cheaper production option, unless you can find some way to recoup the costs, quickly. and, if you're going to switch, you should ensure you can switch back at minimal effort.
what that means is that what these people should have done is keep the electrical baseboards in place, and let the tenants decide what to use based on what is cheaper at the time. and, if such an arrangement were to become widespread, the (relative) elasticity of the demand would increase, and market forces may have some effect on price.
something that's coming up over and over again is that units that i would be able to afford if they were heated by electricity are now out of my price range because they're heated by gas.
you have to pay $40/month here for gas as a base rate. if you have the gas off for eight or nine months, that's $250+ wasted on user fees. for somebody like myself that has very low electrical use, i'm going to make that up on baseboard heating.
i saw them do it in my old apartment, and looked into the costs - it's expensive. it takes 25 years to make the money back. so, the owners are understandably increasing rental costs to adjust - they don't want to take 25 years to make up the costs of renovations. but, what tenant wants a renovation that increases their monthly bills?
the end result is that what were once affordable units are now no longer affordable to the people they were once affordable to. so, we're seeing units sit for longer periods. but, it doesn't make sense for the owners to bring the price down - they have to wait.
the gas furnaces are also just ugly. they take nice units and run ducts through therm in awkward places. that itself is going to decrease the desirability of the unit. who wants to live in a warehouse?
i tried to warn the last guy that putting in that gas furnace was going to kill his property value, and i tried to warn him that the way markets work is that if the cost of natural gas is lower today then it is inevitably going to rise, tomorrow, to balance out. natural gas producers don't want to offer a more affordable option; if it's cheaper than electricity today, they're undercutting the market, and will eventually want their prices to be the same as that for electricity. and, while some of my arguments got through, his brother just wanted a furnace. i learned in the end that his son-in-law worked for the gas company...
most people don't have relatives in the industry. and, if it's not already obvious to them now, they're going to wake up soon and realize that converting to gas was a terrible mistake.
note to the universe: i cannot afford to pay for gas heating. that's an instant disqualifier. so, stop throwing these ads at me...
you have to pay $40/month here for gas as a base rate. if you have the gas off for eight or nine months, that's $250+ wasted on user fees. for somebody like myself that has very low electrical use, i'm going to make that up on baseboard heating.
i saw them do it in my old apartment, and looked into the costs - it's expensive. it takes 25 years to make the money back. so, the owners are understandably increasing rental costs to adjust - they don't want to take 25 years to make up the costs of renovations. but, what tenant wants a renovation that increases their monthly bills?
the end result is that what were once affordable units are now no longer affordable to the people they were once affordable to. so, we're seeing units sit for longer periods. but, it doesn't make sense for the owners to bring the price down - they have to wait.
the gas furnaces are also just ugly. they take nice units and run ducts through therm in awkward places. that itself is going to decrease the desirability of the unit. who wants to live in a warehouse?
i tried to warn the last guy that putting in that gas furnace was going to kill his property value, and i tried to warn him that the way markets work is that if the cost of natural gas is lower today then it is inevitably going to rise, tomorrow, to balance out. natural gas producers don't want to offer a more affordable option; if it's cheaper than electricity today, they're undercutting the market, and will eventually want their prices to be the same as that for electricity. and, while some of my arguments got through, his brother just wanted a furnace. i learned in the end that his son-in-law worked for the gas company...
most people don't have relatives in the industry. and, if it's not already obvious to them now, they're going to wake up soon and realize that converting to gas was a terrible mistake.
note to the universe: i cannot afford to pay for gas heating. that's an instant disqualifier. so, stop throwing these ads at me...
Monday, July 23, 2018
DONALD, LISTEN TO ME, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE WALRUS WAS PAUL ALL ALONG, THE WHOLE FUCKING TIME, MAN. NO KIDDING. FOR REAL. THIS WALRUS BEFORE YOU IS AN IMPOSTER. IS IT EVEN A REAL MOUSTACHE? HAVE YOU EVER TRIED TO PULL IT OFF? MAYBE YOU CAN TRY AND PULL OFF EACH OTHER'S FAKE HAIR FOR A JOKE AND POST IT ON SNAPCHAT. BUT THE WALRUS IS PAUL, DONALD. THE WALRUS IS PAUL.
is the united states capable of regime change in iran?
well, that depends on a number of factors, most importantly russian involvement.
here's the thing: i don't imagine that putin is particularly ensconced with the iranian form of government, & the iranians themselves are less than excited about allowing the russians to move in, as they don't tend to go home, either. but, if the iranians & russians can make a defense deal - which they have in fact already done - then that forces america to react on the ground, because those russian air defenses.....what they do is force the americans to use stealth bombers, which they are almost certainly unwilling to do.
and, this is the part of the situation that few americans, or canadians, or members of the nato-alliance in general are truly cognizant of: whatever you think of trump's words, the reality is that his threats are hollow.
the only real strategic option that the americans have against the iranians is nuclear, and you're insane to put that option on the table.
so, is the audience domestic, then?
clearly.
well, that depends on a number of factors, most importantly russian involvement.
here's the thing: i don't imagine that putin is particularly ensconced with the iranian form of government, & the iranians themselves are less than excited about allowing the russians to move in, as they don't tend to go home, either. but, if the iranians & russians can make a defense deal - which they have in fact already done - then that forces america to react on the ground, because those russian air defenses.....what they do is force the americans to use stealth bombers, which they are almost certainly unwilling to do.
and, this is the part of the situation that few americans, or canadians, or members of the nato-alliance in general are truly cognizant of: whatever you think of trump's words, the reality is that his threats are hollow.
the only real strategic option that the americans have against the iranians is nuclear, and you're insane to put that option on the table.
so, is the audience domestic, then?
clearly.
there's not much to the story, itself, i don't think.
again: my imagination is that trudeau physically escorted a reporter away from him at a festival, which is only a groping accusation under malice. that's just an intuitive reading. nobody has facts. and, i think that's why nobody is saying anything about it: if you want to take him down, you want to let people assume the worst.
but, facts and perception are different things.
and, this may just be the start....
again: my imagination is that trudeau physically escorted a reporter away from him at a festival, which is only a groping accusation under malice. that's just an intuitive reading. nobody has facts. and, i think that's why nobody is saying anything about it: if you want to take him down, you want to let people assume the worst.
but, facts and perception are different things.
and, this may just be the start....
the story was initially pushed by warren kinsella, who is a wild card, and is now being pushed by penny collenette, who is not.
when kinsella & collennette are both out to get you, you've got some problems with the big wigs in the liberal party of canada. and, that's bad news for justin trudeau.
the good news for justin trudeau is that if this is the best they've got...
...but, the good news for the country is that this is some evidence that the left side of the liberal party is beginning to revolt against trudeau, who campaigned on a return to historical canadianism and traditional liberal party values but has instead governed like an american democrat - which is on the very far right of the canadian political spectrum, often times appearing indistinguishable from the conservative party, and at times even worse.
i suspect that the issue that's getting in their craw is nafta. trudeau seems to be fully pro-nafta. the liberal party higher-ups were always deeply skeptical of nafta, always felt forced to co-operate against their will by mulroney, always wanted a bilateral agreement with the states, and i suspect they don't like how he's handling this. trudeau also appears to have a kind of anti-russian streak that the party has historically seen as anathema. there is simply no pro-war wing in the liberal party of canada.
i've been calling for the party to push back for a while. while i don't suspect they're actually listening, there may be a confluence of opinon developing.
you can like justin trudeau if you want, but you have to understand that he's in the wrong party, in canada - he's a conservative, in canada. go blow your mind out in the car, but it's true. & this might be the first rumblings that the party may have had enough of it...
https://www.hilltimes.com/2018/07/23/pm-trudeau-failed-offer-satisfactory-response-groping-allegation-owes-full-explanation-caucus-retreat-saskatoon/151716
when kinsella & collennette are both out to get you, you've got some problems with the big wigs in the liberal party of canada. and, that's bad news for justin trudeau.
the good news for justin trudeau is that if this is the best they've got...
...but, the good news for the country is that this is some evidence that the left side of the liberal party is beginning to revolt against trudeau, who campaigned on a return to historical canadianism and traditional liberal party values but has instead governed like an american democrat - which is on the very far right of the canadian political spectrum, often times appearing indistinguishable from the conservative party, and at times even worse.
i suspect that the issue that's getting in their craw is nafta. trudeau seems to be fully pro-nafta. the liberal party higher-ups were always deeply skeptical of nafta, always felt forced to co-operate against their will by mulroney, always wanted a bilateral agreement with the states, and i suspect they don't like how he's handling this. trudeau also appears to have a kind of anti-russian streak that the party has historically seen as anathema. there is simply no pro-war wing in the liberal party of canada.
i've been calling for the party to push back for a while. while i don't suspect they're actually listening, there may be a confluence of opinon developing.
you can like justin trudeau if you want, but you have to understand that he's in the wrong party, in canada - he's a conservative, in canada. go blow your mind out in the car, but it's true. & this might be the first rumblings that the party may have had enough of it...
https://www.hilltimes.com/2018/07/23/pm-trudeau-failed-offer-satisfactory-response-groping-allegation-owes-full-explanation-caucus-retreat-saskatoon/151716
yeah.
so, i think what i'm learning here is that evicting the tenant below me would not have been sufficient to solve the problem.
i do think she's gone. and it is way better. no question, but, it's not good enough.
and, that's kind of what i reasoned. well, what i decided was that she'd likely be replaced by something as bad, or worse. i mean, at least she works. what if she was down there all day? egads.
i may be stuck here another month, but i'm confident i made the right choice in getting out.
so, i think what i'm learning here is that evicting the tenant below me would not have been sufficient to solve the problem.
i do think she's gone. and it is way better. no question, but, it's not good enough.
and, that's kind of what i reasoned. well, what i decided was that she'd likely be replaced by something as bad, or worse. i mean, at least she works. what if she was down there all day? egads.
i may be stuck here another month, but i'm confident i made the right choice in getting out.
Sunday, July 22, 2018
if you show up in a building and hold a meeting about hating gays and jews, and then distribute literature about it and march around outside, you're participating in a hate group and distributing hate propaganda and propagating hate speech.
....unless you put a cross or a crescent on the door?
that's bullshit.
these organizations need to be held accountable to the same standards we hold secular groups to.
....unless you put a cross or a crescent on the door?
that's bullshit.
these organizations need to be held accountable to the same standards we hold secular groups to.
good.
if the prime minister of the country cannot afford to pay his childcare staff a living wage, we should remove ourselves from the oecd.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/government-sets-full-time-salary-range-for-justin-trudeaus-nanny
if the prime minister of the country cannot afford to pay his childcare staff a living wage, we should remove ourselves from the oecd.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/government-sets-full-time-salary-range-for-justin-trudeaus-nanny
but, i need to be clear: i can't tell if they're burning sage, if they're smoking cloves, if they're performing a mass or if they're barbequing chicken.
it's not something my nose can figure out on it's own...
what i can point out is that my throat feels a little raw, and i've sneezed a few times.
it does not appear to be getting me stoned, at this time.
it's not something my nose can figure out on it's own...
what i can point out is that my throat feels a little raw, and i've sneezed a few times.
it does not appear to be getting me stoned, at this time.
it's back to that sage smell that was dominant when i first moved in...
i don't know if somebody is literally burning sage, or if there's a religious christian around or what, but my viewpoint is that smoke is smoke is smoke: tobacco = sage = pot. i don't have any patience for a religious argument...
it's nowhere near as bad, but it's still second-hand smoke and it's still gross.
i don't know if somebody is literally burning sage, or if there's a religious christian around or what, but my viewpoint is that smoke is smoke is smoke: tobacco = sage = pot. i don't have any patience for a religious argument...
it's nowhere near as bad, but it's still second-hand smoke and it's still gross.
the actual truth about the nsa spying story is that it wasn't actually news - we'd known all of this for years.
the EU got very upset about this, in the 90s.
if anything, what came out around snowden, etc made it seem like the practice is more restricted than it actually is.
i did not hear echelon mentioned once in the whole fiasco.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
the EU got very upset about this, in the 90s.
if anything, what came out around snowden, etc made it seem like the practice is more restricted than it actually is.
i did not hear echelon mentioned once in the whole fiasco.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
to be clear: i intend to pay my rent on august 1st. i took my deposit back out of necessity, realizing that the market was very short term in june; i missed out on a few spots, because i wasn't sure i could finance. then, once i had the deposit ready, the market dried up completely in july. i can only hope it gets better in august...
but, i said from the start that it wasn't notice, and i intended to pay rent going forward if i couldn't find something.
...unless the court order comes in before then, and tells me i can withhold it until the payout comes in. then, i'll be allowed to withhold it.
i just have to keep cycling around to the point: i'm claiming negligence. if the court agrees with me, why should i suffer consequences for standing up for my rights?
and, if you don't believe in rights, you're negligent, too.
but, i said from the start that it wasn't notice, and i intended to pay rent going forward if i couldn't find something.
...unless the court order comes in before then, and tells me i can withhold it until the payout comes in. then, i'll be allowed to withhold it.
i just have to keep cycling around to the point: i'm claiming negligence. if the court agrees with me, why should i suffer consequences for standing up for my rights?
and, if you don't believe in rights, you're negligent, too.
...& that was a quick movement through may.
as the air has legitimately cleared out, i've been able to stay awake a little longer over the last few days - although i say that as something is wafting in, i think from a different unit, perhaps a few floors down.
i've picked up a nasty smokers' cough, though, i'm not exaggerating. it's that tightening in your chest, and that constant inability to be able to cough out the obstruction. i thought i'd gotten rid of that...alas...
market still sucks.
on to june...
as the air has legitimately cleared out, i've been able to stay awake a little longer over the last few days - although i say that as something is wafting in, i think from a different unit, perhaps a few floors down.
i've picked up a nasty smokers' cough, though, i'm not exaggerating. it's that tightening in your chest, and that constant inability to be able to cough out the obstruction. i thought i'd gotten rid of that...alas...
market still sucks.
on to june...
the basic idea to understand, first and foremost, is that the deep
state sees hillary clinton as an existential threat. & you can find a
mountain of evidence about this, if you look for it.
so, all of this is really about clinton, and not about trump.
but, this is how it works:
1) the deep state rigs the election - in favour of trump. so, it was the cia itself feeding documents to wikileaks.
2) the deep state then blames it on the russians, as a distraction & bait and switch.
3) the deep state uses the fabrication it's constructed around the situation to take down trump and put their own guy in.
so, all of this is really about clinton, and not about trump.
but, this is how it works:
1) the deep state rigs the election - in favour of trump. so, it was the cia itself feeding documents to wikileaks.
2) the deep state then blames it on the russians, as a distraction & bait and switch.
3) the deep state uses the fabrication it's constructed around the situation to take down trump and put their own guy in.
the russians have plants everywhere - nobody seem to be surprised by this.
but, there's a pattern in their plants, if you look for it: they go after what you might call "right-libertarians", that promote a false sense of nationalism, rooted in a skewed concept of white identity.
so, in france the russians fund the national front - and quite heavily. and, there is a very powerful policy goal in supporting the national front, as a french abandonment of nato would neutralize a major threat coming in off the steppe. the russians are pragmatic about the racism - this is a holdover from soviet times, albeit with the revolutionary goals replaced with cynicism. they're essentially using the socialist theories against us; the idea is that they think they can use the racial animus run rampant from low education and industrial decay as a vehicle to put their people in power.
you might think that sounds like trump, and trump uses the same methods with the same aims no doubt, but the russian influence network didn't appear in 2016. the kremlin-preferred candidate for years was ron paul, who has always represented this intersection point of right-libertarianism and white nationalism that the russians have a habit of propping up. and, the propaganda arm they used was always alex jones.
i'm not going to be filling in posts here from 2008-2013 for a very, very long time. but i wrote quite extensively about this around climategate.
i'm extrapolating a little with rand paul. i accept. but i am comfortable stating with a confident amount of force that ron paul and alex jones are both russian spies.
and, when the rest of the 2016 stuff comes up, you'll see me unveil a theory that trump is a creature of the pentagon, who are projecting the russian connections as a mirage. i haven't been keeping up because i think it's a lot of nonsense, but i saw this coming from before the election.
but, there's a pattern in their plants, if you look for it: they go after what you might call "right-libertarians", that promote a false sense of nationalism, rooted in a skewed concept of white identity.
so, in france the russians fund the national front - and quite heavily. and, there is a very powerful policy goal in supporting the national front, as a french abandonment of nato would neutralize a major threat coming in off the steppe. the russians are pragmatic about the racism - this is a holdover from soviet times, albeit with the revolutionary goals replaced with cynicism. they're essentially using the socialist theories against us; the idea is that they think they can use the racial animus run rampant from low education and industrial decay as a vehicle to put their people in power.
you might think that sounds like trump, and trump uses the same methods with the same aims no doubt, but the russian influence network didn't appear in 2016. the kremlin-preferred candidate for years was ron paul, who has always represented this intersection point of right-libertarianism and white nationalism that the russians have a habit of propping up. and, the propaganda arm they used was always alex jones.
i'm not going to be filling in posts here from 2008-2013 for a very, very long time. but i wrote quite extensively about this around climategate.
i'm extrapolating a little with rand paul. i accept. but i am comfortable stating with a confident amount of force that ron paul and alex jones are both russian spies.
and, when the rest of the 2016 stuff comes up, you'll see me unveil a theory that trump is a creature of the pentagon, who are projecting the russian connections as a mirage. i haven't been keeping up because i think it's a lot of nonsense, but i saw this coming from before the election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)