when somebody says 'non-smoking', that means "no inhalation of combustible material in the form of smoke particles", namely:

- no smoking tobacco
- no smoking marijuana
- no smoking crack or cocaine
- no smoking crystal meth
- no smoking heroin
- no smoking sage
- no smoking oregano
- no smoking plastic
- no smoking rubber

no inhalation of burning things. period.

that was devastatingly disappointing.

i was expecting a female landlord; it turns out that was the actual landlord's mom, and the landlord is some jockish looking frat boy that works in construction or something. he lives downstairs.

the ad said no pets. they have a large dog on the ground floor, and one presumes that living there means dodging the dog on the way in, through the fenced yard. what no pets apparently means is "my dog does not play nice with others".

the ad said no smoking. but, this frat boy smells like a bong, and is clearly smoking pot in the kitchen below me. there are vents coming up from downstairs.

"when somebody says non-smoking, that doesn't mean pot."

it doesn't? in what universe?

so, i thought i was getting the top of a non-smoking, pet-free house with a nice, quiet older female living downstairs - and would instead be living on top of a pothead frat boy with a violent guard dog.

i would also gain the privilege of buying a washer & dryer.

no thanks. next.

back to the drawing board...

"i know you don't seem too hopped up, but it's after 6:00. and..yes....i know there's an after hours at the diner, but we follow the rules here."

well, it's either happy hour or tokes for tots, right?

i'd take a day care over a happy hour any day...

"it's 6:00 pm, kids. last call for soda, or your mom will kill me. i repeat: last call for soda."

why is having a kids night at the local club so crazy?

they have pizza. kids like pizza.
they have juice. kids like juice.
they have music. kids like music.
they have clowns, i mean regulars. err...

they have a big yard for kids to play in.

call it tokes for tots.

eh?

so, there's some liberals arguing that in order to end the separations of families (which is something i don't support as a broad principle - i support court ordered separation, when justified under precedent and afforded due process), they should stop detaining migrants altogether (which i don't support, either - i support humane detention as a deterrent).

this is an example of the kind of logical error that liberals - or, dumb hippies, more specifically - are constantly making, and that leftists and conservatives both have so much difficulty following.

this is a typical hippie-style argument.

1. x.
2. we want y to be true. (or, we believe in y).
3. as x is true, and we want y to be true, then, therefore, y.

and, they then demonstrate their argument by marching and dancing and singing, thereby showing you how genuinely they truly believe in y - as though that's supposed to create a deduction where none actually exists. 

from time to time, they actually have an argument, which some more intelligent leftist makes for them, and they then think their singing and dancing is actually convincing, so they keep doing it.

if they want to have a discussion about detaining migrants, that's fine. but, nobody is going to have that discussion in the context of policies around removing kids from detention - not the administration, not enforcement agencies and certainly not the courts.

that is a debate that needs to be had on it's own merits, whatever your views on the topic happen to be.

well, his reaction is missing the point, but the policy he's defending is correct - that kid needs to be taken out of detention and placed in proper care, not sent to sit in jail with it's parents.

...which is why the courts have made the orders, as they have: that kid should not be in any kind of detention at all. ever.

i can't understand how anybody could be so clueless and ignorant as to look at images of a disabled child crying as it's parents are being led to jail and conclude that the answer is to send the disabled child to jail with the parents.

that response to that situation is retarded. really.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/06/19/former-trump-staffer-corey-lewandowski-dismisses-story-of-immigrant-10-year-old-with-down-syndrome-taken-from-parents-with-wah-wah.html

of course doug ford is going to lay off public sector workers, and you're a fucking idiot if you believed him when he said he wouldn't.

the public sector is the largest employer in this province.

a hiring freeze will just hurt tax revenues, put a greater strain on social services and create greater competitive pressures in the private sector.

just out of school? good luck finding a job.

so, expect the unemplyment rate to shoot up, too - along with the deficit.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontarios-doug-ford-orders-hiring-freeze-for-public-servants/

again: anything that increases the supply of electricity will increase the price of electricity.

the system was designed specifically for this purpose; shutting this down is going to send electricity prices through the roof.

maybe you shouldn't have voted for somebody that didn't publish a platform?

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/06/20/ontario-set-to-hit-the-brakes-on-electric-vehicle-rebates.html

this is going to increase the supply of electricity, which will increase the rates.

you didn't vote for higher prices, did you?

well, you don't understand how the system works. that's the problem...

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/06/19/news/under-doug-ford-ontario-will-stop-putting-green-rebates-your-pockets

and, of course, i have every intent of smoking any pot that i do smoke well away from the house.

my habits will no doubt change a little, too.

i'm used to buying a large amount in mid december and smoking every day until early january. this is because i generally have not had easy access - i have to find it once and make it last from the solstice until my birthday (january 13th).

if i can just go to the store and buy a gram or two at a time, i'm more likely to space it out a little. instead of buying a quarter or more at one time and nursing through it, i'll be able to buy a gram for christmas, a gram for new year's and a gram for my birthday - which is half as much, overall, and should leave me with sober days, in between.

i'm not interested in just randomly getting stoned for no reason, and never have been.

i'm feeling like i need to spend the summer catching up for all the lost productivity over the last six months...like i need to go to summer school this year because i burned out last semester....

i have to admit that i wasn't expecting the senate to pass the pot bill before the next election.

am i celebrating? no. i don't smoke haphazardly, like that.

i'm going to be skipping my normal mid-year cave this year. it's just not where my head is; i just don't want to. at all.

so, if it's legal in october, i probably won't buy any until the end of december. and, after that, i probably won't buy any until the summer of 2019. because i really honestly only buy twice a year, on average.

the process of legalization in michigan is more interesting to me - because there's just not anything fun to go out and do, here.

i expect that the judiciary will probably double down; stare decisis doesn't have a mechanism to respond to memes on the internet.

they may specify that certain conditions are not acceptable, but they're not going to overturn the process, as it's being directed by a long legal precedent around the best interests of the child. you don't get to overturn precedent with an online poll....

in the mean time, expect them to just throw the kids in the holding cells with their parents, and for a lot of people to be deported with little process.

so, if you're a little slow, or brainwashed by (social) media, this is what happened today with the detention policy.

- there is a rule in the united states that says you can't hold kids in detention. because they're kids. and it's detention.
- this rule is expensive to enforce, and makes it harder to deport migrants by adding a layer of bureaucracy, around kids.
- so, the republicans (in apparent collusion with the democrats) cooked up this media campaign to make you feel bad for kids that had been separated from their parents, under court order, for their best interests.
- under manufactured popular pressure, the president relented, by signing an (illegal) executive order that ends the separation of kids at the border.

what's next?

what's next is that, free of the problems associated with caring for migrant children, the administration is going to push for quicker deportations. families will no longer be able to use their kids as a "loophole" to claim status - the whole family will be given the boot as quickly as possible, and likely without meaningful due process.

the purpose of this scam - which included pleas from both melania and ivanka - was to make it harder to claim refugee status in the united states.

liberals just got played. badly. worse than i've ever seen...