somebody do me a favour and ask trudeau a question about the conscription crisis.

i suppose the dauphin doesn't think there are any pure laine liberals - that the whole laurier backlash over conscription wasn't the fundamental base that the party is built on in the province.

he doesn't understand the history of his own culture.

the fact is that the liberal party in quebec relies heavily on quasi-nationalist, francophone white voters. that is their actual base. and, the more scorn that trudeau tosses at them, the harder he's going to find his path to re-election.

if bernier can tap into that, he can play spoiler.

i'm an advocate of supply management, myself.

i think i've made that clear.

max and i are pretty much exact opposites. and, we don't actually agree with each other on immigration, either - while i am absolutely concerned about the rightward slant of recent immigration to canada and it's longterm policy implications, my concern is that this will help people like bernier, and what i really want is more money spent on more housing.

in quebec, though?

the numbers are crazy. and a 3-5% swing to a xenophobic fifth party could cost trudeau the government.

a quebec-centered neo-socred conservative party is actually quite likely to eat into liberal support in the province.

see caq.

it's the article that is stupid, not the study. the study is actually believable - because it upholds the idea of risk from constant exposure.

the same thing is true of second-hand smoke, for example. you're probably not going to get cancer from sitting in a smoky room a few times a year. but, if you sit in a smoky room every single day for an extended period, then you actually have a very high risk of developing cancer from exposure to other people's smoke.

and, that is both why the stipulation that they studied daily use makes the study very believable and the headline very stupid, as daily use is not at all the same thing as casual use.

the headline should say "no amount of habitual use is safe". which is kind of like saying "there's no such thing as a moderate alcoholic".

if, like me, you have a drink once in a while, or even a few once in a while, you're not in the category that is being studied, here.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4406827/no-amount-of-alcohol-safe-study/?utm_source=Other&utm_medium=MostPopular&utm_campaign=2014

windsor doesn't really have a chinese district. the downtown is heavily arabic. and the university region is overwhelmingly indian. it might be because they've moved out - i know i remember something like that in ottawa, where i lived on the edge of a chinatown that was being taken over by hipsters. the chinese are increasingly just living in the suburbs. and, i'm noticing a lot of nigerians moving into downtown, too.

there aren't any hipsters here, either, really - or not in large numbers, anyways. well, it's too poor. it never gentrified, because it was too run down.

and, i guess i'm kind of just realizing that.

i've lived in the italian area since i got here, and that's turning over, too.

i'd be less irritated about living in the intersection of chinatown & mexicantown, or something. these are largely secular cultures. they're insular, but that's kind of better, you know? and, i'm not likely to be dealing with the same kind of ostracism or open homophobia as i am when living amongst indians, arabs and nigerians.

i think that's something to keep in mind as i'm looking elsewhere.

the culture matters. it's not trivial...

people are individuals and everything. but, the statistics are clear enough, too. there's no contradiction in speaking in generalities, and then giving people agency. and, i don't feel i need to explain this every time i post.

the chinese are different, because they're so often atheist. they tend to be pro-capitalist, but that's a different kind of evil than being a religionist. and, they're not pushing the same kind of regression, or threatening the same kind of backwardness. you don't get these absurd debates over established science. and, it's a reflection of the fact that china is an advanced second world economy - and nearly an advanced one, altogether.

it's the religion that is at the root of the barbarism. and, it's just an accurate statement - an astute observation.

well, they are barbarians.

look at their laws. their customs. their religion.

this is exactly the same set of problems that the greeks faced in the collapse of hellenism: irrationality, a contempt for science and an attack on sexual freedom, in favour of this primitive society centred around the tribal unit, the family.

it's not rhetorical. it's descriptive.

i don't pretend i can fight them, or something. that's never been how you deal with barbarians. what you need to do is find a way to get in their minds, and then get them to fight each other. so, you try to create division between christians and muslims - then they leave the academy alone. or, you hire one type of barbarian as mercenaries to expel some other kind. & etc.

but, for right now, when the prime minister is a retard, and the culture is itself regressing, you just have to find a place to hide from them, and wait it out.

but, i mean...

i'm not a nationalist.

i'm not going to wrap myself in a flag, or sing jingoist slogans, or cheer on one country as superior to another.

and, this idea of national pride based on arbitrary characteristics is just reflective of the collapse into primitivism that we're undergoing.

i can point to the country's history and traditions as setting precedent, and then argue in favour of this as some kind of ordering. but, i'm not going to elevate them to the status of myth, or pound them into anybody's faces.

and, it's not because that would be uncanadian - although it would be. it's because that would be uncivilized.

i can't leave the country; i was born here, i have citizenship here, and i don't have citizenship elsewhere.

and, i survive on the social assistance that i'm entitled to, as a citizen of this country - i'd die very quickly, otherwise.

in fact, i can't even leave the province.

like, i'm not denying the point. i'm the first person to point it out. i fully understand that i don't have the business skills required to survive in any sort of economy. i've spent my life focusing on my intellect, not on my survival skills. i have no interest in living that kind of lifestyle. i just want a quiet corner somewhere where i can read.

so, where would i go?

i don't know.

i'd generally prefer europe to america, but europe is going through the same kind of problems we are.

i'm not sure that there's really anywhere in the world right now that is dedicated to building a science-based society on enlightenment principles. canada certainly isn't. the scandinavian countries have abandoned this. the british are hopeless. the germans and french are in collapse, too. & , broadly speaking, america has never even pretended to want this - it's always been a backwater of puritanism and imperial ambition.

it's not the first time in world history where there isn't an obvious way out.

the chinese may be the right answer, in the end, but it's going to be decades before they have anything seriously approaching first world living conditions for disabled people. and, i've always had a soft spot for the pacific northwest, but the systems don't currently exist.

this is really a period where the academics need to lock themselves in the library and close the doors, and wait for the barbarians to pass. i just need to find a new space to hide in for a few years...

so, i spend years railing against free markets, and you idiots think i want to move to a society with a for-profit health care system?

nope.

it may be true that america is moving in the right direction right now, while canada is moving in the wrong direction. but, i wouldn't survive more than a few weeks in the united states before i was crushed by the intolerance of market capitalism.

i'm a disabled person.

i can't exist in a market society.

and, frankly, i wouldn't want to, either.

but, seeing that woman in the hallway today affirmed to me that i'm making the right choice.

this city is collapsing under a strain it can't handle, and it may be a difficult process to get out.

but, being homeless for a few weeks is a better choice than staying here and dying of cancer.

i don't want oxygen tanks to help me breathe - i can and should run away from here while i am strong enough that i still can.

this is across the street from the 7/11 in my vlogs.

there was a surplus of housing in this city a few years ago.

and, i wonder what happened....

https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/death-investigated-in-windsor-neighbourhood-with-homeless-problem

this afternoon, i checked out a place that i had high expectations for in terms of location and size - but was apprehensive about regarding smoke. and, my concerns were immediately met with my expectations, enough that i initially walked away.

there was a woman sitting in the doorway of the apartment, in a wheelchair, with a pack of smokes in front of her - and an ashtray across the porch. i nearly vomited, and walked away rather quickly.

my intuitive diagnosis was ms. she was shaking, barely able to speak. it just seemed like an advanced kind of muscular problem; maybe she even had an accident. i didn't ask, as it wasn't really my place. i just decided it was not a good place for me, and walked home.

when i got home, i second-guessed myself. maybe the reason she was sitting outside was that she was moving out. maybe she was moving to a long-term care centre, with family...who knows...

so, i went back and noticed the signs on the window - no smoking, due to the presence of oxygen tanks.

this woman has lung cancer. she can't smoke inside because she has oxygen tanks to help her breathe. but, she's smoking two packs a day outside, still.

it would be the unit directly downstairs.

and, so i made the only deduction that i can - that the smoker downstairs will be gone soon. and, after confirming with the owner that they will be seeking non-smoking tenants in the future, i put down an application for the unit.

it might be the best chance at smoke-free living that i can find in this city.

you want to do an esl?

don't bother moving to asia.

move to toronto.

you show up, and it's dozens of white people.

consistently.

i've been bitching that the migration is reducing the vacancy rate, and that seems to be true, but you go to these open houses, and everybody applying is white.

it seems like it's less that i'm competing with a bunch of migrants, and more that a lot of the housing has been taken off the market, leaving a reduced supply for local residents, who are left to fight over it - with students. i see students...

...which is worse.

i mean, i'm not one to throw around market theory. i think housing is a human right. but, that's supposed to be the argument: equality of opportunity. let everyone loose at each other, and let the market sort it out. again, i don't advocate that, but that's the "liberal" position here - that if i lose, i got outcompeted, and too bad. ok. but, the more i'm experiencing what's happening here, the more i'm realizing that this isn't actually reflective of reality.

if there's tens of thousands of migrants here, and they're reducing vacancy rates, why don't i see them applying for the housing i'm applying for? and, the answer seems to be that they have contacts that are helping them avoid competing on the market for spots - that they have workers helping them get in.

i mean, i see them at the grocery store and on the street and stuff. but, i've been to a lot of open houses, and i don't see them there.

maybe, the way out of this is to go live in a shelter and ask them to find me something. that seems to be the ticket.

otherwise, i'm fighting for substandard housing with dozens of other people...

it's just: can we be consistent? fuck markets. thoroughly. but, it's screwy to argue in favour of equality of opportunity, then game the market in favour of a specific group. i don't really want free markets - i want equality of outcome. but, that's kind of an incoherent position.

are we in favour of free market housing or not?

i'm not.

are you, or are aren't you? pick one, and be consistent about it.

'cause i kind of think i could probably outcompete a couple of these folks, actually.

canada's really become an absurd place to live.

"property owner offering reduced rent in exchange for english lessons from local resident."

quiet seems to have too many vowels, or something. it's throwing off people that speak other languages rather badly.

"quite apartment for rent" has a kind of quaint, english feel to it. apartment for rent? mmm. quite.

but, "quit apartment for rent" seems more like a command that anything else. it's like i'm being evicted before i apply.

the article doesn't do a good job of explaining what happened to the socreds, though.

the bc wing actually became the bc liberal party, crazily enough - and it is the socred history that is the root cause of the bc liberals' right-ward slant. the alberta wing became the reform movement (ernest manning is preston manning's father). and the quebec wing, which was more focused on the monetary aspect, turned into the quasi-socialist bloc quebecois.

this is an important part of actual canadian history - not the canadian history that you imagine exists, but the one that actually happened in objective reality. and, it's not like they went away.

reform is a fundamental constant on the right. i don't know if it's tied to the history of protestantism or what, but it's always been there, and it will likely always be there.

the tories are the party of urban conservatives & old money. they're not the party of farmers, or of the rural poor. and, they've historically generally faced stiff resistance from populist movements in the countryside.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_Party_of_Canada

what we call the conservative party in canada actually represents a coalition between two different political ideologies: toryism (which in canada has tended to be moderate) and social credit, which was an odd philosophy that merged a kind of theory of value with a lot of hard right-wing social views, and was prominent in the west and in quebec. until 1980, social credit regularly elected mps in canada. this was always a strange marriage, one that erupted in the 1990s as a consequence of the collapse of toryism, and a resulting shift to the hard right in the prairie provinces. what happened was that social credit eclipsed toryism (under the 'reform' brand), and then launched a hostile takeover of the conservative party, a takeover that ended in much of the conservative intelligentsia moving to the liberal party.

stephen harper was both the culmination of the reform movement and the architect of a slow return of toryism to the conservative party. today, the conservatives are still struggling with this, but the old tories seem to have the upper hand, again.

what maxime bernier represents is consequently relatively easy to understand. he's representing a strain of the canadian right that has historically tended to exist outside of the conservative party. there is a place in the canadian discourse for this - it is an important part of the country's fabric. it's always been there, and any stable party system will acknowledge that. the centre needs to get their heads around this.

but, a more interesting question is whether the quiet tory takeover of the conservative party, this counter-revolution on the right, is reflective of the views of voters or not.

people like michelle rempel live in a bubble of upper class tory media. she doesn't have to spend a lot of time talking to her constituents, because she has no meaningful opposition in her riding. and, she's consequently likely very out of touch with them.

does it make sense for bernier to start his own party? i think the stable spectrum in canada has four parties in it, and one of them is on the right of the conservative party. so, i'm going to argue that it does - and that this is all very canadian. our spectrum has been unstable for much of the last 40 years; the re-establishment of social credit could stabilize the party system..

but, the tories might want to re-evaluate the level of support that exists for a reform type party.

again: i've been to like 100 places, and the smoke is just endemic.

i couldn't tell, today, if i was smelling paint or pot. paint dries. &, if it was pot, it's not obvious where the source was - this was a semi-basement without neighbours and no shared entrance, the kind of space that should be shielded fairly well.

but, i was smelling something.

and, there really has appeared to be no escape from this, up to this point. we'll see what tomorrow brings...

so, 10/2015 is updated.

i'm making progress. slowly.

i put an application down on something today, but i'm again not really stoked on it. i really haven't found the place i want, yet. but i'm running out of time, too.

there's a few more showings in the next few days.