i thought i was awake, but i'm not, so i'm going to try and sleep it off and get back to work in the morning.

is it possible that i'm the subject of some kind of nazi experiment or something?

well, it seems like incomprehensibly bad luck, doesn't it?

i need to say the same thing i've said repeatedly: i don't want to sit in my apartment by myself and do drugs. that's not going to make me "happier", and that's not going to increase my productivity. it's certainly not going to make me want to participate more in society. it's just going to force me to spend large amounts of time trying to sleep the drugs off before i can back to what i'm doing in a clearer state of mind.

i don't need drugs, i need a stable environment that will allow me to get back to my work in a sober and clear-headed state.

so, i had some kind of event down here this morning. i guess there's two possibilities and they reduce to the same thing: either i was affected by the bleach i used when i put the machine through a clean cycle (i'm done laundry. finally.) or this kind of dusty, chemically smell that gets worst in the early morning had some kind of effect on me.

i felt fucked up on something, and i really didn't enjoy it.

the consequence is that i had to sleep off what i wanted to be a productive day, and i was hoping that i was at the end of that.

i don't know what the smell is; i don't recognize it. i think it might be coming from inside the walls in the unit, but the fact that it comes up and down suggests it has a local source. if it was remnant smoke on my furniture it would be constant. and, if it was coming from next door, you'd think it would be worse during peak hours, rather than early in the morning. so, i'm left to conclude that the kid upstairs is smoking late at night. up until last night, it seemed like she was mostly smoking cigarettes, and maybe some pot, but last night was a rough experience.

generally, it gives me a sore throat and makes me cough. last night, i had a kind of racing high that i'd associate with a stimulant - and then i crashed very hard, which is what happens.

i moved here explicitly to get away from this.

again: i don't have much direct evidence, so i don't want to jump to conclusions. there could be some factors outside that make the pollution worse at a specific time of day, or it could be a consequence of a dirty heating system that switches on at the same time or something. i'm still in fact-finding mode. i'm still trying to figure it out.

but, i don't want what happened last night to ever happen again.

and, i'm dreading going through this again, after i tried so hard to make sure i wouldn't...

i'm going to have to do what i'm going to have to do, but let's hope i don't have to do it.

i think the dad should be home upstairs soon, and we'll see what he says when he comes in. i'm kind of hoping he comes down here and questions me, as that's probably the best way to approach it.

i'm still groggy, but hopefully it wears off soon.

i've pointed this out a few times, now.

it is true that if any specific country in the western alliance were to stop arms shipments to the saudis, then another would pick it up. but, that is what every country in the western alliance says.

we claim there's no point in pulling out, because the americans would get the contracts. and, the americans claim the germans would get the contract. and, the germans claim the french would get the contract. .... . & this is all true enough.

but, if we're all saying the same thing to each other, maybe there's actually enough of a confluence of opinion here that a boycott should be being discussed.

i think that the evidence is fairly clear: arming the saudis right now is something roughly equivalent to arming hitler in the 30s, which is something that the west did, too - at tremendous consequence to itself.

a total arms boycott on the saudis is something that nato should be seriously considering.

so, they'll buy from the russians, then?

well, let them make that choice, if they so choose - i might suggest it would not be in their interests.

yeah. i'm going to file a s. 2 as well.

this is kind of awkward, but i think it's necessary due to the initial definition of "harassment" that was provided to me by the cop. the truth is that, in canada, which has a single federal criminal code and no provincial codes, harassment has a stronger wording and burden than many jurisdictions in the united states - in canada you have to explicitly show a genuine basis of fear. it is not enough to simply be annoyed, or simply be offended, there is a burden on the crown to show the potential for concrete harm. and, it is for that reason that i've demonstrated such a high degree of confidence - i know that these charges are premised upon an error of law, and i'm consequently the one dealing with actual harassment, here.

however, in the united states, harassment laws that explicitly included the term "annoy" have been struck down as unconstitutional, under a 2011 ruling.

so, i'm in a weird situation where i'm fighting against an error in law that is rooted in an american understanding of "harassment" that has been ruled unconstitutional in america, and never existed in canada in the first place - but that one would expect would be struck down as unconstitutional here, too, if such a law did exist. so, if i was arrested for being annoying under what is an american statute that has already been struck down, i should be challenging the arrest on the basis it exists on - even if it is in truth extralegal, in addition to the arrest being extrajudicial.

what that means is that i'd be seeking a judicial ruling that explicitly states that behaviour that is annoying but not threatening is not covered under harassment laws, which is perhaps what the society needs in order to work through the colloquialism.

again: this is why the cops are supposed to ask a judge for a warrant.

so, that's s. 2 & s. 7. i'll have to think about anything else i'm going to bring up...

and, how will a carbon tax affect me directly?

the truth is that i'm very conscious of this, and have a very low footprint. i don't buy gas in any way. my one sin is that i buy a lot of imported fruit, but my argument is that it isn't really a choice i'm making, it's a choice made by distributors - largely driven by the price of labour. i live in one of the largest tomato-producing regions in the world, but the grocery store stocks tomatoes from mexico, because it saves money by doing it - and i need to go through the distributors, whether i like it or not.

if a carbon tax increases the price of mexican tomatoes, that may make canadian tomatoes more competitive, which is both good for the environment and the economy.

but, it exposes another problem: is a carbon tax legal under the new nafta? was it legal under the old one? in their backwards attempt to stop this, the conservatives are going to focus on constitutional arguments that are largely invalid. the more pressing challenge may come in the form of arguing that it's essentially a tariff on imported goods, and it's damage on foreign investors consequently rules it invalid under wto or other "free trade" rules.

we went through this about ten years ago, when the province tried to set up a rebate system for locally built sustainable energy projects like wind farms, and it got shut down by some japanese investors through a wto challenge. i wouldn't be surprised to see the mexicans sue us over this, if it hurts their manufacturing and agriculture sectors.

the other thing i need to buy is electronics, but i try to buy them a little older or second hand, so i'm getting surplus stock or pre-used goods. i do the same thing with clothes - with the exception of certain things like socks, i insist on buying all clothes second-hand, to avoid paying into the clothing economy, which is largely driven by slave labour. i can't imagine a new economy, but i can try to avoid supporting the existing one. as i focus on surplus supply, this isn't likely to affect my costs on electronics very much.

so, in terms of concrete changes in my life, this is likely to affect me only in the sense of it increasing the price of produce. but, if that leads to the distributors shifting to more locally grown items, it's a long overdue change that i'm strongly in favour of.

just in case you're curious, windsor would be the fourth largest metropolitan area in ontario, behind the gta (including kitchener & hamilton), ottawa and london. but, considering that windsor is really a part of the detroit metropolitan area, the region actually rivals toronto in size. i do think that the gta is a bit bigger than the greater detroit area, at this point, but that wasn't always true.

what's left of windsor seems to see itself as a small and somewhat isolated town, but this is a relic of industrial decay, and the apparent fact that this city is ignorant of it's own history and geography. the reality is that this is historically the southern part of what has been the largest and most important city in the great lakes region.

the geography makes it hard to imagine a different outcome, but had the initial french colonists of fort detroit expanded the city southwards into ontario rather than northwards into michigan then this may have become the biggest and most important city in canada.