my intestinal tract is imploding on me. have you ever looked down and realized that you just cleared all the way to your duodenum, as the excretion is so perfectly long and well formed that it seems like it just came out of a butcher shop, as some exquisite brand of gourmet sausage?

unfortunately, that never lasts.

what follows is always a faucet of liquid acid, leaving you in search of a spray fountain of baking soda. that would be an interesting product - just a toilet seat shaped container of bicarbonate that you would sit in during strategic and opportune moments, as a sense of relief. i'd call on tums to manufacture this.

i've been having nachos recently, you see.

so, i was thinking about this as my insides were seeping out of my ass - is eminent domain actually a cost effective solution to the housing crisis? hear me out.

we don't build subsidized housing any more because the government doesn't think it's cost effective. i don't think that's actually correct; i think if you do the math, you'll find that's not the case. however, the state insists on trying to to incentivize private builders into building new homes, which leaves what's left for low income tenants. the government then gives money directly to social assistance recipients, with the assumption that they can find below market housing, which they increasingly can't. this doesn't work precisely because social assistance recipients have precisely no market power.

if the state stepped in and just seized older buildings, giving existing tenants a period of six months to a year to move somewhere else and compensating them fairly for it, it would likely save a lot of money in construction of social housing, and spur private development to build by increasing demand for new apartments, condos or small houses.

it's actually a pretty good idea.