trump's reaction that bin salman is just draining the swamp is so outrageous that it can't be ignorance: this is calculated.
the arguments that bin salman are using are the same arguments that every dictator uses to purge power. they're the arguments that mussolini used, that stalin used, that hitler used - and that countless strong men before them used. and, there's a reason that they all used the same arguments: because they all took them out of the same books, from the renaissance, and largely italian.
listen: this isn't some kind of surprise. why do you think that people have been freaking out over saudi arms sales for so long? because it's been obvious for years that saudi arabia is on the brink of collapse into fascism.
so, it finally happened. and, the media, so much of it bought, will feign denials, and ignorance, and surprise.
the serious analysis is that you should have seen this coming from the 90s.
and, now we're going to have to sleep in this bed.
world war three, here we come: and history will record it as a struggle to stop the saudis, with the victors being on the side that succeeds.
america may very well be on the side that loses.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
Tuesday, November 7, 2017
like, maybe you're unclear on the point, but i don't have the experience to apply to any job besides a fast food restaurant.
and, even if i were to get that job, and work overtime, and somehow avoid burning the place down in the first week, or at least pissing in the food supply, i still wouldn't be able to make a monthly payment.
the only way out is for me to somehow become something that i've never imagined myself as and don't even really understand the existence of.
excluding my father & step-mother, i've never even known anybody with an actual job. everybody i've ever known has either worked minimum wage, or not worked at all. it's a culture that i have no understanding of, and that i don't have the slightest concept of how to get into.
my bargain with capitalism was always this: i'll promise not to procreate, if you let me just exist. i mean, i didn't choose any of this. and, i don't want anything to do with it. my offering to you is that i won't create more mouths to feed. that's both the most and the least that i'm capable of doing. maybe my mother should have done that, herself, but she didn't, and here i am, and i can't turn back time.
i'm supposed to be writing this stupid fucking goddamned piece of shit appeal, but i'm just too fucking angry and depressed to even focus.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
and, even if i were to get that job, and work overtime, and somehow avoid burning the place down in the first week, or at least pissing in the food supply, i still wouldn't be able to make a monthly payment.
the only way out is for me to somehow become something that i've never imagined myself as and don't even really understand the existence of.
excluding my father & step-mother, i've never even known anybody with an actual job. everybody i've ever known has either worked minimum wage, or not worked at all. it's a culture that i have no understanding of, and that i don't have the slightest concept of how to get into.
my bargain with capitalism was always this: i'll promise not to procreate, if you let me just exist. i mean, i didn't choose any of this. and, i don't want anything to do with it. my offering to you is that i won't create more mouths to feed. that's both the most and the least that i'm capable of doing. maybe my mother should have done that, herself, but she didn't, and here i am, and i can't turn back time.
i'm supposed to be writing this stupid fucking goddamned piece of shit appeal, but i'm just too fucking angry and depressed to even focus.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
it's a non-issue, because i can't work, and i'll never work again.
but, i'm sorry: i don't have the slightest idea how to generate $40,000 a year. i can't think of anything at all that would be likely to get me anywhere close to that. it's not even in the realm of something i could imagine being able to accomplish.
it's a complete impossibility.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
but, i'm sorry: i don't have the slightest idea how to generate $40,000 a year. i can't think of anything at all that would be likely to get me anywhere close to that. it's not even in the realm of something i could imagine being able to accomplish.
it's a complete impossibility.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i just want you to understand how ridiculous my student loan is.
this is my income on odsp: $1151 + tax credits. it's about $1200. it could be higher if i end up paying hydro - $1250 or so.
my minimum payment is $1372.
and, what kind of money would i need to be making to pay down $1372/month?
well, my expenses are currently $1000/month. if i had a job, i'd have to get a phone, so that's an extra $100. i'd need to spend at least $100 on transportation. and, i'd need spending money for coffee and food while i'm out. i'd also need a clothes budget, which i currently don't have. i think an extra $500/month in expenses is reasonable. so, my expenses would then be $1500/month instead of $1000/month.
that would mean i'd need to be making $2872/month, after taxes. those numbers are beyond anything i've ever contemplated - i've never even applied for a job with that kind of salary. that's, $34464 after taxes. so, i guess i'm looking at higher than $40,000/yr.
i don't even know what kind of job offers that kind of money. the only jobs i've ever worked are in fast food and call centres, and nobody at these places makes that kind of money. i applied for some government jobs a few years ago, and i couldn't pass the behavioural exam. what else is there, even? i don't even know.
these are just numbers that are daunting to me. i can't even comprehend them, really.
the idea that i'd ever be making as much as $40,000/yr never even crossed my mind. i've planned my whole life around making minimum wage or lower....
so, this is crazy to me. the reality is that i'm never going to make anything close to that, and that it's never going to get paid down.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
this is my income on odsp: $1151 + tax credits. it's about $1200. it could be higher if i end up paying hydro - $1250 or so.
my minimum payment is $1372.
and, what kind of money would i need to be making to pay down $1372/month?
well, my expenses are currently $1000/month. if i had a job, i'd have to get a phone, so that's an extra $100. i'd need to spend at least $100 on transportation. and, i'd need spending money for coffee and food while i'm out. i'd also need a clothes budget, which i currently don't have. i think an extra $500/month in expenses is reasonable. so, my expenses would then be $1500/month instead of $1000/month.
that would mean i'd need to be making $2872/month, after taxes. those numbers are beyond anything i've ever contemplated - i've never even applied for a job with that kind of salary. that's, $34464 after taxes. so, i guess i'm looking at higher than $40,000/yr.
i don't even know what kind of job offers that kind of money. the only jobs i've ever worked are in fast food and call centres, and nobody at these places makes that kind of money. i applied for some government jobs a few years ago, and i couldn't pass the behavioural exam. what else is there, even? i don't even know.
these are just numbers that are daunting to me. i can't even comprehend them, really.
the idea that i'd ever be making as much as $40,000/yr never even crossed my mind. i've planned my whole life around making minimum wage or lower....
so, this is crazy to me. the reality is that i'm never going to make anything close to that, and that it's never going to get paid down.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
Monday, November 6, 2017
i may have to make some fancy arguments. and, if this goes on long enough, i may end up writing some case law.
i acknowledge that it would initially seem like the proper standard for review is reasonableness and there should be deference to the body. but, the ruling was incorrect! so, i need a way to get them to rule on the right question.
if an explicit clause written in the legislature is enough to allow for deference, you'd think an explicit clause would likewise be enough to remove it. and, 83(3) is a hard stop.
i need to go back to the fact that the adjudicator didn't mention the documents. she didn't dismiss the evidence. she just ignored it. and, you ought not to do that.
so, how can the court rule in favour of deference when the legislation is written to all but abolish discretion, and the adjudicator clearly applied too much of it, to the point of explicitly excluding imperative evidence? this would be an obvious case for a correctness review, by order of the legislature.
the problem is that i don't have the right case law, and i consequently might not get a good reaction at a lower court. this happens sometimes - a hole in the law exists, and the lower courts can't plug it without the proper ruling coming down from up top. so, the lower courts just keep putting down dumb rulings.
i get the idea behind deference. but, this is exactly the situation where they need to use correctness.
i think i'm getting some sleep.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i acknowledge that it would initially seem like the proper standard for review is reasonableness and there should be deference to the body. but, the ruling was incorrect! so, i need a way to get them to rule on the right question.
if an explicit clause written in the legislature is enough to allow for deference, you'd think an explicit clause would likewise be enough to remove it. and, 83(3) is a hard stop.
i need to go back to the fact that the adjudicator didn't mention the documents. she didn't dismiss the evidence. she just ignored it. and, you ought not to do that.
so, how can the court rule in favour of deference when the legislation is written to all but abolish discretion, and the adjudicator clearly applied too much of it, to the point of explicitly excluding imperative evidence? this would be an obvious case for a correctness review, by order of the legislature.
the problem is that i don't have the right case law, and i consequently might not get a good reaction at a lower court. this happens sometimes - a hole in the law exists, and the lower courts can't plug it without the proper ruling coming down from up top. so, the lower courts just keep putting down dumb rulings.
i get the idea behind deference. but, this is exactly the situation where they need to use correctness.
i think i'm getting some sleep.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
so...
i did study the difference between reasonableness and correctness; i did study dunsmuir. this isn't greek. although, having studied mathematics deeply and having dabbled in philosophy....i'm not terrible with greek.
i get the broad idea of what i need to do.
as i've stated repeatedly, i think the ruling was incorrect: that i provided plenty of evidence of the action being retaliatory, that i explicitly mentioned it more than once, including at the end, and that the adjudicator had minimal discretion in ruling under 83(3). she just wasn't paying attention; she'd already made up her mind. and, she done fucked right up, she did, yup. this argument is clear enough in my mind.
Further, subsection 83(3) provides for mandatory relief from eviction in certain situations. If the Board finds that any of clauses (a) to (e) of subsection 83(3) applies, the Board must not grant the application to evict.
what's daunting is the formalities, the pomp, the procedure. because there isn't an instruction manual - or at least i haven't found it yet. and, what i'm going to do wrong here is screw up a technicality...
i was actually glad to see that the precedent is dunsmiur. something familiar. an anchor. 'cause i remember that shit...
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i did study the difference between reasonableness and correctness; i did study dunsmuir. this isn't greek. although, having studied mathematics deeply and having dabbled in philosophy....i'm not terrible with greek.
i get the broad idea of what i need to do.
as i've stated repeatedly, i think the ruling was incorrect: that i provided plenty of evidence of the action being retaliatory, that i explicitly mentioned it more than once, including at the end, and that the adjudicator had minimal discretion in ruling under 83(3). she just wasn't paying attention; she'd already made up her mind. and, she done fucked right up, she did, yup. this argument is clear enough in my mind.
Further, subsection 83(3) provides for mandatory relief from eviction in certain situations. If the Board finds that any of clauses (a) to (e) of subsection 83(3) applies, the Board must not grant the application to evict.
what's daunting is the formalities, the pomp, the procedure. because there isn't an instruction manual - or at least i haven't found it yet. and, what i'm going to do wrong here is screw up a technicality...
i was actually glad to see that the precedent is dunsmiur. something familiar. an anchor. 'cause i remember that shit...
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
it's really the old problem with property, isn't it?
i maintain that the ruling was incorrect relative to the law - that the law recognizes this kind of inequity, and has clauses designed to prevent it. but, if the adjudicator is a bitch, then the adjudicator is a bitch. i'm actually confident i'll eventually win this thing, via enough appeals - but i really hope i'm gone by then.
but, whatever argument you want to make in terms of the value of property (which i'm likely to tear apart...), you're always left with the reality that property really is theft. and, there's not any rational way to deny this: my apartment is quite literally being stolen from me.
the correct answer is to abolish property. and, while the canadian system of property is more feudal and tory than it is anarchist or mutualist, it kind of comes around to the right answer. or, at least it should. at least, it's written to.
again: that's why this woman isn't a judge - she really didn't have the wisdom to balance this well. i quite literally have nowhere to go. she's quite literally tossing me on the street. and, i consequently have no choice but to drag this out.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i maintain that the ruling was incorrect relative to the law - that the law recognizes this kind of inequity, and has clauses designed to prevent it. but, if the adjudicator is a bitch, then the adjudicator is a bitch. i'm actually confident i'll eventually win this thing, via enough appeals - but i really hope i'm gone by then.
but, whatever argument you want to make in terms of the value of property (which i'm likely to tear apart...), you're always left with the reality that property really is theft. and, there's not any rational way to deny this: my apartment is quite literally being stolen from me.
the correct answer is to abolish property. and, while the canadian system of property is more feudal and tory than it is anarchist or mutualist, it kind of comes around to the right answer. or, at least it should. at least, it's written to.
again: that's why this woman isn't a judge - she really didn't have the wisdom to balance this well. i quite literally have nowhere to go. she's quite literally tossing me on the street. and, i consequently have no choice but to drag this out.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
the only responses i'm getting are from this stupid management company that's running rough shod over all the human rights legislation.
what happened to my little hole at the end of history?
if i could have put this off for another five years, i'd just move to a small town. but, i'm not ready for that, yet.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
what happened to my little hole at the end of history?
if i could have put this off for another five years, i'd just move to a small town. but, i'm not ready for that, yet.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
that was a waste of time.
i need a shower...
this appeals thing is esoteric, but i'll figure it out. tomorrow is otherwise empty.
like i say: i'm going to guess six months to a year. i might not even have enough time over the appeal. and, i hate this. i thought i had this 'waste all of my time finding somewhere to live' bullshit figured out. ugh.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i need a shower...
this appeals thing is esoteric, but i'll figure it out. tomorrow is otherwise empty.
like i say: i'm going to guess six months to a year. i might not even have enough time over the appeal. and, i hate this. i thought i had this 'waste all of my time finding somewhere to live' bullshit figured out. ugh.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i guess i had to catch up on some sleep.
then i had to do some grocery shopping, this morning. i shipped 48, 56. six orders left.
i got something to eat this afternoon, and it's been a little slow getting to the next point.
i'm caught up in the listings. there are actually a few more interesting things, but i couldn't get through to anybody. there's some long shot viewings tonight.
but i'm going to have to spent the rest of the night preparing documents, because i intend to serve tomorrow.
then i had to do some grocery shopping, this morning. i shipped 48, 56. six orders left.
i got something to eat this afternoon, and it's been a little slow getting to the next point.
i'm caught up in the listings. there are actually a few more interesting things, but i couldn't get through to anybody. there's some long shot viewings tonight.
but i'm going to have to spent the rest of the night preparing documents, because i intend to serve tomorrow.
well, at least i'll get one within walking distance.
i can't promise i'll go back a second time, though. we'll see what it's like.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2017/11/03/lcbo-announces-first-14-cities-to-have-legal-recreational-marijuana-shops.html
i can't promise i'll go back a second time, though. we'll see what it's like.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2017/11/03/lcbo-announces-first-14-cities-to-have-legal-recreational-marijuana-shops.html
denis coderre has been a longstanding example of what is wrong with the liberal party. and, valerie plante had a very forward thinking platform. it's maybe worth pointing out that the thing that requires the deeper explanation is how it is that he ever won in the first place - but you just have to take a look at his primary opponent in 2013 to figure it out. even so, he only got 35% of the vote - and the left almost split.
when i think of denis coderre, i think of paul martin. and, whether anybody likes it or not, this is still the narrative that defines so much of the canadian body politic: this struggle between business liberals and social democrats for control of the natural governing party.
i wish her luck, and hope her and her party can work out some of their longstanding goals to build a more modern, more sustainable city on the island of montreal.
but, let's not make this too much about her gender.
it probably wasn't.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
when i think of denis coderre, i think of paul martin. and, whether anybody likes it or not, this is still the narrative that defines so much of the canadian body politic: this struggle between business liberals and social democrats for control of the natural governing party.
i wish her luck, and hope her and her party can work out some of their longstanding goals to build a more modern, more sustainable city on the island of montreal.
but, let's not make this too much about her gender.
it probably wasn't.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
Sunday, November 5, 2017
there was a big issue in canada a while back around usage-based-billing, and the activist response was generally to push back against it by throwing around horror stories about paying for heavy data use.
but, i never really cared about what happens to these heavy users, because i'm not one.
if i'm paying $25 for 200 gb, that means i'm paying $0.13/gigabyte - and that if they charged me by usage, my bills would be less than $5/month. the cost per gigabyte would have to increase by over 1000% to get to the price i'm currently paying.
so, my self-interest was always in usage-based billing. and, i'd love to see somebody defy the court and offer that option.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
but, i never really cared about what happens to these heavy users, because i'm not one.
if i'm paying $25 for 200 gb, that means i'm paying $0.13/gigabyte - and that if they charged me by usage, my bills would be less than $5/month. the cost per gigabyte would have to increase by over 1000% to get to the price i'm currently paying.
so, my self-interest was always in usage-based billing. and, i'd love to see somebody defy the court and offer that option.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
free wifi. how appealing is this, really?
in absolute terms: not at all. i'd far rather have my own internet connection, and i'd far rather it be wired. but, there's some other factors to consider.
my current plan is no longer being offered. it's a 6/2 plan with 200 gb in downloads during peak periods, unlimited downloads after 2:00 am and unlimited uploads altogether. frankly, at $24.95/month, i'm overpaying for usage - because my total monthly usage is closer to 20 gb (and sometimes to 10 gb). october was 9.82. september was 11.09.
because i don't watch porn, i don't need more than 30 gb in usage. an ideal plan would be 50, but that's a big buffer - it's twice what i need. and, i've never been upset about the 6/2. if somebody were to offer me a quarter of the usage for a quarter of the price, i'd take it.
the entry plan for teksavvy in my region is currently 15 mbps, at $35/month + hst. i would just consider a forced upgrade to be a cash grab; i don't want it. but, it means that the value of the free wifi is not $28/month, but $40/month.
what that means is that a $625 apartment is really more like a $585 apartment, if it's offering wifi for free - and that a $750 apartment is more like a $710 one.
of course, i'll need to ask some questions. i wouldn't notice any difference in going from 6 mbps down to 4 mbps down, but i might notice a difference in going from 2 mbps up to 1 mbps up. and, anything slower than that isn't really useable. but, i'd rather get a 4 mbps connection for free than pay for a 15 mbps connection.
it's something else to think about.
i have some showings tomorrow night, and some more on wednesday. some things came up this morning, but i slept all day after an all nighter in detroit. i'll need to make those calls in the morning.
for the rest of the night, i'm going to try to get some work done.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
in absolute terms: not at all. i'd far rather have my own internet connection, and i'd far rather it be wired. but, there's some other factors to consider.
my current plan is no longer being offered. it's a 6/2 plan with 200 gb in downloads during peak periods, unlimited downloads after 2:00 am and unlimited uploads altogether. frankly, at $24.95/month, i'm overpaying for usage - because my total monthly usage is closer to 20 gb (and sometimes to 10 gb). october was 9.82. september was 11.09.
because i don't watch porn, i don't need more than 30 gb in usage. an ideal plan would be 50, but that's a big buffer - it's twice what i need. and, i've never been upset about the 6/2. if somebody were to offer me a quarter of the usage for a quarter of the price, i'd take it.
the entry plan for teksavvy in my region is currently 15 mbps, at $35/month + hst. i would just consider a forced upgrade to be a cash grab; i don't want it. but, it means that the value of the free wifi is not $28/month, but $40/month.
what that means is that a $625 apartment is really more like a $585 apartment, if it's offering wifi for free - and that a $750 apartment is more like a $710 one.
of course, i'll need to ask some questions. i wouldn't notice any difference in going from 6 mbps down to 4 mbps down, but i might notice a difference in going from 2 mbps up to 1 mbps up. and, anything slower than that isn't really useable. but, i'd rather get a 4 mbps connection for free than pay for a 15 mbps connection.
it's something else to think about.
i have some showings tomorrow night, and some more on wednesday. some things came up this morning, but i slept all day after an all nighter in detroit. i'll need to make those calls in the morning.
for the rest of the night, i'm going to try to get some work done.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
Saturday, November 4, 2017
that was brutal.
everything else aside, the wide open window access at the fire escape made the place a non-starter. i need a safe space for my gear. that wasn't it.
and, my throat hurt just walking out of there.
at $725 + hydro, it's just a joke. $2000/month after taxes is the income of a young professional. that unit is more likely to appeal to a single mother on welfare. but, it would need to be brought up to code, first.
i've got lots of stuff planned for this week. hopefully, i find something. that simply wasn't acceptable.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
everything else aside, the wide open window access at the fire escape made the place a non-starter. i need a safe space for my gear. that wasn't it.
and, my throat hurt just walking out of there.
at $725 + hydro, it's just a joke. $2000/month after taxes is the income of a young professional. that unit is more likely to appeal to a single mother on welfare. but, it would need to be brought up to code, first.
i've got lots of stuff planned for this week. hopefully, i find something. that simply wasn't acceptable.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
but, yeah.
the idea that there are people out there that think you can take a little piece of bread and then say a magic spell and have it turn into the literal flesh of somebody that supposedly died 2000 years ago, and that then ritually eating that flesh absolves you of something somehow...
that's scary shit. it's mortifying. a phobia of this is called reason.
and, not only is it the case that anybody that believes that should be forcibly barred from public office, it's arguably the case that they should be institutionalized.
it's absolute fucking insanity.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
the idea that there are people out there that think you can take a little piece of bread and then say a magic spell and have it turn into the literal flesh of somebody that supposedly died 2000 years ago, and that then ritually eating that flesh absolves you of something somehow...
that's scary shit. it's mortifying. a phobia of this is called reason.
and, not only is it the case that anybody that believes that should be forcibly barred from public office, it's arguably the case that they should be institutionalized.
it's absolute fucking insanity.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
actually, i know that the pope is only supposed to be infallible on theological matters. so, he can be wrong about who played matlock, but he can't be wrong about transubstantiation - which kind of gives a new twist to the rumours that he had a chemistry degree.
"what? it's a nuclear reaction in 12-space. you've seen star trek, right?"
but, it was a good one liner.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
"what? it's a nuclear reaction in 12-space. you've seen star trek, right?"
but, it was a good one liner.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
you know, the greens seem to be picking up support in protest, but that's not an answer either - and i've been vocal about my opposition to elizabeth may, and why her position in the anglican church makes her a non-starter as a political option.
in order for the greens to be a viable political option, elizabeth may needs to go - and the party needs to distance itself from her religious views.
the liberals have been terrible. the upcoming cycle should be about finding ways to get them out, and replace them with a more "progressive" (i don't like that word.) option. but, we have not one but two parties on the left that are under the control of religious fundamentalists. and, at the end of the day, i'd rather vote for a secular liberal party than a religious left party, even if i don't agree with them on economics. as the state has a monopoly on violence, it is of the utmost importance that religious zealots be kept out of office - at the behest of everything else.
but, right now, i'm not likely to vote at all. it's going to be a local decision....
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
in order for the greens to be a viable political option, elizabeth may needs to go - and the party needs to distance itself from her religious views.
the liberals have been terrible. the upcoming cycle should be about finding ways to get them out, and replace them with a more "progressive" (i don't like that word.) option. but, we have not one but two parties on the left that are under the control of religious fundamentalists. and, at the end of the day, i'd rather vote for a secular liberal party than a religious left party, even if i don't agree with them on economics. as the state has a monopoly on violence, it is of the utmost importance that religious zealots be kept out of office - at the behest of everything else.
but, right now, i'm not likely to vote at all. it's going to be a local decision....
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
Friday, November 3, 2017
and, inri058 is done, too, but it's been created with a unique
problem - there's now four full records worth of material attached to
it. it's five hours. how's that for crazy, right?
i wasn't expecting bandcamp to even let me do this, but i'm going to be offering it in two and four disc options. the four disc option will be $28 - it's four ep singles. the two disc option would be a double hybrid double ep single and run for $20. the difference would be that the four disc option would give you everything on cd, whereas the two disc option would give you half on cd and the other half as a download only. i have other double hybrid ep singles attached to symphonies 1 & 2 as precedent.
i'm aware that this is nuts. but, i had download only tracks to start with - it was two full discs, plus 35 extra minutes of download only. i've extended the ambient mix and added an ry30 mix, which is another ten minutes. but, it's then an aesthetic problem to have that much as a pure download. one track on each side, and you can let it slide. 45 minutes over three tracks, and there's already a third disc.
then, i'm stuck with a three piece record again, and i don't like these.
it was easy to fill up another disc: 50 minutes of 2002 mixes (these are worthwhile, in truth), 25 more for the 2009 youtube mix (which i felt was overlooked to begin with) and nineteen more for a final drone mix. that;s four discs, full: 77, 75, 75, 79. it's just under five hours...
the way this will work is that the 2xcd version will be the version that's been up since late 2014, plus added downloads between the tracks.
it will make more sense when i show you.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i wasn't expecting bandcamp to even let me do this, but i'm going to be offering it in two and four disc options. the four disc option will be $28 - it's four ep singles. the two disc option would be a double hybrid double ep single and run for $20. the difference would be that the four disc option would give you everything on cd, whereas the two disc option would give you half on cd and the other half as a download only. i have other double hybrid ep singles attached to symphonies 1 & 2 as precedent.
i'm aware that this is nuts. but, i had download only tracks to start with - it was two full discs, plus 35 extra minutes of download only. i've extended the ambient mix and added an ry30 mix, which is another ten minutes. but, it's then an aesthetic problem to have that much as a pure download. one track on each side, and you can let it slide. 45 minutes over three tracks, and there's already a third disc.
then, i'm stuck with a three piece record again, and i don't like these.
it was easy to fill up another disc: 50 minutes of 2002 mixes (these are worthwhile, in truth), 25 more for the 2009 youtube mix (which i felt was overlooked to begin with) and nineteen more for a final drone mix. that;s four discs, full: 77, 75, 75, 79. it's just under five hours...
the way this will work is that the 2xcd version will be the version that's been up since late 2014, plus added downloads between the tracks.
it will make more sense when i show you.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
this is
the sum total of the completed rabit is wolf studio experiments, which
wound through a number of paths on their way to the project's eventual
collapse. while there would be further acoustic demos recorded with
sean, i ultimately decided to abandon their folky underpinnings and
finish all further tracks as electronic, instrumental recordings. a tour
ep of the final recordings exists as inri059.
the recording was initially sequenced as a demo in mid may, 2002 but i foolishly deleted the files (i was running low on hard drive space) only to find out that the burn was corrupt and that the result was skipping. i did eventually recompile an ep of material, but it was in a different order and made no attempt to mix the tracks together. in reconstructing the demo, i've decided to recreate the original sequencing. the only difference between this collection and the initial collection is that the last track now includes sean's vocals, whereas it was initially an (eventually rendered incomplete) instrumental recording.
i need to be clear that the decision in sequencing the material this way is unilateral on my behalf. during this period, sean had made it clear that he was not satisfied with the more experimental and electronic tendencies underlying some of the tracks; specifically, he wasn't happy with the first or last tracks on this disc, as he felt they did not represent his vision for the project. on the other hand, i was less interested in purely acoustic music and more interested in electronic music. i was envisioning the project as having a split personality between an acoustic live presentation and an electronic studio presentation. sean argued this would be disorienting; it's less that i disagreed with him and more that i thought that was a good idea. this divergence in vision is one of the factors leading to the project's dissolution.
while i feel this recording stands up on it's own, i've also taken the time over the second half of 2014 to reclaim some of the tracks as my own instrumental works. only tracks two and four exist uniquely as rabit is wolf collaborations; the other four tracks have been resequenced as completed instrumentals in my main recording sequence. please open the track pages for more information.
written and recorded in late 2001 and early 2002. initially sequenced in may, 2002. released in slightly different forms from 2002-2014. resequenced to mimic the original sequencing on november 8, 2014. except to sequence the record, these files have not been altered since 2002. disc finalized as lp013 on nov 3, 2017. as always, please use headphones.
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (2002, 2014, 2017).
the recording was initially sequenced as a demo in mid may, 2002 but i foolishly deleted the files (i was running low on hard drive space) only to find out that the burn was corrupt and that the result was skipping. i did eventually recompile an ep of material, but it was in a different order and made no attempt to mix the tracks together. in reconstructing the demo, i've decided to recreate the original sequencing. the only difference between this collection and the initial collection is that the last track now includes sean's vocals, whereas it was initially an (eventually rendered incomplete) instrumental recording.
i need to be clear that the decision in sequencing the material this way is unilateral on my behalf. during this period, sean had made it clear that he was not satisfied with the more experimental and electronic tendencies underlying some of the tracks; specifically, he wasn't happy with the first or last tracks on this disc, as he felt they did not represent his vision for the project. on the other hand, i was less interested in purely acoustic music and more interested in electronic music. i was envisioning the project as having a split personality between an acoustic live presentation and an electronic studio presentation. sean argued this would be disorienting; it's less that i disagreed with him and more that i thought that was a good idea. this divergence in vision is one of the factors leading to the project's dissolution.
while i feel this recording stands up on it's own, i've also taken the time over the second half of 2014 to reclaim some of the tracks as my own instrumental works. only tracks two and four exist uniquely as rabit is wolf collaborations; the other four tracks have been resequenced as completed instrumentals in my main recording sequence. please open the track pages for more information.
written and recorded in late 2001 and early 2002. initially sequenced in may, 2002. released in slightly different forms from 2002-2014. resequenced to mimic the original sequencing on november 8, 2014. except to sequence the record, these files have not been altered since 2002. disc finalized as lp013 on nov 3, 2017. as always, please use headphones.
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (2002, 2014, 2017).
credits
released June 20, 2002
j - guitars (electric, acoustic, classical), effects, bass, synthesizers, digital piano, electric air reed organ, flute, drum programming, drum manipulations, vocal manipulations, loops, sequencing, sampling, digital wave editing, production, cover art.
sean - vocals, lyrics, harmonica (1), ring modulator (6).
greg - drum performance sample source (5,6)
jon - guitar performance (2)
j - guitars (electric, acoustic, classical), effects, bass, synthesizers, digital piano, electric air reed organ, flute, drum programming, drum manipulations, vocal manipulations, loops, sequencing, sampling, digital wave editing, production, cover art.
sean - vocals, lyrics, harmonica (1), ring modulator (6).
greg - drum performance sample source (5,6)
jon - guitar performance (2)
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
so, what's my ideal unit?
1) i want it to be within walking distance from the tunnel. that's my singular concern regarding location. it can be in any direction, just not much further than i am now. so, that rules out anything east of walker road and anything west of huron church - and anything south of tecumseh. they're going to eventually build a bridge, but who knows when, and it's only valuable to me if i can bicycle over, at which point the city will open right up. if they don't allow bicycle access over the bridge, i'm going to need to continue using the tunnel, anyways, so it won't matter. we'll see if it even gets built. but, i'm going to start caring less in the next 5-10 years, too.
2) there should be a rule saying that you can't enter the building unless you're over 30.
3) no pets. and, the building should be pro-active in trapping strays.
4) no smoking inside or around the building. a designated smoking area should exist at the very distant end of the property.
5) no religious people allowed in the building. not even to visit.
6) i'd like to be on the third or fourth floor, facing away from the road.
7) 550+ square feet.
8) 650 all inclusive or 600 + hydro.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
1) i want it to be within walking distance from the tunnel. that's my singular concern regarding location. it can be in any direction, just not much further than i am now. so, that rules out anything east of walker road and anything west of huron church - and anything south of tecumseh. they're going to eventually build a bridge, but who knows when, and it's only valuable to me if i can bicycle over, at which point the city will open right up. if they don't allow bicycle access over the bridge, i'm going to need to continue using the tunnel, anyways, so it won't matter. we'll see if it even gets built. but, i'm going to start caring less in the next 5-10 years, too.
2) there should be a rule saying that you can't enter the building unless you're over 30.
3) no pets. and, the building should be pro-active in trapping strays.
4) no smoking inside or around the building. a designated smoking area should exist at the very distant end of the property.
5) no religious people allowed in the building. not even to visit.
6) i'd like to be on the third or fourth floor, facing away from the road.
7) 550+ square feet.
8) 650 all inclusive or 600 + hydro.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i know that it's hard for extroverted people to understand, but social anxiety means the following:
1) i can't work.
2) i can't live with other people.
3) i don't have any friends,
4) i don't have any references.
5) i don't want to work, to live with others, to meet friends or to gain references. what i want is some place quiet where i can spend my time alone without other people bothering me.
but, it means i have an extra layer of complexity involved in this - and that i'm simply not well suited to get past it.
i'm going to have to find somebody willing to take a chance. not because i'm a risk - i'm not - but because i don't how to prove that i'm not.
and, the necessity of the appeal is that much more obvious.
i might get lucky tomorrow night. but, i have an irrational firm standing between me and what looks like an almost perfect unit. if that doesn't pan out, looking at the market, i'd guess it's probably going to take me upwards of six months to a year to find something.
i didn't create this problem.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
1) i can't work.
2) i can't live with other people.
3) i don't have any friends,
4) i don't have any references.
5) i don't want to work, to live with others, to meet friends or to gain references. what i want is some place quiet where i can spend my time alone without other people bothering me.
but, it means i have an extra layer of complexity involved in this - and that i'm simply not well suited to get past it.
i'm going to have to find somebody willing to take a chance. not because i'm a risk - i'm not - but because i don't how to prove that i'm not.
and, the necessity of the appeal is that much more obvious.
i might get lucky tomorrow night. but, i have an irrational firm standing between me and what looks like an almost perfect unit. if that doesn't pan out, looking at the market, i'd guess it's probably going to take me upwards of six months to a year to find something.
i didn't create this problem.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i'll be explicit if you didn't follow me: in a conflict between southern plantation owners that want to carry on the institution of slavery and keep the profits for themselves and northern bankers and industrialists that want to enter that market and generate new revenue streams for themselves, there isn't a lesser evil.
that is the real lie here: not that the south wasn't operating primarily to save slavery, but that the north had any meaningful interest in dismantling it. what the north actually wanted was a seat at the table - at the head of the table.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
that is the real lie here: not that the south wasn't operating primarily to save slavery, but that the north had any meaningful interest in dismantling it. what the north actually wanted was a seat at the table - at the head of the table.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
setting up a debate over whether the southern succession was about slavery or states' rights is a false dichotomy, as slavery, in a nineteenth century historical context, is an example of states' rights. succession can be largely about slavery and still be fundamentally about states' rights.
nor is it necessary for the north to be opposed to slavery - it wasn't - for succession to have been about slavery. the bankers in the north may have wanted a larger share of the profit.
generally, academics don't seek to find singular causes for complex events, they look towards multiple factors and narratives. so, why is there such vehement reaction to anybody that dares to extrapolate on the idea that there were other causes of the civil war than slavery, when the same people will take complex and subtle views as to the cause of, say, the revolutionary war, or the world wars of the twentieth century? the reason is that it became connected to a kind of founder myth during reconstruction. the elite tried to build a national identity around abolition and they wanted the civil war to be a triumph of good over evil that was won by good god-fearing christian soldiers. any questioning of this myth become convoluted with a kind of treason, and suspicion of sympathies with future rebellions.
slavery certainly had a lot to do with the civil war and anybody arguing otherwise is being daft. but it was merely a component of deeper class and cultural divisions and competitive pressures.
these debates don't bother me. but, i don't react well to being silenced or being told to adhere to a narrow or monolithic view of history at the exclusion of verifiable facts and evidence.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
nor is it necessary for the north to be opposed to slavery - it wasn't - for succession to have been about slavery. the bankers in the north may have wanted a larger share of the profit.
generally, academics don't seek to find singular causes for complex events, they look towards multiple factors and narratives. so, why is there such vehement reaction to anybody that dares to extrapolate on the idea that there were other causes of the civil war than slavery, when the same people will take complex and subtle views as to the cause of, say, the revolutionary war, or the world wars of the twentieth century? the reason is that it became connected to a kind of founder myth during reconstruction. the elite tried to build a national identity around abolition and they wanted the civil war to be a triumph of good over evil that was won by good god-fearing christian soldiers. any questioning of this myth become convoluted with a kind of treason, and suspicion of sympathies with future rebellions.
slavery certainly had a lot to do with the civil war and anybody arguing otherwise is being daft. but it was merely a component of deeper class and cultural divisions and competitive pressures.
these debates don't bother me. but, i don't react well to being silenced or being told to adhere to a narrow or monolithic view of history at the exclusion of verifiable facts and evidence.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
Thursday, November 2, 2017
republishing inri056
time &
psi were partially a rejection of the folk idea in favour of glossy,
somewhat experimental pop. i realized that it was reasonable to move in a
more commercial direction, but folk wasn't something i understood well,
so it was a weird direction for me to be moving in. experimental or
psychedelic pop, on the other hand, was something i had a solid grasp
on...
time had been initially recorded in the fall and was remixed in late february to integrate a drum part. no original files exist. psi was recorded quickly in early march.
the track, as it existed in rabit, was a conscious pop compromise. i had ideas that weren't explored to keep it poppy and that have been expanded upon in the remixes.
the time machine is added here as a bonus track. it's based on an earlier classical guitar composition that was always meant to be reinterpreted as an idm tune and finally was in early 2014. the thematic overlap makes it relevant, but there is otherwise no connection between the two songs.
i started working on what would become my seventh symphony very shortly after the material on this ep was completed, and it really represents the point where i lost interest in rabit as a concept, under pressure to continue moving in a direction i didn't have any interest in. there are folk and psych versions of the track; sean never caught on to the psych version, and i never had my heart in the folk version. there were final folk demos recorded as late as the fall, but the disconnect was not solvable. the vocal version of the seventh symphony is in some way a corollary of but is ultimately too separate from these files to include here. psi & time, together, consequently comprise what is the fourth and final ("psychedelic pop") phase of rabit is wolf.
written in late 2001 and early 2002 and recorded in early 2002 and late 2014. the final mix was finished on nov 18, 2014. the uncorrupted mix was created on nov 18, 2014 and then cut up into the unstuck mix, but not added to the release until nov 2, 2017. the lorentz factor mix and the separated from mix were rendered on nov 2, 2017. disc finalized on nov 2, 2017. as always, please use headphones.
the 2014 instrumental version appears on my sixth record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj-2
the 2002 vocal mix appears on the rabit is wolf demo:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/rabit-is-wolf
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (2002, 2014, 2017).
time had been initially recorded in the fall and was remixed in late february to integrate a drum part. no original files exist. psi was recorded quickly in early march.
the track, as it existed in rabit, was a conscious pop compromise. i had ideas that weren't explored to keep it poppy and that have been expanded upon in the remixes.
the time machine is added here as a bonus track. it's based on an earlier classical guitar composition that was always meant to be reinterpreted as an idm tune and finally was in early 2014. the thematic overlap makes it relevant, but there is otherwise no connection between the two songs.
i started working on what would become my seventh symphony very shortly after the material on this ep was completed, and it really represents the point where i lost interest in rabit as a concept, under pressure to continue moving in a direction i didn't have any interest in. there are folk and psych versions of the track; sean never caught on to the psych version, and i never had my heart in the folk version. there were final folk demos recorded as late as the fall, but the disconnect was not solvable. the vocal version of the seventh symphony is in some way a corollary of but is ultimately too separate from these files to include here. psi & time, together, consequently comprise what is the fourth and final ("psychedelic pop") phase of rabit is wolf.
written in late 2001 and early 2002 and recorded in early 2002 and late 2014. the final mix was finished on nov 18, 2014. the uncorrupted mix was created on nov 18, 2014 and then cut up into the unstuck mix, but not added to the release until nov 2, 2017. the lorentz factor mix and the separated from mix were rendered on nov 2, 2017. disc finalized on nov 2, 2017. as always, please use headphones.
the 2014 instrumental version appears on my sixth record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj-2
the 2002 vocal mix appears on the rabit is wolf demo:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/rabit-is-wolf
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (2002, 2014, 2017).
credits
released March 10, 2002
j - electric & acoustic guitars, bass, synthesizers, digital effects & processing, drum manipulations, orchestral & other sequencing, drum notation sequencing, digital wave editing, loops, sound design, production, composition.
sean - vocals, lyrics (3,7)
greg - drum performance sample source (1-3, 5-6)
the rendered electronic orchestra on track 5 includes acoustic bass, synth bass, electric bass, brass, orchestra hit, drum machine, electronic drum kit, nylon guitar, electric guitar, synthesizer effects, music box, piano, bells and mellotron.
j - electric & acoustic guitars, bass, synthesizers, digital effects & processing, drum manipulations, orchestral & other sequencing, drum notation sequencing, digital wave editing, loops, sound design, production, composition.
sean - vocals, lyrics (3,7)
greg - drum performance sample source (1-3, 5-6)
the rendered electronic orchestra on track 5 includes acoustic bass, synth bass, electric bass, brass, orchestra hit, drum machine, electronic drum kit, nylon guitar, electric guitar, synthesizer effects, music box, piano, bells and mellotron.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
my honest analysis is that the adjudicator - perhaps in both cases - appears to have been driven not by a correct interpretation of the law, but by some "higher" concept of "morality" (which i claim is bullshit), in concluding that my landlord ought to have the right to move her sick mother in.
but, ignoring the question of faith, the court should not be adjudicating morality. and, i'm not driven by higher callings or magical beings. that's a lot of nonsense. rather, i will insist that the law be upheld.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
but, ignoring the question of faith, the court should not be adjudicating morality. and, i'm not driven by higher callings or magical beings. that's a lot of nonsense. rather, i will insist that the law be upheld.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i can be a little more specific.
the tenant alleges in the request for review that the application should have been dismissed pursuant to section 83 of the residential tenancies act, 2006.
this is incomplete - 83(3), precisely.
first, if the tenant did not raise the specific argument at the hearing, it should have and could have been and therefore is not properly considered on review (my emphasis).
this is kind of a half-truth, as the adjudicator has specific responsibilities under s. 83. you don't get to get away with an error in law because nobody pointed it out before hand; it's still an error in law and still justifies a review. it's true that i can't change my argument in review. but, the law remains the law, regardless.
but, the conditional clause here is false, because i did raise the specific argument at the hearing, which is what i put up for review in the first place. and, i pointed this out in the review body in two different ways. short of presenting audio evidence from the trial - which i will need to do on appeal, apparently - there isn't anything more convincing that i could have done to demonstrate this. but, a request for review is just that. a verbal or written rebuttal of this sort should, in truth, be enough to get back in front of a judge; we then determine whether i did or did not raise the argument at this point by going over the evidence that was presented and by listening to the audio of the tapes.
to claim that if i didn't raise the argument then the review is improper is an almost true statement, granted. but, that's the question we're trying to determine: it's what the review is meant to come to an answer on. i claim i did raise the argument. so, the reviewer is supposed to get us back in front of a judge to figure it out.
her formal argument is in the form of:
1. x ----> y
2. y
i don't dispute (1). but deducing (2) is a logical error because x has not been demonstrated, which is what the review is supposed to determine.
so, she's assuming the result of the review, rather than conducting it. and, that's misconduct on her behalf.
second, in paragraphs 21 to 23 the hearing member specifically turns her mind to the issue of section 83 and provides a detailed analysis.
see, now the fact that she dropped 83(3) previously is important, as this is a red herring - the discussion in 21 to 23 was about 83(1).
the hearing member has a broad discretion in issuing her order.
in fact, she does not. the case law is quite explicit that the clauses in 83(3) require hard stops. if there is any evidence that the action is being brought in retaliation, the adjudicator must dismiss - and she does not have discretion in balancing or weighing other interests against it. this is the importance of the evidence i've cited, which was ignored. and, it's the importance of this member being selective in the way she wrote her denial.
this board member obviously did not listen to the audio of the trial. she's essentially arguing from a point of ignorance, and making the assumption that the ruling was correct. then, she's producing very shoddy arguments to try and get to that predetermined conclusion.
i have no choice but to appeal.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
the tenant alleges in the request for review that the application should have been dismissed pursuant to section 83 of the residential tenancies act, 2006.
this is incomplete - 83(3), precisely.
first, if the tenant did not raise the specific argument at the hearing, it should have and could have been and therefore is not properly considered on review (my emphasis).
this is kind of a half-truth, as the adjudicator has specific responsibilities under s. 83. you don't get to get away with an error in law because nobody pointed it out before hand; it's still an error in law and still justifies a review. it's true that i can't change my argument in review. but, the law remains the law, regardless.
but, the conditional clause here is false, because i did raise the specific argument at the hearing, which is what i put up for review in the first place. and, i pointed this out in the review body in two different ways. short of presenting audio evidence from the trial - which i will need to do on appeal, apparently - there isn't anything more convincing that i could have done to demonstrate this. but, a request for review is just that. a verbal or written rebuttal of this sort should, in truth, be enough to get back in front of a judge; we then determine whether i did or did not raise the argument at this point by going over the evidence that was presented and by listening to the audio of the tapes.
to claim that if i didn't raise the argument then the review is improper is an almost true statement, granted. but, that's the question we're trying to determine: it's what the review is meant to come to an answer on. i claim i did raise the argument. so, the reviewer is supposed to get us back in front of a judge to figure it out.
her formal argument is in the form of:
1. x ----> y
2. y
i don't dispute (1). but deducing (2) is a logical error because x has not been demonstrated, which is what the review is supposed to determine.
so, she's assuming the result of the review, rather than conducting it. and, that's misconduct on her behalf.
second, in paragraphs 21 to 23 the hearing member specifically turns her mind to the issue of section 83 and provides a detailed analysis.
see, now the fact that she dropped 83(3) previously is important, as this is a red herring - the discussion in 21 to 23 was about 83(1).
the hearing member has a broad discretion in issuing her order.
in fact, she does not. the case law is quite explicit that the clauses in 83(3) require hard stops. if there is any evidence that the action is being brought in retaliation, the adjudicator must dismiss - and she does not have discretion in balancing or weighing other interests against it. this is the importance of the evidence i've cited, which was ignored. and, it's the importance of this member being selective in the way she wrote her denial.
this board member obviously did not listen to the audio of the trial. she's essentially arguing from a point of ignorance, and making the assumption that the ruling was correct. then, she's producing very shoddy arguments to try and get to that predetermined conclusion.
i have no choice but to appeal.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
yeah, i got the denial in.
it was from a different member of the board that wasn't at the hearing.
she actually doesn't even say that i didn't raise the matter - she says that if i didn't raise the matter, then i should have. but, i did raise the matter, and she has no way of knowing if i did or not, without checking the audio. a priori, if she is going to contemplate what might happen if i didn't raise the matter, she should also contemplate what might happen if i did. and, if i did, the adjudicator clearly ignored the point. so, this is a fallacious argument, at best.
then, she claims i have the burden of proof here (edit: on review), which i do, but my only argument would have been to submit the entire audio of the trial, which would be unreasonable. and, i actually cited evidence, which the reviewer clearly didn't consult. this is again a question of misconduct; i put in the review that the judge didn't look at the evidence, and it is dismissed without consulting the evidence. then, they claim i didn't provide a burden of proof. well, you didn't look at the evidence!
she then claims that the hearing member explored the s. 83 in detail over 21-23 - which is true, but it explored the detail of 83(1) and not 83(3), which is the argument presented. this is a red herring.
the denial essentially did not address my request, and did exactly the same thing that i claimed was the problem in the first place: i claimed that the adjudicator didn't address the evidence, and the review then also doesn't address the evidence.
i'm going to have to serve the appeal on monday or tuesday.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
it was from a different member of the board that wasn't at the hearing.
she actually doesn't even say that i didn't raise the matter - she says that if i didn't raise the matter, then i should have. but, i did raise the matter, and she has no way of knowing if i did or not, without checking the audio. a priori, if she is going to contemplate what might happen if i didn't raise the matter, she should also contemplate what might happen if i did. and, if i did, the adjudicator clearly ignored the point. so, this is a fallacious argument, at best.
then, she claims i have the burden of proof here (edit: on review), which i do, but my only argument would have been to submit the entire audio of the trial, which would be unreasonable. and, i actually cited evidence, which the reviewer clearly didn't consult. this is again a question of misconduct; i put in the review that the judge didn't look at the evidence, and it is dismissed without consulting the evidence. then, they claim i didn't provide a burden of proof. well, you didn't look at the evidence!
she then claims that the hearing member explored the s. 83 in detail over 21-23 - which is true, but it explored the detail of 83(1) and not 83(3), which is the argument presented. this is a red herring.
the denial essentially did not address my request, and did exactly the same thing that i claimed was the problem in the first place: i claimed that the adjudicator didn't address the evidence, and the review then also doesn't address the evidence.
i'm going to have to serve the appeal on monday or tuesday.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
if i won't vote for an open christian because i don't want christianity in government, how could i possibly vote for an open muslim or an open jew or an open sikh without being a hypocrite and, ultimately, guilty of the soft racism of low expectations?
yes, i'm afraid of religious people taking over government. and, if you aren't, you need to give your head a shake. religion is an extremely dangerous thing, and you're crazy to not realize it.
the only argument you could provide as to why you ought to be more afraid of christians than other religious groups, or less afraid of other religious groups than you are of christians, is that you don't think these other groups are as capable of being tyrannical, and that is the soft racism of low expectations.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
yes, i'm afraid of religious people taking over government. and, if you aren't, you need to give your head a shake. religion is an extremely dangerous thing, and you're crazy to not realize it.
the only argument you could provide as to why you ought to be more afraid of christians than other religious groups, or less afraid of other religious groups than you are of christians, is that you don't think these other groups are as capable of being tyrannical, and that is the soft racism of low expectations.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
blah blah blah.
i don't want religionists running the country; this has nothing to do with his skin colour, and everything to do with his religion. sorry.
i would, have, will and will continue to treat white christian politicians exactly the same way. and, what's going on here is consequently exactly the opposite of what this article is claiming - i am refusing to treat this man differently than i would treat stephen harper or stockwell day or ted cruz or any other religious fanatic running for office.
what he's running up against is an absence of soft racism, the collapse of the expectation that people would give him a pass on his faith because he has dark skin - the refusal to look the other way when presented with a dangerous religious ideology, under the false banner of diversity.
no religion in politics. period.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/othering-jagmeet-singh-171101094423416.html
(and, fwiw, he was born in india and moved to canada as a child. but, that's not really important, here, other than to point out the ignorance of the author on the point.)
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i don't want religionists running the country; this has nothing to do with his skin colour, and everything to do with his religion. sorry.
i would, have, will and will continue to treat white christian politicians exactly the same way. and, what's going on here is consequently exactly the opposite of what this article is claiming - i am refusing to treat this man differently than i would treat stephen harper or stockwell day or ted cruz or any other religious fanatic running for office.
what he's running up against is an absence of soft racism, the collapse of the expectation that people would give him a pass on his faith because he has dark skin - the refusal to look the other way when presented with a dangerous religious ideology, under the false banner of diversity.
no religion in politics. period.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/othering-jagmeet-singh-171101094423416.html
(and, fwiw, he was born in india and moved to canada as a child. but, that's not really important, here, other than to point out the ignorance of the author on the point.)
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
Wednesday, November 1, 2017
like i say - if it comes down to it, i'll go homeless in order to put
my stuff in storage. i'd rather pay $400 for storage and eat out of a
shelter than pay $400 for a room and sell or lose my gear. it's saving
the electronics that will take priority over everything, even my own
safety.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
it's kind of a real point when you're talking about a room, too, right.
i mean, i can't live in a room. i have thousands of dollars worth of gear. i can't leave it in the living room. i need a door to lock it behind. if it comes to it, i'll have to put it in storage, and i'd be more likely to just live in a shelter until i can find an actual apartment.
but, that's just the point: living in a room necessitates that you waste whatever extra money you have, because you can't spend it on anything valuable because you live in a room.
sure: an extra $400/month could be spent on gear. but, then i'd need an apartment to store it. i can't buy expensive gear and leave it in the room, that's not safe.
i guess if you're obese, you could eat more. i'm not going to do that.
on top of that, if you're stuck in a room, you're likely to feel the urge to get drunk, because you're bored and depressed, and perhaps stressed out from the forced interactions with the other tenants.
so, i can't even make sense of what the intent even is. i'm not asking for special treatment, here. this is just a stupid way to manage something. it's really a very potent recipe for encouraging alcoholism, as far as i can see.
with low income tenants, you should be trying to taking away as much money from them as you can.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i mean, i can't live in a room. i have thousands of dollars worth of gear. i can't leave it in the living room. i need a door to lock it behind. if it comes to it, i'll have to put it in storage, and i'd be more likely to just live in a shelter until i can find an actual apartment.
but, that's just the point: living in a room necessitates that you waste whatever extra money you have, because you can't spend it on anything valuable because you live in a room.
sure: an extra $400/month could be spent on gear. but, then i'd need an apartment to store it. i can't buy expensive gear and leave it in the room, that's not safe.
i guess if you're obese, you could eat more. i'm not going to do that.
on top of that, if you're stuck in a room, you're likely to feel the urge to get drunk, because you're bored and depressed, and perhaps stressed out from the forced interactions with the other tenants.
so, i can't even make sense of what the intent even is. i'm not asking for special treatment, here. this is just a stupid way to manage something. it's really a very potent recipe for encouraging alcoholism, as far as i can see.
with low income tenants, you should be trying to taking away as much money from them as you can.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i'm just trying to, like...
35% of $1200 is $420, which would be enough for a room. and, i'd then end up with about $400 unbudgeted, monthly. this is just standard disability. i'm not getting extra cash.
what do they expect me to spend this on? beer? marijuana?
i'm disabled. what else am i going to spend it on?
if i could find a place that cheap that is safe, i'd take it. sure. but, i can't imagine what i'd even do with the extra money. a good proportion of it would no doubt be spent on beer.
i'd rather have a nice apartment than extra beer money.
it's still not enough for a minimum monthly payment on my loan, fwiw.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
35% of $1200 is $420, which would be enough for a room. and, i'd then end up with about $400 unbudgeted, monthly. this is just standard disability. i'm not getting extra cash.
what do they expect me to spend this on? beer? marijuana?
i'm disabled. what else am i going to spend it on?
if i could find a place that cheap that is safe, i'd take it. sure. but, i can't imagine what i'd even do with the extra money. a good proportion of it would no doubt be spent on beer.
i'd rather have a nice apartment than extra beer money.
it's still not enough for a minimum monthly payment on my loan, fwiw.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
republishing inri055
my memory
is a little fuzzy with this track, other than that it was constructed
all at once in the middle of the night on a cold february morning in a
basement that wasn't well heated.
i believe that sean initially brought in the a capella vocal that is heard in the acoustic demo under the request that it be developed in a folky style, and the track was built from there. we seem to have done the live version the next week, meaning i must have written it over the week.
there was some hard drive corruption as the demo was being recorded. i was in a glitchy mindset at the time and decided the skips ought to be interpreted musically. i'm not sure i'd make the same choice now, but i'm not willing to second guess myself, either. so, i skittered up the bass and organ parts to make the entire track sound glitchy to compensate for the skips. i also ran the vocal file through a musical algorithm that involved slowing it down and pasting it over itself to create a collage of voices somewhat similar to a robotic choir. as the track is otherwise rather pastoral, all of this glitch provides for an unusual juxtaposition.
as mentioned, the track was built up quickly, but it was always meant as a demo. that is to say that the vocal-driven 2002 version of the track was not complete, and was never completed.
i came around to completing it as an instrumental work in mid october, 2014. the removal of sean's vocals required some mild rethinks in terms of melodic content, but the real additions are threefold. first, it is substantially remixed to make it sound thicker. second, some sound design or soundscaping was constructed, mostly for the beginning of the track, but some guitar parts were also added throughout. third, drums were added. this converts the track out of folk (a genre i spend almost no time in) and back into psychedelic pop (my usual home) with hints of fusion, prog and idm. as it is, this can be viewed as the definitive (if non-comprehensive) third incarnation of rabit is wolf, which was being torn between freak folk and folk punk tendencies in it's general tumbling towards "folk".
written in early 2002 and recorded in early 2002 and late 2014. the final fuck boxes mixes were finished on nov 15, 2014. the gentle mix was created and then left stranded on may 24, 2015. the ambient mix and the guitar mix were rendered on nov 1, 2017. disc finalized on nov 1, 2017. as always, please use headphones.
the 2014 instrumental version appears on my sixth record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj-2
the 2002 vocal mix appears on the rabit is wolf demo:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/rabit-is-wolf
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (2002, 2014, 2015, 2017).
i believe that sean initially brought in the a capella vocal that is heard in the acoustic demo under the request that it be developed in a folky style, and the track was built from there. we seem to have done the live version the next week, meaning i must have written it over the week.
there was some hard drive corruption as the demo was being recorded. i was in a glitchy mindset at the time and decided the skips ought to be interpreted musically. i'm not sure i'd make the same choice now, but i'm not willing to second guess myself, either. so, i skittered up the bass and organ parts to make the entire track sound glitchy to compensate for the skips. i also ran the vocal file through a musical algorithm that involved slowing it down and pasting it over itself to create a collage of voices somewhat similar to a robotic choir. as the track is otherwise rather pastoral, all of this glitch provides for an unusual juxtaposition.
as mentioned, the track was built up quickly, but it was always meant as a demo. that is to say that the vocal-driven 2002 version of the track was not complete, and was never completed.
i came around to completing it as an instrumental work in mid october, 2014. the removal of sean's vocals required some mild rethinks in terms of melodic content, but the real additions are threefold. first, it is substantially remixed to make it sound thicker. second, some sound design or soundscaping was constructed, mostly for the beginning of the track, but some guitar parts were also added throughout. third, drums were added. this converts the track out of folk (a genre i spend almost no time in) and back into psychedelic pop (my usual home) with hints of fusion, prog and idm. as it is, this can be viewed as the definitive (if non-comprehensive) third incarnation of rabit is wolf, which was being torn between freak folk and folk punk tendencies in it's general tumbling towards "folk".
written in early 2002 and recorded in early 2002 and late 2014. the final fuck boxes mixes were finished on nov 15, 2014. the gentle mix was created and then left stranded on may 24, 2015. the ambient mix and the guitar mix were rendered on nov 1, 2017. disc finalized on nov 1, 2017. as always, please use headphones.
the 2014 instrumental version appears on my sixth record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj-2
the 2002 vocal mix appears on the rabit is wolf demo:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/rabit-is-wolf
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (2002, 2014, 2015, 2017).
credits
released february 20, 2002
j - electric & acoustic guitars, analog & digital effects & processing, electric bass guitar, electric air reed organ, electronic drum kit, voice (1, 5), sampling, sound design, vocal manipulations, digital wave editing, production
sean - vocals/lyrics (2,3,4)
j - electric & acoustic guitars, analog & digital effects & processing, electric bass guitar, electric air reed organ, electronic drum kit, voice (1, 5), sampling, sound design, vocal manipulations, digital wave editing, production
sean - vocals/lyrics (2,3,4)
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
could i take a temporary apartment in a part of town i don't like, and then just leave everything packed and bail the moment something better comes up?
i might have to, maybe.
i'm just imagining what life would be like if i moved to the sandwich area, for example. there's literally nothing anywhere for miles that i'd go to. i went to that metal bar there once and swore i'd never go back. so, i'd spend all my time in my room by myself.
if i were to get out to go to the tunnel, i'd have to plan around an hour or an hour and a half walk to the tunnel. would i take the bus? well, could i walk faster? so, if the show starts at 20:00, i'd want to catch a 19:00 bus and leave the house at 17:30.
that doesn't look as bad as i thought.
maybe i should contemplate units that are a little further, after all.
but, it's such stupidity from my perspective, because i'm just going to end up transiting into town all of the time, anyways. i'd rather pay the extra funds, if they'd just let me.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i might have to, maybe.
i'm just imagining what life would be like if i moved to the sandwich area, for example. there's literally nothing anywhere for miles that i'd go to. i went to that metal bar there once and swore i'd never go back. so, i'd spend all my time in my room by myself.
if i were to get out to go to the tunnel, i'd have to plan around an hour or an hour and a half walk to the tunnel. would i take the bus? well, could i walk faster? so, if the show starts at 20:00, i'd want to catch a 19:00 bus and leave the house at 17:30.
that doesn't look as bad as i thought.
maybe i should contemplate units that are a little further, after all.
but, it's such stupidity from my perspective, because i'm just going to end up transiting into town all of the time, anyways. i'd rather pay the extra funds, if they'd just let me.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i need to reiterate the point.
i've never missed a month of rent. never been late. was usually early.
and, i have $1500 in the bank to put down on first and last.
the problem is that the only vacancies in my price range are run by a management company that is illegally pushing down a rent to income ratio, and is refusing to rent to people with student loan defaults.
i could very well walk out of here via the process of putting my items in storage, and ending up in a hostel. and, odsp might even pay for it.
if i were to leave windsor, where would i go?
the only place that makes any sense right now is toronto. but, i'd have to hitch-hike down there and search for something out of a tim horton's. and, it's only going to happen when i'm done the legal fights here.
i could end up in the hostel for months because i have to stay here to sue these people.
it's an absurd situation. i have the means to pay, and there are vacant units in my price range, but i'm not allowed to apply for any of them.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i've never missed a month of rent. never been late. was usually early.
and, i have $1500 in the bank to put down on first and last.
the problem is that the only vacancies in my price range are run by a management company that is illegally pushing down a rent to income ratio, and is refusing to rent to people with student loan defaults.
i could very well walk out of here via the process of putting my items in storage, and ending up in a hostel. and, odsp might even pay for it.
if i were to leave windsor, where would i go?
the only place that makes any sense right now is toronto. but, i'd have to hitch-hike down there and search for something out of a tim horton's. and, it's only going to happen when i'm done the legal fights here.
i could end up in the hostel for months because i have to stay here to sue these people.
it's an absurd situation. i have the means to pay, and there are vacant units in my price range, but i'm not allowed to apply for any of them.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i need to get caught up on the discography, because it's becoming clear that my main focus for the foreseeable future is going to be fighting multiple legal battles, simultaneously.
this is life. all i want to do is play guitar. but there's always some fucking bullshit.
if i was going to be a lawyer, and i was never going to be a lawyer, then this is what i'd want to do - go after slumlords and try and take down the bourgeoisie. i wouldn't mind sitting on odsp and working pro bono. i gave up because i realized the system is rigged - that these legal principles are just imaginary things, really.
i could very well end up fighting an appeal to stay here as i go after the local management company on human rights charges to try and find somewhere to move to. i might need to fight legal battles on both fronts. and, then i'm doing what i didn't want to do - i'm working for no purpose, spending eight-ten hours a day fighting to keep the gear safe, but not being able to use it. that's as pointless as just getting a fucking job, right?
but, i may very well literally have no other choice.
if i'm lucky, the company will listen to me, or at least give me somewhere nice to stay. that will save everybody a lot of time, and let me get back to doing something i care about within a couple of weeks.
if not, this could be a really long slog.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
this is life. all i want to do is play guitar. but there's always some fucking bullshit.
if i was going to be a lawyer, and i was never going to be a lawyer, then this is what i'd want to do - go after slumlords and try and take down the bourgeoisie. i wouldn't mind sitting on odsp and working pro bono. i gave up because i realized the system is rigged - that these legal principles are just imaginary things, really.
i could very well end up fighting an appeal to stay here as i go after the local management company on human rights charges to try and find somewhere to move to. i might need to fight legal battles on both fronts. and, then i'm doing what i didn't want to do - i'm working for no purpose, spending eight-ten hours a day fighting to keep the gear safe, but not being able to use it. that's as pointless as just getting a fucking job, right?
but, i may very well literally have no other choice.
if i'm lucky, the company will listen to me, or at least give me somewhere nice to stay. that will save everybody a lot of time, and let me get back to doing something i care about within a couple of weeks.
if not, this could be a really long slog.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
gah.
i was focused, then scattered after lunch.
nothing. some expensive properties that tell me they're not renting when i call. is it the google voice?
"head office posts those, they don't have anything to do with us."
ugh.
well, they're all overpriced, anyways. i'd need some scheme.
inri055 is done. let me get back to writing it up. and maybe i can finally ship tomorrow.
i was focused, then scattered after lunch.
nothing. some expensive properties that tell me they're not renting when i call. is it the google voice?
"head office posts those, they don't have anything to do with us."
ugh.
well, they're all overpriced, anyways. i'd need some scheme.
inri055 is done. let me get back to writing it up. and maybe i can finally ship tomorrow.
it turns out that marda is not just preventing access to showings based on credit history, which is barely legal, but is also restricting access to showings based on income - which is completely illegal.
i'd rather get a unit than take them to the human rights tribunal, but what they're doing is atrocious and i'd take glee in shutting them down.
what i've done to start is lie on the application. you need to make $2000/month to get access to a $725/month apartment, which is ridiculous. i was making about $1800 after taxes when i worked for microsoft. you couldn't get into this apartment if you were the manager at mcdonalds.
but, it's an old, falling apart building. it should be full of pensioners and disabled people. right now, it appears to have a high vacancy - because this company is making it impossible to get in.
how do you calculate that you need $2000 for a $725/month apartment?
my expenses would be as follows:
725 (rent)
85 (medication)
0 (they advertise free wifi)
60 (hydro)
200 (groceries)
20 (laundry)
-----
1090
but, i get a $45 hydro rebate - unless it's electric heating, in which case i get even more.
so, i'm at $1045 in costs, maybe less - leaving me $150 spending money a month. that's a lot. what do i need $2000 for?
- a/c (no thanks)
- cable (no thanks)
- phone (no thanks)
- car (no thanks)
you get the point.
but, it's not up to some bourgeois entity to manage my finances for me. i don't want a fucking car; that's why i live downtown, so i can walk. and, fuck you for getting in my face about it.
the only way i could get to see the unit was to lie. so, i lied. and, i'll have to be persuasive when i get there in demonstrating that i'll be just fine after credits.
ugh.
i'd rather get a unit than take them to the human rights tribunal, but what they're doing is atrocious and i'd take glee in shutting them down.
what i've done to start is lie on the application. you need to make $2000/month to get access to a $725/month apartment, which is ridiculous. i was making about $1800 after taxes when i worked for microsoft. you couldn't get into this apartment if you were the manager at mcdonalds.
but, it's an old, falling apart building. it should be full of pensioners and disabled people. right now, it appears to have a high vacancy - because this company is making it impossible to get in.
how do you calculate that you need $2000 for a $725/month apartment?
my expenses would be as follows:
725 (rent)
85 (medication)
0 (they advertise free wifi)
60 (hydro)
200 (groceries)
20 (laundry)
-----
1090
but, i get a $45 hydro rebate - unless it's electric heating, in which case i get even more.
so, i'm at $1045 in costs, maybe less - leaving me $150 spending money a month. that's a lot. what do i need $2000 for?
- a/c (no thanks)
- cable (no thanks)
- phone (no thanks)
- car (no thanks)
you get the point.
but, it's not up to some bourgeois entity to manage my finances for me. i don't want a fucking car; that's why i live downtown, so i can walk. and, fuck you for getting in my face about it.
the only way i could get to see the unit was to lie. so, i lied. and, i'll have to be persuasive when i get there in demonstrating that i'll be just fine after credits.
ugh.
fucking rentier capitalists with their property as theft. they ruin everything. never fails.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
the single most important factor for me is that i need to be within a half hour walk from the tunnel.
so, that rules out the whole sandwich area - which is a pretty boring part of town, anyways.
i'm a downtown person. i want concrete and streetlights. i want 24 hour convenience stores. and, i don't want wild animals.
i also don't want to live on campus, or to close it. i don't get along with the younger generation very well. and, they don't recognize me as older than them. if i end up moving close to campus, i'm going to end up telling a bunch of kids to leave me alone.
the ideal zone is really a four or five block radius away from where i am. i'd rather move closer to town than away from it. and, stuff is coming up here. i just have to be patient.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
so, that rules out the whole sandwich area - which is a pretty boring part of town, anyways.
i'm a downtown person. i want concrete and streetlights. i want 24 hour convenience stores. and, i don't want wild animals.
i also don't want to live on campus, or to close it. i don't get along with the younger generation very well. and, they don't recognize me as older than them. if i end up moving close to campus, i'm going to end up telling a bunch of kids to leave me alone.
the ideal zone is really a four or five block radius away from where i am. i'd rather move closer to town than away from it. and, stuff is coming up here. i just have to be patient.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
it seems like hallowe'en is a holiday in the real estate business. nothing up today. but, i'm going to make a call around noon.
i'm going to be working on inri055 today, i think. i'm just waiting for information, right now.
i left a mix of this aside in may, 2015 but i don't quite remember why. my notes aren't helping. i know i wanted to redo the ambient mix - which wasn't very ambient - but that doesn't really explain why i have this transitional thing that i put aside. i kind of remember thinking that i just liked the combination as it was.
i also wanted a guitar mix.
so, that's three combinations. and, it should get the disc close to fill.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i'm going to be working on inri055 today, i think. i'm just waiting for information, right now.
i left a mix of this aside in may, 2015 but i don't quite remember why. my notes aren't helping. i know i wanted to redo the ambient mix - which wasn't very ambient - but that doesn't really explain why i have this transitional thing that i put aside. i kind of remember thinking that i just liked the combination as it was.
i also wanted a guitar mix.
so, that's three combinations. and, it should get the disc close to fill.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
but, i stand by the view that a credit check is essentially useless for low income people.
you could have spotless credit. if you're low income, and you get fired, you're fucked. you could default. you could get evicted for non-payment. and, it wouldn't have anything to do with your existing credit. it's just a function of being poor.
it works the other way, too: you could have terrible credit, because you were fired, and you were evicted. you could have defaulted. you might live on social assistance, or you might have just had a bad year. it doesn't mean you're not getting money in NOW.
a credit check is designed for middle income people making middle income investments. it's an abuse of the procedure to use it as a means test to allow or disallow low income people into housing - because it's as likely to be wrong in it's conclusions as it is to be correct.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
you could have spotless credit. if you're low income, and you get fired, you're fucked. you could default. you could get evicted for non-payment. and, it wouldn't have anything to do with your existing credit. it's just a function of being poor.
it works the other way, too: you could have terrible credit, because you were fired, and you were evicted. you could have defaulted. you might live on social assistance, or you might have just had a bad year. it doesn't mean you're not getting money in NOW.
a credit check is designed for middle income people making middle income investments. it's an abuse of the procedure to use it as a means test to allow or disallow low income people into housing - because it's as likely to be wrong in it's conclusions as it is to be correct.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
...and i don't want to hang out with boring bourgeois assholes or pretentious hipster dipshits. at all.
if i actually had a government or office job, i'd be the one that never goes to staff parties and eats lunch at my desk. because, i really don't want to hang out with you.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
if i actually had a government or office job, i'd be the one that never goes to staff parties and eats lunch at my desk. because, i really don't want to hang out with you.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
ok, here's another idea: parking.
there's some bigger apartment buildings running around 760-775. i'd be permanently defaulting on night-life to take that; i'd be falling from $200/month spending to under $100/month spending and, with the exchange, it would really leave me without the ability to go out very often. once a month. i could gamble on settling down a little anyways, but i'm not comfortable with defaulting on the option. and, rent isn't where i want the funds to disappear to.
but, if i get a dedicated parking space - which i will never use. i don't even have a license. - i could rent it out for what looks like more than $50/month. all of a sudden, that looks affordable. and, if i could just let the building deal with it maybe they'd cut the rent down by the difference...
on top of that, i can always *ask* about separating the hydro. then, the 775 potentially falls to 700. and, if i explain the scenario, i might get a reasonable reaction.
a big one bedroom apartment on the 6th or 7th floor with decent anti-smoke insulation (no balcony) would be a definite improvement. if it only costs me $30/month, after everything, that's a positive investment.
i can make some calls tomorrow.
i'm done for the night. i need to focus on the discography for a few hours.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
there's some bigger apartment buildings running around 760-775. i'd be permanently defaulting on night-life to take that; i'd be falling from $200/month spending to under $100/month spending and, with the exchange, it would really leave me without the ability to go out very often. once a month. i could gamble on settling down a little anyways, but i'm not comfortable with defaulting on the option. and, rent isn't where i want the funds to disappear to.
but, if i get a dedicated parking space - which i will never use. i don't even have a license. - i could rent it out for what looks like more than $50/month. all of a sudden, that looks affordable. and, if i could just let the building deal with it maybe they'd cut the rent down by the difference...
on top of that, i can always *ask* about separating the hydro. then, the 775 potentially falls to 700. and, if i explain the scenario, i might get a reasonable reaction.
a big one bedroom apartment on the 6th or 7th floor with decent anti-smoke insulation (no balcony) would be a definite improvement. if it only costs me $30/month, after everything, that's a positive investment.
i can make some calls tomorrow.
i'm done for the night. i need to focus on the discography for a few hours.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
but, what you're saying there - that attitude of yours, those beliefs, that perspective - is exactly why i've been speaking out against you.
1. atheist speaks out against the oppression of theist doctrines.
2. theists oppress atheist.
3. atheist says "see?".
4. theists oppress atheist.
5. goto 3.
you don't even have to give me hemlock. it's as old as fucking time.
it's not irony. it's not prophesy. it's just obvious. and, i'm aware that you really won't get it if you're stuck in the fucking cave of religious ignorance.
but, i can hardly stop saying "see?".
see?
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
1. atheist speaks out against the oppression of theist doctrines.
2. theists oppress atheist.
3. atheist says "see?".
4. theists oppress atheist.
5. goto 3.
you don't even have to give me hemlock. it's as old as fucking time.
it's not irony. it's not prophesy. it's just obvious. and, i'm aware that you really won't get it if you're stuck in the fucking cave of religious ignorance.
but, i can hardly stop saying "see?".
see?
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i'm also going to have to see if i can try and contact some of these
property owners directly and explain to them that this management layer
isn't just wasting them money but is actually preventing them from
bringing in reliable and quality tenants.
i've had problems here, but it's because the family that lives here are idiots. most property owners would side with the tenants that want to mitigate smoke damage and cat feces on their property, not the ones that want to maximize the damage to it. nothing makes sense, here.
the truth is that i've treated this place better than the family that owns it does - and i've only come into conflict when i've insisted that they treat it better than they do.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i've had problems here, but it's because the family that lives here are idiots. most property owners would side with the tenants that want to mitigate smoke damage and cat feces on their property, not the ones that want to maximize the damage to it. nothing makes sense, here.
the truth is that i've treated this place better than the family that owns it does - and i've only come into conflict when i've insisted that they treat it better than they do.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i made a few calls this morning, but nothing much came up over night. there's one option that's a little more than i want but might be better - it's up a few floors, and the smoke issues might be better. but, it was up on short notice and i'm supposed to call back on friday.
i'm going to get something to eat and then give myself a few more hours. but, i'm going to need to pay my rent this evening if nothing else comes up before 17:00 - and then i'm looking for december 1st.
i've also decided that i'm going to get the appeals process in motion once i pay the rent.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i'm going to get something to eat and then give myself a few more hours. but, i'm going to need to pay my rent this evening if nothing else comes up before 17:00 - and then i'm looking for december 1st.
i've also decided that i'm going to get the appeals process in motion once i pay the rent.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
the core
loops involved in clarity were initially created in the late summer of
2001, with the intent of being the opening sequence in a new inri
project (with the long kicked-around working title of 'trinri'). while i
had fairly firmly put the inri moniker down around my 19th birthday
(late 1999), i was also coming out of a lengthy "serious music" phase
and was getting a desire to write in a more structured, synth-pop type
direction, as i had for years previously. this urge was happening about
the same as i was being coerced into starting a rock band with some high
school acquaintances.
around october, i started working on a separate noise project that was meant to splice harsh electronic noise with anarchist politics. this produced two tracks at the time, which are now available as a short single as inri032. at the time, it wasn't clear to me where those ideas would lead.
by november it was clear that the rock band wasn't happening, but it turned out the singer had tastes that correlated reasonably well with what i was thinking about creating for the trinri project. these two projects consequently merged into rabit is wolf, and the material i was kicking around for use in trinri ended up becoming the core of what rabit is wolf became.
as i was recording parts for clarity, i ended up reusing ideas from the noise project. i further reused those ideas in constructing a 2004 noise collage for inclusion on the record that finally came out of the noise project. both noise collages are present in order to comprehensively explore the ideas existing within clarity.
zen was recorded with sean over december, 2001. i have chosen not to complete a version of the wave (inri053) that was also being discussed at the time, but would have fit into this release well, conceptually.
clarity was completed (with vocals) over january, 2002. the nature of rabit (along with the songs i had written for it) took a sharp turn towards folk almost immediately. this collection is consequently quite different than the official rabit demo, which is much more song-oriented. over the years, i've always wanted to have a rabit release that was darker, noisier and more chaotic and am glad to have it in the form of this ep-single, which could be viewed as a secondary demo. put another way, this is the comprehensive representation of the second (electro/noise/industrial) incarnation of rabit is wolf.
however, there are two factors complicating clarity as a solely rabit is wolf production. the first is that sean was never really happy with the result - a shame as i consider his vocal performance and lyrics to be the best of the songs we did together. the second is that i always felt the track was "mine" and should have had an instrumental mix. that is, i've always regretted not saving an instrumental mix.
for these reasons, i've revisited the track as an instrumental and left two snapshots - 11/2001 and 01/2002. this second snapshot (which is to be considered a final mix) will also appear on my upcoming 6th record, dated to the end of 2002.
recorded in late 2001 and early 2002. track 6 was constructed in may, 2004 out of files recorded 1999-2001. tracks 1-4 were reconstructed over october, 2014. final mixes were finished on october 18, 2014. disc closed on oct 30, 2017. as always, please use headphones.
the 2014 instrumental version appears on my sixth record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj-2
the 2002 vocal mix appears on the rabit is wolf demo:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/rabit-is-wolf
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (2001, 2002, 2004, 2014, 2017).
around october, i started working on a separate noise project that was meant to splice harsh electronic noise with anarchist politics. this produced two tracks at the time, which are now available as a short single as inri032. at the time, it wasn't clear to me where those ideas would lead.
by november it was clear that the rock band wasn't happening, but it turned out the singer had tastes that correlated reasonably well with what i was thinking about creating for the trinri project. these two projects consequently merged into rabit is wolf, and the material i was kicking around for use in trinri ended up becoming the core of what rabit is wolf became.
as i was recording parts for clarity, i ended up reusing ideas from the noise project. i further reused those ideas in constructing a 2004 noise collage for inclusion on the record that finally came out of the noise project. both noise collages are present in order to comprehensively explore the ideas existing within clarity.
zen was recorded with sean over december, 2001. i have chosen not to complete a version of the wave (inri053) that was also being discussed at the time, but would have fit into this release well, conceptually.
clarity was completed (with vocals) over january, 2002. the nature of rabit (along with the songs i had written for it) took a sharp turn towards folk almost immediately. this collection is consequently quite different than the official rabit demo, which is much more song-oriented. over the years, i've always wanted to have a rabit release that was darker, noisier and more chaotic and am glad to have it in the form of this ep-single, which could be viewed as a secondary demo. put another way, this is the comprehensive representation of the second (electro/noise/industrial) incarnation of rabit is wolf.
however, there are two factors complicating clarity as a solely rabit is wolf production. the first is that sean was never really happy with the result - a shame as i consider his vocal performance and lyrics to be the best of the songs we did together. the second is that i always felt the track was "mine" and should have had an instrumental mix. that is, i've always regretted not saving an instrumental mix.
for these reasons, i've revisited the track as an instrumental and left two snapshots - 11/2001 and 01/2002. this second snapshot (which is to be considered a final mix) will also appear on my upcoming 6th record, dated to the end of 2002.
recorded in late 2001 and early 2002. track 6 was constructed in may, 2004 out of files recorded 1999-2001. tracks 1-4 were reconstructed over october, 2014. final mixes were finished on october 18, 2014. disc closed on oct 30, 2017. as always, please use headphones.
the 2014 instrumental version appears on my sixth record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj-2
the 2002 vocal mix appears on the rabit is wolf demo:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/rabit-is-wolf
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (2001, 2002, 2004, 2014, 2017).
credits
released February 1, 2002
j - guitars (electric, acoustic, nylon), mandolin, sequencers, synthesizers, drum & melodic programming, electric air reed organ, digital piano, flute, drum kit, sampling, digital and analog effects processing, digital wave editing, sound design (loops, granular synthesis, noise generators), production
sean - vocals/lyrics (3,5), harmonica (4,5)
j - guitars (electric, acoustic, nylon), mandolin, sequencers, synthesizers, drum & melodic programming, electric air reed organ, digital piano, flute, drum kit, sampling, digital and analog effects processing, digital wave editing, sound design (loops, granular synthesis, noise generators), production
sean - vocals/lyrics (3,5), harmonica (4,5)
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
Monday, October 30, 2017
hi.
my landlord is taking over my apartment for personal use. i need to be
out in a few weeks. you seem to be building a monopoly on vacant
spaces in this city, and you won't rent to me because i've defaulted
on my student loans. this is effectively cutting off my right to
housing.
but, this is not a good reason not to rent to me.
my loan default is a real thing, this is true. however, because i live
on disability, there is essentially no way for the state to collect on
it. i have done my due diligence and applied for loan forgiveness, and
they have told me that although i am permanently disabled i am not
"severely" permanently disabled, which is some kind of kafkaesque
nonsense. but, what it means is that, while the loan will continue to
collect interest for the rest of my life, this has no actual effect on
my income.
the fact is that i get around $1200/month from the government, every
month. this income cannot be touched by any collection agency. nor is
it under any threat of market failure - i cannot get fired, i cannot
get laid off, and i cannot get outsourced. if you were to compare me
to a wage worker, and you were to measure my value as a tenant solely
on my ability to pay, you'd have to conclude i'm a far safer gamble
for the reason that i'm immune to market forces.
i understand that you don't want to rent to people who manage money
poorly. but, student loan defaults are going to be an increasingly
common fact of life in this city, and if you are going to command so
much of the empty rental space, you should really be approaching the
situation a little differently.
i have been in this unit for four and a half years and i have never
paid my rent late. these payments will come in every month into
perpetuity. it makes no sense to deny me housing for this reason -
because i am a model tenant.
j
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
my landlord is taking over my apartment for personal use. i need to be
out in a few weeks. you seem to be building a monopoly on vacant
spaces in this city, and you won't rent to me because i've defaulted
on my student loans. this is effectively cutting off my right to
housing.
but, this is not a good reason not to rent to me.
my loan default is a real thing, this is true. however, because i live
on disability, there is essentially no way for the state to collect on
it. i have done my due diligence and applied for loan forgiveness, and
they have told me that although i am permanently disabled i am not
"severely" permanently disabled, which is some kind of kafkaesque
nonsense. but, what it means is that, while the loan will continue to
collect interest for the rest of my life, this has no actual effect on
my income.
the fact is that i get around $1200/month from the government, every
month. this income cannot be touched by any collection agency. nor is
it under any threat of market failure - i cannot get fired, i cannot
get laid off, and i cannot get outsourced. if you were to compare me
to a wage worker, and you were to measure my value as a tenant solely
on my ability to pay, you'd have to conclude i'm a far safer gamble
for the reason that i'm immune to market forces.
i understand that you don't want to rent to people who manage money
poorly. but, student loan defaults are going to be an increasingly
common fact of life in this city, and if you are going to command so
much of the empty rental space, you should really be approaching the
situation a little differently.
i have been in this unit for four and a half years and i have never
paid my rent late. these payments will come in every month into
perpetuity. it makes no sense to deny me housing for this reason -
because i am a model tenant.
j
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i want to be clear about how this company works.
let's say you went to school for a few years, came out with a degree in sociology - which means you get to be a manager at mcdonalds. but, let's say you actually are a manager at mcdonalds. so, you're working a 40+ hour work week and pulling in something close to $1700 a month. but, it took you a while to get there, and in the process you defaulted on your loan.
you have a steady job. a little authority, even. you want a $900 apartment. and, why not? you can afford it.
this management company will not rent to you due to the default. it doesn't matter that you're making more than enough money. it's an inflexible position across the board.
and, they seem to be in charge of at least half of the vacant properties in the city - properties that should be occupied by low income people that probably don't have very good credit.
is this even a human rights violation? i think there's a good argument for it. but, that's not exactly at the top of my mind, right now.
i could maybe file once i find somewhere.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
let's say you went to school for a few years, came out with a degree in sociology - which means you get to be a manager at mcdonalds. but, let's say you actually are a manager at mcdonalds. so, you're working a 40+ hour work week and pulling in something close to $1700 a month. but, it took you a while to get there, and in the process you defaulted on your loan.
you have a steady job. a little authority, even. you want a $900 apartment. and, why not? you can afford it.
this management company will not rent to you due to the default. it doesn't matter that you're making more than enough money. it's an inflexible position across the board.
and, they seem to be in charge of at least half of the vacant properties in the city - properties that should be occupied by low income people that probably don't have very good credit.
is this even a human rights violation? i think there's a good argument for it. but, that's not exactly at the top of my mind, right now.
i could maybe file once i find somewhere.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
that apartment i went to see was a little small, but i expected that.
the two reasons i couldn't consider it were as follows:
1) it had a really big window on the front entrance. i want the unit up a few floors to cut off broken window access. the less windows, the better. this place had smash and grab written all over it.
2) the front entrance was a shared porch with the unit beside it. there would have been somebody chain smoking a foot in front of my door.
this is windsor.
it's becoming clear that i'm going to have to appeal, probably as soon as i get the review in the mail.
i'll need to pay rent on wednesday if i don't find anything tomorrow, which at this point is pretty much certain.
i'm also realizing that it's less that the city doesn't have rental spaces - it does - and more that the market has been taken over by this management company. what happened to windsor, that had such low prices four years ago? marda. this company is inflating prices by introducing a management layer. and, they're refusing to rent to anybody that has defaulted on their student loans. i'm almost willing to argue it's predatory. but, somebody needs to step in and break them up...
if you're a building manager, you really ought to separate yourselves from this company: they are leaving spaces empty over issues that do not affect a tenant's ability to pay, and cutting off large segments of the market. it's not sustainable. it's just going to land people with steady incomes in the shelters.
and, the city should be questioning if they have too much market power and trying to find ways to break them up.
i'm sleepier than i should be. but, hopefully i can get some progress down tonight.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
the two reasons i couldn't consider it were as follows:
1) it had a really big window on the front entrance. i want the unit up a few floors to cut off broken window access. the less windows, the better. this place had smash and grab written all over it.
2) the front entrance was a shared porch with the unit beside it. there would have been somebody chain smoking a foot in front of my door.
this is windsor.
it's becoming clear that i'm going to have to appeal, probably as soon as i get the review in the mail.
i'll need to pay rent on wednesday if i don't find anything tomorrow, which at this point is pretty much certain.
i'm also realizing that it's less that the city doesn't have rental spaces - it does - and more that the market has been taken over by this management company. what happened to windsor, that had such low prices four years ago? marda. this company is inflating prices by introducing a management layer. and, they're refusing to rent to anybody that has defaulted on their student loans. i'm almost willing to argue it's predatory. but, somebody needs to step in and break them up...
if you're a building manager, you really ought to separate yourselves from this company: they are leaving spaces empty over issues that do not affect a tenant's ability to pay, and cutting off large segments of the market. it's not sustainable. it's just going to land people with steady incomes in the shelters.
and, the city should be questioning if they have too much market power and trying to find ways to break them up.
i'm sleepier than i should be. but, hopefully i can get some progress down tonight.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i mean, i've slept with one person in my life. she was female.
that was more than ten years ago.
and, i've turned down dozens of women since then. i'm not keeping a running total or anything, but i'd guess i've refused sex with at least 20 women. it might be closer to 50.
the opportunities with guys just don't really come up. i guess there's good reasons for that: i don't have much to offer gay men. i get hit on in gay spaces, but it's fleeting; i hate it, but it's a thing gay guys do, and it doesn't take them long to figure it out. the solution is for me to stay out of gay spaces. and, i don't have much to offer straight men, either.
it's weird. i can't state with any force that i'm into men. but, i think i can state with some force at this point that i really have absolutely no interest in women at all. not because i've sat down and made a choice, but it's just experience. i think i've been hit on by just about every kind of woman, and all i've ever done is reject.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
that was more than ten years ago.
and, i've turned down dozens of women since then. i'm not keeping a running total or anything, but i'd guess i've refused sex with at least 20 women. it might be closer to 50.
the opportunities with guys just don't really come up. i guess there's good reasons for that: i don't have much to offer gay men. i get hit on in gay spaces, but it's fleeting; i hate it, but it's a thing gay guys do, and it doesn't take them long to figure it out. the solution is for me to stay out of gay spaces. and, i don't have much to offer straight men, either.
it's weird. i can't state with any force that i'm into men. but, i think i can state with some force at this point that i really have absolutely no interest in women at all. not because i've sat down and made a choice, but it's just experience. i think i've been hit on by just about every kind of woman, and all i've ever done is reject.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i don't know anything about rose mcgowan, besides that i think she dated marilyn manson a long time ago, but is she a known homophobe?
did this receive any criticism?
oh, i see, she's just incoherent:
but, this is what i'm saying, right: the biggest lies win the correct reaction to the gay card.
actually, i see she's been in trouble for this, before.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
it's really this call-out culture that's become disturbing, as it's turned into this hierarchical bloodsport. and, i kind of like what spacey did here, for that reason: he's managed to visibly confuse people, in what i'm willing to acknowledge is an actual accident.
these responses really reveal the way people are thinking about this, as though this is all some twisted card game - what spacey did to these people is reveal his entire hand prematurely, and they're just reacting by saying he's not playing fairly.
i don't think what spacey did here is anything more complicated or nefarious than acknowledge that he's never publicly stated that he's gay. how do you approach the situation without doing this? it's a necessity. i mean, he could have denied it all outright and claimed he's really hetero and this other guy (who i've never heard of) is making it all up, and maybe that's what some of these people wanted to hear, but any responsible reaction to the situation at all - at all - necessitates acknowledging something he hadn't acknowledged before. whether he remembers or doesn't remember, whether he accepts responsibility or not, this is now out there on the table. and, had he not said anything, you can bet you'd hear the defense from his fans: how do we know this is true, when we don't even know if he's gay? he's never said he's gay...
but, these rational considerations are not what people want to contemplate. instead, people are taking this in the form of two cards, and the proper social cues attached to them:
1) the assault card. the proper social cue attached to the assault card is to post on twitter that you believe the victim, and the accused should rot in hell. outward displays of solidarity, however meaningless in reality, are then to be ranked by social media in a total order. anger always receives tops marks, as it functions as a vicarious outlet. prizes will be awarded at the end of the week.
2) the gay card. the proper social cue to the gay card is to post on twitter that you support coming out, and you're there for people, and you don't think it matters. meanwhile, you need to send bigoted, homophobic messages to your friends. these displays of solidarity, however fraudulent, are also to be ranked by social media in a total order. the biggest lies will always receive the top marks.
so, you see what he did here? he created a contradiction. and, he did it by accident. in order to be angry at the accused, and get maximum points in the first competition, you must target a queer person and get nailed in the second. no fair!
i don't know how else you expect somebody to apologize for something they don't remember. i think he largely did this right. most people probably would have denied it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/kevin-spacey-1.4377929
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
these responses really reveal the way people are thinking about this, as though this is all some twisted card game - what spacey did to these people is reveal his entire hand prematurely, and they're just reacting by saying he's not playing fairly.
i don't think what spacey did here is anything more complicated or nefarious than acknowledge that he's never publicly stated that he's gay. how do you approach the situation without doing this? it's a necessity. i mean, he could have denied it all outright and claimed he's really hetero and this other guy (who i've never heard of) is making it all up, and maybe that's what some of these people wanted to hear, but any responsible reaction to the situation at all - at all - necessitates acknowledging something he hadn't acknowledged before. whether he remembers or doesn't remember, whether he accepts responsibility or not, this is now out there on the table. and, had he not said anything, you can bet you'd hear the defense from his fans: how do we know this is true, when we don't even know if he's gay? he's never said he's gay...
but, these rational considerations are not what people want to contemplate. instead, people are taking this in the form of two cards, and the proper social cues attached to them:
1) the assault card. the proper social cue attached to the assault card is to post on twitter that you believe the victim, and the accused should rot in hell. outward displays of solidarity, however meaningless in reality, are then to be ranked by social media in a total order. anger always receives tops marks, as it functions as a vicarious outlet. prizes will be awarded at the end of the week.
2) the gay card. the proper social cue to the gay card is to post on twitter that you support coming out, and you're there for people, and you don't think it matters. meanwhile, you need to send bigoted, homophobic messages to your friends. these displays of solidarity, however fraudulent, are also to be ranked by social media in a total order. the biggest lies will always receive the top marks.
so, you see what he did here? he created a contradiction. and, he did it by accident. in order to be angry at the accused, and get maximum points in the first competition, you must target a queer person and get nailed in the second. no fair!
i don't know how else you expect somebody to apologize for something they don't remember. i think he largely did this right. most people probably would have denied it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/kevin-spacey-1.4377929
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
you know, there's an easy way to figure out whether catalans want independence or not.
me? i don't care. whatever they want.
this is what happens when you try and suppress democracy, guys. it's like spain has had perpetual levels of difficulty entering the modern era due to the lingering effects of a deep-seated monarchism, or something.
this dude rajoy thinks he's a fucking bourbon.
let them vote, already. idiots...
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
me? i don't care. whatever they want.
this is what happens when you try and suppress democracy, guys. it's like spain has had perpetual levels of difficulty entering the modern era due to the lingering effects of a deep-seated monarchism, or something.
this dude rajoy thinks he's a fucking bourbon.
let them vote, already. idiots...
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
today didn't yield much - i'm going to look at something tonight that's a bit smaller but would give me an extra $50+ in my pocket a month, maybe $100 in the summer, but he got really apprehensive when i told him i'm on odsp. people have a lot of prejudices about this, and i'm fully aware of the problem of productionism, especially in a post-industrial area like this where there's so much unemployment, and it's created these hierarchies of exclusion. it's up to me to convince him that this attitude is just literal stupidity - i cannot work by doctor's order, and i have the safest check in town - but it's not the easiest thing to do. you'd think self-interest would be easier to enforce, but conservatism goes out of it's way to enforce irrationality and anti-intellectualism. i can't get fired. i'm guaranteed rent. pull your head out of your calvinist ass and recognize the superior tenancy value that i offer...
i have an appointment in the morning, but i don't even know if i'm going to go. i didn't realize that it's on the ground level. i'm curious, though.
the review was dismissed, as expected. i gave them a call about the leave date, and it hasn't changed. the review claims that i didn't raise the issue of 83(3)(c) - that's just false. i can think of at least twice that i raised it. so, the adjudicator seems like she realizes she's wrong, and is trying to back track by pretending i didn't raise the point. that's why she's not a judge, right? but, i can't review a second time.
unfortunately, the adjudicator has handed me a perfect case for appeal: she agrees that i would be right if i raised the point, then claims i didn't raise the point. but, i did raise the point. and, we can check the audio. so, now i have no choice but to appeal.
so, i'm considering launching an immediate appeal when the documents get here, just to get it out of the way. i can drop it at any time, i believe. i wasn't expecting a stay on review, but i wasn't expecting such a quick response, either. now that it's in front of me, and it's just wrong, i kind of feel like i have to act as quickly as possible.
i left a message with legal aid as well. i just want to go in and talk it over, make sure i understand the process and i didn't overlook something that's going to screw me over in the end.
but, i think that's it for listings, for the day. i should be more optimistic: if i find something i can get a appointment for every single day, i'm making good progress.
i'm going to eat. i finished the facebook section yesterday, and should close some discs tonight. i could ship tomorrow.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i have an appointment in the morning, but i don't even know if i'm going to go. i didn't realize that it's on the ground level. i'm curious, though.
the review was dismissed, as expected. i gave them a call about the leave date, and it hasn't changed. the review claims that i didn't raise the issue of 83(3)(c) - that's just false. i can think of at least twice that i raised it. so, the adjudicator seems like she realizes she's wrong, and is trying to back track by pretending i didn't raise the point. that's why she's not a judge, right? but, i can't review a second time.
unfortunately, the adjudicator has handed me a perfect case for appeal: she agrees that i would be right if i raised the point, then claims i didn't raise the point. but, i did raise the point. and, we can check the audio. so, now i have no choice but to appeal.
so, i'm considering launching an immediate appeal when the documents get here, just to get it out of the way. i can drop it at any time, i believe. i wasn't expecting a stay on review, but i wasn't expecting such a quick response, either. now that it's in front of me, and it's just wrong, i kind of feel like i have to act as quickly as possible.
i left a message with legal aid as well. i just want to go in and talk it over, make sure i understand the process and i didn't overlook something that's going to screw me over in the end.
but, i think that's it for listings, for the day. i should be more optimistic: if i find something i can get a appointment for every single day, i'm making good progress.
i'm going to eat. i finished the facebook section yesterday, and should close some discs tonight. i could ship tomorrow.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
that was a bust.
the ad said $725 all inclusive. it's $725 + hydro. so, i'm looking at $750. he was representing a firm, and i wasn't going to take him down. this is on the extreme limits of what i can consider. is it better?
well, the existing tenant is a heavy smoker, and the apartment was full of cat shit. she's moving downstairs.
so, i would be moving into a unit with a heavy smoker downstairs that doesn't have a problem living in cat shit. that's not better - it's a $80/month rent increase with no benefit to me.
if it was just the habits of the previous tenant to deal with, i could air the place out. but, this is just a recipe for conflict. we're going to start fighting from day one. i could not get along with this person well enough to live in the same building as them.
my self-interest is not in moving into this unit. i'll have to keep looking. and, i now have fifteen days left to avoid an appeal.
today is a listings day. but i need to shower, first. yuck.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
the ad said $725 all inclusive. it's $725 + hydro. so, i'm looking at $750. he was representing a firm, and i wasn't going to take him down. this is on the extreme limits of what i can consider. is it better?
well, the existing tenant is a heavy smoker, and the apartment was full of cat shit. she's moving downstairs.
so, i would be moving into a unit with a heavy smoker downstairs that doesn't have a problem living in cat shit. that's not better - it's a $80/month rent increase with no benefit to me.
if it was just the habits of the previous tenant to deal with, i could air the place out. but, this is just a recipe for conflict. we're going to start fighting from day one. i could not get along with this person well enough to live in the same building as them.
my self-interest is not in moving into this unit. i'll have to keep looking. and, i now have fifteen days left to avoid an appeal.
today is a listings day. but i need to shower, first. yuck.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
rank the last ten presidents?
well, they're all awful. but, let's see. last ten, first, are what..
trump, obama, dubya, clinton, bush, reagan, carter, ford, nixon, johnson.
lucky cut-off. jfk was a psychopath. you're not going to like where i'd put him.
from best to worst...
1. johnson
2. clinton
3. carter
4. obama
5. trump
6. reagan
7. bush
8. ford
9. dubya
10. nixon
about average - probably the best republican of our life times, at least.
but, let's see where some of these things really go. a halfways decent nafta deal, and the avoidance of any major wars, could bump trump ahead of obama, who was actually basically a republican.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
well, they're all awful. but, let's see. last ten, first, are what..
trump, obama, dubya, clinton, bush, reagan, carter, ford, nixon, johnson.
lucky cut-off. jfk was a psychopath. you're not going to like where i'd put him.
from best to worst...
1. johnson
2. clinton
3. carter
4. obama
5. trump
6. reagan
7. bush
8. ford
9. dubya
10. nixon
about average - probably the best republican of our life times, at least.
but, let's see where some of these things really go. a halfways decent nafta deal, and the avoidance of any major wars, could bump trump ahead of obama, who was actually basically a republican.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
the way that these market advocates talk, it's like a free market in health care means you magically have unlimited resources.
rationing is at the crux of any health care delivery system. the choice isn't between rationing or not rationing, it's between being honest about it or deluding yourself - and about democratizing the systems that make the decisions.
my understanding is that they actually do have death panels in the united states. they're called insurance boards. and, we don't have those here. but, we do need to make hard choices in a broader-based sense, and that's something that no amount of funding is going to resolve.
when i look at something like the opioid "crisis", i just see a drain on the system. it's wasteful. and, my communist spidey senses go fucking nuts.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
rationing is at the crux of any health care delivery system. the choice isn't between rationing or not rationing, it's between being honest about it or deluding yourself - and about democratizing the systems that make the decisions.
my understanding is that they actually do have death panels in the united states. they're called insurance boards. and, we don't have those here. but, we do need to make hard choices in a broader-based sense, and that's something that no amount of funding is going to resolve.
when i look at something like the opioid "crisis", i just see a drain on the system. it's wasteful. and, my communist spidey senses go fucking nuts.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
Sunday, October 29, 2017
anarchists are liberals when it comes to self-interest.
it's the point of being an anarchist. otherwise, we'd just be marxists. and, it's the reason you end up with these goofy ancaps that can't figure out what the state even is.
but, what the anarchists have always argued - following kropotkin, who wrote prominently about a kind of proto-dawkinsian social order called mutual aid - is that rational self-interest is not manifested in this capitalist mayhem that is bound to collapse in on itself, but in the realization of universal positive freedom through automation and the proper articulation of "from each as they can, to each as they need".
but, i'm an artist, of course - i'm not a worker. so, i'm going to tell you to read oscar wilde: the soul of man under socialism. that, to me, is probably the best articulation of this that i've read.
if you're interested in ideas of duty and honour and sacrifice to some greater good, you're thinking about historical toryism and religiosity, not liberalism or anarchism or anything else on the left.
but, i've been over this.
and, i'm not shy about where i stand on it.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
it's the point of being an anarchist. otherwise, we'd just be marxists. and, it's the reason you end up with these goofy ancaps that can't figure out what the state even is.
but, what the anarchists have always argued - following kropotkin, who wrote prominently about a kind of proto-dawkinsian social order called mutual aid - is that rational self-interest is not manifested in this capitalist mayhem that is bound to collapse in on itself, but in the realization of universal positive freedom through automation and the proper articulation of "from each as they can, to each as they need".
but, i'm an artist, of course - i'm not a worker. so, i'm going to tell you to read oscar wilde: the soul of man under socialism. that, to me, is probably the best articulation of this that i've read.
if you're interested in ideas of duty and honour and sacrifice to some greater good, you're thinking about historical toryism and religiosity, not liberalism or anarchism or anything else on the left.
but, i've been over this.
and, i'm not shy about where i stand on it.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
so, again: should i have taken the pay out? if i leave, i just lost hundreds of dollars i could have taken, right?
no.
if i had signed an agreement to move out, then i'd have to move out - i'd have no options to appeal. maybe i'd find something better. maybe i wouldn't.
and, i did look - i couldn't find anything better.
this particular unit came up the same day as the trial. i couldn't have organized this.
if i had organized a move-in before hand, would it have made sense to take the cash? sure. but, i didn't know that, then. i could have agreed to move and then ended up with nowhere to go. that's not rational self-interest, it's risk - and i'm exceedingly risk averse.
i would argue that it's far more rational to lose the pay out than to take a risk of ending up optionless. i guess you could have that argument. but, you'd be warping logic around dramatically to do it.
on top of that, you have to remember that i still think they're acting in bad faith and i'm still intending to sue when i figure it out. so, i have a plan to get those funds, in the end.
you can argue i got unlucky. i might even agree with you. but, i made the rational choice in the context of maximizing self-interest.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
no.
if i had signed an agreement to move out, then i'd have to move out - i'd have no options to appeal. maybe i'd find something better. maybe i wouldn't.
and, i did look - i couldn't find anything better.
this particular unit came up the same day as the trial. i couldn't have organized this.
if i had organized a move-in before hand, would it have made sense to take the cash? sure. but, i didn't know that, then. i could have agreed to move and then ended up with nowhere to go. that's not rational self-interest, it's risk - and i'm exceedingly risk averse.
i would argue that it's far more rational to lose the pay out than to take a risk of ending up optionless. i guess you could have that argument. but, you'd be warping logic around dramatically to do it.
on top of that, you have to remember that i still think they're acting in bad faith and i'm still intending to sue when i figure it out. so, i have a plan to get those funds, in the end.
you can argue i got unlucky. i might even agree with you. but, i made the rational choice in the context of maximizing self-interest.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i got something back from the one i'm most interested in.
monday viewing, apparently.
like i say: i need to better my situation in order to do this. this does it.
i've been saying for years i'm waiting the existing tenants out, and i am, but that in itself is only proving so worthwhile. even if the guy upstairs keels over tomorrow, and they sell next week, i still have to deal with the fact that the neighbours are smoking outside my window, the cats in the neighbourhood, etc.
i thought i got rid of a problem upstairs when the three pack a day smokers moved out, but the lady that moved in sits on her porch and smokes all day, which means i lost all the windows in the front - and the air return along with it.
there's no solution to the roaches, or the gas smell, which is coming back again with the cold weather. there's some kind of mildew in the walls. the place really ought to be condemned. i mean, that's why it's cheap, right? that's the point. but, i can maybe do a bit better...
i got a lot of work done down here. and i would tough it out if i wasn't being coerced. but, maybe it makes sense, anyways.
if they are actually moving her mother in here - and i doubt it - i pity her for what she will endure down here.
if they put it on the market, which i'm sure they will, i'll recoup more funds through legal action. and, these are funds i should be able to keep.
today is a discography day. i'll get back to looking tomorrow.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
monday viewing, apparently.
like i say: i need to better my situation in order to do this. this does it.
i've been saying for years i'm waiting the existing tenants out, and i am, but that in itself is only proving so worthwhile. even if the guy upstairs keels over tomorrow, and they sell next week, i still have to deal with the fact that the neighbours are smoking outside my window, the cats in the neighbourhood, etc.
i thought i got rid of a problem upstairs when the three pack a day smokers moved out, but the lady that moved in sits on her porch and smokes all day, which means i lost all the windows in the front - and the air return along with it.
there's no solution to the roaches, or the gas smell, which is coming back again with the cold weather. there's some kind of mildew in the walls. the place really ought to be condemned. i mean, that's why it's cheap, right? that's the point. but, i can maybe do a bit better...
i got a lot of work done down here. and i would tough it out if i wasn't being coerced. but, maybe it makes sense, anyways.
if they are actually moving her mother in here - and i doubt it - i pity her for what she will endure down here.
if they put it on the market, which i'm sure they will, i'll recoup more funds through legal action. and, these are funds i should be able to keep.
today is a discography day. i'll get back to looking tomorrow.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
Saturday, October 28, 2017
well, i'm done for the day and what did i find? this was pretty exhaustive on my googling, i must add.
1) exactly one space that is a little bit more than i want to pay, but is also substantially better than this space. non smoking. up a few floors, to get some fresh air. a little closer to the tunnel. adt. a tub, so i can shave. etc. i'll need to close the deal, but i would move to this place if i could - and especially if i can shave a few dollars off. i'm waiting for a response from an ad without a phone number.
2) exactly one space that is a little bit cheaper than i'm paying here, and is comparable in terms of size, although it is one bedroom rather than two. depending on layout, that might even be better. i tried to call three numbers and am not convinced anyone of them are correct. this place may be smoky. i'd have to think about it.
3) exactly one space that seems like a lateral movement - but this may also include smoke issues. i'll have to look at this, but i'd probably turn it down.
4) several ads that were about fifty dollars out of my price range, and that i'd have to try and low ball.
if the first one doesn't work out, i can't state with certainty that something else will come up before it's time to stall via appeal. i'm just hoping the review body solves that problem the easy way.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
1) exactly one space that is a little bit more than i want to pay, but is also substantially better than this space. non smoking. up a few floors, to get some fresh air. a little closer to the tunnel. adt. a tub, so i can shave. etc. i'll need to close the deal, but i would move to this place if i could - and especially if i can shave a few dollars off. i'm waiting for a response from an ad without a phone number.
2) exactly one space that is a little bit cheaper than i'm paying here, and is comparable in terms of size, although it is one bedroom rather than two. depending on layout, that might even be better. i tried to call three numbers and am not convinced anyone of them are correct. this place may be smoky. i'd have to think about it.
3) exactly one space that seems like a lateral movement - but this may also include smoke issues. i'll have to look at this, but i'd probably turn it down.
4) several ads that were about fifty dollars out of my price range, and that i'd have to try and low ball.
if the first one doesn't work out, i can't state with certainty that something else will come up before it's time to stall via appeal. i'm just hoping the review body solves that problem the easy way.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
here's a bit of a sneaky trick.
i'm paying $670 all inclusive. that will go up to $680 in april. i'm looking for apartments under $700 all inclusive because, you know - if it's a good fit, right?
but i forgot about those ontario electricity rebates, which are going to come in at $45. and, this is important given the dollar amounts i have to play with.
if i see something for $700 + hydro, my mind is converting that to $750+. but, with the rebate, that should come out in the wash.
if i'm paying for electricity, i basically won't use it except at off peak hours. i'd rather not think about it, of course. but, my calculations suggest to me that i shouldn't use much more than $50/month - and may very well use less on some months. will they send me the difference? could i make money from this? these rebates really seem to be handouts for whiners that can't turn their a/c off. and, i don't want an a/c on at all. but, i'll take another $50/month one way or another.
if i can low ball a few of these and hope the landlord just wants a steady tenant, they're possibilities. we'll find out.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i'm paying $670 all inclusive. that will go up to $680 in april. i'm looking for apartments under $700 all inclusive because, you know - if it's a good fit, right?
but i forgot about those ontario electricity rebates, which are going to come in at $45. and, this is important given the dollar amounts i have to play with.
if i see something for $700 + hydro, my mind is converting that to $750+. but, with the rebate, that should come out in the wash.
if i'm paying for electricity, i basically won't use it except at off peak hours. i'd rather not think about it, of course. but, my calculations suggest to me that i shouldn't use much more than $50/month - and may very well use less on some months. will they send me the difference? could i make money from this? these rebates really seem to be handouts for whiners that can't turn their a/c off. and, i don't want an a/c on at all. but, i'll take another $50/month one way or another.
if i can low ball a few of these and hope the landlord just wants a steady tenant, they're possibilities. we'll find out.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i'm going to spend the morning looking at listings and maybe make some calls around noon, if i find something.
but, the easy restatement of the logic is simply as follows:
1) can i find somewhere better? then, i'll take it.
2) if i can't find somewhere better, i'm hardly going to move to somewhere worse, so i'll appeal.
i do need to acknowledge that i am looking, though. that's a difference. it could take months to find something, but i am intending to eventually leave.
all of this other stuff is stalling, really.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
but, the easy restatement of the logic is simply as follows:
1) can i find somewhere better? then, i'll take it.
2) if i can't find somewhere better, i'm hardly going to move to somewhere worse, so i'll appeal.
i do need to acknowledge that i am looking, though. that's a difference. it could take months to find something, but i am intending to eventually leave.
all of this other stuff is stalling, really.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
if i piss you off, it's because you're a conservative.
...because i'm the exact opposite of conservatism. and, i get it: i'm not naive about it. i'm fully aware that i'm the antithesis of any concept of conservative thought. i was even walking around a few years ago defining myself as an 'anti-conservative'.
i know my enemies, and my enemies are conservatives. actual conservatives. burkeans. traditionalists. religionists. monarchists. these are the people i have spent my life in conflict with, and will spend the rest of my life in continued conflict with.
even if you're a little centrist or even call yourself a liberal, this is what gets you about me: it's my disdain for anything resembling traditional thinking, my total rejection of the entire conservative rubric. you just might not realize it. yet. but maybe you should.
the flip side of this is that if you find yourself in agreement with me it's because you're actually on the libertarian side of socialism. i'm a liberal and i'm a socialist - and am therefore an anarchist. it could be either of them that's getting you nodding. but, you could be just as confused about this, too. you might call yourself something else. but, if you look at this carefully, you should see that if you agree with me at all, then you must be on the left.
i get that the left has moved right and become a fake left. but, the right hasn't moved left to compensate. it's pretended to sometimes, maybe, perhaps even signalled it's actually doing it, but we don't have any substantive outcomes, yet. we haven't switched spots. the vacuum on the left hasn't created a spot on the right. we've just seen the left collapse.
but, i'm not confused about this, even if you are.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
...because i'm the exact opposite of conservatism. and, i get it: i'm not naive about it. i'm fully aware that i'm the antithesis of any concept of conservative thought. i was even walking around a few years ago defining myself as an 'anti-conservative'.
i know my enemies, and my enemies are conservatives. actual conservatives. burkeans. traditionalists. religionists. monarchists. these are the people i have spent my life in conflict with, and will spend the rest of my life in continued conflict with.
even if you're a little centrist or even call yourself a liberal, this is what gets you about me: it's my disdain for anything resembling traditional thinking, my total rejection of the entire conservative rubric. you just might not realize it. yet. but maybe you should.
the flip side of this is that if you find yourself in agreement with me it's because you're actually on the libertarian side of socialism. i'm a liberal and i'm a socialist - and am therefore an anarchist. it could be either of them that's getting you nodding. but, you could be just as confused about this, too. you might call yourself something else. but, if you look at this carefully, you should see that if you agree with me at all, then you must be on the left.
i get that the left has moved right and become a fake left. but, the right hasn't moved left to compensate. it's pretended to sometimes, maybe, perhaps even signalled it's actually doing it, but we don't have any substantive outcomes, yet. we haven't switched spots. the vacuum on the left hasn't created a spot on the right. we've just seen the left collapse.
but, i'm not confused about this, even if you are.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i mean, it's typical of this government, right?
they have serious indigenous funding issues in front of them. the united nations is starting to really get on their ass on this. our own courts are getting pissed off. and, the threat of unrest is getting to the point of substantial.
so, their policy is to slash the funding across the board even more, and then put an indigenous person on the supreme court as some kind of empty show of symbolism. you can have your first indian justice, kids!
just don't look at the budget. over there! a squirrel...
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
they have serious indigenous funding issues in front of them. the united nations is starting to really get on their ass on this. our own courts are getting pissed off. and, the threat of unrest is getting to the point of substantial.
so, their policy is to slash the funding across the board even more, and then put an indigenous person on the supreme court as some kind of empty show of symbolism. you can have your first indian justice, kids!
just don't look at the budget. over there! a squirrel...
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i don't like the idea of putting a law professor on the supreme court.
i've been over this before: the way you fix this is that you try and fix the balance at the lower levels, and then you promote based on whatever you want. when you're promoting a supreme court judge, it's less about qualifications (they all have the same qualifications) and more about disqualifications. but, you have to give everybody the same chance to fuck up.
the worst thing that could happen for advocates of minorities is to put in a candidate that hasn't been vetted, and then watch them fail - and that's what is bound to happen with any candidate that hasn't been vetted.
canada's judicial system is really unusually tight. it's one of the things this country really does right. and, this hokey neo-liberal american kind of identity politics type of thinking shouldn't be being serious contemplated.
we don't need to make our system more like theirs. they need to make their system more like ours.
but, are there representation issues? it's a complex problem, because you can't just pluck people out. it's a feedback loop: the less opportunities, the less representation. but, the political optics of the situation aside (and if they think voters are going to even care, they're wrong - you do this for justice, not for votes; you do it for justice, or you don't do it), keep in mind that indigenous people spend more time in lower courts than they do at the supreme court, which is expensive to get to. the indigenous issues at the supreme court are going to be a lot broader - treaty rights, pipeline projects, that kind of thing. this government is likely to think that a "government indian" on the court will appease opposition to resource extraction (again: dream on.), but that's not the issue that the press tosses around. the issue you see in the press has to do with incarceration. how, exactly, does putting a law prof on the supreme court address an issue that exists at the lower levels?
it doesn't. it's politics. and, it's bad politics.
the real solutions lie in addressing the funding problems that this government won't address.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2017/10/23/justin-trudeau-should-name-an-indigenous-justice-to-the-supreme-court-editorial.html
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i've been over this before: the way you fix this is that you try and fix the balance at the lower levels, and then you promote based on whatever you want. when you're promoting a supreme court judge, it's less about qualifications (they all have the same qualifications) and more about disqualifications. but, you have to give everybody the same chance to fuck up.
the worst thing that could happen for advocates of minorities is to put in a candidate that hasn't been vetted, and then watch them fail - and that's what is bound to happen with any candidate that hasn't been vetted.
canada's judicial system is really unusually tight. it's one of the things this country really does right. and, this hokey neo-liberal american kind of identity politics type of thinking shouldn't be being serious contemplated.
we don't need to make our system more like theirs. they need to make their system more like ours.
but, are there representation issues? it's a complex problem, because you can't just pluck people out. it's a feedback loop: the less opportunities, the less representation. but, the political optics of the situation aside (and if they think voters are going to even care, they're wrong - you do this for justice, not for votes; you do it for justice, or you don't do it), keep in mind that indigenous people spend more time in lower courts than they do at the supreme court, which is expensive to get to. the indigenous issues at the supreme court are going to be a lot broader - treaty rights, pipeline projects, that kind of thing. this government is likely to think that a "government indian" on the court will appease opposition to resource extraction (again: dream on.), but that's not the issue that the press tosses around. the issue you see in the press has to do with incarceration. how, exactly, does putting a law prof on the supreme court address an issue that exists at the lower levels?
it doesn't. it's politics. and, it's bad politics.
the real solutions lie in addressing the funding problems that this government won't address.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2017/10/23/justin-trudeau-should-name-an-indigenous-justice-to-the-supreme-court-editorial.html
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)