so, i'm in for the weekend. i need to recuperate. my legs are still bad. and it's cold out.

the landlord is illegally coming by on a saturday. she claims she's bringing "the new tenant". well, we'll have to film this. if it's not her mom, i could get this process rolling early.

it's actually the end of a long day for me, right now. i think i'm going to eat and shower and go to sleep. but, that means i'll get tomorrow and sunday for music, and could even ship on monday.

i'll need to call both disability and the electric company on monday. i'll need to put up an ad on kijiji for the fridge, too - but pick-up after the 29th, if i get the keys. that's another $100, hopefully. well, it's what i paid for it. and it works. i checked briefly and it seems right for a functional, if old, fridge.

arranging the move will take priority. but, i expect to get caught up by the 29th, at the very latest.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

nov 9th: served at 7:00 am.  saw apartment at 11:00 am.
10th:  signed lease at 11:30 am. mailed documents around 1:30 pm.

nov 11th & nov 12th & nov 13th: holidays

14: first day after mail
15: second day after mail
16: third day after mail
17: fourth day after mail

18th & 19th: holidays

20th: fifth day after mail. service effective.
21st: first day after service
22nd: second day after service
23rd: third day after service
24th: fourth day after service

25th & 26th: holidays

27th: fifth day after service
28th: sixth day after service
29th: seventh day after service. date of keys pickup. date of first & last drop-off. potential end of process.
30th: eight day after service.
dec 1st: ninth day after service. date of eviction notice. date landlord can call sheriff. date i will need to file on if i have to file.
file: 61a, 61b, 61c, request for hearing audio, form to wave fees
receive: stay. bring to sheriff.

2nd & 3rd: holidays

4th: 1st day after filing
5th: 2nd
6th: 3rd
7th: 4th
8th: 5th

9th & 10th: holidays

11th: 6th
12th: 7th
13th: 8th
14th: 9th
15th: 10th

16th & 17th: holidays

18th: 11th
19th: 12th
20th: 13th
21st: 14th
22nd: 15th

23rd & 24th & 25th & 26th: holidays

27th: 16th
28th 17th
29th: 18th

30th & 31st & jan 1st: holidays

2nd: 19th
3rd: 20th
4th: 21st
5th: 22nd

6th & 7th: holidays

8th: 23rd
9th: 24th
10th: 25th
11th: 26th
12th: 27th

13th  & 14th: holidays

15th: 28th
16th: 29th. order hearing transcript & file proof of order.
17th: 30th day after filing. 1st day after ordering hearing transcript.
18th: 2nd day after ordering hearing transcript.
19th: 3rd day.

20th & 21st: holidays

22nd: 4th day
23rd: 5th day
24th 6th day
25th: 7th day
26th: 8th day

27th & 28th: holidays

29th: 9th
30th: 10th
31st: 11th
feb 1st: 12th.
2nd:  13th

3rd & 4th: holidays

5th: 14th
6th: 15th
7th: 16th
8th: 17th
9th: 18th

10th & 11th: holidays

12th: 19th
13th: 20th
14th: 21st
15th: 22nd
16th: 23rd

17th & 18th & 19th: holidays

20th:  24th
21st: 25th
22nd: 26th
23rd: 27th

24th & 25th: holidays

26th: 28th
27th: 29th.
28th: 30th
mar 1st: 31st
mar 2nd: 32nd

3rd & 4th: holidays

5th: 33rd day after filing notice of transcript. begin perfection of appeal.  see rule 61.09(3).
6th: 34th
7th: 35th
8th: 36th
9th: 37th

10th & 11th: holidays

12th: 38th
13th: 39th
14th: 40th
15th: 41st
16th: 42nd

17th & 18th: holidays

19th: 43rd
20th: 44th
21st: 45th
22nd: 46th
23rd: 47th

24th & 25th: holidays

26th: 48th
27th: 49th
28th: 50th
29th: 51st

30th & april 1st & 2nd & 3rd: holidays

4th: 52nd. serve perfection documents.
5th: 53rd. mail perfection documents..
6th: 54th. 1st day after.
7th: 55th. 2nd.
8th: 56th. 3rd.

9th & 10th: holidays

9th: 57th. 4th.
10th: 58th. 5th day after.
11th: 59th day after filing notice of transcript. file notice of perfection.
12th: 60th day after filing notice of transcript.

hearing date set for june, maybe? july?

“It was an Iranian missile, launched by Hizballah from territory occupied by the Houthis in Yemen"

this isn't even worth debunking.

"it was a russian missile, launched by bolivarians from territory occupied by the zapatistas in mexico."

but, this is all just an excuse.

if saudi arabia wanted to outlaw orange juice, it would claim there was an iranian plot, carried out by agents of assad, to poison it with anthrax. and, if it wanted to enforce a mandatory style of under garments, it would claim there were iranian spies peering at saudi citizens through an elaborate system of telescopes and satellites, designed by heretic shia scientists.

they're a permanent scapegoat. a bad guy. and, ultimately, a distraction.

what the saudis really want is to expand their control over the region. and, while it is true that iran is both in the way of this and in fact actually a useful foil to spur on these ambitions, they would be doing all of the same things whether iran was there or not.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

i really think that if you want to understand the destruction horizons in pre-historic greece, you should look primarily at the slavic invasions into the balkans. that's the model. it was no doubt a very similar event.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

also: i don't think that evidence, or lack there-of, of pottery is as convincing as you do. because trade. and diversity. sorry.

anything involving pottery should be seen as a supporting argument, at best - and any theories built solely around pottery, or an absence of it, should be discarded as nonsense.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

challenge: without using historical sources - written histories - convincingly prove to me that there were celtic, gothic, slavic and then turkish migrations into the balkans and greece via the north - and, even some low level movement of wayward iranians over this path, too.

i wish you luck.

but, we know it's true.

i think you need to explain to me why there weren't invasions into the balkans from the north during immediate pre-history, given that it was a constant throughout the historical period until the russians put an end to it via just existing in between - which was like the year 1500.

when something is a fixture of history for 2000 years, you need to explain why it didn't exist in pre-history, not why it did.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard

this morning has been a wash because my legs are so sore. it's the calves. it's what happens when you walk 30 km over 12 hours.

i do have important things to do today, but i needed to let them rest. i basically had to sit and read and watch the news.

and i might need to take a nap, now.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

this is the current furthest extent of the montreal transit system - one ride in during the day, one ride home at night.

there isn't a way to make this work, yet.

but give it another ten years and it might make some sense.

i would really like to see the montreal urban sprawl spill over into ontario....

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

the reality is that human rights watch is basically an arm of the cia and quite often propagates dubious information that is transparently designed to further pro-american propaganda to bolter geostrategic positions that benefit nato.

it's not to say that everything they do is false. it's to say that this should not be treated as an ngo, and that it's reports should be taken extremely critically and extremely carefully.

https://www.alternet.org/world/nobel-peace-laureates-human-rights-watch-close-your-revolving-door-us-government?paging=off 

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

well, then.

that was an ordeal.

as of approximately 7:00 am this morning, my existing landlord is served with an appeal via giving the documents to her husband via police mediation. the plan was to fix the flat on my bike on the way there, but i couldn't get the right kind of tube and had to leave it locked at a canadian tire overnight. i thought it was a short walk from there; it wasn't. so, i had to stay up all night in a tim horton's and knock on the door repeatedly in the morning.

the walk to the landlord's place to personally serve the originating documents required multiple detours around highways and nature reserves in order to ensure an experience of unbroken suburbia - and minimal threat of attack by coyotes or cougars. or bears, for that matter.

this city is bigger than i thought it was. but, like detroit, it's mostly due to sprawl.

my feet are literally bleeding.

and, as of approximately 6:00 pm this evening, it seems as though i've found a place around the corner from here.

is it better? absolutely.

1) steam heat. so, not as dry.
2) it's $700 + hydro. if i stay here, i'll be paying $680 all inclusive as of april 1st. and the hydro should balance out with the oesp - i don't have or want an a/c and i'll conserve the juice if it's my purse. i don't know if i should expect yearly increases at the next place. if i don't get an increase until early 2019, which i think is likely because they can't increase for a year, it will likely literally balance out - because if i stay here i'll be paying very close to $700 on april 1, 2019. the difference may end up little more than a few months ahead on the inflation.
3) 4th floor means fresh air. no smokers through the windows. no cat shit on the window sill. it's not on a main street. it also probably means no roaches, so i should be able to keep the lights off most of the time. and, it means i'll get the heat rising from the units underneath me, rather than the freon pushing down rom upstairs.
4) it's about the same size, footage wise. the kitchen is smaller, but that doesn't mean anything to me. the stove works, which does. the bedroom is a bit bigger. there's storage space in the walls, which i'm keen on. i'll have to set the space up so the studio merges with the living room, which is a more normal arrangement for me, anyways. it's clear at this point that i won't be having anybody over, anyways.
5) tub, not a shower. better for shaving.
6) a block closer to the tunnel. same distance to convenience stores.

we negotiated a deposit over the phone; i'm going to sign a lease tomorrow. but, i'm going to post-date the check anyways, right? so, i'm thinking that if i can just give her the full first & last post-dated to the 30th then maybe she'll give me the keys early and i can start slowly walking things over. ideally, i'd be able to clear this place out in the next few days and then get some student movers to quickly take the rest out around the 1st. and, then, i don't need to carry through with this.

until i have the keys in my hands, i need to carry on with this process - which means mailing the letter tomorrow afternoon and setting myself up a flow chart of timelines, tonight.

i'm going to need to get to odsp, as well, and figure out what they'll pay for.

and i need to eat.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

this is the vlog for nov 8, 2017, where i go to lasalle to serve my landlord, run into problems with my bicycle on the way there and don't actually get back until the next morning.

there are a couple of static entries. it is possible that i may have thought the device was running when it wasn't, but i find the situation curious, yet again. the first static entry - 1354 - was recorded walking between grand marais and cabana, through what was a school yard. i didn't know where i was or what i was walking into, and the commentary was actually somewhat comical. i am disappointed in not having that recorded, whatever the reason. the second static entry - 1356 - was recorded at the intersection of cabana & the 401, and i was trying to figure the area out. i had not yet been to this part of windsor.

again - i don't know what happened, but it is at least consistent with the idea that i did not turn the camera on before i started talking into it, turned the camera on when i stopped talking, pulled it up to look at it and turned it off. i might have done that if i wasn't paying attention.

the other explanation is that somebody deleted the files.

i also have a clear recollection of filming quite a few more segments than appear and these segments would certainly appear to have been deleted at some point. again: i don't believe they would be recoverable at this point, and that's disappointing to me.

well, what i warned you about was the inevitability that christians and muslims would gang up on leftists, atheists, secularists, poor people and other marginalized groups and enforce their right-wing value systems, and what's happening in front of you?

if you're a christian, i was never on your side. you know that. and, i spoke out against this because i knew this would strengthen your power at my expense.

you must admit i was absolutely right.

and, my only recourse of defence is through court.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

no. i need to serve personally.

they have kids. somebody will be home at 7:00. i presume that mom is living there, right now.

if i can't get it to the landlord, i can give it to an adult member (it might be mom. maybe the husband.) and then mail a second copy of it the next day.

and, i have a week to keep trying...


it's a decent bike ride. nice nights. i'll enjoy it.

showing at 4:00. then, this gets done.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

no, i should sleep, and get back to it when i'm fresh.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

that wasn't as hard as i thought, after all. i just had to get my head around what i was actually doing, first. it developed quite quickly, after that.

i have my two documents done. now, i  need to get them into the hands of my landlord. i just need to make sure i understand those rules.

i'm also going to need to get some documents down to city hall, including a request for a transcript of the audio from the last court date.

i'm still awake, so i'm going to keep going. first showing today is at 4:00.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

step one.

done.

next, i need to get a list of the evidence. then i can serve. tomorrow, maybe...

i was going to drop it off, but i want to double check the rules around mailing. here's the thing: i fully expect them to lie and say they never got it. so, does that matter, really, if i mail it?

what if i use registered mail, or something? a tracking number...

i'll look into it.

Divisional Court, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N :

TA

Applicant

(Respondent in Appeal)

and

Jason Parent

Respondent

  (Appellant)

Proceeding under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

 NOTICE OF APPEAL

                THE APPELLANT, JASON PARENT, APPEALS to the Divisional Court from the order of Lorraine Mathers (Landlord and Tenant Board) dated Oct 23, 2017 made at London, Ontario.

                THE APPELLANT ASKS that the order be set aside and an order be granted dismissing the application dated Aug 30, 2017 brought by  to terminate the tenancy for landlord’s own use (the n12).

                THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are as follows: 

                Main Grounds under s. 83(3)

1.        Mandatory refusal applies to situations which the RTA provides are serious enough to justify refusal - regardless of any other circumstances. If a tenant raises circumstances which might fall into subsection 83(3), the Member must decide whether it applies (Forgie v. Widdicombe Place [2002] O.J. No. 2956 (Div. Ct.)). Further, once it is found that subsection (3) applies, the Member must refuse the eviction (Chin v. Hunt (1986), 17 O.A.C. 267 (Divisional Court)).

2.        Several pieces of evidence were presented to the board that raised circumstances which might fall into subsection 83(3) (see audio), and yet the board did not decide whether it applies, and did not refuse eviction. The board did not even analyze this evidence at all. Instead, it made it’s decision based entirely on other pieces of evidence and entirely on the question of good faith. This is an error in law, as the board decided not to address a question it was legally required to address, according to Forgie v. Widdicombe Place.

3.        Upon review, the reviewing member (Elizabeth Usprich) claimed that the board had broad discretion, implicitly citing the reasonableness standard of review. However, this is an error in law as the case law suggests that the board does not actually have broad discretion, must rule on the evidence when presented with it and must refuse eviction if necessary. In not upholding the existing precedent, the adjudicator exceeded her bounds and did not respect her jurisdiction.

4.        And, as the board does not have broad discretion under the case law, and the adjudicator must follow the existing precedent, this outcome does not fall into a range of acceptable outcomes. The adjudicator erred in not analyzing the evidence, at least. The question of the applicability of 83(3) should consequently be examined on a reasonableness standard of review: the divisional court must do the proper evidentiary analysis that the adjudicator failed to do.

5.        Further, given once again that the board does not have broad discretion under case law, and must follow the existing precedent, the outcome is also simply incorrect, and should be overturned on the correctness standard, as well. The adjudicator erred in not analyzing the evidence correctly, or even at all, and as a result of this came to the incorrect legal conclusion.

Specific Errors That Affected the Decision

6.        The adjudicator erred in claiming that “the tenant did not relate the particulars of what happened but only mentioned that she was verbally threatened with eviction”. An analysis of the audio will indicate that the tenant was in fact explicit about the particulars, and related it clearly to the previous case, SWT-01670-17, which was the primary basis of the defence under s. 83. The adjudicator could not have analyzed the relevant evidence under s. 83(3) if she claims it was never presented.

7.        The adjudicator erred in not drawing the obvious inference between the warning left on March 31^st and the previous case, SWT-01670-17. This was necessary in order to come to the proper conclusion. The adjudicator simply ignored the context around this evidence, then claimed the tenant never presented it.

8.        The adjudicator erred in deducing that a “written warning and final notice” is not a threat of imminent action, or indicative of an intent to evict.

9.        The adjudicator erred in not properly interpreting the letter left on April 1^st as an obvious set-up attempt.

10.     The adjudicator erred in claiming that “I note that there was no evidence in the Tenant’s email describing the events that suggested the Landlord threatened eviction”.

11.     The adjudicator erred in not properly interpreting the emails around the claimed difficulties in electronic payment on august 1^st as a clear documentation of a second obvious set-up attempt.

12.     The adjudicator erred in failing to note that the eviction notice presented on August 10^th was without cause (for being off of the property), and was a third clear obvious set-up attempt.

13.     The adjudicator erred in failing to note that the eviction notice presented on august 11^th was also without cause, and an actual clear admission of retaliatory action – a fourth obvious (if strange.) set-up attempt.

14.     The adjudicator erred in failing to deduce the obvious truth that re-serving already voided n4s is a clear indication of a desire to terminate the tenancy.

15.     The adjudicator erred in stating “Further the two letters the Tenant received gave no indication that the Landlords were seeking termination of the tenancy.”

16.     On review, the member (Elizabeth Usprich) erred in stating “First, if the Tenant did not raise that specific argument at the hearing it should have and could have been and therefore is not properly considered on review”. Forgie provides a clear precedent otherwise: that the adjudicator must interpret any evidence of this nature that exists. Yet, the fact is that the tenant did raise this argument, which can and will be demonstrated via the court audio.

17.     On review, the member (Elizabeth Usprich) erred in stating “The hearing member has broad discretion in issuing her order.”. Again, the precedent in Fergie and Chin is that the refusal is mandatory upon the existence of the relevant evidence

18.     On review, the member (Elizabeth Usprich) erred in stating “Rather it seems that the Tenant is attempting to re-argue his (sic) own position.”. Rather, it seems that the member is unaware of the proper precedent, in context.

General Error

19.     The board also made repeated errors in terms of the concept of a burden of proof, suggesting that it is the tenant’s responsibility to prove that the landlord is not in good faith. This is just a basic error of law as the burden of proof always lies with the party presenting the argument. We can’t have a system where landlords are free to make whatever claim they want, and just dare the tenants to prove them wrong, if they can. That’s really absolutely ridiculous: of course the burden of proof was with the applicant. These strange arguments may indicate a bias on behalf of this adjudicator towards property in general.

                THE BASIS OF THE APPELLATE COURT’S JURISDICTION IS: The appeal is from a final order of an adjudicator of an administrative tribunal, namely the Landlord and Tenant Board of Ontario.

                The appellant requests that this appeal be heard at 245 Windsor Ave, Windsor, Ontario.

 jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

getting there...

THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are as follows: 

                Main Grounds under s. 83(3)

1.        Mandatory refusal applies to situations which the RTA provides are serious enough to justify refusal - regardless of any other circumstances. If a tenant raises circumstances which might fall into subsection 83(3), the Member must decide whether it applies (Forgie v. Widdicombe Place [2002] O.J. No. 2956 (Div. Ct.)). Further, once it is found that subsection (3) applies, the Member must refuse the eviction (Chin v. Hunt (1986), 17 O.A.C. 267 (Divisional Court)).

2.        Several pieces of evidence were presented to the court that raised circumstances which might fall into subsection 83(3) (see audio), and yet the court did not decide whether it applies, and did not refuse eviction. The court did not even admit this evidence at all. Instead, it made it’s decision based entirely on other pieces of evidence and entirely on the question of good faith. This is an error in law, as the court decided not to address a question it was legally required to address.

3.        Upon review, the reviewing member claimed that the court had broad discretion, implicitly citing the reasonableness case of review. However, this is an error in law as the case law suggests that the court does not actually have broad discretion, must rule on the evidence and must refuse eviction if necessary.

4.        And, as the court does not have broad discretion under the case law, this outcome does not fall into a range of acceptable outcomes. The adjudicator erred in not analyzing the evidence, at least. This consequently should be re-examined on a reasonableness standard of review.

5.        Further, given once again that the court does not have discretion under case law, the outcome is also simply incorrect, and should be overturned on the correctness standard, as well. The adjudicator erred in not analyzing the evidence correctly, or even at all, and as a result of this came to the incorrect legal conclusion.

this is the meat and potatoes. i'll nitpick a few other things, because i can't bring anything new up after the fact, but this is what i'm focusing on.

i can't challenge the faith ruling. that's up to to the adjudicator - i have to wait until after the fact and sue, then. and had she examined the evidence, i'd have a hard time filling this out. but she was hasty. and maybe didn't take me seriously. and i have a good case for review, i really do.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

if i move, it will almost certainly be to toronto.

i have better access to trans doctors, there.

and i have no interest at all in moving back to ottawa.

i'd say 90% likelihood to toronto, vs. 10% likelihood to waterloo. those are the only two serious options, right now.

but, i'm going to need to exhaust my options on appeal, first. that will likely take a long time. i guess if it happens i'll have to put my things in storage and hitchhike down there and live in shelters until i find something.... then i'll have to ship my things from windsor to toronto....

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

yeah.

seems like that's right.

well, here's the thing - i came here because it was cheap. and, it was cheap because nobody wanted to live here because there aren't any job opportunities.

if the housing situation in windsor is going to stay like this because it's become a magnet for migrants, i might have to migrate somewhere else.

http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/a-year-later-almost-1000-syrians-at-home-in-windsor

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

you know, i have to wonder if the low vacancy rate here is a consequence of the high number of refugees that were settled here. it's less that prices have gone up and more that vacancy rates have gone down.

i was actually hoping that an influx of refugees would lead to an increase in public housing, but that hasn't happened; instead, vacancy rates have just decreased.

nor, did i expect windsor - which has the highest unemployment rate in the country - to be a prime destination for settlement. why would you put refugees in an area of high unemployment?

well, unless you want to increase rent. but, that's market theory. and, market theory is bullshit. again: the prices really aren't higher, there's just nowhere to move to.

but, these people don't want what i want. they want to generate income. they want fancy houses. they want to send their kids to school. so, they're apparently moving west in large numbers - where they're told there's more economic opportunity.

again: i don't really think that increasing immigration is going to solve the country's economic problems. but, at the least, let's bring in wealthy immigrants. bringing in refugees is just always going to be a net drain.

and, no, it's not their fault. they took an opportunity. blame the government, not the refugees. and, don't even blame the government for bringing them here - blame the government for not investing in them properly, once they did.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

you know, i might be able to win a case on reasonableness, anyways.

i would rather have the court consider correctness.

but, i guess the truth is that they're going to make that choice based on existing case law, and i don't even really get the benefit of a presentation. i'm going to throw all this shit down on the table, and they're the ones that are going to determine the correct standard of review.

reasonableness is supposed to provide for a lot of deference. but, it's not total. it needs to look at whether the ruling falls into a reasonable set of possible outcomes. the idea is that the court can set up a kind of multivalued function, but it's not supposed to pass judgement on the outcome, so long as it falls into the correct range it's defined in the mapping. but, it has to define the mapping, first. and, if i can convince the judge that the legislation is such that this outcome is outside of the proper mapping - because the adjudicator misinterpreted the evidence - then i could conceivably get the court to rule the outcome is unreasonable.

i should make both arguments.

1) the outcome is unreasonable, because the statue provides for minimal discretion.
2) the outcome is incorrect, because the statute provides for minimal discretion.

i guess the point is that the statute provides for minimal discretion, and she misinterpreted the evidence, producing a result that is both incorrect and unreasonable.

yeah.

ok.

i think i've got that clear in my head, now.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

this day was less productive than i wanted, but i feel like i'll be awake for a while still.

i did see one place. it was a basement, not an apartment. i need an apartment. i left some messages. i have some showings tomorrow.

i'm hoping to serve on thursday, if i can get the documents in line.

i have 30 business days to serve from the 27th, but i need to get it done with enough time to get the stay to the sheriff.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

"so, what work did you produce on your shift this afternoon?"

"seventeen hamburgers, thirteen fries and twelve milkshakes."

no. that's not work!

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

i abuse the language like everybody else, but virtually every job in this economy is neither a job, nor is it work. it is a slave relation that prevents an individual from carrying out meaningful labour, or doing meaningful work. for, every moment that is spent doing forced labour is a moment that is lost in free labour.

and, what drives all of this slavery is the market, under the tyranny of the necessity of rent.

in a capitalist economy, nobody chooses to work to pay rent. rather, we are enslaved to produce a surplus value for the rentier class. we are all prostitutes, so why punish prostitutes? and, that endemic slavery - which most of us don't even acknowledge - prevents us from working on meaningful projects like science, literature and art.

the market allows the ownership class to discard labour it does not feel is valuable. this surplus labour is then left to starve. this is the category i exist within, largely by choice. because i want to spend my time on meaningful work, not on the forced labour that defines our economy.

but, in enlightened societies, the state steps in to stop nature from running it's course.

we need more subsidized housing. that's where i should be. that's what i need. that's what i want.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

it wouldn't make any sense for me to go out in a murder-suicide until i'm done my discography - and, even then, i've still got a lot of writing to do.

see, this is the point you're missing: my rejection of capitalism is not a reflection of my disinterest in meaningful work, but of the wasteful non-work that it forces almost everybody to engage in. capitalism is not work. capitalism is pointless labour, in the absence of meaningful work.

and, i have no interest in family or status; if i had a family (and i did...), i'd reject it (and i did...).

might i kill you all in the end? well, there's some logic in it. but, it's going to be a long time before this presents itself to me as a serious option.

right now, i need to find some place to exist to finish my discography in. i thought it was here. it should have been. but, i can't control who buys the building.

i'm not done here, yet, either. i'm making a good faith effort to find something. but, i'll probably be in this building for another five or six months, at least.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

see, i'm vocal about a hands-off non-issue type approach - but that means allowing volunteer sites like this to operate.

you can be certain that it was shut down by local property owners concerned about resale values. and, i might suggest that they try some place a little more secluded.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/overdose-prevention-ottawa-closes-1.4391753

fwiw, i acknowledge that there are some fraying edges around the park that could just as well be developed than not, but i actually rather like the lebreton flats the way they are.

it's a very nice place to ride a bicycle.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

look up some pictures of the pontiac silverdome..

this arena isn't likely to find an alternate use. it's too big. and, there isn't anything else in ottawa. unless they plan to get a basketball team. and, of course, they don't.

i saw a few concerts there in '96 and '97. i don't think i've been there since.

the stadium is very far out of town, and surrounded by wealthy suburbs. and i understand that it's privately owned. but you'd hope people would see the value of the space as emergency shelter before they allow it to fall apart altogether.

it could solve the homeless problem in ottawa overnight.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/senators-canadian-tire-centre-lebreton-1.4390956

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

"but the saudis tried to take the syrians out via isis and failed."

yeah.

that's why they just spent trillions of dollars on arms purchases: covert action was a disaster.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard

this century's sickman of europe is russia.

obama made some major tactical errors, right when putin was about to be check mated. but it just let him play the game out.

the chinese are still ultimately a terrible ally, and still ultimately keen on taking control of the eastern part of asia for themselves.

expect an eventual russian dismemberment. the western preoccupation in doing so may, in the end, be the factor that allows the chinese to win, outright.

in the long run, a united asia under state socialism will be good for prosperity and peace. but, it will require a struggle for civil rights.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

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.

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.

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.

the last job i had was in 2008.

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.

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.

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.

the cold, rational truth is that this woman ignored very good evidence and a very clear law in front of her and instead made the conscientious choice to toss a disabled person out on the street.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 did like the pit bull ban, though.

hopefully, city council hangs on to that.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

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.

this is the vlog for nov 3-5, where i close inri057, go to see lee renaldo in detroit and don't get home until the next morning.

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.

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.

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.

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.

so, what is it that you don't believe in, then?

is it nuclear reactions, or 12-space?

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.

yeah.

well, how about this frankie - why don't we continue this discussion when you tell me what school you got your biology degree from.

what's that? oh. the school of infallifuckingbility, huh? right. well, that's what i thought.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

i mean, there's been all this talk for years: "should elizabeth may step down?".

i think the green party should throw her out.

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.

no.

screw it.

this is a 4xcd set, and that's all there is to it.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

on second thought, i don't like the idea of having two different versions of the same release.

so, it's going to be two double hybrid eps: a double hybrid double ep. but, note that both of the hybrid double eps can be split into doubles...

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

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.

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). 

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) 

 

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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). 

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. 

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

also, just to kind of get a point across...

it doesn't cost me anything to go to court.

and, nobody's ever going to collect on any damages, either.

i have better things to do, of course. but, this is of minimal risk to me...

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.

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.

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.

and, yes - i'm scared fucking shitless of christians!

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.

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 think i've ever said anything nice about the arcade fire.

that's over a decade of negativity, now.

if you were expecting me there, you've deeply misunderstood me; i think they're terrible, and always have.

sorry. that's not me. wrong person...

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.