i still don't know what's going on, exactly, and, at this point, i guess i'll have to accept that i never will.
but, the fact is that we got along well for over five years after we split up. we'd go for lunch periodically - often around her birthday. i remember when i took her to mexis when she got pregnant the first time, and convinced her to start eating meat - a year after we broke up. i remember going for a walk with her near dow's lake around the tulip festival, three years after we broke up.
she invited me for dinner in her apartment four years after we broke up, and asked me to bring flour. i brought flowers. get it?
it was around this time that i rejected a threesome with her. she got a little weird after that...
but, she didn't really get distant until i told her i was back on hormones, about 2010ish - 6 years after we broke up.
and, as far as i can tell, what's actually going on is that she's mad at me for being queer.
a year after the fact, two years after the fact, three years after the fact, i thought she'd get over it. at this point, it doesn't seem like she is going to get over it...
Sunday, August 5, 2018
so, let's say you've got a friend, and that friend is important to you - and you think you're important to that friend, too.
and, yeah, maybe you've had sex with that friend in the past, but, since then, things have changed - maybe the friend has children to raise (and maybe you don't want to be a part of a family, or don't want to take on that responsibility), and maybe you've even gone through a gender transition, in the mean time, so that you and your friend actually identify as the same gender, and in fact always did, over the entire length of time you've been friends.
now, let's say that your friend gets the idea that you're trying to sleep with them, and have been trying to sleep with them for years, and the whole friendship was a ruse - despite the fact that you actually haven't demonstrated any sexual interest in your friend at all, or even any sexual interest in your friend's entire gender for years and years.
what the fuck do you do in this situation?
it's a catch-22.
you could try and call your friend and explain that you're not sexually interested in them at all - but, if your friend is convinced of this, repeated calls are just evidence of pestering for more sex.
you could try and show up at your friend's house and explain it, but if your friend is convinced of a sexual motive, however flimsily, and refuses to talk to you, then that is also just more evidence of a sexual advance.
further, you can't just ignore the situation - because unless you get your friend to get this crazy idea out of their head, they're going to spread rumours about it, and it's going to have a negative effect on you.
so, in order to get your friend to knock off the delusion, you have to keep trying to talk to the friend - which just proves, in your friend's mind, how obsessed you are with the imaginary sexual advance.
the surreal part of this is in the idea that your friend could be so daft. it's not such a crazy thing to imagine, excepting the clause that your friend couldn't really be that stupid, right?
well, maybe your friend really is that stupid.
but, the other possibility is that your friend could be reacting to the lack of interest. maybe your friend had more romantic interest in you than you had in them, and is angry at you for not reciprocating - and so is fabricating a scenario, for some kind of gain. maybe the friend is a little embarrassed about some aspect of the situation; and, falling for a queer person that just wants to be your friend (but really does want to be your friend) is kind of embarrassing on some level, sure. maybe the friend is mad about the lack of interest in raising the kids, or about the gender transition. maybe the friend is holding a grudge over the rejection of their own previous advances, and looking to get back at you.
i guess the lesson to learn is that this person isn't really your friend, at all, are they?
but, regardless, the necessity to get your "friend" to acknowledge that there never was an advance remains - and the catch-22 continues into perpetuity, until they admit it.
and, yeah, maybe you've had sex with that friend in the past, but, since then, things have changed - maybe the friend has children to raise (and maybe you don't want to be a part of a family, or don't want to take on that responsibility), and maybe you've even gone through a gender transition, in the mean time, so that you and your friend actually identify as the same gender, and in fact always did, over the entire length of time you've been friends.
now, let's say that your friend gets the idea that you're trying to sleep with them, and have been trying to sleep with them for years, and the whole friendship was a ruse - despite the fact that you actually haven't demonstrated any sexual interest in your friend at all, or even any sexual interest in your friend's entire gender for years and years.
what the fuck do you do in this situation?
it's a catch-22.
you could try and call your friend and explain that you're not sexually interested in them at all - but, if your friend is convinced of this, repeated calls are just evidence of pestering for more sex.
you could try and show up at your friend's house and explain it, but if your friend is convinced of a sexual motive, however flimsily, and refuses to talk to you, then that is also just more evidence of a sexual advance.
further, you can't just ignore the situation - because unless you get your friend to get this crazy idea out of their head, they're going to spread rumours about it, and it's going to have a negative effect on you.
so, in order to get your friend to knock off the delusion, you have to keep trying to talk to the friend - which just proves, in your friend's mind, how obsessed you are with the imaginary sexual advance.
the surreal part of this is in the idea that your friend could be so daft. it's not such a crazy thing to imagine, excepting the clause that your friend couldn't really be that stupid, right?
well, maybe your friend really is that stupid.
but, the other possibility is that your friend could be reacting to the lack of interest. maybe your friend had more romantic interest in you than you had in them, and is angry at you for not reciprocating - and so is fabricating a scenario, for some kind of gain. maybe the friend is a little embarrassed about some aspect of the situation; and, falling for a queer person that just wants to be your friend (but really does want to be your friend) is kind of embarrassing on some level, sure. maybe the friend is mad about the lack of interest in raising the kids, or about the gender transition. maybe the friend is holding a grudge over the rejection of their own previous advances, and looking to get back at you.
i guess the lesson to learn is that this person isn't really your friend, at all, are they?
but, regardless, the necessity to get your "friend" to acknowledge that there never was an advance remains - and the catch-22 continues into perpetuity, until they admit it.
Saturday, August 4, 2018
i think i've been clear that i'm somebody that prefers to spend time by myself.
but - and i know this is hard to understand - a lot of it is due to the fact that i have this giant workload ahead of me.
i could get a job.
i could find a partner.
i could try and find a group of friends.
but, i'd rather stay in and continue to work towards completing all of these projects i've set up. that's just the flat truth of it.
the one counter-example to this rule is that i like to go to concerts. the fact is that that's pretty much the only reason why i want to leave the house. further, when i'm at the concerts, i tend to need some inebriation to deal with the social anxiety.
and, what do you call somebody that would rather sit in and read than go out? we're called introverts. we're a minority, but we're not that uncommon
but - and i know this is hard to understand - a lot of it is due to the fact that i have this giant workload ahead of me.
i could get a job.
i could find a partner.
i could try and find a group of friends.
but, i'd rather stay in and continue to work towards completing all of these projects i've set up. that's just the flat truth of it.
the one counter-example to this rule is that i like to go to concerts. the fact is that that's pretty much the only reason why i want to leave the house. further, when i'm at the concerts, i tend to need some inebriation to deal with the social anxiety.
and, what do you call somebody that would rather sit in and read than go out? we're called introverts. we're a minority, but we're not that uncommon
Friday, August 3, 2018
i really honestly don't know what it is, but i know it's not pot.
i caught the neighbour - the same one i'm yelling at - walking around in circles muttering to herself, today. i'm not sure if she knew where she really was; she was obviously very dramatically fucked up. it seemed more meth-like. but, i don't really know.
i caught the neighbour - the same one i'm yelling at - walking around in circles muttering to herself, today. i'm not sure if she knew where she really was; she was obviously very dramatically fucked up. it seemed more meth-like. but, i don't really know.
i don't know what they've been smoking since the first of the month down there, when the checks came in, but it smells like burning plastic.
meth?
crack?
i already went through this.
i really haven't been dealing with that issue for months. i don't know what's brought it back, again. but, it's actually really suffocating. like, if you get a whiff of it, it feels like you inhaled some kind of poison, and you're choking.
i'm still totally straight edge, since the end of may.
and, if i end up moving away from here in mid september or early october, so that future concerts are in toronto, there's a good chance i've smoked my last cigarette. ever.
meth?
crack?
i already went through this.
i really haven't been dealing with that issue for months. i don't know what's brought it back, again. but, it's actually really suffocating. like, if you get a whiff of it, it feels like you inhaled some kind of poison, and you're choking.
i'm still totally straight edge, since the end of may.
and, if i end up moving away from here in mid september or early october, so that future concerts are in toronto, there's a good chance i've smoked my last cigarette. ever.
see, this is the right narrative: we don't have a refugee crisis, so much as we have a broader housing crisis. the 50,000 syrian refugees, plus the 80,000 (documented) border crossers, are just making that fact obvious.
and, again: that might not seem like a lot of people, but it is when you understand that they're competing with our most vulnerable citizens (like me) for already stretched resources.
i can articulate myself relatively well. the other people in my socio-economic category mostly can't. so, you don't hear from them. but, they're there, and they're struggling, and this is making things worse.
we need to get the right story out if we want the right actions taken.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/02/05/refugees-needs-expose-canadas-housing-crisis.html
and, again: that might not seem like a lot of people, but it is when you understand that they're competing with our most vulnerable citizens (like me) for already stretched resources.
i can articulate myself relatively well. the other people in my socio-economic category mostly can't. so, you don't hear from them. but, they're there, and they're struggling, and this is making things worse.
we need to get the right story out if we want the right actions taken.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/02/05/refugees-needs-expose-canadas-housing-crisis.html
so long as we've got homeless refugees everywhere, and low income canadians feeling the pressures from it, the government just comes off as incompetent - but the kind of people likely to get galvanized by this are conservatives, anyways. online polling is only ever able to be useful by coincidence, but if you're going to pull anything out of it, that's the message - this is red meat for the rural conservative base, which the conservatives needs to get beyond to win elections.
but, if the liberals can frame the issue as a choice between spending tax money helping people and sending them away - and then actually build the necessary housing - then they're going to win the argument.
we don't imagine that taking in refugees means putting them in dorm rooms and then letting them loose on the free market; if that's what we're doing, we're mismanaging something. we imagine that taking in refugees is a process overseen and planned by a centralized body, and that success means finding them good housing and giving them the resources they need to thrive.
so, the government needs to make a choice: close the borders, or pony up and do it right. canadians will support the expenditure, but we want to see better results.
but, if the liberals can frame the issue as a choice between spending tax money helping people and sending them away - and then actually build the necessary housing - then they're going to win the argument.
we don't imagine that taking in refugees means putting them in dorm rooms and then letting them loose on the free market; if that's what we're doing, we're mismanaging something. we imagine that taking in refugees is a process overseen and planned by a centralized body, and that success means finding them good housing and giving them the resources they need to thrive.
so, the government needs to make a choice: close the borders, or pony up and do it right. canadians will support the expenditure, but we want to see better results.
people in canada would not generally consider immigration to be a ballot question.
but, the low vacancy rate could very well be a liability for the liberals.
personally? there is a 0% chance that i'm going to vote for the conservative party, nor would the conservatives be articulating policies designed to reduce the vacancy rate or create affordable housing and whatnot. they don't actually have an answer to the problem.
traditionally, urban canadians have looked to the ndp to address these concerns, but they aren't doing it.
if the liberals get some shovels in the ground and make a big deal of it, they could take away an issue that the ndp should be all over.
but, the low vacancy rate could very well be a liability for the liberals.
personally? there is a 0% chance that i'm going to vote for the conservative party, nor would the conservatives be articulating policies designed to reduce the vacancy rate or create affordable housing and whatnot. they don't actually have an answer to the problem.
traditionally, urban canadians have looked to the ndp to address these concerns, but they aren't doing it.
if the liberals get some shovels in the ground and make a big deal of it, they could take away an issue that the ndp should be all over.
this was supposed to be the thing that made our immigration system so much better: we didn't open the gates to poor people and tell them to work their way up, we insisted that if you want to come here, you'd have to already have wealth.
as a consequence of the more selective immigration process, we didn't develop slums or ghettoes, and we didn't have the accompanying increases in crime that come attached with widespread poverty.
we also had the resources required to effectively deal with our own poor.
there never was a "canadian dream" - we rejected that as naive, american utopianism.
but, we seem intent on repeating their errors. and, if we do, we will end up with the same consequences.
as a consequence of the more selective immigration process, we didn't develop slums or ghettoes, and we didn't have the accompanying increases in crime that come attached with widespread poverty.
we also had the resources required to effectively deal with our own poor.
there never was a "canadian dream" - we rejected that as naive, american utopianism.
but, we seem intent on repeating their errors. and, if we do, we will end up with the same consequences.
the actual error that the government is making, the root of the problem, is in thinking that class mobility is not just possible, but easy - and maybe even that some trivial tax adjustments will have some effect on it.
in fact, the actual empirical reality is that there is almost no class mobility at all in this society, and that what class mobility does exist is largely downwards.
what we need at this point in time is for the government to put a bigger emphasis on redistributive policies; increasing the number of poor people is not going to somehow lead to greater class mobility, but just exacerbate the problems around poverty that we already have.
in fact, the actual empirical reality is that there is almost no class mobility at all in this society, and that what class mobility does exist is largely downwards.
what we need at this point in time is for the government to put a bigger emphasis on redistributive policies; increasing the number of poor people is not going to somehow lead to greater class mobility, but just exacerbate the problems around poverty that we already have.
so i'm sending applications to non-smoking buildings, and they're telling me "actually, people smoke here, fuck off", which is the wrong answer - they should be telling me that they're eager to hear from me, and eager to throw the smokers out.
it's that attitude i'm looking for, first and foremost. a property manager can't control everything that happens on the property, but they can commit to standing on the right side of history.
otherwise, what's the point? it's just another smoking building. and, they're going to have a hard time converting a smoking building into a non-smoking building if they just tell the non-smokers that the place is full of smoke...
it's that attitude i'm looking for, first and foremost. a property manager can't control everything that happens on the property, but they can commit to standing on the right side of history.
otherwise, what's the point? it's just another smoking building. and, they're going to have a hard time converting a smoking building into a non-smoking building if they just tell the non-smokers that the place is full of smoke...
so, what does it mean to advertise a non-smoking building?
i understand that it may not necessarily mean that the building is completely smoke-free, at this exact time. but, what it should mean is that the landlord is broadcasting that it will aggressively seek to remove smoking tenants when they are disturbing non-smoking tenants.
the point of difficulty seems to be in getting property managers to deal with it. this is no doubt in some way a function of laziness, but it's no doubt a mental block, as well - even if these people don't smoke, because a lot of them are older, and this city is stuck in the past, they have astoundingly out-of-date attitudes towards smoking. they don't think it's a big deal, and they're going to look at the non-smokers as the troublemakers.
but, when you are advertising a non-smoking building, what you should be broadcasting is the opposite: that you will not take the side of smokers, and that you will act aggressively to stand up for the rights of non-smokers.
otherwise, it's just false advertising.
i understand that it may not necessarily mean that the building is completely smoke-free, at this exact time. but, what it should mean is that the landlord is broadcasting that it will aggressively seek to remove smoking tenants when they are disturbing non-smoking tenants.
the point of difficulty seems to be in getting property managers to deal with it. this is no doubt in some way a function of laziness, but it's no doubt a mental block, as well - even if these people don't smoke, because a lot of them are older, and this city is stuck in the past, they have astoundingly out-of-date attitudes towards smoking. they don't think it's a big deal, and they're going to look at the non-smokers as the troublemakers.
but, when you are advertising a non-smoking building, what you should be broadcasting is the opposite: that you will not take the side of smokers, and that you will act aggressively to stand up for the rights of non-smokers.
otherwise, it's just false advertising.
Thursday, August 2, 2018
if it wasn't for the fact that i have so much work to do, getting a job might not even be so terrible.
i truly didn't mind working in a call centre, walking distance from my apartment, for a shift or two a week. it's been a long time. and, i haven't done it since for the simple reason that i haven't had to...
but, the question i've always asked is this: what is the actual value of telling me to sit on a phone for 10 hours a week? why is that important? who cares?
i truly didn't mind working in a call centre, walking distance from my apartment, for a shift or two a week. it's been a long time. and, i haven't done it since for the simple reason that i haven't had to...
but, the question i've always asked is this: what is the actual value of telling me to sit on a phone for 10 hours a week? why is that important? who cares?
listen, i'm not in the category of people that sits around on the couch all day watching oprah and smoking drugs. i work 20 hour days at no profit. i'm mostly straight edge. i spend so much time working, that i don't have time for friends or family.....or a job, for that matter.
the fact is that i'm a workaholic.
so, the question isn't whether i work or not - i'm the hardest working person you'll ever meet.
the question is whether the work i do has a market for it, and it clearly doesn't. but i don't care.
so, the only hard work you're going to incentivize from me is trying to figure out how to avoid wasting my time generating a profit for somebody else - because i have no interest in doing this.
and, trust me - i will do everything i possibly can to avoid being sent to do a job i don't care about.
the fact is that i'm a workaholic.
so, the question isn't whether i work or not - i'm the hardest working person you'll ever meet.
the question is whether the work i do has a market for it, and it clearly doesn't. but i don't care.
so, the only hard work you're going to incentivize from me is trying to figure out how to avoid wasting my time generating a profit for somebody else - because i have no interest in doing this.
and, trust me - i will do everything i possibly can to avoid being sent to do a job i don't care about.
"well, maybe they're still impoverished and ignorant, but if we take away their guns then they can't hurt anybody, right? and, what else are we going to do? redistribute wealth? ahahaha! i would rather they all kill each other off than toss them a dime of my own inheritance. just take away their guns, and let them throw temper tantrums in their own filth."
i suspect the rural caucus is not amused right now.
when i was a kid, back in the day, the ndp i grew up with would have argued that the way to approach gun violence is to get to the root causes of social inequality and alienation by funding social programs that educate people and help get them out of poverty, not pass an authoritarian law that is just going to create a black market.
it's quite a bourgeois position to think you can solve the consequences of poverty by taking away affected people's guns. truly.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/08/02/jagmeet-singh-trudeau-handguns_a_23494782/
when i was a kid, back in the day, the ndp i grew up with would have argued that the way to approach gun violence is to get to the root causes of social inequality and alienation by funding social programs that educate people and help get them out of poverty, not pass an authoritarian law that is just going to create a black market.
it's quite a bourgeois position to think you can solve the consequences of poverty by taking away affected people's guns. truly.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/08/02/jagmeet-singh-trudeau-handguns_a_23494782/
nah.
i spent a while mentally calculating space, and even if i use one of the tiny bedrooms as an eat-in kitchen, and the living room as a studio, it's still a pinch.
this goofy rental company is never even close on it's square footage. it said 600 square feet; i'd guess it's closer to 400. the bedrooms were like 6x10. i'd be happy with 10x10.
i'm not convinced the place was non-smoking, either.
i would have lowballed closer to $700 than $750, but didn't, in the end.
i spent a while mentally calculating space, and even if i use one of the tiny bedrooms as an eat-in kitchen, and the living room as a studio, it's still a pinch.
this goofy rental company is never even close on it's square footage. it said 600 square feet; i'd guess it's closer to 400. the bedrooms were like 6x10. i'd be happy with 10x10.
i'm not convinced the place was non-smoking, either.
i would have lowballed closer to $700 than $750, but didn't, in the end.
see, i'm actually in a fairly strong position for the next few days.
i'm going to see something tonight that is available immediately. like, i could move tomorrow. this unit has been evacuated, and the owner is losing money from it sitting.
i, on the other hand, did not pay rent this month - or, i did, but it was wiped out by the order.
so, i have the leverage.
and, i'm considering coming in a little low, if i like it.
i'm going to see something tonight that is available immediately. like, i could move tomorrow. this unit has been evacuated, and the owner is losing money from it sitting.
i, on the other hand, did not pay rent this month - or, i did, but it was wiped out by the order.
so, i have the leverage.
and, i'm considering coming in a little low, if i like it.
so, what does that mean for me, budget wise?
well, as of this moment, i have ~$2850 in the bank. another $650 is $3500.
so, subtracting my $1000 buffer out, i have $2500 to spend on the move - including last, but not first, which will come to me at the beginning of the month. if i work in the next $1150, that's more like $3500+, for moving costs, first & last.
if i find something in another city close to here - niagara, hamilton - for $650-700, that leaves me with close to $2000 to move there with. i should come out ahead on that. do i want to?
on the other hand, if i subtract out $300 from the $3500, i'm left with $3200 to apply. that needs to include first and last, and i was thinking it would make sense to apply some kind of concept of inflation, but that doesn't really add up - any increase in rent is going to also inflate, at a higher level, so, no matter how i look at it, it's eventually going to run out. i mean, that is obvious, but actually doing the math pulls out a trivial rent increase - $25-50 - as worth looking at.
so, i can't really look at this like that. i'm still basically looking at the same price range - which is around $700 preferably, and $800 max. if the payout was more in the $5000 range, i could look at something more expensive; it isn't.
it does open up a more serious ability to move....
well, as of this moment, i have ~$2850 in the bank. another $650 is $3500.
so, subtracting my $1000 buffer out, i have $2500 to spend on the move - including last, but not first, which will come to me at the beginning of the month. if i work in the next $1150, that's more like $3500+, for moving costs, first & last.
if i find something in another city close to here - niagara, hamilton - for $650-700, that leaves me with close to $2000 to move there with. i should come out ahead on that. do i want to?
on the other hand, if i subtract out $300 from the $3500, i'm left with $3200 to apply. that needs to include first and last, and i was thinking it would make sense to apply some kind of concept of inflation, but that doesn't really add up - any increase in rent is going to also inflate, at a higher level, so, no matter how i look at it, it's eventually going to run out. i mean, that is obvious, but actually doing the math pulls out a trivial rent increase - $25-50 - as worth looking at.
so, i can't really look at this like that. i'm still basically looking at the same price range - which is around $700 preferably, and $800 max. if the payout was more in the $5000 range, i could look at something more expensive; it isn't.
it does open up a more serious ability to move....
to put it another way: i don't really see a difference between christians and muslims, and tend to look down on them in much the same way.
i think that's unusual, still.
people that have no problem criticizing christianity tend to get strangely silent on islam; people that criticize islam don't tend to bother with christianity, or even go so far as to identify as christians.
but, they're the exact fucking same kind of stupid, as far as i'm concerned.
i think that's unusual, still.
people that have no problem criticizing christianity tend to get strangely silent on islam; people that criticize islam don't tend to bother with christianity, or even go so far as to identify as christians.
but, they're the exact fucking same kind of stupid, as far as i'm concerned.
if you are curious....
....and i think i've said this before....
my parents were not religious. my father was technically a catholic, but i never saw him go to church, once. my stepmother found religion late in life; he and i usually went for brunch on sunday mornings when she was at church. he wasn't a bad person, but all he really cared about was sports.
my stepmother was the perfect example of the statement: "only immoral people need to go to church". that woman is/was wicked to the core - the worst human being i've ever met, by a good margin.
my mother would have been raised anglican. she's an addict, so she's been through the 12 steps, and i guess it's left her as some kind of unread deist. i mean, she's not going to go spouting deist philosophy or anything. if anything, i'd be more likely to label her a laveyan satanist.
with the exception of a few outings with a stepfather around the age of ten, i did not go to sunday school as a child. i was not raised with religious values. i don't have catholic guilt, or much of any internalized rejection or rebellion - the only meaningful religious instruction i ever received was at school, and i was kind of taught not to take it seriously. i always took it as an anthropology course, really.
i don't have latent christian values or traditions. i don't celebrate easter or christmas, and never really did. i don't have memories of christian family rituals. i don't have obscure memories of protestant work ethics or values.
i was very honestly raised an atheist. at eight, nine years old i was staying up all night on saturday reading stephen king or isaac asimov novels, falling asleep when the sun came up and just sleeping in on sunday. a little older, and i was in the basement studio all night.
i consequently understand religion exclusively through a leftist historical filter - i have a purely marxist conception of religion, as it came to me largely through secular literature. religion was always a retarding force in society. it was religion that acted as a stop on scientific inquiry, and kept us ignorant and backwards. i've pointed out before that it's more asimov than dawkins, but i would have sounded very much like a little dawkins at as young as eight years old.
so, when i attack christians, i'm not attacking myself. i never was one. it's not some proof i'm not a racist, although i'm not a racist; christianity is as much the other as any other religion is, to me. nor is christianity very white, really - the indigenous religions of europe are mostly lost, but would have been rather tribal and animalistic. christianity was invented in the middle east and brought to europe by brown people, in the world's first example of colonialism.
the point is that i'm not exaggerating when i tell you i'm as harsh on christianity, if not harsher on christianity, as i am on other religions. people don't seem to expect that, for some reason. i don't really know why.
i just try to be as factual as possible in assigning effects to causes. we elected a government with strong fundamentalist christian voices in it, but it is due mostly to the increasing presence of islam - church attendance rates continue to dwindle, while muslims are taking over entire neighbourhoods.
my goal is simply to be as accurate as possible.
but, yes: you should expect a lot of attacks on christianity, so long as we have christians in office, and their policies sound fundamentalist in nature or scope.
....and i think i've said this before....
my parents were not religious. my father was technically a catholic, but i never saw him go to church, once. my stepmother found religion late in life; he and i usually went for brunch on sunday mornings when she was at church. he wasn't a bad person, but all he really cared about was sports.
my stepmother was the perfect example of the statement: "only immoral people need to go to church". that woman is/was wicked to the core - the worst human being i've ever met, by a good margin.
my mother would have been raised anglican. she's an addict, so she's been through the 12 steps, and i guess it's left her as some kind of unread deist. i mean, she's not going to go spouting deist philosophy or anything. if anything, i'd be more likely to label her a laveyan satanist.
with the exception of a few outings with a stepfather around the age of ten, i did not go to sunday school as a child. i was not raised with religious values. i don't have catholic guilt, or much of any internalized rejection or rebellion - the only meaningful religious instruction i ever received was at school, and i was kind of taught not to take it seriously. i always took it as an anthropology course, really.
i don't have latent christian values or traditions. i don't celebrate easter or christmas, and never really did. i don't have memories of christian family rituals. i don't have obscure memories of protestant work ethics or values.
i was very honestly raised an atheist. at eight, nine years old i was staying up all night on saturday reading stephen king or isaac asimov novels, falling asleep when the sun came up and just sleeping in on sunday. a little older, and i was in the basement studio all night.
i consequently understand religion exclusively through a leftist historical filter - i have a purely marxist conception of religion, as it came to me largely through secular literature. religion was always a retarding force in society. it was religion that acted as a stop on scientific inquiry, and kept us ignorant and backwards. i've pointed out before that it's more asimov than dawkins, but i would have sounded very much like a little dawkins at as young as eight years old.
so, when i attack christians, i'm not attacking myself. i never was one. it's not some proof i'm not a racist, although i'm not a racist; christianity is as much the other as any other religion is, to me. nor is christianity very white, really - the indigenous religions of europe are mostly lost, but would have been rather tribal and animalistic. christianity was invented in the middle east and brought to europe by brown people, in the world's first example of colonialism.
the point is that i'm not exaggerating when i tell you i'm as harsh on christianity, if not harsher on christianity, as i am on other religions. people don't seem to expect that, for some reason. i don't really know why.
i just try to be as factual as possible in assigning effects to causes. we elected a government with strong fundamentalist christian voices in it, but it is due mostly to the increasing presence of islam - church attendance rates continue to dwindle, while muslims are taking over entire neighbourhoods.
my goal is simply to be as accurate as possible.
but, yes: you should expect a lot of attacks on christianity, so long as we have christians in office, and their policies sound fundamentalist in nature or scope.
"canada's so cool."
yeah.
we're so cool that we just elected a climate-change-denying, gay-bashing, services-cutting christian redneck in our biggest province, because he tricked clueless recent immigrants into voting for him with empty, mindless rhetoric that anybody born here on a day before yesterday could have seen through in a second.
really fucking cool.
best fucking country in the world.
yeah.
we're so cool that we just elected a climate-change-denying, gay-bashing, services-cutting christian redneck in our biggest province, because he tricked clueless recent immigrants into voting for him with empty, mindless rhetoric that anybody born here on a day before yesterday could have seen through in a second.
really fucking cool.
best fucking country in the world.
you may have better things to say about tolerance than i do; i'm not exactly a fan.
but, whatever you think of tolerance, you have to understand that you're only a liberal society when liberals can generate 51% of the vote.
when liberals lose their majority in california or new york due to heavy migration from conservative societies, the society in california and/or new york will shift to the right, too.
that's what happened in ontario.
the conservatives did it on purpose. if you didn't know better, you might think the liberals did, too.
you don't think those corporate dems wouldn't like less hippies and more muslims voting in the primaries?
be careful.
and observe your own future if you don't wise up to the facts...
but, whatever you think of tolerance, you have to understand that you're only a liberal society when liberals can generate 51% of the vote.
when liberals lose their majority in california or new york due to heavy migration from conservative societies, the society in california and/or new york will shift to the right, too.
that's what happened in ontario.
the conservatives did it on purpose. if you didn't know better, you might think the liberals did, too.
you don't think those corporate dems wouldn't like less hippies and more muslims voting in the primaries?
be careful.
and observe your own future if you don't wise up to the facts...
the ndp elected a clown, and it has left them as an unserious option.
that's not even true; the ndp got co-opted by a clown, who is unlikely to even win a seat.
he could always shave his beard, you know...
until then, the liberals are going to have no serious pressure on their left, and slowly align with the conservatives, as they always do without leftward pressure.
the country is in a serious political crisis that we're not going to find a way out of until we can organize properly on the left, again. the right vehicle is probably the greens, but we have to find a way to forcefully destroy elizabeth may, first.
that's not even true; the ndp got co-opted by a clown, who is unlikely to even win a seat.
he could always shave his beard, you know...
until then, the liberals are going to have no serious pressure on their left, and slowly align with the conservatives, as they always do without leftward pressure.
the country is in a serious political crisis that we're not going to find a way out of until we can organize properly on the left, again. the right vehicle is probably the greens, but we have to find a way to forcefully destroy elizabeth may, first.
“I think that when you’re encouraging people to accept money without
strings attached, it really doesn’t send the message that I think our
ministry and our government wants to send.”
because you're a dipshit calvinist lunatic that gets her understanding of the world from the back of a dark age mythological text?
because you're a dipshit calvinist lunatic that gets her understanding of the world from the back of a dark age mythological text?
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
again: this is simply embarassing.
more pollution! more profit!
fucking idiots...
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/08/01/trudeau-carbon-tax_a_23493952/?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=spotim_recirculation&spotim_referrer=recirculation
more pollution! more profit!
fucking idiots...
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/08/01/trudeau-carbon-tax_a_23493952/?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=spotim_recirculation&spotim_referrer=recirculation
sorry, if you didn't get that - note that assault is considered a type of trespass, namely trespass into bodily autonomy.
if drifting smoke is trespassing on property, and it is well established that it is, then why isn't involuntary exposure to second-hand smoke trespassing on bodily autonomy, and therefore assault?
logically, it ought to be - with little ambiguity.
hrmnn.
if drifting smoke is trespassing on property, and it is well established that it is, then why isn't involuntary exposure to second-hand smoke trespassing on bodily autonomy, and therefore assault?
logically, it ought to be - with little ambiguity.
hrmnn.
if this goes full kafka, note this fact: the court tends to usually accept some concept of self-defence as a valid defence.
so, a woman can defend herself against getting raped - and a non-smoker can take some action to prevent smoke from entering their space.
the reality is that charging me with harassment for yelling at a smoker blowing smoke into my apartment, the existence of a reasonable invocation of fear or not, would be legally equivalent to charging a rape victim with assault for defending herself. it's a waste of everybody's time, and almost certain to get the cop fired.
so, a woman can defend herself against getting raped - and a non-smoker can take some action to prevent smoke from entering their space.
the reality is that charging me with harassment for yelling at a smoker blowing smoke into my apartment, the existence of a reasonable invocation of fear or not, would be legally equivalent to charging a rape victim with assault for defending herself. it's a waste of everybody's time, and almost certain to get the cop fired.
so, the neighbours are trying to charge me with harassment for yelling at them to not smoke beside my window.
in canada, the legal test for harassment revolves around the question of fear; they're simply wrong in their understanding of the law.
but, it's got me wondering if i might have a case against them for harassment. i've been focusing on nuisance. but, let's think this through.
this person has repeatedly come to my dwelling place and emitted noxious, carcinogenic chemicals into my living space. is it not the case that my reaction is rooted in fear - fear of annoying levels of sickness in the short term, and more dangerous ones in the long run?
see, and the difference is this: i'm in my dwelling place. i can't go live somewhere else (at least not yet). but, she could go smoke somewhere else. so, i am not going to her dwelling place, but she is in a very real way coming to mine.
well, if i file charges for nuisance, i'd might as well file them for harassment as well, right?
in canada, the legal test for harassment revolves around the question of fear; they're simply wrong in their understanding of the law.
but, it's got me wondering if i might have a case against them for harassment. i've been focusing on nuisance. but, let's think this through.
this person has repeatedly come to my dwelling place and emitted noxious, carcinogenic chemicals into my living space. is it not the case that my reaction is rooted in fear - fear of annoying levels of sickness in the short term, and more dangerous ones in the long run?
see, and the difference is this: i'm in my dwelling place. i can't go live somewhere else (at least not yet). but, she could go smoke somewhere else. so, i am not going to her dwelling place, but she is in a very real way coming to mine.
well, if i file charges for nuisance, i'd might as well file them for harassment as well, right?
at least i'm not missing any showings, today.
they're now claiming i'm two months behind, which is false.
july's rent was paid with my last month's deposit. this was required due to the nature of the existing market and the fact that they would have stolen the deposit had i not taken it. i simply needed the deposit back in order to produce a deposit elsewhere, but i likewise did not want to forfeit it, and fully understand that i would have.
i admittedly currently owe them a total of $700 for august's rent. but, i expect the ruling to be closer to $7000 than $700. once i see the ruling, we can deduct $700 from the total owing - and they will actually owe me money. quite a bit of it....
if the ruling is somehow for less than $700, i will pay the balance immediately.
they're now claiming i'm two months behind, which is false.
july's rent was paid with my last month's deposit. this was required due to the nature of the existing market and the fact that they would have stolen the deposit had i not taken it. i simply needed the deposit back in order to produce a deposit elsewhere, but i likewise did not want to forfeit it, and fully understand that i would have.
i admittedly currently owe them a total of $700 for august's rent. but, i expect the ruling to be closer to $7000 than $700. once i see the ruling, we can deduct $700 from the total owing - and they will actually owe me money. quite a bit of it....
if the ruling is somehow for less than $700, i will pay the balance immediately.
so, i've called them twice this morning.
the first agent claimed that there was no order, despite me being able to read that there is one, on my screen. the second agent suggested that the adjudicator may have indicated in the software that a order was issued, without actually ordering one.
this is all completely absurd. do i think the adjudicator opened the record in the database, but didn't upload the file? not really, no. i trust the tool more than i trust the agents. but, three people have refused to read the information to me over the phone, so i'm just going to have to sit tight until i get a response.
i sent an email to the landlord's paralegal last night indicating that i will be withholding rent until i see the order, but intend to pay the balance in full. this is under the expectation that they owe me well over $700, and that paying rent would be pointless - but also indicates that i do intend to pay it, if i'm wrong.
so, i mean, they can file what they'd like to file, but the reality is that they're the ones that owe me money, and quite a bit of it.
it would be very useful if i could get a copy of the order in the next hour, but it's not going to change how i act.
there is a court date set for the 6th of september, and there's little question that i'm going to demonstrate that they owe me money, rather than the other way around.
the first agent claimed that there was no order, despite me being able to read that there is one, on my screen. the second agent suggested that the adjudicator may have indicated in the software that a order was issued, without actually ordering one.
this is all completely absurd. do i think the adjudicator opened the record in the database, but didn't upload the file? not really, no. i trust the tool more than i trust the agents. but, three people have refused to read the information to me over the phone, so i'm just going to have to sit tight until i get a response.
i sent an email to the landlord's paralegal last night indicating that i will be withholding rent until i see the order, but intend to pay the balance in full. this is under the expectation that they owe me well over $700, and that paying rent would be pointless - but also indicates that i do intend to pay it, if i'm wrong.
so, i mean, they can file what they'd like to file, but the reality is that they're the ones that owe me money, and quite a bit of it.
it would be very useful if i could get a copy of the order in the next hour, but it's not going to change how i act.
there is a court date set for the 6th of september, and there's little question that i'm going to demonstrate that they owe me money, rather than the other way around.
my goal in life is not to get out of poverty. i don't care.
whether i am above or below the poverty line is of no concern to me.
i don't want a house.
i don't want a car.
i don't want a family.
what i have is art to complete. that is my goal. that is all i care about. and, the more frustrated the situation is around it, the longer it takes to finish it - with no other consequence or corollary.
whether i am above or below the poverty line is of no concern to me.
i don't want a house.
i don't want a car.
i don't want a family.
what i have is art to complete. that is my goal. that is all i care about. and, the more frustrated the situation is around it, the longer it takes to finish it - with no other consequence or corollary.
the last provincial conservative government wanted to bring in a concept of workfare, but basically gave up on it when they realized that disabled people and welfare recipients actually aren't very good workers after all.
whodda thunk it. huh?
that's no doubt what they're getting at, and what we can expect.
they didn't campaign on this, or even mention it. fuck, who wanted to give them ideas, right? but, it's no doubt what they're going to do.
and, i'll tell you - i will piss on each and every cash register you put me in front of. yessir!
whodda thunk it. huh?
that's no doubt what they're getting at, and what we can expect.
they didn't campaign on this, or even mention it. fuck, who wanted to give them ideas, right? but, it's no doubt what they're going to do.
and, i'll tell you - i will piss on each and every cash register you put me in front of. yessir!
the thing about a market society is that it relies on a voluntary participation.
if people don't want to live in a market society, you can't force them to.
that's what friedman was actually getting at when he proposed a negative income tax - that any market society is going to have to deal with people like me that just don't want a fucking thing to do with it, and it's easier and cheaper to cut us a check and tell us to fuck off than it is to send us to boot camp or to jail.
if people don't want to live in a market society, you can't force them to.
that's what friedman was actually getting at when he proposed a negative income tax - that any market society is going to have to deal with people like me that just don't want a fucking thing to do with it, and it's easier and cheaper to cut us a check and tell us to fuck off than it is to send us to boot camp or to jail.
Tuesday, July 31, 2018
but, lisa.
i'm disabled.
that means i can't work - i don't need incentives. i went to university for thirteen years. i did graduate once, even, too. there's nothing you can do to "help me succeed" - i cannot "succeed"; i'm disabled.
it's like saying you're going to help an ostrich to fly, or you're going to help the blind to see. it's absurdity.
disabled people are disabled.
i don't need stupid christian rhetoric; what i need is affordable, smoke-free housing.
i'm disabled.
that means i can't work - i don't need incentives. i went to university for thirteen years. i did graduate once, even, too. there's nothing you can do to "help me succeed" - i cannot "succeed"; i'm disabled.
it's like saying you're going to help an ostrich to fly, or you're going to help the blind to see. it's absurdity.
disabled people are disabled.
i don't need stupid christian rhetoric; what i need is affordable, smoke-free housing.
this is actually breaking a campaign promise; he said he wasn't going to do that.
i mean, you would have been daft to believe him, but nonetheless.
it's disappointing, but it was obvious, and there's no use in feigning dismay over it: we elected a conservative government, and this is the kind of thing conservative governments do.
at least i know what they're doing, for the next year or two.
it remains to be seen whether the immigrant voters that elected ford are getting what they expected or not. we know they lean a little right on a swath of issues. they like the market rhetoric, and they don't like the gays. but, cuts to social services isn't one of those issues; i'd suspect that this actually comes out unpopular in the 905, where a good number of voters didn't have the cultural understanding of british toryism to know better than to believe ford when he said he'd "take care of people". he really didn't campaign on cutting services - the opposition tried to get the point across, but it may have been interpreted by what you might call naive voters as smears. they don't have the cultural hubris in opposing conservatives, they weren't raised in it, so they may have been easily misled.
i think that what these people voted for was a pro-business government with a social conscience. these people take their religions seriously. and, that's going to piss me off most of the time, but the thing i'm going to agree with them on is social assistance for the poor - because their mosque or their temple insists on it.
for me? right now? knowing that cuts are not imminent is helpful.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/lisa-macleod-announcement-1.4768626
i mean, you would have been daft to believe him, but nonetheless.
it's disappointing, but it was obvious, and there's no use in feigning dismay over it: we elected a conservative government, and this is the kind of thing conservative governments do.
at least i know what they're doing, for the next year or two.
it remains to be seen whether the immigrant voters that elected ford are getting what they expected or not. we know they lean a little right on a swath of issues. they like the market rhetoric, and they don't like the gays. but, cuts to social services isn't one of those issues; i'd suspect that this actually comes out unpopular in the 905, where a good number of voters didn't have the cultural understanding of british toryism to know better than to believe ford when he said he'd "take care of people". he really didn't campaign on cutting services - the opposition tried to get the point across, but it may have been interpreted by what you might call naive voters as smears. they don't have the cultural hubris in opposing conservatives, they weren't raised in it, so they may have been easily misled.
i think that what these people voted for was a pro-business government with a social conscience. these people take their religions seriously. and, that's going to piss me off most of the time, but the thing i'm going to agree with them on is social assistance for the poor - because their mosque or their temple insists on it.
for me? right now? knowing that cuts are not imminent is helpful.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/lisa-macleod-announcement-1.4768626
this isn't a controversial situation. the controversy arises when people are doing things away from the office, with no meaningful connection to their employer. this guy was either literally working, or driving around in the company van - they have every right to fire him for either slacking off at work or fucking around with company property.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/van-driver-black-macdonald-fired-splashing-pedestrians-1.4766304
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/van-driver-black-macdonald-fired-splashing-pedestrians-1.4766304
there appears to be a ruling.
unfortunately, the agent on the phone wasn't able to access it. she suggested that it may have been uploaded incorrectly.
if i'm lucky, i'll get something in my inbox before sunset.
more likely is that i'll need to call in the morning.
there's a lot revolving around this. i'm prepared for a smallish sum (while holding out for a bigger one), but it's going to be a problem if it's nothing at all.
it's clear enough that i'm going to either need the cash to move me out of windsor or to pay for the difference in rental costs. the kind of thing i need is probably running closer to $900 than $700 - which is not very affordable on $1200. but, if i have $4000-5000 in the bank to chip at, it becomes more realistic.
the other option is to spend a few thousand dollars getting out of here.
if i get nothing, i'm going to need to hope the market falls for october, and sit tight for it to happen.
unfortunately, the agent on the phone wasn't able to access it. she suggested that it may have been uploaded incorrectly.
if i'm lucky, i'll get something in my inbox before sunset.
more likely is that i'll need to call in the morning.
there's a lot revolving around this. i'm prepared for a smallish sum (while holding out for a bigger one), but it's going to be a problem if it's nothing at all.
it's clear enough that i'm going to either need the cash to move me out of windsor or to pay for the difference in rental costs. the kind of thing i need is probably running closer to $900 than $700 - which is not very affordable on $1200. but, if i have $4000-5000 in the bank to chip at, it becomes more realistic.
the other option is to spend a few thousand dollars getting out of here.
if i get nothing, i'm going to need to hope the market falls for october, and sit tight for it to happen.
i can only assign one of two explanations to a government that wants to impose stress-tests on mortgages, in a default-free environment:
1) the people creating policy are so lost in american politics, that they literally don't understand how the canadian system works - which i think is the correct answer, or
2) they're planning to deregulate the system.
stress tests are an idea that was created for the american market. if you have a memory, you'll recall that the canadian system was praised for it's inability to collapse, due to being properly regulated. so, why are they bringing in this deeply american policy, to fix a deeply american problem that simply does not exist in this country?
again, it's either because:
1) the party is literally fully of people that went to school in the united states, studied the american housing system and just don't understand how canada works - which i think is the sad truth, as it is consistent with many other things we've seen from this government, or
2) the government is preparing to dismantle the system that the rest of the world upheld as superior in the face of the 2008 crash.
the liberals are no longer the smart party. it's clear.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/07/30/permanent-generation-middle-class-renters_a_23492177/?ncid=other_trending_qeesnbnu0l8&utm_campaign=trending
1) the people creating policy are so lost in american politics, that they literally don't understand how the canadian system works - which i think is the correct answer, or
2) they're planning to deregulate the system.
stress tests are an idea that was created for the american market. if you have a memory, you'll recall that the canadian system was praised for it's inability to collapse, due to being properly regulated. so, why are they bringing in this deeply american policy, to fix a deeply american problem that simply does not exist in this country?
again, it's either because:
1) the party is literally fully of people that went to school in the united states, studied the american housing system and just don't understand how canada works - which i think is the sad truth, as it is consistent with many other things we've seen from this government, or
2) the government is preparing to dismantle the system that the rest of the world upheld as superior in the face of the 2008 crash.
the liberals are no longer the smart party. it's clear.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/07/30/permanent-generation-middle-class-renters_a_23492177/?ncid=other_trending_qeesnbnu0l8&utm_campaign=trending
so, a lawyer has to be able to do two jobs - although, in truth, most lawyers hire assistants to help them do the thing people associate with them.
when people think of the vocation of a lawyer, they think of somebody that is able to come up with good arguments, and apply those arguments to existing law. this is a scholarly vocation that requires a lot of research and a lot of analysis and a lot of creative thought. and, i do think i would be pretty good at this role.
but, as mentioned, in the real world, this is not what a lawyer actually does.
the actual job of a lawyer in the real world is to take control of a court room, and project a certain dominance over it's opponents. this is not a scholarly position, and is actually best inhabited by people we would usually think of as jocks, as it is reliant on a dominant personality style.
so, if you're telling me i'd make a good layer, you're wrong - i am not a dominant person, and i do not project power. i come off very weak in a court room. and, i have no interest in modifying how i project myself in this way - as i find that kind of thing to actually be quite revolting, and worthy of a great deal of contempt.
if you're telling me i'd make a good assistant, that's another question. but, the key point from my view is this: who would i be assisting?
i'd rather make music.
when people think of the vocation of a lawyer, they think of somebody that is able to come up with good arguments, and apply those arguments to existing law. this is a scholarly vocation that requires a lot of research and a lot of analysis and a lot of creative thought. and, i do think i would be pretty good at this role.
but, as mentioned, in the real world, this is not what a lawyer actually does.
the actual job of a lawyer in the real world is to take control of a court room, and project a certain dominance over it's opponents. this is not a scholarly position, and is actually best inhabited by people we would usually think of as jocks, as it is reliant on a dominant personality style.
so, if you're telling me i'd make a good layer, you're wrong - i am not a dominant person, and i do not project power. i come off very weak in a court room. and, i have no interest in modifying how i project myself in this way - as i find that kind of thing to actually be quite revolting, and worthy of a great deal of contempt.
if you're telling me i'd make a good assistant, that's another question. but, the key point from my view is this: who would i be assisting?
i'd rather make music.
Monday, July 30, 2018
my views are not different than they were a few years ago.
but, society has moved it's goal posts rather far to the right, making me seem much more liberal - relatively speaking - than i did a few years ago.
and, i will readily acknowledge this point: the society has become more conservative than it used it to be.
but, society has moved it's goal posts rather far to the right, making me seem much more liberal - relatively speaking - than i did a few years ago.
and, i will readily acknowledge this point: the society has become more conservative than it used it to be.
guys, listen.
the university of windsor is the 26th rated school....in canada.
so, even if you're just looking for an excuse to get here, there are still 25 other schools listed ahead of it that you couldn't get into.
it's one thing if you grew up in amherstburg or something. i went to the university down the street from where i grew up, too - and for the reason that it was down the street. i get that.
it's another to fly around the world to get the opportunity to attend classes in a school that is not even well known enough to have a bad reputation.
so, i'm not exaggerating when i call it a diploma mill. but, i understand that it's the only thing pulling people into the city, too.
the university of windsor is the 26th rated school....in canada.
so, even if you're just looking for an excuse to get here, there are still 25 other schools listed ahead of it that you couldn't get into.
it's one thing if you grew up in amherstburg or something. i went to the university down the street from where i grew up, too - and for the reason that it was down the street. i get that.
it's another to fly around the world to get the opportunity to attend classes in a school that is not even well known enough to have a bad reputation.
so, i'm not exaggerating when i call it a diploma mill. but, i understand that it's the only thing pulling people into the city, too.
again: where are the ndp?
have they read any naomi klein?
i mean, forget about calling her and asking her for advice - which they can do, quite easily. have they even read anything she's written?
i expect the liberals to tell everybody to stay calm and pocket the rent - because this is the side of the class war the liberals are on. unfortunately. liberals are supposed to rail against rentiers, but in canada they work for the banks. so, a housing crisis, to them, is neither a challenge nor a crisis but an opportunity to make a profit.
that's fine. it's understood. really.
but, the ndp should be yelling from the trees that this is an incredible crisis of unheard of proportions and using it as a means to push for more subsidized housing.
they aren't. they're just saying the same things the liberals are, because they don't want to be the party of the working poor any more, they want to be the party of brown conservatives - who, as a rule, stand to profit from increasing rents.
have they read any naomi klein?
i mean, forget about calling her and asking her for advice - which they can do, quite easily. have they even read anything she's written?
i expect the liberals to tell everybody to stay calm and pocket the rent - because this is the side of the class war the liberals are on. unfortunately. liberals are supposed to rail against rentiers, but in canada they work for the banks. so, a housing crisis, to them, is neither a challenge nor a crisis but an opportunity to make a profit.
that's fine. it's understood. really.
but, the ndp should be yelling from the trees that this is an incredible crisis of unheard of proportions and using it as a means to push for more subsidized housing.
they aren't. they're just saying the same things the liberals are, because they don't want to be the party of the working poor any more, they want to be the party of brown conservatives - who, as a rule, stand to profit from increasing rents.
building new houses will create construction jobs, which is something that actually has a multiplier effect. it'll be good for the economy.
and, when the refugees move on, we'll have more supply for people on disability - a problem we've been grappling with for decades.
the feds have announced a program recently, but they need to get on it immediately. and, they need to force the cities to make sure they're spending the money appropriately.
and, when the refugees move on, we'll have more supply for people on disability - a problem we've been grappling with for decades.
the feds have announced a program recently, but they need to get on it immediately. and, they need to force the cities to make sure they're spending the money appropriately.
maybe, one day, months from now, somebody will launch a commission into what went wrong here, and try to figure out what they should have done differently.
but, i can tell you the report's findings well ahead of time: rather than plan how and where to build the appropriate housing, there was an ethereal assumption that the market would deal with it.
you won't find anybody stating those words, explicitly. no minister has stated "the market will take care of it" - because no journalist had the foresight to ask the appropriate question.
everybody, everywhere, just assumed this would be the case.
but, the homeless crisis that is now upon us - as we slowly hurtle towards the canadian winter - belies that assumption.
the market is not going to take care of this.
the government needed to plan this out.
but, i can tell you the report's findings well ahead of time: rather than plan how and where to build the appropriate housing, there was an ethereal assumption that the market would deal with it.
you won't find anybody stating those words, explicitly. no minister has stated "the market will take care of it" - because no journalist had the foresight to ask the appropriate question.
everybody, everywhere, just assumed this would be the case.
but, the homeless crisis that is now upon us - as we slowly hurtle towards the canadian winter - belies that assumption.
the market is not going to take care of this.
the government needed to plan this out.
the problem that they're causing is not financial. currency is a social construct; this is not a real concern.
the problem they're causing is in the availability of low rent housing.
this guy is just assuming that the housing to absorb them already exists. this is the fundamental error everybody is making; the fact is that this housing does not exist.
and, so, if you want to cost this properly - if that means something to you - you have to include the cost of building new housing at the appropriate income levels.
so, how much does it cost to build thousands of new housing complexes that families on welfare can afford to live in? tens or hundreds of millions?
you can't increase the population by 200,000 people in a few months and expect not to have to build houses for them. that's crazy.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/armstrong-refugee-costs-1.4762930
the problem they're causing is in the availability of low rent housing.
this guy is just assuming that the housing to absorb them already exists. this is the fundamental error everybody is making; the fact is that this housing does not exist.
and, so, if you want to cost this properly - if that means something to you - you have to include the cost of building new housing at the appropriate income levels.
so, how much does it cost to build thousands of new housing complexes that families on welfare can afford to live in? tens or hundreds of millions?
you can't increase the population by 200,000 people in a few months and expect not to have to build houses for them. that's crazy.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/armstrong-refugee-costs-1.4762930
the upcoming danger is that a lot of these rentiers from out of town are going to shutter properties rather than take losses on them.
windsorites need to push back, and try not to overpay. i know that's hard. i might get stuck in the end, too. but we have a fight on our hands. and, we need to work together to put these bastards out of business.
windsorites need to push back, and try not to overpay. i know that's hard. i might get stuck in the end, too. but we have a fight on our hands. and, we need to work together to put these bastards out of business.
see, this is an example of why i'm waiting.
it's a two bedroom apartment cut out of a house. before the influx of international students, these units would run in the high 600s or low 700s. i had a similar basement unit, initially at 650 (and up to 680 before i moved out). i might be apprehensive about a unit at ground level, but this is similar to what i'm looking for - and should be in my price range.
the place was no doubt bought by some asian guy from toronto, and he no doubt wants to rent exclusively to asian students. so, he's splitting up a two bedroom apartment into rooms and charging $500 a head. but, then he insists on renting the unit together, probably because he legally has to. so, he's trying to rent a two bedroom apartment, but insisting on charging market rent for a room in a big house. i don't want a room in a big house, but a room in a big house comes with certain things - peers, a kitchen, a living room, a backyard. there's none of that, here.
so, he can't rent it - because it's not a room in a house, it's a two bedroom apartment, and market rent for two bedroom apartments of this nature is much less than $1000. it's closer to $700. as he's from toronto, that sounds too cheap to him. so, he's going to let it sit empty in august, because he's trying to charge toronto rent in windsor...
maybe he cuts the price to $300-350 a head for september 1st and rents the unit out.
but, if he stays stubborn and can't rent the unit, what happens on sept 1st?
if it was a basement, i'd offer him $700, unfurnished. that's what the place is worth.
and, there's not a small number of these, either.
rentiers are getting greedy trying to capitalize on this diploma mill, and they're artificially inflating the rent, creating a crisis. a lot of them are going to fail, lose tens of thousands of dollars and ultimately sell the property for nothing. windsor is still an economic backwater with a high unemployment rate and next to no employment prospects. you have to charge below-market rent here, or you're just going to lose a lot of money.
do i have time to wait this out?
https://www.kijiji.ca/v-room-rental-roommate/windsor-area-on/2-full-bedrooms-beautiful-private-all-inclusive-5-min-to-u/1366820048?enableSearchNavigationFlag=true
it's a two bedroom apartment cut out of a house. before the influx of international students, these units would run in the high 600s or low 700s. i had a similar basement unit, initially at 650 (and up to 680 before i moved out). i might be apprehensive about a unit at ground level, but this is similar to what i'm looking for - and should be in my price range.
the place was no doubt bought by some asian guy from toronto, and he no doubt wants to rent exclusively to asian students. so, he's splitting up a two bedroom apartment into rooms and charging $500 a head. but, then he insists on renting the unit together, probably because he legally has to. so, he's trying to rent a two bedroom apartment, but insisting on charging market rent for a room in a big house. i don't want a room in a big house, but a room in a big house comes with certain things - peers, a kitchen, a living room, a backyard. there's none of that, here.
so, he can't rent it - because it's not a room in a house, it's a two bedroom apartment, and market rent for two bedroom apartments of this nature is much less than $1000. it's closer to $700. as he's from toronto, that sounds too cheap to him. so, he's going to let it sit empty in august, because he's trying to charge toronto rent in windsor...
maybe he cuts the price to $300-350 a head for september 1st and rents the unit out.
but, if he stays stubborn and can't rent the unit, what happens on sept 1st?
if it was a basement, i'd offer him $700, unfurnished. that's what the place is worth.
and, there's not a small number of these, either.
rentiers are getting greedy trying to capitalize on this diploma mill, and they're artificially inflating the rent, creating a crisis. a lot of them are going to fail, lose tens of thousands of dollars and ultimately sell the property for nothing. windsor is still an economic backwater with a high unemployment rate and next to no employment prospects. you have to charge below-market rent here, or you're just going to lose a lot of money.
do i have time to wait this out?
https://www.kijiji.ca/v-room-rental-roommate/windsor-area-on/2-full-bedrooms-beautiful-private-all-inclusive-5-min-to-u/1366820048?enableSearchNavigationFlag=true
Sunday, July 29, 2018
again - i'm not saying i want to share a room with a teenage girl from india.
but, these ads are really overwhelmingly egregious.
this is happening in a city with a very low vacancy rate, and you see a dozen ads like this come up every day, specifying that they'll only rent to people of a certain age, certain vocation, certain gender and certain ethnicity - while the shelters are overflowing with white people.
it's not a single issue that can be referred to a human rights board - it's endemic. judging from the ads i'm seeing, there must be hundreds of houses run by these people. and they appear to mostly be empty.
some kind of law enforcement really needs to step in and put a stop to this.
but, these ads are really overwhelmingly egregious.
this is happening in a city with a very low vacancy rate, and you see a dozen ads like this come up every day, specifying that they'll only rent to people of a certain age, certain vocation, certain gender and certain ethnicity - while the shelters are overflowing with white people.
it's not a single issue that can be referred to a human rights board - it's endemic. judging from the ads i'm seeing, there must be hundreds of houses run by these people. and they appear to mostly be empty.
some kind of law enforcement really needs to step in and put a stop to this.
so long as they're secular atheists - which is a reasonable assumption in an oecd country in 2018 - i don't care what the ethnicity of people i'm living with or renting from are.
so, i wouldn't have any issues with renting from or living with an indian or arab or african person or family, just so long as they don't believe in god.
and, likewise, i'm not going to get along well with white christians, either.
but, i've been over this a million times, haven't i? i don't care about ethnicity. what i have an aversion to is religion.
so, i wouldn't have any issues with renting from or living with an indian or arab or african person or family, just so long as they don't believe in god.
and, likewise, i'm not going to get along well with white christians, either.
but, i've been over this a million times, haven't i? i don't care about ethnicity. what i have an aversion to is religion.
i'm not going to fight you on gun control; i don't like guns, i don't want one, and i'm not interested in fighting for people that do have guns and do want them.
i would not shed a tear if the government rounded up all of the guns tomorrow.
this is not about gun rights for me, it's about effective public policy. and, we know that guns laws simply do not reduce gun violence.
that doesn't mean we shouldn't have gun laws, anyways - as mentioned, i'm not going to fight you on this. i'm just going to sit back, criticize your proposals, dissent on your projections and instead suggest that your policies will have the opposite effects of what you're proposing.
i'm going to ask the hard questions about culture that the media is afraid to ask. and, i'm going to finger the actual problem: our gun violence is increasing because our culture is americanizing. the root problem is the importation of gun culture values from south of the border. and, to reverse the problem, we need to reverse the process of americanization that is taking place, here.
i want to end gun violence, too. but i understand that prohibition does not solve problems, but causes problems.
we need to get to the root causes through effective social policies and deep self-analysis, not pass well-meaning authoritarian laws that won't work.
i would not shed a tear if the government rounded up all of the guns tomorrow.
this is not about gun rights for me, it's about effective public policy. and, we know that guns laws simply do not reduce gun violence.
that doesn't mean we shouldn't have gun laws, anyways - as mentioned, i'm not going to fight you on this. i'm just going to sit back, criticize your proposals, dissent on your projections and instead suggest that your policies will have the opposite effects of what you're proposing.
i'm going to ask the hard questions about culture that the media is afraid to ask. and, i'm going to finger the actual problem: our gun violence is increasing because our culture is americanizing. the root problem is the importation of gun culture values from south of the border. and, to reverse the problem, we need to reverse the process of americanization that is taking place, here.
i want to end gun violence, too. but i understand that prohibition does not solve problems, but causes problems.
we need to get to the root causes through effective social policies and deep self-analysis, not pass well-meaning authoritarian laws that won't work.
so, let's say you ban guns completely.
the next thing that happens is you end up with illegal gun cartels gun-running through neighbourhoods. i think this is obvious enough that it doesn't require elaboration, but that is not my point, right now.
what happens when the cops move in to take down the gun cartel?
the next thing that happens is you end up with illegal gun cartels gun-running through neighbourhoods. i think this is obvious enough that it doesn't require elaboration, but that is not my point, right now.
what happens when the cops move in to take down the gun cartel?
Saturday, July 28, 2018
again: i had a sega genesis when i was like 10, and i played a few pc games in (junior) high school - civ 2, wolfenstein, doom, quake. but, i am not and have never identified as a gamer. and the gamer that posts as 'deathtokoalas' is simply not me; it's some high school kid from new york. i, on the other hand, am a middle aged transperson from canada.
i've confronted him on stealing the handle, and he denied it.
all i can do is wait for him to grow out of stealing my name.
i've confronted him on stealing the handle, and he denied it.
all i can do is wait for him to grow out of stealing my name.
the best case scenario is that you get rentiers buying the housing up and renting it out to people on a room-by-room basis.
i was at a subdivision in east windsor the other day, where you had exactly that happening. the house hadn't even been finished yet, and the guy was subdividing it into rental properties.
i was at a subdivision in east windsor the other day, where you had exactly that happening. the house hadn't even been finished yet, and the guy was subdividing it into rental properties.
if those houses were empty before the flood of refugees because nobody could afford to buy them, they're still going to be empty after the flood of unskilled refugees with few job prospects, because people still can't afford to buy them.
we don't need more people to solve the affordability crisis, what we need is more affordable housing.
we don't need more people to solve the affordability crisis, what we need is more affordable housing.
these refugess are not bringing wealth with them.
they are not creating jobs.
broadly speaking, they are neither educated nor skilled workers.
so, what's happening is that we're recycling property taxes back into the economy through welfare, and sending it out of the country via multinational firms and into the pockets of rentiers. there's really no benefit to the local economy.
there's no increase in local production. no jobs created. no multiplier effects. just more people in poverty, and more people in general.
they are not creating jobs.
broadly speaking, they are neither educated nor skilled workers.
so, what's happening is that we're recycling property taxes back into the economy through welfare, and sending it out of the country via multinational firms and into the pockets of rentiers. there's really no benefit to the local economy.
there's no increase in local production. no jobs created. no multiplier effects. just more people in poverty, and more people in general.
the unemployment rate in southern ontario has been very high, now, for years.
it's not a prosperous area.
and, rents are not increasing due to the economy getting better - they're increasing due to dwindling demand, as a consequence of a huge increase in welfare recipients.
if we continue on this trajectory, these cities are all going to go bankrupt. and i don't exactly care. i'm just trying to get the point across.
it's not a prosperous area.
and, rents are not increasing due to the economy getting better - they're increasing due to dwindling demand, as a consequence of a huge increase in welfare recipients.
if we continue on this trajectory, these cities are all going to go bankrupt. and i don't exactly care. i'm just trying to get the point across.
the entire southern half of the province has a 1% vacancy rate right now, or lower.
the "free market" is not going to solve that problem. that is going to require government intervention.
and, we're going to have crisis levels of homelessness, now. for a long time.
it's not complicated: if you let tens of thousands of people into the country without a housing plan, you're going to create a housing crisis.
you can argue they shouldn't have let them in, or you can argue they should have had a plan, but you need to do the obvious math of letting them in without a plan and then prepare for the obvious consequences.
the "free market" is not going to solve that problem. that is going to require government intervention.
and, we're going to have crisis levels of homelessness, now. for a long time.
it's not complicated: if you let tens of thousands of people into the country without a housing plan, you're going to create a housing crisis.
you can argue they shouldn't have let them in, or you can argue they should have had a plan, but you need to do the obvious math of letting them in without a plan and then prepare for the obvious consequences.
and, what about montreal?
well.
i'd have to live in quebec for a fixed amount of time before i'm eligible for disability there, and i would not be eligible for disability here, if i go. i don't know the exact rules. but, in order for me to keep the check i have, i have to have a mailing address in ontario.
the way that would have to work is i'd have to go with a bank account and hope for the best. that's a hail mary.
so, i want to stay in ontario. if the last two tazs have been in montreal and detroit, where's the next one? buffalo?
niagara / st catherine's is something i should seriously look at....
...but, all of southern ontario appears to have been flooded by cheap labour, right now. & the north is poorly developed.
the refugees want to live in cities. the government would apparently actually like to direct them to the north, where the population density is extremely low, but they don't seem to understand that there isn't any housing up there, because it's largely undeveloped. are they going to start handing out plots of land like it's the nineteenth century? because, they seem to want them to act like settler colonists, without giving them the resources that the state gave the settler colonists. they can't buy land living on welfare.
this government operates on broad principles, and doesn't do the actual research. this is weird for the liberals, and is going to hurt their branding, long term. their reputation as the 'smart party' is pretty much in tatters, at this point. they didn't do any planning around housing at all, they just let thousands of people in without thinking twice about it - that's not smart.
wherever they end up, there's going to need to be housing built, and it's hard to understand what kind of private sector actor is going to build housing for largely illiterate refugees on welfare - or the disabled and other low income people they're displacing.
this might be a long term mess. and, all the government wants to talk about is free markets. so, it might require an election to fix the vacancy rate. sadly.
and, if my goal is to escape capitalism, rather than participate in it, my best guess in the short term may actually be too look for a small town, as the refugees don't want to go to small towns.
we may end up in a situation, for example, where housing in windsor is non-existent, but housing in the smaller towns around windsor starts to open up. &, likewise, i might be able to find cheap housing in smaller ontario towns like brantford or paris than i would in larger ones like windsor or london.
& if i want access to toronto, without living in toronto, i should start looking at something scattered around the 905 - something with go train access into toronto to see the odd show now and again.
we just brought in thousands of people with poor job prospects, which is not really going to change the economy. they'll take tax revenue and use it to pay for housing and buy imported food and imported clothes. this is not likely to have much of a multiplier effect - it's just more people on welfare. so, the basic premise of the taz in this region does still exist, it's just being pushed out of the population centres. we're not all of a sudden a prosperous region with good job prospects, but just being flooded with unemployed people, making it that much harder to exist.
a reasonable question is how many of these people stay here, in the long run. there's still no jobs here. the influx of refugees may help some grocery stores, but that isn't much of an economic driver. any jobs created will be in store fronts and restaurants and likely to add up to a net deficit.
some of these people legitimately just want to sit on welfare, and i guess we're stuck with them. but, it takes quite a bit of ambition to move across the world to claim status as a refugee. and, you'd think many of them are going to want more than that.
they won't find it here...
i don't have a good suggestion as to where to go. we used to send our surplus labour to the oil sands, but there's no future, there, either. this region will be automated before it is reindustrialized. do they want to work in agriculture?
we're left with the same set of solutions that we needed to the same set of problems in the first place, it's just more obvious now than it was before. we still need more subsidized housing. we still need more state funding for industry. adding thousands - tens of thousands - of illiterate people just exacerbates everything...
so, in the end, the government will need to step in, one way or another - or we're going to have a homelessness crisis of both refugees and non-refugees.
but, if it takes ten years for subsidized housing to materialize, the way, in the short run, may be to escape the cities for cheap rent in the towns...
well.
i'd have to live in quebec for a fixed amount of time before i'm eligible for disability there, and i would not be eligible for disability here, if i go. i don't know the exact rules. but, in order for me to keep the check i have, i have to have a mailing address in ontario.
the way that would have to work is i'd have to go with a bank account and hope for the best. that's a hail mary.
so, i want to stay in ontario. if the last two tazs have been in montreal and detroit, where's the next one? buffalo?
niagara / st catherine's is something i should seriously look at....
...but, all of southern ontario appears to have been flooded by cheap labour, right now. & the north is poorly developed.
the refugees want to live in cities. the government would apparently actually like to direct them to the north, where the population density is extremely low, but they don't seem to understand that there isn't any housing up there, because it's largely undeveloped. are they going to start handing out plots of land like it's the nineteenth century? because, they seem to want them to act like settler colonists, without giving them the resources that the state gave the settler colonists. they can't buy land living on welfare.
this government operates on broad principles, and doesn't do the actual research. this is weird for the liberals, and is going to hurt their branding, long term. their reputation as the 'smart party' is pretty much in tatters, at this point. they didn't do any planning around housing at all, they just let thousands of people in without thinking twice about it - that's not smart.
wherever they end up, there's going to need to be housing built, and it's hard to understand what kind of private sector actor is going to build housing for largely illiterate refugees on welfare - or the disabled and other low income people they're displacing.
this might be a long term mess. and, all the government wants to talk about is free markets. so, it might require an election to fix the vacancy rate. sadly.
and, if my goal is to escape capitalism, rather than participate in it, my best guess in the short term may actually be too look for a small town, as the refugees don't want to go to small towns.
we may end up in a situation, for example, where housing in windsor is non-existent, but housing in the smaller towns around windsor starts to open up. &, likewise, i might be able to find cheap housing in smaller ontario towns like brantford or paris than i would in larger ones like windsor or london.
& if i want access to toronto, without living in toronto, i should start looking at something scattered around the 905 - something with go train access into toronto to see the odd show now and again.
we just brought in thousands of people with poor job prospects, which is not really going to change the economy. they'll take tax revenue and use it to pay for housing and buy imported food and imported clothes. this is not likely to have much of a multiplier effect - it's just more people on welfare. so, the basic premise of the taz in this region does still exist, it's just being pushed out of the population centres. we're not all of a sudden a prosperous region with good job prospects, but just being flooded with unemployed people, making it that much harder to exist.
a reasonable question is how many of these people stay here, in the long run. there's still no jobs here. the influx of refugees may help some grocery stores, but that isn't much of an economic driver. any jobs created will be in store fronts and restaurants and likely to add up to a net deficit.
some of these people legitimately just want to sit on welfare, and i guess we're stuck with them. but, it takes quite a bit of ambition to move across the world to claim status as a refugee. and, you'd think many of them are going to want more than that.
they won't find it here...
i don't have a good suggestion as to where to go. we used to send our surplus labour to the oil sands, but there's no future, there, either. this region will be automated before it is reindustrialized. do they want to work in agriculture?
we're left with the same set of solutions that we needed to the same set of problems in the first place, it's just more obvious now than it was before. we still need more subsidized housing. we still need more state funding for industry. adding thousands - tens of thousands - of illiterate people just exacerbates everything...
so, in the end, the government will need to step in, one way or another - or we're going to have a homelessness crisis of both refugees and non-refugees.
but, if it takes ten years for subsidized housing to materialize, the way, in the short run, may be to escape the cities for cheap rent in the towns...
so, did the refugees ruin it?
yeah. pretty much.
but, i remember reading up on this idea of temporary autonomous zones when i moved in here. i'm stretching the concept; i need something approaching "normal housing" for as long as i need studio space. this is taking forever, and i don't like it, but so be it. but, the idea i can pull out of this theory is that the spaces are impermanent; they dissolve when capital identifies them. and, this is irreversible, until capitalism is abolished.
the idea is that, while revolution is necessary, struggle kind of sucks. we have finite lives. so, instead of fighting against capitalism, it may make more sense to just try and avoid it - at least until the social revolution brings us to critical mass.
if windsor was something like a taz, it was impermanent by definition. and, capital was always bound to expel me, eventually.
the challenge is in finding the next zone - and in cobbling together the resources required to get there.
yeah. pretty much.
but, i remember reading up on this idea of temporary autonomous zones when i moved in here. i'm stretching the concept; i need something approaching "normal housing" for as long as i need studio space. this is taking forever, and i don't like it, but so be it. but, the idea i can pull out of this theory is that the spaces are impermanent; they dissolve when capital identifies them. and, this is irreversible, until capitalism is abolished.
the idea is that, while revolution is necessary, struggle kind of sucks. we have finite lives. so, instead of fighting against capitalism, it may make more sense to just try and avoid it - at least until the social revolution brings us to critical mass.
if windsor was something like a taz, it was impermanent by definition. and, capital was always bound to expel me, eventually.
the challenge is in finding the next zone - and in cobbling together the resources required to get there.
again, what's confusing and disappointing is the ndp.
we expect the conservatives to be xenophobic, and we expect the...we expect the liberals to do the math first, which they didn't do this time, but we expect them to react against the xenophobia. so, you get this dumb argument about racism and pointless finger-pointing that just distracts from the actual problem on the ground, which then never gets fixed.
as a left-leaning canadian, i would expect the ndp to stand up and demand more funding for socialized housing. that's what they did in the past. that's where they're supposed to be on the spectrum. & i would expect them to draw attention to the difficulties being faced by low income canadians, as vacancies fall & rents rise.
this pressure from the ndp then forces the liberals to act. that's how this works.
instead, they're basically just repeating the same lines as the liberals, and just trying to say it louder and more forcefully. and, the weird thing about it is that it actually makes the liberals seem further left, even though they're just pushing the standard bourgeois policies around population increases, to drive down wages and increase rents.
if the ndp won't be a left-wing party, we're going to have to build a new one from scratch. & let us be clear: the left-wing response to this situation is to push the government very hard to get shovels in the ground for more subsidized housing.
we expect the conservatives to be xenophobic, and we expect the...we expect the liberals to do the math first, which they didn't do this time, but we expect them to react against the xenophobia. so, you get this dumb argument about racism and pointless finger-pointing that just distracts from the actual problem on the ground, which then never gets fixed.
as a left-leaning canadian, i would expect the ndp to stand up and demand more funding for socialized housing. that's what they did in the past. that's where they're supposed to be on the spectrum. & i would expect them to draw attention to the difficulties being faced by low income canadians, as vacancies fall & rents rise.
this pressure from the ndp then forces the liberals to act. that's how this works.
instead, they're basically just repeating the same lines as the liberals, and just trying to say it louder and more forcefully. and, the weird thing about it is that it actually makes the liberals seem further left, even though they're just pushing the standard bourgeois policies around population increases, to drive down wages and increase rents.
if the ndp won't be a left-wing party, we're going to have to build a new one from scratch. & let us be clear: the left-wing response to this situation is to push the government very hard to get shovels in the ground for more subsidized housing.
the city is really, legitimately trapped in a time warp - and the attitudes people have to smoking are one of the most obvious components of it.
the young people seem to be a bit better.
but, the sad and pathetic fact is that most of the people over 40 here were never told "you can't smoke here" until 2015-ish, and are still having trouble adjusting to it.
they just don't think it's a serious issue.
the young people seem to be a bit better.
but, the sad and pathetic fact is that most of the people over 40 here were never told "you can't smoke here" until 2015-ish, and are still having trouble adjusting to it.
they just don't think it's a serious issue.
the reality is that you'll need to pay for premium housing to avoid smoking, in this town. you're looking at rents over $1000/month, for a bachelor apartment.
you might get lucky.
i'm hoping...but....
and, you can't walk down the street without bumping into a smoker, either.
you could smoke in the restaurants here until a few years ago. the culture shock that the rest of the world went through 20-30 years ago is just beginning to happen, here. people don't get it; non-smokers aren't bothered by it.
people smoke with their kids around, like it's not a big deal.
it's just still considered "normal" to smoke, here.
there are neighbourhoods downtown where it just hangs. for blocks.
i didn't think it would be this difficult to get away from it, but i didn't realize the preponderance of it, either. it's ubiquitous...
you might get lucky.
i'm hoping...but....
and, you can't walk down the street without bumping into a smoker, either.
you could smoke in the restaurants here until a few years ago. the culture shock that the rest of the world went through 20-30 years ago is just beginning to happen, here. people don't get it; non-smokers aren't bothered by it.
people smoke with their kids around, like it's not a big deal.
it's just still considered "normal" to smoke, here.
there are neighbourhoods downtown where it just hangs. for blocks.
i didn't think it would be this difficult to get away from it, but i didn't realize the preponderance of it, either. it's ubiquitous...
so, what is my plan, here?
if i have to leave the city, i'll have to place things in storage - or just move straight out. so, even if i get the payout, i still can't be really seriously looking outside the area, because i won't be able to see anything. and, who is going to rent to me over the phone, right?
the fact that i don't have a laptop right now is kind of a really big problem...
regardless of the outcome, my options until october 1st are really mostly within biking distance. i'm not going to be able to seriously hitch out to waterloo or niagara or wherever else until i'm able to get my things in a safe space, first.
if i have to hit the street, i'll need a new (used) laptop, first.
and, i may have to get used to sleeping on the streets for a little while...
i have two months, still. but, i'm coming to terms with the increasingly clear reality that if i want to start over again post-smoking, then there's really nothing available here. i'm going to have to leave...and that's going to require a stay in some hostels until i figure it out...
if i have to leave the city, i'll have to place things in storage - or just move straight out. so, even if i get the payout, i still can't be really seriously looking outside the area, because i won't be able to see anything. and, who is going to rent to me over the phone, right?
the fact that i don't have a laptop right now is kind of a really big problem...
regardless of the outcome, my options until october 1st are really mostly within biking distance. i'm not going to be able to seriously hitch out to waterloo or niagara or wherever else until i'm able to get my things in a safe space, first.
if i have to hit the street, i'll need a new (used) laptop, first.
and, i may have to get used to sleeping on the streets for a little while...
i have two months, still. but, i'm coming to terms with the increasingly clear reality that if i want to start over again post-smoking, then there's really nothing available here. i'm going to have to leave...and that's going to require a stay in some hostels until i figure it out...
Friday, July 27, 2018
with inflation over 650, i should be looking at units in the 700-725 range.
if i were still on marion, i'd be paying a little less than 700 all inclusive right now. maybe closer to 690. i'd expect to be paying around $710-720 in december. so, that's what i should be looking at - under $725.
but, if i get a big enough settlement, i can interpret it as paying the inflation, which is a real thing.
so, i'm currently looking at units under $799, including utilities. if i get a few thousand dollars, i can start looking at units pushing $899 - but they'd better be perfect, kind of thing
if i do not win a settlement, my hard max is going to be $799. period.
if i were still on marion, i'd be paying a little less than 700 all inclusive right now. maybe closer to 690. i'd expect to be paying around $710-720 in december. so, that's what i should be looking at - under $725.
but, if i get a big enough settlement, i can interpret it as paying the inflation, which is a real thing.
so, i'm currently looking at units under $799, including utilities. if i get a few thousand dollars, i can start looking at units pushing $899 - but they'd better be perfect, kind of thing
if i do not win a settlement, my hard max is going to be $799. period.
i need the ruling before i can start looking at more pricey units and/or start to plan to move out of town.
right now, it doesn't seem like the tardiness of the ruling is fucking me over for august 1st.
i might find out later that it did.
i will say, however, that if this process were not so slow, i may have found something for july 1st - there was a very good option that i had to skip because i couldn't secure last month's rent.
right now, it doesn't seem like the tardiness of the ruling is fucking me over for august 1st.
i might find out later that it did.
i will say, however, that if this process were not so slow, i may have found something for july 1st - there was a very good option that i had to skip because i couldn't secure last month's rent.
shovels.
in.
the.
ground.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/04/10/affordable-housing-crisis-canada_a_23407878/
in.
the.
ground.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/04/10/affordable-housing-crisis-canada_a_23407878/
i mean, this is what i said from the start: if we have 25,000 empty houses for these 25,000 refugees, why do we have people in shelters?
it turns out that we didn't have 25,000 empty houses, after all.
and, today, we have refugees in hotels, and overflowing shelters - because we've created a crisis in low-income housing by taking in too many people too fast.
these are the facts: the infrastructure is lacking.
we can fix this by building.
but we have to actually do that.
and, they should have fucking known that from the start.
it turns out that we didn't have 25,000 empty houses, after all.
and, today, we have refugees in hotels, and overflowing shelters - because we've created a crisis in low-income housing by taking in too many people too fast.
these are the facts: the infrastructure is lacking.
we can fix this by building.
but we have to actually do that.
and, they should have fucking known that from the start.
it's not a difficult equation.
if you're going to let in x refugee families, you need to build x low rent rental units for them. at least.
if you don't do that, you're going to get social unrest, as low income canadians fight with refugees over dwindling access to cheap housing.
i understand that your typical upper class liberal has no idea, but the actual politicians need to figure this out and get to fixing it - or deal with the consequences.
if you're going to let in x refugee families, you need to build x low rent rental units for them. at least.
if you don't do that, you're going to get social unrest, as low income canadians fight with refugees over dwindling access to cheap housing.
i understand that your typical upper class liberal has no idea, but the actual politicians need to figure this out and get to fixing it - or deal with the consequences.
there is a difference between saying "you're not welcome here" and saying "we do not have the infrastructure in place to accommodate your request".
i'm not happy about letting in religious people, don't misunderstand me. there's lots of people i'd look in the eye and tell to take a hike.
but, that's only half the crisis in front of us. and, even if 100% of these people are wonderful egalitarian leftists, there's still nowhere to put them at the moment...
i'm not happy about letting in religious people, don't misunderstand me. there's lots of people i'd look in the eye and tell to take a hike.
but, that's only half the crisis in front of us. and, even if 100% of these people are wonderful egalitarian leftists, there's still nowhere to put them at the moment...
people both inside and outside of canada need to get their heads around this point: we honestly quite literally don't have anywhere to put these people.
we're not "full". we have one of the lowest population densities in the world. there's lots of space.
but, we don't currently have the infrastructure in place to accommodate thousands of refugees.
we just don't.
and, that's what trudeau needs to get on twitter and say.
we're not "full". we have one of the lowest population densities in the world. there's lots of space.
but, we don't currently have the infrastructure in place to accommodate thousands of refugees.
we just don't.
and, that's what trudeau needs to get on twitter and say.
so, are the border crossers in quebec illegal?
well, it depends on whether the claims get processed in their favour or not. if they succeed in getting status, they're not illegal - they're refugees. if they fail in getting status, they're illegal aliens under the law.
i think that what i'm demonstrating is that the question isn't really useful..
listen: i don't really believe in borders. i don't like deporting people. and, i do believe that nobody is illegal. but, you have to weigh these considerations very carefully with real world issues around vacancy rates and the cost and availability of low income housing.
in 2013, cheap housing was plentiful in windsor. i talked to a manager at the local slumlord monopoly today that claimed this city now has a 1% vacancy rate. that is probably not exactly right, in that it doesn't take into consideration the dilapidated housing that is currently off the market.
but the answer to "what has changed in the last five years?" is "we let in thousands of refugees.".
in 2014, we elected an openly gay premier, and nobody cared that she was gay. we recently elected a premier that makes george w. bush look intelligent, on a promise to reverse a sex ed curriculum because it acknowledges that queer people exist. what the fuck happened? we let in way too many people with regressive social policy outlooks and low levels of education.
it's not a question of legality, it's a question of sustainability. and, that is the idea we need to be getting across.
if we had infinite space, or a post-propertarian economy, i wouldn't even want a border to exist at all.
but, we live in a capitalist reality. property rights are not ideologically enforced here, but they do exist. our vacancy rates are very low. our shelters are at capacity. we have the ability to build, but we need time to do it.
we need to slow this down. and, we need time to assimilate what we've allowed in.
well, it depends on whether the claims get processed in their favour or not. if they succeed in getting status, they're not illegal - they're refugees. if they fail in getting status, they're illegal aliens under the law.
i think that what i'm demonstrating is that the question isn't really useful..
listen: i don't really believe in borders. i don't like deporting people. and, i do believe that nobody is illegal. but, you have to weigh these considerations very carefully with real world issues around vacancy rates and the cost and availability of low income housing.
in 2013, cheap housing was plentiful in windsor. i talked to a manager at the local slumlord monopoly today that claimed this city now has a 1% vacancy rate. that is probably not exactly right, in that it doesn't take into consideration the dilapidated housing that is currently off the market.
but the answer to "what has changed in the last five years?" is "we let in thousands of refugees.".
in 2014, we elected an openly gay premier, and nobody cared that she was gay. we recently elected a premier that makes george w. bush look intelligent, on a promise to reverse a sex ed curriculum because it acknowledges that queer people exist. what the fuck happened? we let in way too many people with regressive social policy outlooks and low levels of education.
it's not a question of legality, it's a question of sustainability. and, that is the idea we need to be getting across.
if we had infinite space, or a post-propertarian economy, i wouldn't even want a border to exist at all.
but, we live in a capitalist reality. property rights are not ideologically enforced here, but they do exist. our vacancy rates are very low. our shelters are at capacity. we have the ability to build, but we need time to do it.
we need to slow this down. and, we need time to assimilate what we've allowed in.
i don't know why my father had this obsession with me owning a vehicle.
he put a lot of hubris into owning a car. for him, it was a big part of going to work everyday. i'd make the argument that he worked his whole life for no gain - that he largely wasted his life on unrewarding labour, and in the end accomplished nothing of value. but, in his mind, car ownership was a big part of the reason he went to work every day. and, if you asked him what he accomplished in life, he would say "i owned my own car".
it seems trivial, to me. almost stupid, really.
but, he found my rejection almost hurtful. this is something he never understood. he'd fix up my bike for me every year, and he'd bite his tongue, but it ate at him inside: why didn't his kid want a car?
he seemed to think i'd "grow out of it", without fully grasping the depth of my commitment to fighting climate change, and my aversion to buying oil and funding all of the hell that buying oil funds.
and, i actually think the position he took was extremely selfish. he had the ability to pay my loan down; instead, he insisted on buying me a car, and pouted like a child when i told him i didn't want it and would rather have my debt cleared off, like the responsible young adult that i was.
he's been dead for years, and i still don't want a car - and still have a large student loan.
he put a lot of hubris into owning a car. for him, it was a big part of going to work everyday. i'd make the argument that he worked his whole life for no gain - that he largely wasted his life on unrewarding labour, and in the end accomplished nothing of value. but, in his mind, car ownership was a big part of the reason he went to work every day. and, if you asked him what he accomplished in life, he would say "i owned my own car".
it seems trivial, to me. almost stupid, really.
but, he found my rejection almost hurtful. this is something he never understood. he'd fix up my bike for me every year, and he'd bite his tongue, but it ate at him inside: why didn't his kid want a car?
he seemed to think i'd "grow out of it", without fully grasping the depth of my commitment to fighting climate change, and my aversion to buying oil and funding all of the hell that buying oil funds.
and, i actually think the position he took was extremely selfish. he had the ability to pay my loan down; instead, he insisted on buying me a car, and pouted like a child when i told him i didn't want it and would rather have my debt cleared off, like the responsible young adult that i was.
he's been dead for years, and i still don't want a car - and still have a large student loan.
my father tried to give me a car for free once, and i told him i didn't want it and asked him to pay off my student loan, instead.
he didn't pay off the loan, and, i never accepted the car.
i was told it would sit until i wanted it, but he must have eventually traded it in or something. i don't know what happened to it...
he didn't pay off the loan, and, i never accepted the car.
i was told it would sit until i wanted it, but he must have eventually traded it in or something. i don't know what happened to it...
and, the apartment has disappeared again.
i spoke with the people at the management company, and they told me a likely story. at the least, it's no longer available, so i can't do much about it.
i kind of expect it to pop back up again after august 1st.
there's a very high chance that i'll still be here. but, i guess i'm better off if i find something better, right....
it's very frustrating, because i don't know how somebody got in to see it. i tried. several times.
*sigh*.
i have lots of time, still...
i spoke with the people at the management company, and they told me a likely story. at the least, it's no longer available, so i can't do much about it.
i kind of expect it to pop back up again after august 1st.
there's a very high chance that i'll still be here. but, i guess i'm better off if i find something better, right....
it's very frustrating, because i don't know how somebody got in to see it. i tried. several times.
*sigh*.
i have lots of time, still...
if i show up on sandwich street, and i get the slightest hint of smoke, i'm walking out.
slightest.
hint.
gone...
i have not seen pictures of this unit, which is not very confidence-building. the pictures i've seen suggest the unit is too small; as it is, i don't know how big it is. and, it's consequently very low probability.
slightest.
hint.
gone...
i have not seen pictures of this unit, which is not very confidence-building. the pictures i've seen suggest the unit is too small; as it is, i don't know how big it is. and, it's consequently very low probability.
i need to be clear.
i do not want a challenging job.
if forced to do it - and i mean that, literally - i would want to stumble in on no sleep, and sleepwalk through the most boring and repetitive task i can imagine, so i can go home and work on something i care about.
i do not want a sexual partner.
sex takes a lot of energy, regardless of how you're approaching it. and, it's really dramatically overrated. i have better things to do than focus tremendous resources on a twenty second high. when it comes down to it, cocaine is probably more efficient, resource-wise.
i do not want to have children.
children are expensive, time-consuming, stressful and leave you with little material benefits, in the end. i would be more likely to kill myself than accept any sort of parental responsibilities - as i would consider it a death sentence, anyways.
i do not want a challenging job.
if forced to do it - and i mean that, literally - i would want to stumble in on no sleep, and sleepwalk through the most boring and repetitive task i can imagine, so i can go home and work on something i care about.
i do not want a sexual partner.
sex takes a lot of energy, regardless of how you're approaching it. and, it's really dramatically overrated. i have better things to do than focus tremendous resources on a twenty second high. when it comes down to it, cocaine is probably more efficient, resource-wise.
i do not want to have children.
children are expensive, time-consuming, stressful and leave you with little material benefits, in the end. i would be more likely to kill myself than accept any sort of parental responsibilities - as i would consider it a death sentence, anyways.
again: if i were to get something for $489/month, this is what my budget would look like:
rent: $489
food: $200
internet: $28
estrogen: $21
============
738
my income is $1215.
1215 - 738 = 477.
i do not have a driver's license, have never driven a car before and do not want to purchase an automobile. sorry.
i do not have any friends, do not speak to my family, do not have a job and do not want to purchase a cell phone plan. sorry.
i have not watched tv since the 90s, and have never paid for cable, not even when i had a full-time job in the 00s. i do not want to pay for cable, now. sorry.
i am exceedingly health-conscious, would prefer to make my own meals and simply don't like sitting in restaurants. that is, if we ignore the absurdity of telling me to rent a room so i can eat out more. sorry.
i quit smoking in january, 2016.
i have never drank much.
i never was and do not want to become a habitual marijuana user.
so, i have absolutely no idea what you want me to spend that money on.
honestly.
i'm at a complete loss.
i want to spend it on housing - because that is what is important to me.
if you forced me to, i'd probably spend it on hair removal. honestly. that's what i would do - i'd focus on transitioning.
now, let's say i actually did have a full time minimum wage job (and i wouldn't want to work in an intellectually stimulating environment, too stressful - i would want simple drone work, so i could go home and work on something i care about without being too drained). nowadays, that's a take-away of what? $1500/month, roughly?
and, let's say i got an apartment for $750 + hydro.
this is what my budget would look like:
rent: $750
hydro: $30 [i'd lose my subsidy, but i use almost no hydro.]
internet: $28
estrogen: $100 [i'd lose my subsidy]
food: $200
================
$1108
so, i'd have $392 leftover after rent - less than i would if i had a room for $479, on disability.
i still wouldn't want a car.
i might be forced to get a phone. i don't even know how much that would cost. i'd do it pay as you go, probably. so, let's say $20/month.
i still wouldn't want cable.
i'd still rather make my own meals.
i still wouldn't smoke....hopefully. it's probably the biggest single risk factor, for me.
i still wouldn't drink.
i still wouldn't do drugs.
so, i'd still have hundreds of dollars to waste, on what? well, probably hair removal, and then what?
now, this is what my budget would look like with a $750 + hydro lease, on disability:
rent: $750
hydro: $0
food: $200
internet: $28
estrogen: $21
================
$999.
so, i have $215 leftover.
if ford cancels the hydro subsidy, it'll cost me $30/month. trivial.
and, what i do with this?
the truth is: not much.
i can do my own accounting. i can do my own budgeting. and, when i say i can afford it, i'm not blustering.
i paid $650-680 for years, and pay $700 now, and have never had problems with rent.
rent: $489
food: $200
internet: $28
estrogen: $21
============
738
my income is $1215.
1215 - 738 = 477.
i do not have a driver's license, have never driven a car before and do not want to purchase an automobile. sorry.
i do not have any friends, do not speak to my family, do not have a job and do not want to purchase a cell phone plan. sorry.
i have not watched tv since the 90s, and have never paid for cable, not even when i had a full-time job in the 00s. i do not want to pay for cable, now. sorry.
i am exceedingly health-conscious, would prefer to make my own meals and simply don't like sitting in restaurants. that is, if we ignore the absurdity of telling me to rent a room so i can eat out more. sorry.
i quit smoking in january, 2016.
i have never drank much.
i never was and do not want to become a habitual marijuana user.
so, i have absolutely no idea what you want me to spend that money on.
honestly.
i'm at a complete loss.
i want to spend it on housing - because that is what is important to me.
if you forced me to, i'd probably spend it on hair removal. honestly. that's what i would do - i'd focus on transitioning.
now, let's say i actually did have a full time minimum wage job (and i wouldn't want to work in an intellectually stimulating environment, too stressful - i would want simple drone work, so i could go home and work on something i care about without being too drained). nowadays, that's a take-away of what? $1500/month, roughly?
and, let's say i got an apartment for $750 + hydro.
this is what my budget would look like:
rent: $750
hydro: $30 [i'd lose my subsidy, but i use almost no hydro.]
internet: $28
estrogen: $100 [i'd lose my subsidy]
food: $200
================
$1108
so, i'd have $392 leftover after rent - less than i would if i had a room for $479, on disability.
i still wouldn't want a car.
i might be forced to get a phone. i don't even know how much that would cost. i'd do it pay as you go, probably. so, let's say $20/month.
i still wouldn't want cable.
i'd still rather make my own meals.
i still wouldn't smoke....hopefully. it's probably the biggest single risk factor, for me.
i still wouldn't drink.
i still wouldn't do drugs.
so, i'd still have hundreds of dollars to waste, on what? well, probably hair removal, and then what?
now, this is what my budget would look like with a $750 + hydro lease, on disability:
rent: $750
hydro: $0
food: $200
internet: $28
estrogen: $21
================
$999.
so, i have $215 leftover.
if ford cancels the hydro subsidy, it'll cost me $30/month. trivial.
and, what i do with this?
the truth is: not much.
i can do my own accounting. i can do my own budgeting. and, when i say i can afford it, i'm not blustering.
i paid $650-680 for years, and pay $700 now, and have never had problems with rent.
if i was making the kind of money they're trying to screen for, i'd buy a fucking condo somewhere.
really.
what do you want, a lawyer to move in to your falling down unit on top of a hair salon in walkerville? get fucking real.
this is low rent housing - best suited for struggling artists and other people that require assistance to exist.
and, they're just being stupid about it.
totally fucking stupid...
at best, they'll find some kids that'll pay for it with mommy's credit card, and trash the place because they don't give a fuck. and, the idiots seem to actually want that.
really.
what do you want, a lawyer to move in to your falling down unit on top of a hair salon in walkerville? get fucking real.
this is low rent housing - best suited for struggling artists and other people that require assistance to exist.
and, they're just being stupid about it.
totally fucking stupid...
at best, they'll find some kids that'll pay for it with mommy's credit card, and trash the place because they don't give a fuck. and, the idiots seem to actually want that.
i NEED a non-smoking apartment that is BIG ENOUGH to store my gear.
i don't care where it is, within reason.
i don't care what it looks like inside. at all.
falling down, in need of a paint job, full of bugs - i don't care.
what i care about is the size of the unit, because i NEED the space, & the fact that it's non-smoking because i don't want to die young from second-hand smoke - & that fact that it's under $800.
living in a smoke-free environment is not a privilege. second-hand smoke is not an annoyance. every day i stay here, i increase my chances of getting cancer. if i stay here long term, i will almost certainly die of cancer. and, i can't believe that there are people alive today that don't understand that.
what i'm looking for is very hard to find.
in fact, as far as i can tell, only one acceptable unit currently exists.
yet, as far as i can tell, these people are lying to me about the situation, too.
and, if this is the way i take these slumlords down, so be it.
note to the bigots and classist assholes of the world: it's easier for everybody if you give up.
there is almost no chance that i'm going to find something else. i need this space. and, i'm not going to give up because somebody thinks a tenant should make $2000/month+ to live in dilapidated slumlord housing.
this is stupid, and we're going to fight about it until i win.
i don't care where it is, within reason.
i don't care what it looks like inside. at all.
falling down, in need of a paint job, full of bugs - i don't care.
what i care about is the size of the unit, because i NEED the space, & the fact that it's non-smoking because i don't want to die young from second-hand smoke - & that fact that it's under $800.
living in a smoke-free environment is not a privilege. second-hand smoke is not an annoyance. every day i stay here, i increase my chances of getting cancer. if i stay here long term, i will almost certainly die of cancer. and, i can't believe that there are people alive today that don't understand that.
what i'm looking for is very hard to find.
in fact, as far as i can tell, only one acceptable unit currently exists.
yet, as far as i can tell, these people are lying to me about the situation, too.
and, if this is the way i take these slumlords down, so be it.
note to the bigots and classist assholes of the world: it's easier for everybody if you give up.
there is almost no chance that i'm going to find something else. i need this space. and, i'm not going to give up because somebody thinks a tenant should make $2000/month+ to live in dilapidated slumlord housing.
this is stupid, and we're going to fight about it until i win.
Thursday, July 26, 2018
i mean, how do you even know that an empty room is really a bedroom?
if it's empty, is it not void of bed?
and, if a room has not bed, from whence does this idea of it being a "bedroom" even come?
it could just as easily be a one bedroom + an office, or a one bedroom + a studio - both of which have some relevance in my proposed utilization of the particular space.
a room is a room is only a bedroom if you insist on it; it could be anything at all, if you want it to be.
so, stop oppressing me with your arbitrary prejudices and idealized preconceptions.
if it's empty, is it not void of bed?
and, if a room has not bed, from whence does this idea of it being a "bedroom" even come?
it could just as easily be a one bedroom + an office, or a one bedroom + a studio - both of which have some relevance in my proposed utilization of the particular space.
a room is a room is only a bedroom if you insist on it; it could be anything at all, if you want it to be.
so, stop oppressing me with your arbitrary prejudices and idealized preconceptions.
my preferred option has again reappeared in the listings.
this is very unusual, captain. it almost seems as though the apartment has developed some kind of cloaking technology. but, how this happened - and what developed it - is not entirely clear at all.
what to do?
have to call again.
why do i need a two bedroom apartment? well, i don't. i need a relatively big non-smoking apartment. it can have one or two bedrooms. it can even be a loft. it's total footage i'm looking at.
what i'm looking at is the price - $750 + hydro, and the floor size - 600 square feet.
now, it should be obvious how i'll arrange a two bedroom apartment, granted.
but, no i don't need two bedrooms, exactly - i need the space.
and, focusing on how the number of rooms is to be enumerated or classified is missing the point.
this is very unusual, captain. it almost seems as though the apartment has developed some kind of cloaking technology. but, how this happened - and what developed it - is not entirely clear at all.
what to do?
have to call again.
why do i need a two bedroom apartment? well, i don't. i need a relatively big non-smoking apartment. it can have one or two bedrooms. it can even be a loft. it's total footage i'm looking at.
what i'm looking at is the price - $750 + hydro, and the floor size - 600 square feet.
now, it should be obvious how i'll arrange a two bedroom apartment, granted.
but, no i don't need two bedrooms, exactly - i need the space.
and, focusing on how the number of rooms is to be enumerated or classified is missing the point.
when i came down to windsor initially, i made it abundantly clear that i was looking for my own space to live.
i came down with two unemployed people: one on short term ei and the other with no discernible income at all. the reason these people were unable to find accommodations is that they were unable to provide a reliable income source.
i was on full time disability, which is a small but reliable source.
i made it clear that i was not particularly interested in signing a lease with these people, as they seemed shifty and untrustworthy. i made it clear that i had expensive gear that i needed to keep in a locked space, and flatly didn't trust leaving them alone with. further, as i was the only one of us with an actual income source, i would have been the primary lessor - and taken on liability for two unemployed people. i could not reasonably do that, and nobody would have reasonably allowed me to do that, either.
i became aware some time later that these people badly misinterpreted the scenario. these are the kinds of people that interpret the world through the lens of hierarchy and dominance, so they found it unacceptable that a loser such as myself could find an apartment, while their superior innate coolness couldn't. but, i had an income source and they didn't. it was really that simple.
again: my intent was to find a one bedroom apartment, because i needed a safe space to store my gear. i was willing to entertain other suggestions, but i did not at any point take them very seriously. i did not and still do not want to live in a house with other tenants.
and, suggestions otherwise are a combination of malice and poorly placed jealousy.
i came down with two unemployed people: one on short term ei and the other with no discernible income at all. the reason these people were unable to find accommodations is that they were unable to provide a reliable income source.
i was on full time disability, which is a small but reliable source.
i made it clear that i was not particularly interested in signing a lease with these people, as they seemed shifty and untrustworthy. i made it clear that i had expensive gear that i needed to keep in a locked space, and flatly didn't trust leaving them alone with. further, as i was the only one of us with an actual income source, i would have been the primary lessor - and taken on liability for two unemployed people. i could not reasonably do that, and nobody would have reasonably allowed me to do that, either.
i became aware some time later that these people badly misinterpreted the scenario. these are the kinds of people that interpret the world through the lens of hierarchy and dominance, so they found it unacceptable that a loser such as myself could find an apartment, while their superior innate coolness couldn't. but, i had an income source and they didn't. it was really that simple.
again: my intent was to find a one bedroom apartment, because i needed a safe space to store my gear. i was willing to entertain other suggestions, but i did not at any point take them very seriously. i did not and still do not want to live in a house with other tenants.
and, suggestions otherwise are a combination of malice and poorly placed jealousy.
see, this is the kind of listing that is pissing me off...
i don't want to share a room with a hindi teenager, and i don't really want to live in a female-only rooming house, either. nor do i want a furnished space. but, a non-smoking basement apartment for $700 is pretty much exactly what i want.
it says "near university", but it's not like it's on a campus or anything. it's just downtown.
three or four years ago, this would have been rented to a low income person for $500-600, unfurnished. but this influx of students has created what almost seems like an immigration ring. i mean, you can tell from the grammar that this person is chinese. and, they're not merely looking for a student, but an asian one.
i'm not being alarmist. i'm not making things up. these ads are quite plentiful. the truth is that there's lots of housing available....
...it's just being sat on by international buyers, who are building some kind of business model on this diploma mill. what they really want is a commercial relationship with the sponsor. and, it's a good guess that the different landlord have different agreements with the different sponsors...
so, what is going to happen in september when classes start? are they going to open up what's left? sit on it?
if this is the reality here, so be it - i'll need to start looking in niagara, or waterloo, or london. but, i need my fucking court order, first.
i don't want to share a room with a hindi teenager, and i don't really want to live in a female-only rooming house, either. nor do i want a furnished space. but, a non-smoking basement apartment for $700 is pretty much exactly what i want.
it says "near university", but it's not like it's on a campus or anything. it's just downtown.
three or four years ago, this would have been rented to a low income person for $500-600, unfurnished. but this influx of students has created what almost seems like an immigration ring. i mean, you can tell from the grammar that this person is chinese. and, they're not merely looking for a student, but an asian one.
i'm not being alarmist. i'm not making things up. these ads are quite plentiful. the truth is that there's lots of housing available....
...it's just being sat on by international buyers, who are building some kind of business model on this diploma mill. what they really want is a commercial relationship with the sponsor. and, it's a good guess that the different landlord have different agreements with the different sponsors...
so, what is going to happen in september when classes start? are they going to open up what's left? sit on it?
if this is the reality here, so be it - i'll need to start looking in niagara, or waterloo, or london. but, i need my fucking court order, first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)