i actually spent quite a while over the last few days trying to figure out how to do this in a way that was frivolous, but when i sat down to write it, i realized that i actually have a decent argument.
at the very least, this is going to be hard to actively dismiss.
==
THE APPELLANT APPEALS to the Divisional Court from the order of (Landlord and Tenant Board) dated Aug 1, 2018 made at London, Ontario.
THE APPELLANT ASKS that the order be set aside and an order instead be granted for month-to-month tenancy in the unit in question, and at the 25% reduction, until the appellant is able to secure smoke-free housing and consequently vacate the unit.
THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are as follows:
Main Grounds under s. 83(3)(d)
1. The initial application to the board, made in April of 2018, was a T2 and a T6, together, requesting an end to the tenancy and compensation for negligence around non-action in keeping second-hand smoke (SWT-16361-18) out of the unit. The applicant initially thought that it would be relatively easy to secure non-smoking housing, and requested a July 1st move-out date as a result of this. However, the tribunal date was delayed until July 5th, making the initial request impossible. The applicant also learned over May and June that moving would be more difficult than initially thought, as the vacancy rate in Windsor is low and non-smoking housing is scarce. The provincial election also created some uncertainty.
2. At the hearing, the applicant requested that the tenancy be placed month-to-month to ensure that this process did not lead to accidental homelessness, as that appeared to be a potential outcome, in the case that healthy housing could not be found. The adjudicator insisted that the respondent has a right to certainty, and asked for a specific date. Under some duress, the applicant accepted a move-out date of Sept 30, 2018, and hoped it would work out for the best.
3. As of Sept 10, 2018, it appears that this hard exit date is going to lead to the feared condition of homelessness.
4. To use a deprecated term with some poetic license, it is patently unreasonable for a tenant to apply to the board seeking damages for negligence, win the case and then end up homeless because alternative housing arrangements cannot be found. Under s. 83(3)(d), eviction cannot be ordered as a consequence of enforcing a right. Yet, this is essentially what is happening. This agreement to end the tenancy was coerced by the adjudicator, who should have put the tenancy on a month-to-month as was requested, rather than effectively order an eviction on a rights issue.
5. So, the error made by the adjudicator is under s. 83(3)(d), as she ordered an eviction as a consequence of a conflict stemming from an assertion of rights, when the applicant requested a month-to-month agreement, instead. This will be clear in the audio and the transcripts.
THE BASIS OF THE APPELLATE COURT’S JURISDICTION IS: The appeal is from a final order of an adjudicator of an administrative tribunal, namely the Landlord and Tenant Board of Ontario; see Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 19(1)(c).
The appellant requests that this appeal be heard at 245 Windsor Ave, Windsor, Ontario.
====
the appeal will probably be heard in london, if we get there.
this is actually kind of recursive, isn't it?
i will obviously drop the appeal if i find a way out.
Sunday, September 9, 2018
i"m going to be honest about it, and appeal on a point of reasonableness.
i was going to file on a point of correctness, and argue 25% was too low. that's frivolous. and, i'd need to drop the appeal before it gets to trial. but, if i file on a point of reasonableness that i asked for month-to-month and she insisted on an end date, i can at least make an argument if i have to.
listen: if you can find me a way out tomorrow, i'll sign the lease.
i've had options, they just didn't want to sign.
and, i still have three weeks to get out...
i was going to file on a point of correctness, and argue 25% was too low. that's frivolous. and, i'd need to drop the appeal before it gets to trial. but, if i file on a point of reasonableness that i asked for month-to-month and she insisted on an end date, i can at least make an argument if i have to.
listen: if you can find me a way out tomorrow, i'll sign the lease.
i've had options, they just didn't want to sign.
and, i still have three weeks to get out...
i want to leave immediately.
but, i am going to have to do this this week.
i am not withholding any more rent than i am legally entitled to, and will pay a fair rent until i can get out.
i think the adjudicator, while otherwise presenting a fair ruling, was not well informed on the state of the market in windsor. i asked for month-to-month for a reason: the market is very hard right now.
if i haven't found anything by the spring, i will put my things in storage and leave on my own accord. that will give me 6-8 months to find something, somewhere else, before it gets cold again.
i suspect that the smoker may leave if presented with this, as the windows will be open all winter, if she smokes inside.
http://ontariolandlordandtenantlaw.blogspot.com/2013/07/appeals-to-divisional-court.html
but, i am going to have to do this this week.
i am not withholding any more rent than i am legally entitled to, and will pay a fair rent until i can get out.
i think the adjudicator, while otherwise presenting a fair ruling, was not well informed on the state of the market in windsor. i asked for month-to-month for a reason: the market is very hard right now.
if i haven't found anything by the spring, i will put my things in storage and leave on my own accord. that will give me 6-8 months to find something, somewhere else, before it gets cold again.
i suspect that the smoker may leave if presented with this, as the windows will be open all winter, if she smokes inside.
http://ontariolandlordandtenantlaw.blogspot.com/2013/07/appeals-to-divisional-court.html
so, classes started on sept 6th, and i'm noticing student rooms are actually emptying out already - creating rooms that aren't available until october or november.
it's easier to understand how these kids may be going somewhere, and harder to understand how more kids might be coming in. these landladies do not strike me as fun to live with - the worst kind of conservative mothers you can imagine, sort of thing. if there's a student run house down the street that needs tenants, that might make more sense, especially if that house allows sharing, and that's what you've always known, right?
these kids are going to get lonely with rooms by themselves. that is normal and expected to me, but strange and alien to them.
the point is that it's easy to get your head around the idea of kids moving around.
what's going to be harder to understand is if these ads carry on. and, i'm wondering. 'cause i've been wondering for a while if this might be a ring of some sort.
it just seems very organized.
so, am i going to see this surplus of student houses moving forwards past october 1st? it's going to be that much more obvious if i do.
it's easier to understand how these kids may be going somewhere, and harder to understand how more kids might be coming in. these landladies do not strike me as fun to live with - the worst kind of conservative mothers you can imagine, sort of thing. if there's a student run house down the street that needs tenants, that might make more sense, especially if that house allows sharing, and that's what you've always known, right?
these kids are going to get lonely with rooms by themselves. that is normal and expected to me, but strange and alien to them.
the point is that it's easy to get your head around the idea of kids moving around.
what's going to be harder to understand is if these ads carry on. and, i'm wondering. 'cause i've been wondering for a while if this might be a ring of some sort.
it just seems very organized.
so, am i going to see this surplus of student houses moving forwards past october 1st? it's going to be that much more obvious if i do.
but, now let's turn this around.
the next thing i want to hear is: "i thought that guy was a fag, but he seems like he might be kinda cool as a woman".
and, finally, "i thought that was just a guy, but it turns out she's a really cool chick."
just get me somewhere where i get to choose when i'm smoking.
the next thing i want to hear is: "i thought that guy was a fag, but he seems like he might be kinda cool as a woman".
and, finally, "i thought that was just a guy, but it turns out she's a really cool chick."
just get me somewhere where i get to choose when i'm smoking.
actually, i think it's perfectly fitting to make ironic points about white supremacism by making an example of the communist jew.
who else would take the fall? who else would die for these sins, innocently, by any conceivable metric?
if history has any process at all, this is not just the most rational answer, but, in fact, the only answer. nobody else could possibly take the blame for this; nobody else could possibly be executed for it.
just don't worship me, you fucking idiots.
who else would take the fall? who else would die for these sins, innocently, by any conceivable metric?
if history has any process at all, this is not just the most rational answer, but, in fact, the only answer. nobody else could possibly take the blame for this; nobody else could possibly be executed for it.
just don't worship me, you fucking idiots.
how was the summer here?
it was late. we had a few nice weeks at the end of may, but june was, overall, pretty brutal. july & august have actually been ideal weather (in my opinion). it's the nicest summer since i moved here. it is really truly a shame that i didn't have time to enjoy it, as i've been fighting with neighbours burning shit for months, and unable to secure a way out.
i still don't think i missed anything.
i'm more irritated about being unproductive.
she seems to be back to burning sage in the kitchen, again. if that's what it is. it smells like a campfire, basically. i've never dropped the idea that she's smoking meth. of the many things she's burning, sage is the worst - especially if she thinks it's cleansing something.
the science is actually very clear that sage smoke is brutally carcinogenic; it's toxic. really. the idea that it's "cleansing" anything is outrageously ignorant. and the way you burn it - in plumes - makes it far more dangerous than anything else.
all burning plant matter is carcinogenic.
i mean, guess what kids: tobacco is natural , too.
it was late. we had a few nice weeks at the end of may, but june was, overall, pretty brutal. july & august have actually been ideal weather (in my opinion). it's the nicest summer since i moved here. it is really truly a shame that i didn't have time to enjoy it, as i've been fighting with neighbours burning shit for months, and unable to secure a way out.
i still don't think i missed anything.
i'm more irritated about being unproductive.
she seems to be back to burning sage in the kitchen, again. if that's what it is. it smells like a campfire, basically. i've never dropped the idea that she's smoking meth. of the many things she's burning, sage is the worst - especially if she thinks it's cleansing something.
the science is actually very clear that sage smoke is brutally carcinogenic; it's toxic. really. the idea that it's "cleansing" anything is outrageously ignorant. and the way you burn it - in plumes - makes it far more dangerous than anything else.
all burning plant matter is carcinogenic.
i mean, guess what kids: tobacco is natural , too.
i am on the side that wants to see women remove their own veils, because they are autonomous and individual decision makers that don't need or want to obey the dictates of a backwards & patriarchal culture.
but, you have to - have to - understand that that means they must take the veils off, themselves. they can be convinced to. perhaps even coerced to. but, if they refuse, that must not be interfered with.
this used to be the side we called liberalism. if that is not the side that people that identify as liberals are on any more, then i will need to change the side i am on. but, it is liberalism that has changed, and not me.
make no mistake though: i would absolutely like for them to tear them off, and perhaps to burn them in displays of defiance.
but, you have to - have to - understand that that means they must take the veils off, themselves. they can be convinced to. perhaps even coerced to. but, if they refuse, that must not be interfered with.
this used to be the side we called liberalism. if that is not the side that people that identify as liberals are on any more, then i will need to change the side i am on. but, it is liberalism that has changed, and not me.
make no mistake though: i would absolutely like for them to tear them off, and perhaps to burn them in displays of defiance.
the guy that brought me here, the old guy before the change of ownership in the last house, was fairly close to this. he legitimately liked me. i was perhaps even his favourite tenant. and, the frustrating thing is that he liked exactly the things about me that i've been getting in trouble for since. he once suggested i was the most responsible person he ever met, meaning he liked my tendency towards taking control of situations.
i can be an ideal tenant.
i just need an ideal landlord.
and i need a healthy living space.
to put it another way: if you put me in an unhealthy situation, you're going to get an unhealthy reaction. and, if you put me in a healthy situation, i'm going to behave accordingly, as well.
humans aren't electrons, past behaviour isn't necessarily predictive. but, experiments need to have controlled conditions. and, i have a history of thriving when placed in the right environments...
i just keep ending up in these terrible situations, because i can't get away from these sadistic forces. but, that's capitalism, right? and, that's what i'm trying to get out of, in truth: i'm seeking an escape from capital. not a flight from it. just a bunker. hidden in plain view. just enough that the vampires don't notice, and let me exist.
i can be an ideal tenant.
i just need an ideal landlord.
and i need a healthy living space.
to put it another way: if you put me in an unhealthy situation, you're going to get an unhealthy reaction. and, if you put me in a healthy situation, i'm going to behave accordingly, as well.
humans aren't electrons, past behaviour isn't necessarily predictive. but, experiments need to have controlled conditions. and, i have a history of thriving when placed in the right environments...
i just keep ending up in these terrible situations, because i can't get away from these sadistic forces. but, that's capitalism, right? and, that's what i'm trying to get out of, in truth: i'm seeking an escape from capital. not a flight from it. just a bunker. hidden in plain view. just enough that the vampires don't notice, and let me exist.
well, have you ever met a sane artist?
well?
"i met this delightfully sane composer this morning."
it's a contradiction in terms, because creativity exists outside the margins.
which is why i have to reiterate the point: i need a place for artists. not a place for entrepreneurs, not a place for families, not a place for the religious - a place for people to escape from that, to exist outside of preconceptions, to avoid market forces, to get on beyond the expected and just be.
and, a sympathetic landlord is imperative to this.
i'm not opposed to drug use. i'm sure i'll do plenty of drugs in the future. i just don't want to live in it. i can't tolerate the numbness of perpetual inebriation; that is not an escape from anything except yourself.
well?
"i met this delightfully sane composer this morning."
it's a contradiction in terms, because creativity exists outside the margins.
which is why i have to reiterate the point: i need a place for artists. not a place for entrepreneurs, not a place for families, not a place for the religious - a place for people to escape from that, to exist outside of preconceptions, to avoid market forces, to get on beyond the expected and just be.
and, a sympathetic landlord is imperative to this.
i'm not opposed to drug use. i'm sure i'll do plenty of drugs in the future. i just don't want to live in it. i can't tolerate the numbness of perpetual inebriation; that is not an escape from anything except yourself.
Saturday, September 8, 2018
what i'm intuiting is this.
let's say you've got ten houses lined up besides each other, across the street from the university. they're all big houses. 5,6,7,8 rooms.
a few years ago, they had a mix of tenants: students, workers, disabled people, whatever. but, they've all been bought up by elderly asian women from toronto (apparently.) who want to turn them into furnished rentals for students only.
the problem is that these asian kids are all poor, which is why they ended up here at the epicentre of decay, and they want to share rooms. two, three people a room. that doesn't fly in these fancy furnished houses. so, if there was enough centralized planning to match enrolment to housing (there almost certainly wasn't.), it badly miscalculated the amount of housing necessary.
so, now, every single one of those ten houses is half empty.
the solution, long term, is going to be to move the kids in some of the houses into the other ones, leaving empty houses that can be rented to non-students.
but, for right now, pretty much all of these old asian women are going to be left with a choice that nobody seems to have told them is endemic to capitalism: adjust to the market or lose a lot of money.
i'm trying to sneak into a few places that are separate units. basements. side units. etc. but, my interest in this is more about getting some of the excess demand off the market, as it will narrow down the competition for what i actually want.
of course, i'm running out of time...
i might have to serve the painter tomorrow. i'm going to review the rules.
let's say you've got ten houses lined up besides each other, across the street from the university. they're all big houses. 5,6,7,8 rooms.
a few years ago, they had a mix of tenants: students, workers, disabled people, whatever. but, they've all been bought up by elderly asian women from toronto (apparently.) who want to turn them into furnished rentals for students only.
the problem is that these asian kids are all poor, which is why they ended up here at the epicentre of decay, and they want to share rooms. two, three people a room. that doesn't fly in these fancy furnished houses. so, if there was enough centralized planning to match enrolment to housing (there almost certainly wasn't.), it badly miscalculated the amount of housing necessary.
so, now, every single one of those ten houses is half empty.
the solution, long term, is going to be to move the kids in some of the houses into the other ones, leaving empty houses that can be rented to non-students.
but, for right now, pretty much all of these old asian women are going to be left with a choice that nobody seems to have told them is endemic to capitalism: adjust to the market or lose a lot of money.
i'm trying to sneak into a few places that are separate units. basements. side units. etc. but, my interest in this is more about getting some of the excess demand off the market, as it will narrow down the competition for what i actually want.
of course, i'm running out of time...
i might have to serve the painter tomorrow. i'm going to review the rules.
there's two different components of a discrimination suit.
the first thing you have to prove is that you're being discriminated against, and that's the easy part - discrimination is rampant. and, trust me, i'm dealing with a ton of it, and people that don't even understand what they're doing. "seniors only" is discrimination, except that there's a loophole in the law that says it isn't - this is a rare, and singular example. i bet there's units open, though. ugh.
"muslims only" is discrimination. "indians only" is discrimination. "students only" is discrimination. and, these are the kinds of things you actually see in real life.
go to the windsor kijiji page. no. do it. you will see zero whites only ads. zero christians only ads.
the one thing that is rampant and that the foucauldians would identify as discrimination would be "employed people only" - and most people aren't even going to realize that that is discrimination, at all. but, if the disabled are not the most vulnerable people in our society, who are?
i'm an openly trans, openly atheist, obviously brown person on disability. i know that heterosexual white men think they're the most discriminated against. but, i'm at the actual bottom of any concept of hierarchy - both the foucauldian concept of it and the reactionary concept of it.
i face constant discrimination.
but, it's a lot harder to put a dollar figure on it. that's the second part - the hard part. it's easy to prove you're being discriminated against. it's very hard to prove that they're liable for any damages as a consequence of it.
so, if i call somebody up and they deny me for housing because i'm disabled, or because i'm queer, or because i'm an atheist, i have a good case that i can likely win. but, then what? if they don't owe me any money, or didn't break a lease, or didn't decide otherwise at the last minute, all i'm entitled to is a pat on the back.
"congratulations, you're a victim."
you know who gets paid? the state. the order is a fine.
and, yes: there's a couple of names i've kept track of that i think ought to write a check to the government.
i'll deal with this when i have somewhere healthy to sleep.
the first thing you have to prove is that you're being discriminated against, and that's the easy part - discrimination is rampant. and, trust me, i'm dealing with a ton of it, and people that don't even understand what they're doing. "seniors only" is discrimination, except that there's a loophole in the law that says it isn't - this is a rare, and singular example. i bet there's units open, though. ugh.
"muslims only" is discrimination. "indians only" is discrimination. "students only" is discrimination. and, these are the kinds of things you actually see in real life.
go to the windsor kijiji page. no. do it. you will see zero whites only ads. zero christians only ads.
the one thing that is rampant and that the foucauldians would identify as discrimination would be "employed people only" - and most people aren't even going to realize that that is discrimination, at all. but, if the disabled are not the most vulnerable people in our society, who are?
i'm an openly trans, openly atheist, obviously brown person on disability. i know that heterosexual white men think they're the most discriminated against. but, i'm at the actual bottom of any concept of hierarchy - both the foucauldian concept of it and the reactionary concept of it.
i face constant discrimination.
but, it's a lot harder to put a dollar figure on it. that's the second part - the hard part. it's easy to prove you're being discriminated against. it's very hard to prove that they're liable for any damages as a consequence of it.
so, if i call somebody up and they deny me for housing because i'm disabled, or because i'm queer, or because i'm an atheist, i have a good case that i can likely win. but, then what? if they don't owe me any money, or didn't break a lease, or didn't decide otherwise at the last minute, all i'm entitled to is a pat on the back.
"congratulations, you're a victim."
you know who gets paid? the state. the order is a fine.
and, yes: there's a couple of names i've kept track of that i think ought to write a check to the government.
i'll deal with this when i have somewhere healthy to sleep.
the attic really didn't make sense.
if i was a painter...
but, for what i do, i need a basement. really. like, it pretty much *must* be a basement, or an apartment. even an upper duplex is pretty much pointless.
i was thinking "it's clear things won't get better here. if i move there month to month, maybe things will get better.".
but, it's not rational.
it's plywood flooring. i don't even know if it's sound. i can't start moving all kinds of stuff in there. and, i don't expect it to keep the noise in well, either.
i went back and saw the smaller unit, and it was both smoky and too small.
i need to let it go...
if i was a painter...
but, for what i do, i need a basement. really. like, it pretty much *must* be a basement, or an apartment. even an upper duplex is pretty much pointless.
i was thinking "it's clear things won't get better here. if i move there month to month, maybe things will get better.".
but, it's not rational.
it's plywood flooring. i don't even know if it's sound. i can't start moving all kinds of stuff in there. and, i don't expect it to keep the noise in well, either.
i went back and saw the smaller unit, and it was both smoky and too small.
i need to let it go...
i'm still not sure if the gatekeeper is crazy or crooked, but i think i've had enough of this game. and, he played his hand, whether he realized it or not.
he has three units in the building. he seems insistent on renting the smallest one to me, indifferent or disinterested in the fact that i have the cash for the larger space, and need it for my gear. the smaller space is simply too small. and it's less than $489. i have up to $800 to spend on rent. so, why would i settle for something for less than $489? if i was going to go for a small space, i'd get something nicer for twice the price! but, that's not what i want. the point of this exercise is to get a big, affordable space that i can create in, not a small, cheap space that i can save cash in. i don't need the cash. i won't spend it. and, i don't have anything to save it for. should i sent it back to the government?
"sorry. didn't need this."
the attic unit is also open, but there's a smoker on the patio below it, and the place reeked. so, we avoided the legal discussion, because i turned the place down outright.
that's not the real point, though.
he claims the basement unit is rented, but i suspect it is actually flooded from the rain storm last week. i asked him about that initially, and he denied it. now he's claiming there's a plumbing issue.
i'm not completely convinced he's crooked, but i'm convinced he's withholding information, and not particularly keen on it.
it was the basement i wanted, but not if it's going to flood.
i'm not mad, i'm frustrated.
i'm going to nap a little and start fresh in the afternoon.
for the rest of the weekend, the appeal is a more pressing priority than apartment looking.
he has three units in the building. he seems insistent on renting the smallest one to me, indifferent or disinterested in the fact that i have the cash for the larger space, and need it for my gear. the smaller space is simply too small. and it's less than $489. i have up to $800 to spend on rent. so, why would i settle for something for less than $489? if i was going to go for a small space, i'd get something nicer for twice the price! but, that's not what i want. the point of this exercise is to get a big, affordable space that i can create in, not a small, cheap space that i can save cash in. i don't need the cash. i won't spend it. and, i don't have anything to save it for. should i sent it back to the government?
"sorry. didn't need this."
the attic unit is also open, but there's a smoker on the patio below it, and the place reeked. so, we avoided the legal discussion, because i turned the place down outright.
that's not the real point, though.
he claims the basement unit is rented, but i suspect it is actually flooded from the rain storm last week. i asked him about that initially, and he denied it. now he's claiming there's a plumbing issue.
i'm not completely convinced he's crooked, but i'm convinced he's withholding information, and not particularly keen on it.
it was the basement i wanted, but not if it's going to flood.
i'm not mad, i'm frustrated.
i'm going to nap a little and start fresh in the afternoon.
for the rest of the weekend, the appeal is a more pressing priority than apartment looking.
so, let's say you have a nazi, and he doesn't want to rent to a jew.
or a kkk member and he doesn't want to rent to an african.
should the court put the african in kkk housing? or the jew in the oven?
would the landlord burn a cross on his own yard?
no. the court process will be about damages incurred. and, if the jew can't come up with any damages, they might not get anything.
or a kkk member and he doesn't want to rent to an african.
should the court put the african in kkk housing? or the jew in the oven?
would the landlord burn a cross on his own yard?
no. the court process will be about damages incurred. and, if the jew can't come up with any damages, they might not get anything.
and, my father was born no more than a few miles from where he died, in
ottawa - the city he spent his whole life in. he grew up in the ritchie
street projects, of mixed ancestry, but of deep francophone catholic
upbringing. middle names are william & joseph, and i'm lucky i
escaped that, really. christened as an infant. spoke french as a first
language. went to church every week. played hockey - for the 67's, even.
so, he looked like an italian jew, but he was as french canadian as can
possibly be...
the way he describes it is like this...tersely...
- tenant says he's moving himself in. just him.
- they sign.
- tenant indicates he's moving his mom in, too.
- gatekeeper says no. none shall pass.
- gatekeeper offers back deposit
- tenant refuses.
now, i need to get some more information, obviously. there's a lease. sure. but, the gatekeeper has some rights, as well. the gatekeeper can't really tear up the lease, but it can refuse entry to the mom, and then immediately evict if she goes in anyways. and, then what? does the tenant want an eviction notice on day one? i think there's a certain grey area that this falls in, where the tenant is insisting on unacceptable terms, before they move in.
again: if the tenant had already moved in, it would be very, very different. but, as it is, the best argument that the tenant has is costs related to temporary housing. remember: a body like the landlord & tenant board can only award concrete costs. it can't award psychological damages, or something. he'd have to go to the human rights board, for that.
and, see, i do suspect that the gatekeeper may unfortunately have a case he has to fight. but, he'll probably win it, so long as he gives back the deposit. that's the only concrete cost, here.
to force a landlord to rent to a tenant under these circumstances would clearly be toxic. it won't happen. so, the unit is open. and, that's my primary consideration - even if i have to help the guy win a court battle, that he's going to have to fight anyways.
- tenant says he's moving himself in. just him.
- they sign.
- tenant indicates he's moving his mom in, too.
- gatekeeper says no. none shall pass.
- gatekeeper offers back deposit
- tenant refuses.
now, i need to get some more information, obviously. there's a lease. sure. but, the gatekeeper has some rights, as well. the gatekeeper can't really tear up the lease, but it can refuse entry to the mom, and then immediately evict if she goes in anyways. and, then what? does the tenant want an eviction notice on day one? i think there's a certain grey area that this falls in, where the tenant is insisting on unacceptable terms, before they move in.
again: if the tenant had already moved in, it would be very, very different. but, as it is, the best argument that the tenant has is costs related to temporary housing. remember: a body like the landlord & tenant board can only award concrete costs. it can't award psychological damages, or something. he'd have to go to the human rights board, for that.
and, see, i do suspect that the gatekeeper may unfortunately have a case he has to fight. but, he'll probably win it, so long as he gives back the deposit. that's the only concrete cost, here.
to force a landlord to rent to a tenant under these circumstances would clearly be toxic. it won't happen. so, the unit is open. and, that's my primary consideration - even if i have to help the guy win a court battle, that he's going to have to fight anyways.
my understanding of the law is that if he decides he wants me in, then the other guy is out of luck - and any legal battle is between him and the other guy. i can offer some advice, but it would ultimately have nothing to do with me.
it would be different if he already lived there...but, if i move in first, the court isn't going to move me out. i signed a lease, too. and i'm there.
on the other hand, if he changes his mind and goes back to the first guy, then i'm the one with the legal fight. and, i'm going to take it up to reasonable costs. that is, i'll drop it if he gives me the money back.
what i need to figure out is what he actually wants to do and whether he's signing this lease with intent.
it would be different if he already lived there...but, if i move in first, the court isn't going to move me out. i signed a lease, too. and i'm there.
on the other hand, if he changes his mind and goes back to the first guy, then i'm the one with the legal fight. and, i'm going to take it up to reasonable costs. that is, i'll drop it if he gives me the money back.
what i need to figure out is what he actually wants to do and whether he's signing this lease with intent.
so, i had a brief discussion with the gatekeeper, and he tried to go over something over the phone that i feel should be dealt with face-to-face.
he's claiming the unit is available. the thing is that that's ultimately up to him to determine, and up to him to deal with consequences surrounding it, should it not be the case. he claims he does not want to rent to this other guy. there's a mother from russia or something. whatever. i do not believe that the court can force him to rent to somebody if he doesn't want to, but it might order damages if he does. and, see, that's not my concern, if that's the case.
i want the unit, first & foremost. & if i can get a convincing assurance that the other guy isn't moving in, then i'll take the unit.
if i get the money in his hands, and the keys in mine, then those court battles don't concern me, whatever they are. if he double signs, the court isn't going to order me out, it's going to order compensation.
that said...
i can't really figure out if the gatekeeper is dealing with more stress than he's capable of, or if the gatekeeper is actually a seasoned con artist. there's evidence pointing in both directions. those red flags are still there - but the unit is still by far the best thing in front of me, too.
i'm going to have to get a careful read in tomorrow.
and, i'm willing to offer a little free legal advice out of empathy and camaraderie, even if it's not actually my own legal concern.
he's claiming the unit is available. the thing is that that's ultimately up to him to determine, and up to him to deal with consequences surrounding it, should it not be the case. he claims he does not want to rent to this other guy. there's a mother from russia or something. whatever. i do not believe that the court can force him to rent to somebody if he doesn't want to, but it might order damages if he does. and, see, that's not my concern, if that's the case.
i want the unit, first & foremost. & if i can get a convincing assurance that the other guy isn't moving in, then i'll take the unit.
if i get the money in his hands, and the keys in mine, then those court battles don't concern me, whatever they are. if he double signs, the court isn't going to order me out, it's going to order compensation.
that said...
i can't really figure out if the gatekeeper is dealing with more stress than he's capable of, or if the gatekeeper is actually a seasoned con artist. there's evidence pointing in both directions. those red flags are still there - but the unit is still by far the best thing in front of me, too.
i'm going to have to get a careful read in tomorrow.
and, i'm willing to offer a little free legal advice out of empathy and camaraderie, even if it's not actually my own legal concern.
Friday, September 7, 2018
listen: if i have to deal with smoke anyways then it makes far more sense to stay here at $525/month until i can plan an escape than it does to pay market rent elsewhere, and then have to move a third time.
so, it actually doesn't make sense to move, now, until i find the perfect spot.
they'll give me ten days, if the sheriff does show up, however many months from now.
obviously, i'd like to be out of here tomorrow. but there doesn't appear to be a way to do that....
so, it actually doesn't make sense to move, now, until i find the perfect spot.
they'll give me ten days, if the sheriff does show up, however many months from now.
obviously, i'd like to be out of here tomorrow. but there doesn't appear to be a way to do that....
the more i express my displeasure at being made sick by this person's selfish habits, the more she smokes.
there's been a lot of turnover here in the last few weeks. it seems like we have more non-smokers than we did previously. although i actually think it was the islamic festival across the street that scared a lot of people off....that seems to be when everybody decided to move out...
it could also be the neighbourhood, in general. there's a big influx of homeless people.
but, i really hope that some of these new tenants are as disgusted by this woman as i am and make a series of complaints.
the correct answer is to evict this woman.
there's been a lot of turnover here in the last few weeks. it seems like we have more non-smokers than we did previously. although i actually think it was the islamic festival across the street that scared a lot of people off....that seems to be when everybody decided to move out...
it could also be the neighbourhood, in general. there's a big influx of homeless people.
but, i really hope that some of these new tenants are as disgusted by this woman as i am and make a series of complaints.
the correct answer is to evict this woman.
the reason toronto is different is because it's so filthy rich.
so, yeah - there's art districts in toronto. but, if you want to live in them, you need to have inherited wealth. i mean, it's a big-L liberal place - it has a lot of lip service for art as an industry, and a lot of people that get a lot of grants. but, what that means is that the art district is made up of the children of investors, who have fancy fine arts degrees and no talent, or the children of artist's themselves. and, ironically, a lot of them just end up sitting on overpriced housing until they marry back into old money.
that's not anything at all like the underground art scene i need. it's not cheap rent; it's inflated rent. it's not an escape from hierarchy, it's adopting the status of an artiste. and, it's broadly expected that these people uphold a status quo of big-L liberal values, as they are creatures of the party, itself.
there's a reason that all the musicians out of toronto come from money, or have family already in the business - and why there aren't any underground artists coming out of the city, and never has been.
montreal was always the spot.
but, i'm already in detroit.
so, yeah - there's art districts in toronto. but, if you want to live in them, you need to have inherited wealth. i mean, it's a big-L liberal place - it has a lot of lip service for art as an industry, and a lot of people that get a lot of grants. but, what that means is that the art district is made up of the children of investors, who have fancy fine arts degrees and no talent, or the children of artist's themselves. and, ironically, a lot of them just end up sitting on overpriced housing until they marry back into old money.
that's not anything at all like the underground art scene i need. it's not cheap rent; it's inflated rent. it's not an escape from hierarchy, it's adopting the status of an artiste. and, it's broadly expected that these people uphold a status quo of big-L liberal values, as they are creatures of the party, itself.
there's a reason that all the musicians out of toronto come from money, or have family already in the business - and why there aren't any underground artists coming out of the city, and never has been.
montreal was always the spot.
but, i'm already in detroit.
what i want is the same thing that artists have always wanted: cheap rent, time to create and a community that is supportive of art as a vocation, which means support for alternative lifestyles.
there is a history of this on this continent. and, landlords have historically played an important role, by providing cheap housing to exist in. but, it's drying up here...the culture is changing, for the worse.
everybody just wants to tell me to get a job and start a family. it's depressing.
that doesn't seem to be happening in america. rather, there appear to be more like-minded people on the other side of the border who are all looking for the same escape - and a potential to build communities outside of traditional structures.
i'm not at the point of failure, yet.
i'm probably going to want to stay here for the winter, at least - even if it means bunkering in here for a frivolous appeal. i could potentially put another $5000-6000 away by paying the reduced rent and waiting out the process, which is less than i'll find anywhere else. it's not what i want, but it may be what i have to do.
and, if i can then take a few thousand dollars across that border, and use it for six-ten months of rent to get the basic tracks down, it might turn out to be my best option. my most productive option.
and, then, who knows what happens next.
i moved from ottawa to windsor on a couple of grand, while living on disability. there's nothing illegal about paying rent, right? as long as i don't work. surely i can get a few miles across that border.
there is a history of this on this continent. and, landlords have historically played an important role, by providing cheap housing to exist in. but, it's drying up here...the culture is changing, for the worse.
everybody just wants to tell me to get a job and start a family. it's depressing.
that doesn't seem to be happening in america. rather, there appear to be more like-minded people on the other side of the border who are all looking for the same escape - and a potential to build communities outside of traditional structures.
i'm not at the point of failure, yet.
i'm probably going to want to stay here for the winter, at least - even if it means bunkering in here for a frivolous appeal. i could potentially put another $5000-6000 away by paying the reduced rent and waiting out the process, which is less than i'll find anywhere else. it's not what i want, but it may be what i have to do.
and, if i can then take a few thousand dollars across that border, and use it for six-ten months of rent to get the basic tracks down, it might turn out to be my best option. my most productive option.
and, then, who knows what happens next.
i moved from ottawa to windsor on a couple of grand, while living on disability. there's nothing illegal about paying rent, right? as long as i don't work. surely i can get a few miles across that border.
if i had mobility rights, i could get to a city like portland, or austin - even if it's just for a while.
we don't have anything like that in canada. it's just a giant, boring suburban wasteland, with white picket fences, two car garages and kids dying of heroin overdoses, because the life of consumerism is so void and empty.
we used to have montreal, at least, but the same thing is happening there. toronto has always been expensive, and had a different kind of culture because of it. and, we lost vancouver a long time ago...
i'm waiting for a call from the gatekeeper that may or may not come, but one of the things i told him was that canada doesn't really exist, yet - or, not in the way it will be understood to history. and, the canada that history understands may be almost the exact opposite of what contemporary canadians imagine it as.
the canada that goes down in history may very well be a deeply conservative place, tied strongly to traditional values of religion and family first. that's the direction we're headed in now.
we don't have anything like that in canada. it's just a giant, boring suburban wasteland, with white picket fences, two car garages and kids dying of heroin overdoses, because the life of consumerism is so void and empty.
we used to have montreal, at least, but the same thing is happening there. toronto has always been expensive, and had a different kind of culture because of it. and, we lost vancouver a long time ago...
i'm waiting for a call from the gatekeeper that may or may not come, but one of the things i told him was that canada doesn't really exist, yet - or, not in the way it will be understood to history. and, the canada that history understands may be almost the exact opposite of what contemporary canadians imagine it as.
the canada that goes down in history may very well be a deeply conservative place, tied strongly to traditional values of religion and family first. that's the direction we're headed in now.
but, if we had full mobility rights as a part of nafta, i would have an easy solution to my problem, as i would be able to relocate into a liberal and arts-focused part of detroit, rather than being stuck in this sleepy, conservative, family-centric suburb of it.
again: i don't really want to live in windsor. just like i wouldn't want to live in kanata, or i wouldn't want to live in brampton. while windsor is like the poor man's kanata, or the poor immigrant's brampton, the refugee's brampton, it's still increasingly hurtling towards this mindset of boring small town suburbia, with churches or mosques on every corner, and nothing to do but get trashed. there's nothing to do here except raise a family...
what i want is to live in detroit, where there is an urban core dedicated to an urban lifestyle and an urban philosophy - secularism, liberalism, radical acceptance, art as a way of life, etc. but, there's that pesky border, there.
full mobility rights would fix that.
right now, the movement of people is only happening one way, and it's a part of the problem that's developing: it's too easy to get into canada, and too hard to get out.
again: i don't really want to live in windsor. just like i wouldn't want to live in kanata, or i wouldn't want to live in brampton. while windsor is like the poor man's kanata, or the poor immigrant's brampton, the refugee's brampton, it's still increasingly hurtling towards this mindset of boring small town suburbia, with churches or mosques on every corner, and nothing to do but get trashed. there's nothing to do here except raise a family...
what i want is to live in detroit, where there is an urban core dedicated to an urban lifestyle and an urban philosophy - secularism, liberalism, radical acceptance, art as a way of life, etc. but, there's that pesky border, there.
full mobility rights would fix that.
right now, the movement of people is only happening one way, and it's a part of the problem that's developing: it's too easy to get into canada, and too hard to get out.
like, i'm not just saying "this is gross, gag, vomit.". what i'm saying is "my body is having a negative physical reaction to the amount of secondhand smoke in the unit, and i am about to have a fit of violent vomiting, whether i like it or not."
and, of course, if your body wants to vomit in a situation like this, you should let it - because, by doing so, you're ejecting a stew of toxic chemicals, in the only way your body understands how.
and, of course, if your body wants to vomit in a situation like this, you should let it - because, by doing so, you're ejecting a stew of toxic chemicals, in the only way your body understands how.
i don't understand why she's chain smoking and listening to loud music in her apartment, by herself, at 1:00 in the morning.
it's just behaviour that is absolutely baffling to me. i wouldn't have acted like that at 15, 25 or 35 - and i don't imagine i'll act like that at 45 or 55.
everybody else is asleep. i'm the only person that's said anything, but i can't be the only person being bothered by it. at this point, i can't gain anything by continuing to complain. but why would you do that?
the smoke, once again, is making me physically sick - there is a good chance that i'm going to start vomiting. it's almost like the reaction you get when you give a 12 year old kid forty cigarettes, in an attempt to gross them out. i haven't had a cigarette in months, but i'm inhaling more smoke than i ever did when i was a smoker.
it's really hard for me to describe how bad it is. and, i can't take pictures or videos to describe it. but, the windows are fogged up from the smoke. i can taste it at the back of my throat. there's a thin layer of ash on the floor.
she must smoke 50 cigarettes a day. it's just constant. & unending.
it hurts to breathe. my stomach is in knots.
but, i can't find a way out.
and i just don't get it. like, what is she doing down there? what is the purpose of this?
it's just behaviour that is absolutely baffling to me. i wouldn't have acted like that at 15, 25 or 35 - and i don't imagine i'll act like that at 45 or 55.
everybody else is asleep. i'm the only person that's said anything, but i can't be the only person being bothered by it. at this point, i can't gain anything by continuing to complain. but why would you do that?
the smoke, once again, is making me physically sick - there is a good chance that i'm going to start vomiting. it's almost like the reaction you get when you give a 12 year old kid forty cigarettes, in an attempt to gross them out. i haven't had a cigarette in months, but i'm inhaling more smoke than i ever did when i was a smoker.
it's really hard for me to describe how bad it is. and, i can't take pictures or videos to describe it. but, the windows are fogged up from the smoke. i can taste it at the back of my throat. there's a thin layer of ash on the floor.
she must smoke 50 cigarettes a day. it's just constant. & unending.
it hurts to breathe. my stomach is in knots.
but, i can't find a way out.
and i just don't get it. like, what is she doing down there? what is the purpose of this?
Thursday, September 6, 2018
"but i pay taxes!"
i'm sure you do.
but, the health care part of those taxes are low because we've pooled the risk. any insurance company would boost your premiums through the roof if they knew you were that negligent and reckless, wouldn't they?
that's why there's a law - it's dangerous & reckless & negligent.
i'm sure you do.
but, the health care part of those taxes are low because we've pooled the risk. any insurance company would boost your premiums through the roof if they knew you were that negligent and reckless, wouldn't they?
that's why there's a law - it's dangerous & reckless & negligent.
a big part of a socialized health care system is the socialization of risk - which gives the majority certain rights to enforce specific rules, like helmet-wearing, in order to try and reduce costs. it also gives the majority the right to be coercive about unhealthy behaviour, like smoking and overeating.
it is eminently reasonable to transfer that risk back to the individual if they refuse to abide by those rules, for whatever silly reason they'd like. and, that applies to smokers and fat people, too.
let me put it to you this way: i don't think "it messes my hair" is a less valid reason than "because my religion says so". but, in context, that is the choice the individual gets to make: do they want to socialize the risk, and follow those rules, or take it back, in exchange for flaunting them? and, it doesn't matter what the argument is.
in the circumstance of being denied coverage, the patient would be able to argue (in court) that wearing a helmet wouldn't have helped, anyways. and, a judge could weigh that out.
it is eminently reasonable to transfer that risk back to the individual if they refuse to abide by those rules, for whatever silly reason they'd like. and, that applies to smokers and fat people, too.
let me put it to you this way: i don't think "it messes my hair" is a less valid reason than "because my religion says so". but, in context, that is the choice the individual gets to make: do they want to socialize the risk, and follow those rules, or take it back, in exchange for flaunting them? and, it doesn't matter what the argument is.
in the circumstance of being denied coverage, the patient would be able to argue (in court) that wearing a helmet wouldn't have helped, anyways. and, a judge could weigh that out.
i don't think anybody should be forced to wear a helmet. i don't wear one while bicycling, but i might have different opinion about a motorcycle.
i just want to introduce a caveat: in exchange for their recklessness, they should be liable for their own medical costs, in case of emergency. i don't want to suggest denial of service, i believe in universality. but, that should be the price to pay: if they want to put themselves at greater risk of harm for no discernibly good reason, they should be forced to pay out of pocket for expenses.
and, that rule should be applied to non-sikhs as well. if you don't want to wear a helmet, and then get hit by a truck? you're liable for costs arising from it.
you should get due process, too.
but, that escapes this "religious accommodation" clause, and in the way that i think should be widely emulated. "because my religion says so" should not be a loophole in the law, or a way to evade following the rules. in many cases, those laws exist precisely because your religion says so, in the first place. rather, when something like this comes up, the rule should be struck down altogether - and the risk and liability should be transferred to the individual, instead.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4420093/sikhs-turban-helmets-ontario/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=Outbrain&utm_campaign=2015
i just want to introduce a caveat: in exchange for their recklessness, they should be liable for their own medical costs, in case of emergency. i don't want to suggest denial of service, i believe in universality. but, that should be the price to pay: if they want to put themselves at greater risk of harm for no discernibly good reason, they should be forced to pay out of pocket for expenses.
and, that rule should be applied to non-sikhs as well. if you don't want to wear a helmet, and then get hit by a truck? you're liable for costs arising from it.
you should get due process, too.
but, that escapes this "religious accommodation" clause, and in the way that i think should be widely emulated. "because my religion says so" should not be a loophole in the law, or a way to evade following the rules. in many cases, those laws exist precisely because your religion says so, in the first place. rather, when something like this comes up, the rule should be struck down altogether - and the risk and liability should be transferred to the individual, instead.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4420093/sikhs-turban-helmets-ontario/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=Outbrain&utm_campaign=2015
again: i don't agree with these numbers at all.
i don't think we have to choose between supply management and market access; i think our domestic supply can outcompete these imports, and you're just going to see american products sitting on the shelf, or expiring before they get to market.
and, if i understand what's happening, i may even make a conscious choice to buy canadian.
what i'm getting at is that opening the market a little might be a reasonable concession, because it's not going to actually harm our industry, anyways - it's just going to lead to greater losses from american farmers, until they get their supply under control.
the bigger threat is the spread of factory farming.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4431314/nafta-donald-trump-canadian-dairy-market-access/
i don't think we have to choose between supply management and market access; i think our domestic supply can outcompete these imports, and you're just going to see american products sitting on the shelf, or expiring before they get to market.
and, if i understand what's happening, i may even make a conscious choice to buy canadian.
what i'm getting at is that opening the market a little might be a reasonable concession, because it's not going to actually harm our industry, anyways - it's just going to lead to greater losses from american farmers, until they get their supply under control.
the bigger threat is the spread of factory farming.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4431314/nafta-donald-trump-canadian-dairy-market-access/
if you want to talk about "modernizing the agreement", the reality is that nobody watches tv any more, anyways. we get our news from the internet. we watch series on youtube. and, we should be promoting more diversity in where we're getting information, not trying to keep the americans out of this gramscian tool.
i don't know what, exactly, "canadian identity" really is. but, if the government wants to promote arts on the ground through grants and other promotional tools, like guaranteed income, that would be very welcome.
so, even this face-saving is...
the government has had a lot of time to think this through, and all it's broadcasting with this is that it hasn't done it.
i don't know what, exactly, "canadian identity" really is. but, if the government wants to promote arts on the ground through grants and other promotional tools, like guaranteed income, that would be very welcome.
so, even this face-saving is...
the government has had a lot of time to think this through, and all it's broadcasting with this is that it hasn't done it.
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
the media is all of a sudden talking about "cultural protections" in nafta. and, this was a serious issue in the 80s, don't get me wrong. but, it's just jumped up out of nowhere, with little evidence that the americans are really pushing into the tv market.
they've already bought out our beer and our hockey, and stolen our music and our writing. they can have ctv if they want it. i want molson back.
but, regardless, this strikes me as a likely attempt to save face - a diversionary tactic to wrap themselves in the flag, in preparation for deep concessions.
well, deep "concessions".
i'm going to find myself in favour of much of what the talking heads on ctv declare to be apocalyptic.
i don't think it would that difficult to replace the kangaroo courts set up by chapter 19 with something that is actually juridical. there's no deficit of possibilities. and, these courts are so phony that we're better off ditching them altogether than holding on to them on a transitional basis.
but, expect the flag wrapping to continue. the national anthem, live at 5. beaver parades (don't think that through.), set to 2112.
oh, canada. your bankers are about to take it on the chin, yes. it might be good for workers, though...we'll see what it looks like, in the end.
they've already bought out our beer and our hockey, and stolen our music and our writing. they can have ctv if they want it. i want molson back.
but, regardless, this strikes me as a likely attempt to save face - a diversionary tactic to wrap themselves in the flag, in preparation for deep concessions.
well, deep "concessions".
i'm going to find myself in favour of much of what the talking heads on ctv declare to be apocalyptic.
i don't think it would that difficult to replace the kangaroo courts set up by chapter 19 with something that is actually juridical. there's no deficit of possibilities. and, these courts are so phony that we're better off ditching them altogether than holding on to them on a transitional basis.
but, expect the flag wrapping to continue. the national anthem, live at 5. beaver parades (don't think that through.), set to 2112.
oh, canada. your bankers are about to take it on the chin, yes. it might be good for workers, though...we'll see what it looks like, in the end.
again: regarding guns, i don't...
if you're going to argue for a ban on guns, i'm not going to present a counter-argument, or line up against you, or anything like that. i see little value in a gun-owning public, and have no cl;ear opposition to a gun ban, of any sort.
what i'm going to do is point out that the data on the topic makes it abundantly clear that a ban on hand guns is not likely to have any effect on reducing crime at all, and agitate instead for social policies that have a better empirical record.
if you're going to argue for a ban on guns, i'm not going to present a counter-argument, or line up against you, or anything like that. i see little value in a gun-owning public, and have no cl;ear opposition to a gun ban, of any sort.
what i'm going to do is point out that the data on the topic makes it abundantly clear that a ban on hand guns is not likely to have any effect on reducing crime at all, and agitate instead for social policies that have a better empirical record.
the gatekeeper called late last night - a little before midnight. and, i called him back.
the ad came down yesterday morning.
he apologized for being a "dick". and, he claims he may or may not have two units open and we can figure that out on friday.
this is still the best option in front of me, by far. but, the messaging i'm getting from him is full of red flags and stop signs, too. he seems to be adverse to signing things, and not fully intent on following through with what he signs. and, while his units appeared to be well taken care of, he doesn't seem to be in a hurry to rent them. but, that might be a net positive, too.
the guy is clearly eccentric.
but i'm clearly eccentric, too.
i'm just left with more uncertainty...
the ad came down yesterday morning.
he apologized for being a "dick". and, he claims he may or may not have two units open and we can figure that out on friday.
this is still the best option in front of me, by far. but, the messaging i'm getting from him is full of red flags and stop signs, too. he seems to be adverse to signing things, and not fully intent on following through with what he signs. and, while his units appeared to be well taken care of, he doesn't seem to be in a hurry to rent them. but, that might be a net positive, too.
the guy is clearly eccentric.
but i'm clearly eccentric, too.
i'm just left with more uncertainty...
but, is the stock market "natural phenomena"?
see, it's not as easy as coming up with a model, fitting it to time and then hoping it works as a predictive tool - you need a reason to apply it. and, this is actually the point where huge amounts of mathematical modelling fails outright.
stated as tersely as possible, fractals are self-repeating patterns, and there's consequently good reason to think you can fit trading data to a fractal-based model. if you're meticulous enough, you can no doubt get it very, very close by solving for the appropriate variables.
and, then, what you have is a model that explains what already happened, in the past. it might be nearly perfect - almost no error bars. but, then using that model to predict the future is truly nothing more than a leap of faith - unless you have some argument, otherwise.
when you're modelling physical data, that's where the actual physics comes in. you can claim that the model is predictive because the force of gravity exists between all massive bodies, or because electricity and magnetism are the same thing or whatever other physical idea you want to present.
but, when you're modelling stock trading, or large scale market behaviour in general, you're just presenting a circular argument: the model is predictive, because you want it to be, essentially. that is, you're trying to understand the phenomena by predicting it with a mathematical theory, rather than using the math to explain the theory. and, see, you might be right. we've learned physics this way, certainly. but, it's just a guess, and it doesn't actually get you anywhere in the end, or at least not in an epistemological sense - what you actually want to know is why you're right.
my understanding is that this kind of deconstruction really applies to any attempt to analyse patterns in the market. and, the reason is that there isn't actually a natural phenomenon underlying the decisions we make. humans are not electrons. and, while we nowadays think electrons are actually pretty random, humans don't even have a wave function.
my opinion is that it's a fool's errand. but, that opinion is only valuable until somebody shows me a truly predictive model - and then we need to figure out why, which is likely to have implications about human quanta that are hard to even imagine, right now.
see, it's not as easy as coming up with a model, fitting it to time and then hoping it works as a predictive tool - you need a reason to apply it. and, this is actually the point where huge amounts of mathematical modelling fails outright.
stated as tersely as possible, fractals are self-repeating patterns, and there's consequently good reason to think you can fit trading data to a fractal-based model. if you're meticulous enough, you can no doubt get it very, very close by solving for the appropriate variables.
and, then, what you have is a model that explains what already happened, in the past. it might be nearly perfect - almost no error bars. but, then using that model to predict the future is truly nothing more than a leap of faith - unless you have some argument, otherwise.
when you're modelling physical data, that's where the actual physics comes in. you can claim that the model is predictive because the force of gravity exists between all massive bodies, or because electricity and magnetism are the same thing or whatever other physical idea you want to present.
but, when you're modelling stock trading, or large scale market behaviour in general, you're just presenting a circular argument: the model is predictive, because you want it to be, essentially. that is, you're trying to understand the phenomena by predicting it with a mathematical theory, rather than using the math to explain the theory. and, see, you might be right. we've learned physics this way, certainly. but, it's just a guess, and it doesn't actually get you anywhere in the end, or at least not in an epistemological sense - what you actually want to know is why you're right.
my understanding is that this kind of deconstruction really applies to any attempt to analyse patterns in the market. and, the reason is that there isn't actually a natural phenomenon underlying the decisions we make. humans are not electrons. and, while we nowadays think electrons are actually pretty random, humans don't even have a wave function.
my opinion is that it's a fool's errand. but, that opinion is only valuable until somebody shows me a truly predictive model - and then we need to figure out why, which is likely to have implications about human quanta that are hard to even imagine, right now.
Tuesday, September 4, 2018
fwiw - or to recap.
a few months ago, i put some tape over some cracks in the floors and the walls to try and block smoke seepage from coming in. this was mostly over the baseboards, but there were also some pre-existing cracks in the wall. now, ask yourself - why would i tape over the wall if there wasn't a crack in it? so, there were cracks where i taped, clearly.
i made a formal request to fix these cracks within days of moving in here, but was told by the painter in the building that they'd rather let it sit and fix it later. at the time, that seemed fine. my concern was more in documenting the existence of these cracks and for that reason pictures of these cracks at the time of move-in (or close to it.) do exist.
so, this would be an easy argument for me to win - i'd merely have to show that there were cracks in the wall before i moved in.
while this taping had an initial effect, it was eventually overpowered. and, it also eventually became clear that the flooring itself was damaged beyond anything i could do in my own unit. smoke-proofing this unit would have to be done from downstairs.
so, i made a formal request to do so, which was never seriously responded to.
in taking the tape off the baseboards, i took a minimal amount of paint with me. and, so, i acknowledge that the unit needs to be painted. but, one normally paints a unit between tenancies, anyways.
these baseboards were already caulked shut, presumably to react to smoke damage from downstairs.
my position on the matter is that any extra paint costs should be covered by the $25 deposit, which i will willingly forfeit. but, this is has more to do with me not wanting to fight over $25. i doubt they'd win such a small claim, even, as painting is expected and normal.
i have not received any documentation requesting damages, nor have i received court documents surrounding the issue. but, i have warned the landlord that i have sufficient documentation to defeat them in court, and would be aggressive in seeking damages, should they waste my time.
so, any claims that this unit is damaged are not supported by any evidence that i'm aware of. and, i will deny it outright: the unit will look fine once it's been painted, and the pre-existing problems are addressed.
nor did the owners of the previous unit approach me in any way about damages. in that unit, i took some steps to keep the roaches out and may have left some rust (from steel wool) behind some counters, in places nobody could actually see. the previous owner was actually aware of the steps i took, and supportive of them, as they were effective in clearing the unit of pre-existing vermin, and much cheaper than ripping up the subfloor.
my problem here is that i am too responsible of a tenant to live in this kind of a building. i need something healthier, and with less pathetic people in it.
a few months ago, i put some tape over some cracks in the floors and the walls to try and block smoke seepage from coming in. this was mostly over the baseboards, but there were also some pre-existing cracks in the wall. now, ask yourself - why would i tape over the wall if there wasn't a crack in it? so, there were cracks where i taped, clearly.
i made a formal request to fix these cracks within days of moving in here, but was told by the painter in the building that they'd rather let it sit and fix it later. at the time, that seemed fine. my concern was more in documenting the existence of these cracks and for that reason pictures of these cracks at the time of move-in (or close to it.) do exist.
so, this would be an easy argument for me to win - i'd merely have to show that there were cracks in the wall before i moved in.
while this taping had an initial effect, it was eventually overpowered. and, it also eventually became clear that the flooring itself was damaged beyond anything i could do in my own unit. smoke-proofing this unit would have to be done from downstairs.
so, i made a formal request to do so, which was never seriously responded to.
in taking the tape off the baseboards, i took a minimal amount of paint with me. and, so, i acknowledge that the unit needs to be painted. but, one normally paints a unit between tenancies, anyways.
these baseboards were already caulked shut, presumably to react to smoke damage from downstairs.
my position on the matter is that any extra paint costs should be covered by the $25 deposit, which i will willingly forfeit. but, this is has more to do with me not wanting to fight over $25. i doubt they'd win such a small claim, even, as painting is expected and normal.
i have not received any documentation requesting damages, nor have i received court documents surrounding the issue. but, i have warned the landlord that i have sufficient documentation to defeat them in court, and would be aggressive in seeking damages, should they waste my time.
so, any claims that this unit is damaged are not supported by any evidence that i'm aware of. and, i will deny it outright: the unit will look fine once it's been painted, and the pre-existing problems are addressed.
nor did the owners of the previous unit approach me in any way about damages. in that unit, i took some steps to keep the roaches out and may have left some rust (from steel wool) behind some counters, in places nobody could actually see. the previous owner was actually aware of the steps i took, and supportive of them, as they were effective in clearing the unit of pre-existing vermin, and much cheaper than ripping up the subfloor.
my problem here is that i am too responsible of a tenant to live in this kind of a building. i need something healthier, and with less pathetic people in it.
having a job would actually not help me get what i want, which is a healthy living environment.
even the houses for sale downtown are going to have the same set of problems, as i'm going to be beside smoky neighbour.
the only way out of this is actually subsidized housing - that's the only non-smoking ticket in town. and, in order to get in there, i'd have to be homeless.
i wonder how long the list is, for homeless people.
well, if that's my only tactic, so be it. i'm going to call...
even the houses for sale downtown are going to have the same set of problems, as i'm going to be beside smoky neighbour.
the only way out of this is actually subsidized housing - that's the only non-smoking ticket in town. and, in order to get in there, i'd have to be homeless.
i wonder how long the list is, for homeless people.
well, if that's my only tactic, so be it. i'm going to call...
Monday, September 3, 2018
see, the problem with tying intelligence to achievement is that it assumes that being smart means you want to get lots of wealth.
and, if you don't realize that this obviously isn't true, then you default yourself from the start.
listen: i've taken a difficult path through life, some of it chosen and some of it not. it's given me a unique set of experiences. but, have i accomplished what i actually wanted?
well, i'm getting there.
right now what i'm trying to accomplish is twofold. first, i'm trying to complete the liner notes & aleph-discs for the first two periods of my discography, and i am making slow progress on it - slow progress, but progress. second, i'm trying to find a healthy place to live.
neither my previous basement nor the unit i'm in now have been healthy places to live, although the first was pretty good, until the new management took over. i admit i made a mistake moving into this place, and is admitting error not a sign of intelligence? we'll see if i'm able to accomplish this task on my third try or not.
but, understand the point: you can't tell me what my goals ought to be. you can't tell me what i should want, what i should dream or how i should go about accomplishing those goals or dreams. what you can do, if you insist, is measure how well i succeed at what i want to succeed at.
right now, those goals are as aforementioned.
and, i'm going to try to get some work done tonight.
and, if you don't realize that this obviously isn't true, then you default yourself from the start.
listen: i've taken a difficult path through life, some of it chosen and some of it not. it's given me a unique set of experiences. but, have i accomplished what i actually wanted?
well, i'm getting there.
right now what i'm trying to accomplish is twofold. first, i'm trying to complete the liner notes & aleph-discs for the first two periods of my discography, and i am making slow progress on it - slow progress, but progress. second, i'm trying to find a healthy place to live.
neither my previous basement nor the unit i'm in now have been healthy places to live, although the first was pretty good, until the new management took over. i admit i made a mistake moving into this place, and is admitting error not a sign of intelligence? we'll see if i'm able to accomplish this task on my third try or not.
but, understand the point: you can't tell me what my goals ought to be. you can't tell me what i should want, what i should dream or how i should go about accomplishing those goals or dreams. what you can do, if you insist, is measure how well i succeed at what i want to succeed at.
right now, those goals are as aforementioned.
and, i'm going to try to get some work done tonight.
ok.
so, maybe i am being persecuted for my views. like, what is this, iran? that shouldn't happen here.
and, if you can find me another example of the canadian government attacking a private citizen for their writing, i'd like to see it. that's unheard of, in canada. and, if you have evidence, then that's a story that should be published - and a government that should be held accountable.
this is supposed to be a free society, and broadly has been for a very long time, now.
but, presuming it's true: where's the white knight that steps in and stands up for free speech?
because, if the government is regressing to these kind of attacks then there needs to be a proportionate response - or you're next.
so, maybe i am being persecuted for my views. like, what is this, iran? that shouldn't happen here.
and, if you can find me another example of the canadian government attacking a private citizen for their writing, i'd like to see it. that's unheard of, in canada. and, if you have evidence, then that's a story that should be published - and a government that should be held accountable.
this is supposed to be a free society, and broadly has been for a very long time, now.
but, presuming it's true: where's the white knight that steps in and stands up for free speech?
because, if the government is regressing to these kind of attacks then there needs to be a proportionate response - or you're next.
trump is right on this, and trudeau is just digging in to stand up for investors' rights at the expense of the working class.
the surprising thing is less that trudeau is a stooge - that was always obvious. but, trump is...
...he's following through on things that i didn't expect him to.
again: i expect the full text to be terrible. but, i've been arguing against chapter 19 for 20+ years. i'm not going to stand up for it, now.
the surprising thing is less that trudeau is a stooge - that was always obvious. but, trump is...
...he's following through on things that i didn't expect him to.
again: i expect the full text to be terrible. but, i've been arguing against chapter 19 for 20+ years. i'm not going to stand up for it, now.
chapter 19 has deep resonance amongst canadians?
perhaps, but not positively.
it was one of the things that sparked mass protests.
these guys are total corporate stooges. they'd throw the whole court system under the bus in exchange for corporate council kangaroo courts, if they could.
i strongly support the abolition of chapter 19 and subsequent return of judicial sovereignty on both sides of the border.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/09/02/will-chapter-19-be-a-deal-breaker-for-canada-in-nafta-talks.html
perhaps, but not positively.
it was one of the things that sparked mass protests.
these guys are total corporate stooges. they'd throw the whole court system under the bus in exchange for corporate council kangaroo courts, if they could.
i strongly support the abolition of chapter 19 and subsequent return of judicial sovereignty on both sides of the border.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/09/02/will-chapter-19-be-a-deal-breaker-for-canada-in-nafta-talks.html
i initially thought she was an american, because she acted like one, but her mom seems like a caribbean immigrant. canada has a large jamaican community, but that's just a guess. and, the older woman is probably well educated and probably has a good paying job - because she probably came here during a period of time where that was a pre-requisite to entry.
this is apparently a well-understood problem amongst second generation caribbeans in canada. these children of doctors and professors end up thugs or entitled drunks. and, it doesn't happen in other second-generation canadian communities, who are by far the most successful people in our society. second-generation asians, in particular, are extremely well off.
and, i think there's something specifically at cause here, in the americanization of canadian blacks. it seems to be pulling people down. and, there was probably something to my initial observation.
i don't know why they left her out.
but, i know that all i ever asked her to do was smoke away from the window - and all i got back was drunkenness & belligerence.
this is apparently a well-understood problem amongst second generation caribbeans in canada. these children of doctors and professors end up thugs or entitled drunks. and, it doesn't happen in other second-generation canadian communities, who are by far the most successful people in our society. second-generation asians, in particular, are extremely well off.
and, i think there's something specifically at cause here, in the americanization of canadian blacks. it seems to be pulling people down. and, there was probably something to my initial observation.
i don't know why they left her out.
but, i know that all i ever asked her to do was smoke away from the window - and all i got back was drunkenness & belligerence.
i think it was a big rooming house, but that it was under a single lease. so, a couple of the people were just boarders - including smoky. when the group moved out, they didn't take her with them.
there's an older woman helping her move that i'm guessing is her mom. and, maybe that's where she's going.
she's like 40.
she has grandchildren.
so, if i understand the space properly (i've never been in there), there's a very big townhouse opening up next door, with a huge yard.
this would legitimately be a good spot for a family with some kids.
hopefully, they don't smoke.
and, hopefully, i can get some fresh air through the window for the next few weeks.
there's an older woman helping her move that i'm guessing is her mom. and, maybe that's where she's going.
she's like 40.
she has grandchildren.
so, if i understand the space properly (i've never been in there), there's a very big townhouse opening up next door, with a huge yard.
this would legitimately be a good spot for a family with some kids.
hopefully, they don't smoke.
and, hopefully, i can get some fresh air through the window for the next few weeks.
yeah, somebody else snatched that up quick.
i thought it was overpriced, because it was too small - but somebody else may have decided that the size was less important, and the clean carpets and new shower were worth paying more for.
it does make more sense to move that other person in, that likes like the place for what it is, and isn't just trying to avoid homelessness.
and, if i find what i want, it will be for the best. if....
if not, i could regret it.
we'll see.
i thought it was overpriced, because it was too small - but somebody else may have decided that the size was less important, and the clean carpets and new shower were worth paying more for.
it does make more sense to move that other person in, that likes like the place for what it is, and isn't just trying to avoid homelessness.
and, if i find what i want, it will be for the best. if....
if not, i could regret it.
we'll see.
it's $100 more than i pay now, but inclusive.
maybe i can take him down to $750 + hydro, from $800 all inclusive.
my rent here would either be going up by 1.8% in december or, more likely, by more than that in january. so, that's probably $720+.
and, remember that my prescription just went down by $65.
i'm also going to apply for that $100 small business credit, which could balance it out right there.
if i can just set up there for a year or two and actually finish the work, the rest won't matter. i'll be gone.
and, i have to keep something else in mind, too - all of the negative influences of this population growth are going to be offset by all these dying boomers. this is a perfect storm, for me. i should have appealed in that basement and waited for something better. but, here i am now...
...and i'm not going to need all this extra space, once i finish the work.
i'll call in the morning. i'll bring measuring tapes to be sure - i'm also relying on my eye, which is an imperfect tool. and, maybe i can get something signed by noon, to get out of here within a few days.
i'm going to call the gatekeeper before i commit. that ad is still up...
maybe i can take him down to $750 + hydro, from $800 all inclusive.
my rent here would either be going up by 1.8% in december or, more likely, by more than that in january. so, that's probably $720+.
and, remember that my prescription just went down by $65.
i'm also going to apply for that $100 small business credit, which could balance it out right there.
if i can just set up there for a year or two and actually finish the work, the rest won't matter. i'll be gone.
and, i have to keep something else in mind, too - all of the negative influences of this population growth are going to be offset by all these dying boomers. this is a perfect storm, for me. i should have appealed in that basement and waited for something better. but, here i am now...
...and i'm not going to need all this extra space, once i finish the work.
i'll call in the morning. i'll bring measuring tapes to be sure - i'm also relying on my eye, which is an imperfect tool. and, maybe i can get something signed by noon, to get out of here within a few days.
i'm going to call the gatekeeper before i commit. that ad is still up...
Sunday, September 2, 2018
i got beat to something last month by a mom trying to put something down for her daughter. i just got elbowed out.
and, i had to pass on a non-smoking unit in july because i couldn't get my landlord to give me back my last month.
so, am i foolish to skip over this?
it's just....it's not what i want, dammit.
see, if i skip on this, and i can't find anything three weeks from now, i'm going to look like a goof. but, if i sign a lease tomorrow, and then the exact thing i want opens up the next day...
i'm gambling either way, right?
and, i had to pass on a non-smoking unit in july because i couldn't get my landlord to give me back my last month.
so, am i foolish to skip over this?
it's just....it's not what i want, dammit.
see, if i skip on this, and i can't find anything three weeks from now, i'm going to look like a goof. but, if i sign a lease tomorrow, and then the exact thing i want opens up the next day...
i'm gambling either way, right?
the first place i tried to put something down on is getting the foundation redone.
the second has this crazy guy gatekeeping.
and the third is desperately looking for a non-smoker but won't talk to me because i don't have a current reference, completely ignoring the fact that i'm trying to escape from a hellhole run by a druglord.
the second has this crazy guy gatekeeping.
and the third is desperately looking for a non-smoker but won't talk to me because i don't have a current reference, completely ignoring the fact that i'm trying to escape from a hellhole run by a druglord.
see, the thing is this.
it's a little smaller and a little more pricey because it's a little nicer.
it has some well kept carpets. the bathroom looks like it was recently done. so, this is just a little bit nicer of a place, overall. ok.
but, that's just it - i moved here because i wanted cheap, substandard housing, not nice housing at a market rent.
so, i would rather have that big dirty basement for cheap, because it's what i moved here for. there would be no question i'd have enough space, that way. and, i'd have that extra few dollar in the bank.
most people would make the opposite choice - they'd reason this place is a little smaller, but it's a nicer unit, so it's worth the extra money. and, that's fine - good for them. this unit is better suited for them. its not what i want - i want bigger and cheaper at the expense of niceties.
i don't mind fighting off the odd roach. i don't mind fighting off the odd rodent. i just want the space i need to create.
but, i'm getting all kinds of bad luck when i find what i want. and, may have to settle for the nicer unit at the higher price - at the expense of the big, cheap space i really want.
it's a little smaller and a little more pricey because it's a little nicer.
it has some well kept carpets. the bathroom looks like it was recently done. so, this is just a little bit nicer of a place, overall. ok.
but, that's just it - i moved here because i wanted cheap, substandard housing, not nice housing at a market rent.
so, i would rather have that big dirty basement for cheap, because it's what i moved here for. there would be no question i'd have enough space, that way. and, i'd have that extra few dollar in the bank.
most people would make the opposite choice - they'd reason this place is a little smaller, but it's a nicer unit, so it's worth the extra money. and, that's fine - good for them. this unit is better suited for them. its not what i want - i want bigger and cheaper at the expense of niceties.
i don't mind fighting off the odd roach. i don't mind fighting off the odd rodent. i just want the space i need to create.
but, i'm getting all kinds of bad luck when i find what i want. and, may have to settle for the nicer unit at the higher price - at the expense of the big, cheap space i really want.
see, it would be easier if it wasn't just barely acceptable.
it's just barely big enough.
it's just barely affordable.
and, while it's non-smoking, and that's so key, i can tell that these are tenants that i'll just barely get along with - that i'm not going to have anything in common with these people. and, it's close enough living arrangements that that's not irrelevant - not entirely.
so, it's just barely acceptable.
if it was that much smaller, or i smelled a whiff of pot, or it was $50 more....you know....
but, i could move there.
i could stay there for a while.
so, i'm forced to make a choice - if it's not taken, already.
but it's not what i want....
let me sleep on this.
it's just barely big enough.
it's just barely affordable.
and, while it's non-smoking, and that's so key, i can tell that these are tenants that i'll just barely get along with - that i'm not going to have anything in common with these people. and, it's close enough living arrangements that that's not irrelevant - not entirely.
so, it's just barely acceptable.
if it was that much smaller, or i smelled a whiff of pot, or it was $50 more....you know....
but, i could move there.
i could stay there for a while.
so, i'm forced to make a choice - if it's not taken, already.
but it's not what i want....
let me sleep on this.
i guess you have to understand that i spend almost all of my time at home. and, when you're inside for up to fifteen days at a time (in the winter), the space you're inhabiting becomes extremely important.
so, i'm not just looking for somewhere to relax on the weekends, or make something to eat in the evening - i'm looking for somewhere to exist.
that's a big factor in why i'm so picky, compared to other people.
but, i'm going to call this place back tomorrow morning. i expect somebody took it moments after i left. but, we''ll see. it is the long weekend. and, i might soften up after having slept on it.
i'm not entirely clear how the apartment works next door, but it seems like a bunch of them are moving out. and, that might get me some fresh air for the night.
i'm sure the next tenants will be just as bad. i may even have to start all over again :(.
so, i'm not just looking for somewhere to relax on the weekends, or make something to eat in the evening - i'm looking for somewhere to exist.
that's a big factor in why i'm so picky, compared to other people.
but, i'm going to call this place back tomorrow morning. i expect somebody took it moments after i left. but, we''ll see. it is the long weekend. and, i might soften up after having slept on it.
i'm not entirely clear how the apartment works next door, but it seems like a bunch of them are moving out. and, that might get me some fresh air for the night.
i'm sure the next tenants will be just as bad. i may even have to start all over again :(.
i saw something tonight, and it was good enough - i could have moved in tomorrow.
but i just...
i didn't like it. you know?
it was a tad small, but i could fit things in. and, it was overpriced, but i might have to get used to that. and, it seemed adamantly non-smoking.
but, the place seemed too...like...it had this condo feel that i didn't like.
the owner was out in the back working on his car. meathead.
they don't appear to recycle.
it just rubbed me the wrong way, all around.
i want a quiet, non-smoking place to work in. but, it just didn't feel right.
and, in the back of my head, i'm holding out hope on this crazy guy's basement, even though i know he's not going to call me back.
i might regret this.
but, i just don't want to move there.
but i just...
i didn't like it. you know?
it was a tad small, but i could fit things in. and, it was overpriced, but i might have to get used to that. and, it seemed adamantly non-smoking.
but, the place seemed too...like...it had this condo feel that i didn't like.
the owner was out in the back working on his car. meathead.
they don't appear to recycle.
it just rubbed me the wrong way, all around.
i want a quiet, non-smoking place to work in. but, it just didn't feel right.
and, in the back of my head, i'm holding out hope on this crazy guy's basement, even though i know he's not going to call me back.
i might regret this.
but, i just don't want to move there.
i know what i'm looking for.
what i'm looking for is detroit. detroit is still a liberal place with a vibrant culture. and, surely i can find somewhere non-smoking.
but, that's a dangerous idea.
the lease requirement for disability in ontario is that you have to live in ontario. so, you can't live in montreal, and you can't live in gatineau....and you can't live in detroit.
but, could i figure something else out?
well, i guess that, if i end up putting things in storage, it's a possibility to explore, isn't it?
i can still come home for healthcare...
i just don't know how that would work. i'd only have $670/month. canadian. i'd need some other source of income.
i'm neither legally entitled to live nor work in the united states, and i simply don't know how hard it would be for me to get a green card. i am well educated, at least.
it's frustrating, though. i'm going to lose access to what is a liberal haven in detroit, because windsor is being slowly taken over by conservatives, and oriented in a hard right direction. everything i like about detroit is being pulled away from me by the rising rents in windsor.
it's an accurate microcosm of what is happening, though, regarding the united states and canada.
for the first time in my life, i'm getting an urge to cross to the other side of that border.
what i'm looking for is detroit. detroit is still a liberal place with a vibrant culture. and, surely i can find somewhere non-smoking.
but, that's a dangerous idea.
the lease requirement for disability in ontario is that you have to live in ontario. so, you can't live in montreal, and you can't live in gatineau....and you can't live in detroit.
but, could i figure something else out?
well, i guess that, if i end up putting things in storage, it's a possibility to explore, isn't it?
i can still come home for healthcare...
i just don't know how that would work. i'd only have $670/month. canadian. i'd need some other source of income.
i'm neither legally entitled to live nor work in the united states, and i simply don't know how hard it would be for me to get a green card. i am well educated, at least.
it's frustrating, though. i'm going to lose access to what is a liberal haven in detroit, because windsor is being slowly taken over by conservatives, and oriented in a hard right direction. everything i like about detroit is being pulled away from me by the rising rents in windsor.
it's an accurate microcosm of what is happening, though, regarding the united states and canada.
for the first time in my life, i'm getting an urge to cross to the other side of that border.
more often than not recently, on a weekend afternoon, you're subjected to listening to somebody angrily yelling arabic phrases into a microphone - phrases that we would mostly all no doubt be appalled by, if we understood them.
they set up in parking lots.
they draw crowds.
it's a matter of time before they get violent.
they set up in parking lots.
they draw crowds.
it's a matter of time before they get violent.
i'm not broke.
i have a stable income source.
& it's not even exactly that the market is saturated - there are places coming up every day.
it's that the city does not have affordable smoke-free housing - or what little exists of it is not friendly to artists on disability. and, you consequently cannot live here if you don't smoke, and you care about your health.
all these kids moving in here are going to get asthma....or worse...
i have a stable income source.
& it's not even exactly that the market is saturated - there are places coming up every day.
it's that the city does not have affordable smoke-free housing - or what little exists of it is not friendly to artists on disability. and, you consequently cannot live here if you don't smoke, and you care about your health.
all these kids moving in here are going to get asthma....or worse...
the counter-argument is that they're going to cut my check by $479 anyways. so, as long as the room is less than that...
but, if i'm taking this path, i don't want to sign a lease. and, i can actually apply for them to recoup costs spent in hostels. i've looked into this before.
it means i won't have a place to sleep every night, but that's ok - the intent is for this to be very short term.
if i get my things into storage for the first week of october, i could potentially move them into a place in hamilton or niagara or waterloo by november 1st. and, that is what i want - not to waste away my life in a rooming house.
& i have a lot of cash in the bank. the winter will eventually hit. & when it does, if i have to, i can rent something over air bnb for a few weeks at a time.
there has to be somewhere in this province where i can just focus on my work, in a safe & healthy environment. and, we'll see how long it takes to find it...
but, if i'm taking this path, i don't want to sign a lease. and, i can actually apply for them to recoup costs spent in hostels. i've looked into this before.
it means i won't have a place to sleep every night, but that's ok - the intent is for this to be very short term.
if i get my things into storage for the first week of october, i could potentially move them into a place in hamilton or niagara or waterloo by november 1st. and, that is what i want - not to waste away my life in a rooming house.
& i have a lot of cash in the bank. the winter will eventually hit. & when it does, if i have to, i can rent something over air bnb for a few weeks at a time.
there has to be somewhere in this province where i can just focus on my work, in a safe & healthy environment. and, we'll see how long it takes to find it...
again, let us understand the costs associated with me renting a room.
the room itself is going to be in the $400-500 range. but, then i need to put my things in storage, which is another $300-400.
so, the total costs of getting a room are not $400-500, but $700-900 - which is the price of an apartment in the first place.
further, if i get to the point where i am placing my items in storage, that is going to be the last straw for windsor. i'm already fed up with this place: it is culturally dead, unremittingly filthy and rapidly being taken over by muslim conservatives, who seem to have the full backing of city council, and the tacit support of the dwindling christian right. i'm searching every nook & cranny for a healthy, affordable, queer-friendly, artist-friendly place to exist. & it's increasingly clear that it doesn't exist here.
so, if this happens, if i put my things away, i will have already given up on this town - and be looking to get out.
i'm going to see something tonight, but it's low probability. and i'll have to decide over the next week whether i want to buy time with an appeal or not.
i don't think it's worthwhile.
& i want to escape from this filthy space, not put up barricades to stay longer.
the room itself is going to be in the $400-500 range. but, then i need to put my things in storage, which is another $300-400.
so, the total costs of getting a room are not $400-500, but $700-900 - which is the price of an apartment in the first place.
further, if i get to the point where i am placing my items in storage, that is going to be the last straw for windsor. i'm already fed up with this place: it is culturally dead, unremittingly filthy and rapidly being taken over by muslim conservatives, who seem to have the full backing of city council, and the tacit support of the dwindling christian right. i'm searching every nook & cranny for a healthy, affordable, queer-friendly, artist-friendly place to exist. & it's increasingly clear that it doesn't exist here.
so, if this happens, if i put my things away, i will have already given up on this town - and be looking to get out.
i'm going to see something tonight, but it's low probability. and i'll have to decide over the next week whether i want to buy time with an appeal or not.
i don't think it's worthwhile.
& i want to escape from this filthy space, not put up barricades to stay longer.
stumbled upon a few files this morning...
just in case you didn't believe my dad's side is jewish:
(yeah, that's me.)
he wasn't always so conspicuous. that beard was gone by the time i was five, ne'er to be seen again.
there are plenty of shots like this where it's easy to think he's palestinian - but it's italian/jew/cree/french, from what i know.
his skin lightened a lot as he aged, to the point where he looked like an elder chomsky. really. it was almost uncanny.
so, it's always been weird to see these pictures of him as a young man, looking so notably ethnic.
i mean, that's me in both shots. but, i don't remember it. and, rates of change as they are, people can transform before your eyes without truly noticing it.
just in case you didn't believe my dad's side is jewish:
(yeah, that's me.)
he wasn't always so conspicuous. that beard was gone by the time i was five, ne'er to be seen again.
there are plenty of shots like this where it's easy to think he's palestinian - but it's italian/jew/cree/french, from what i know.
his skin lightened a lot as he aged, to the point where he looked like an elder chomsky. really. it was almost uncanny.
so, it's always been weird to see these pictures of him as a young man, looking so notably ethnic.
i mean, that's me in both shots. but, i don't remember it. and, rates of change as they are, people can transform before your eyes without truly noticing it.
the prime minister really is a good example, and it's not what you think.
i don't suspect that justin trudeau would do particularly well on iq tests, but he has inherited a lot of wealth - and a lot of power. but, this is actually counter to design.
his father set that trust fund up so he "wouldn't have to be a lawyer or a politician". dad was trying to give him a way out. but, dad was rich and powerful - and smart. so, what gives?
maybe the correlation isn't there for a better reason than mere inheritance. mmmm?
i don't suspect that justin trudeau would do particularly well on iq tests, but he has inherited a lot of wealth - and a lot of power. but, this is actually counter to design.
his father set that trust fund up so he "wouldn't have to be a lawyer or a politician". dad was trying to give him a way out. but, dad was rich and powerful - and smart. so, what gives?
maybe the correlation isn't there for a better reason than mere inheritance. mmmm?
i love this graph...
really.
i pulled it out of a psychology journal, years ago.
what it says is that if you're stupid, you might be more likely to be poor. but, if you're smart, you're not more likely to be rich - at all.
and, while one may be tempted to use it to point out that wealth in our society is so dominated by inheritance rather than ability, i think this is missing the point.
really.
i pulled it out of a psychology journal, years ago.
what it says is that if you're stupid, you might be more likely to be poor. but, if you're smart, you're not more likely to be rich - at all.
and, while one may be tempted to use it to point out that wealth in our society is so dominated by inheritance rather than ability, i think this is missing the point.
if i were to stay here, and develop carcinoma as a consequence of their behaviour, would these people face any consequences for their actions?
and, would that not be a grave injustice? should they not be liable?
but, they would not be. and, no level of liability could overturn the result.
so, how can you tell me that i am over-reacting, when i have no remedy to undo their behaviour?
no behaviour short of knocking down the door and pulling the thing out of the smokers' mouth wouldn't be under-reacting - but all property law exists to protect some type of asshole.
and, would that not be a grave injustice? should they not be liable?
but, they would not be. and, no level of liability could overturn the result.
so, how can you tell me that i am over-reacting, when i have no remedy to undo their behaviour?
no behaviour short of knocking down the door and pulling the thing out of the smokers' mouth wouldn't be under-reacting - but all property law exists to protect some type of asshole.
what is rational, in context, is to defend yourself by whatever means necessary.
what is irrational is to ignore the situation, or otherwise give in, by citing some concept of "rights" that does not exist in any relevant law.
and, again: recognizing what is rational and what isn't, in context, comes down to understanding the relevant science.
what is irrational is to ignore the situation, or otherwise give in, by citing some concept of "rights" that does not exist in any relevant law.
and, again: recognizing what is rational and what isn't, in context, comes down to understanding the relevant science.
when somebody asks you to smoke elsewhere, you have an obligation to immediately move - that's how a polite society operates.
and, if you're not going to do that, you deserve whatever happens to you in response, from people protecting their health and their environment from your carcinogens and pollution.
and, if you're not going to do that, you deserve whatever happens to you in response, from people protecting their health and their environment from your carcinogens and pollution.
the culture in this city is pathetic, and the people that live here are idiots.
the woman below me should have been evicted months or perhaps years ago.
and, while the woman across from me has apparently decided to smoke elsewhere, she should have immediately moved upon first request; i should not have had to resort to the kinds of tactics i had to resort to (which were successful, you will note) in order to get her out of my air supply.
the woman below me should have been evicted months or perhaps years ago.
and, while the woman across from me has apparently decided to smoke elsewhere, she should have immediately moved upon first request; i should not have had to resort to the kinds of tactics i had to resort to (which were successful, you will note) in order to get her out of my air supply.
any rational agent would do everything they possibly could - including resorting to violence, if necessary - to escape from being slowly poisoned by their neighbours.
the reality is that you are ignorant of the science on the topic; if you understood the severity of the threat, you would recognize my behaviour as entirely rational.
the reality is that you are ignorant of the science on the topic; if you understood the severity of the threat, you would recognize my behaviour as entirely rational.
but, i'm just curious if you could extrapolate upon this claim that fighting hard for a right to fresh air is somehow a sign of low intelligence.
if i was smart, i'd just shut up and die, right?
or, is the truth what i really suspect - that you don't accept the science on second-hand smoke?
you think it's harmless, right?
you're a buffoon.
if i was smart, i'd just shut up and die, right?
or, is the truth what i really suspect - that you don't accept the science on second-hand smoke?
you think it's harmless, right?
you're a buffoon.
Saturday, September 1, 2018
i've posted this more than a few times...
i've written a dozen iq tests, and they all put me in the highest percentiles. and, i do exceedingly well in school when i'm able and interested in applying myself - across a wide variety of topics. so, when i tell you that i have a high aptitude level, that's not my opinion or some other unqualified person's opinion - that's an objective testing criteria. and, you can disagree with that if you want, but i'm just telling you what the tests say - although if you disagree with the objective testing criteria, it probably says more about your own intelligence than it says about mine.
why am i not rich then?
well, i keep telling you that i don't want to be rich, what i want is to be free, and that freedom is only possible by rejecting wealth. wealth is a type of slavery, not an escape from it. your car is not a symbol of freedom, but a symbol of slavery.
and, so we're left with one of two possibilities: either the tests are wrong and i'm actually an idiot, or my rejection of wealth as a basis of happiness is actually a reflection of the high aptitude level.
maybe the truth is that i'm poor because i'm too smart to be rich.
what i'll say is that i probably think you're a moron, regardless of how much money you make.
i've written a dozen iq tests, and they all put me in the highest percentiles. and, i do exceedingly well in school when i'm able and interested in applying myself - across a wide variety of topics. so, when i tell you that i have a high aptitude level, that's not my opinion or some other unqualified person's opinion - that's an objective testing criteria. and, you can disagree with that if you want, but i'm just telling you what the tests say - although if you disagree with the objective testing criteria, it probably says more about your own intelligence than it says about mine.
why am i not rich then?
well, i keep telling you that i don't want to be rich, what i want is to be free, and that freedom is only possible by rejecting wealth. wealth is a type of slavery, not an escape from it. your car is not a symbol of freedom, but a symbol of slavery.
and, so we're left with one of two possibilities: either the tests are wrong and i'm actually an idiot, or my rejection of wealth as a basis of happiness is actually a reflection of the high aptitude level.
maybe the truth is that i'm poor because i'm too smart to be rich.
what i'll say is that i probably think you're a moron, regardless of how much money you make.
listen: i'm a leftist.
and, on nafta, it is trump that is pushing ideas that i agree with, and trudeau that is pushing ideas i don't agree with.
at all.
sorry.
and, we will see this come up in the upcoming weeks, when trump finds himself aligned with the democrats in congress, and trudeau finds himself aligned with the republicans.
and, on nafta, it is trump that is pushing ideas that i agree with, and trudeau that is pushing ideas i don't agree with.
at all.
sorry.
and, we will see this come up in the upcoming weeks, when trump finds himself aligned with the democrats in congress, and trudeau finds himself aligned with the republicans.
i did see something this morning, but it was smoky and way too small.
so, i got home and decided i was going to be stuck here for the month, after all. so, i called my landlord to explain i was willing to pay the balance, and i didn't get instructions on payment this month, as i usually do.
"but, you haven't been paying the rent."
"there was a court order. if you do the math..."
"i thought you just weren't paying rent."
see, and i've known this all along. i've explained my reasons and behaviours very clearly to these people, and they're just ignoring her majesty's court altogether, as though it doesn't exist.
and, what is at the root of this is just absolute ignorance of the legal system in this country. i've stated this repeatedly: the basic entry point of ignorance in this society is what we call "libertarianism". that is where ignorance starts. they don't understand anything besides this archaic nineteenth century concept of contract theory...
i made a complaint. it was ignored. i sought relief. it was granted. they ignored it. so, i withheld. and, now i owe them $50 to balance it out.
"...it's a $50 balance. so, should i come in to the office and pay it or...."
"i'm going to have to call the owner."
"but, if you do the..."
"i have to call the owner. there's a holiday monday, so it will need to wait until tuesday."
& maybe i've still got time to get out of here, after all, then.
so, i got home and decided i was going to be stuck here for the month, after all. so, i called my landlord to explain i was willing to pay the balance, and i didn't get instructions on payment this month, as i usually do.
"but, you haven't been paying the rent."
"there was a court order. if you do the math..."
"i thought you just weren't paying rent."
see, and i've known this all along. i've explained my reasons and behaviours very clearly to these people, and they're just ignoring her majesty's court altogether, as though it doesn't exist.
and, what is at the root of this is just absolute ignorance of the legal system in this country. i've stated this repeatedly: the basic entry point of ignorance in this society is what we call "libertarianism". that is where ignorance starts. they don't understand anything besides this archaic nineteenth century concept of contract theory...
i made a complaint. it was ignored. i sought relief. it was granted. they ignored it. so, i withheld. and, now i owe them $50 to balance it out.
"...it's a $50 balance. so, should i come in to the office and pay it or...."
"i'm going to have to call the owner."
"but, if you do the..."
"i have to call the owner. there's a holiday monday, so it will need to wait until tuesday."
& maybe i've still got time to get out of here, after all, then.
i have substantive documentation showing the existence of asian cockroaches in the previous unit i inhabited, and anybody suggesting otherwise is maliciously lying through their teeth - and not for the first time.
like, videos of them. pictures. this is not up for any real debate.
those people are pathological.
their words are meaningless.
like, videos of them. pictures. this is not up for any real debate.
those people are pathological.
their words are meaningless.
Friday, August 31, 2018
tonight was really truly exasperating.
i'm supposed to call somebody a little after18:00, and i get a machine. so, i take a random guess at one of the places nobody picks up at - and get through to somebody.
this is a big basement for cheap; it seems like it's what i want. so, i'm excited to get down there.
when the landlord shows up, i take a quick run through, and it's clear i want to sign the lease. but, he seems intent on putting me through a "stress test" to ensure i'm not schizophrenic.
in some sense, it was like having an interview with a lewis carroll character - not because it was patently absurd, but because it was clearly unserious. he's trying to bait me on things like the moon landing, and jew-hating - things i actually have subtle perspectives on, subtle perspectives that can be easily smeared or misconstrued. i have no idea whether we actually went to the moon or not, and i'm not about to make an argument one way or another - but, see, this is the correct argument, because it's almost impossible to make a reasonable deduction, due to the difficulty of the evidence, all around.
i'm not really interested in the arguments against the moon landing - they've mostly been debunked. but, that doesn't prove we went; that's a classical fallacy. try to convincingly prove we did land. you can't.
i actually caught him in a few contradictions.
see, at the end of it, he's the one that sounded nuts - but i'm not sure if it was serious or not. and, i'm kind of left unsure of how to walk away from it.
if this was an honest representation of the guy, he seemed like he belonged in an asylum. but, i don't think it was; and, if he was fucking with me for some strange reason, it doesn't change the fact that i liked the unit - and that i need to move asap.
he gave me a lease with something incoherent scribbled on it and asked me to call him later on. i sent him some links, instead. i may follow-up in a day or two.
i have never been diagnosed with schizophrenia, and i'm not sure why he'd be convinced i have it based on such a brief encounter, and no evidence - but perhaps trying to work through conspiracy logic is a little bit pointless, too.
in the end, i listened to this guy rant for almost an hour.
i checked my messages when i got home just before 21:00, and the initial guy asked me to come in sunday morning.
i knew this was a trick, but i definitely don't want a christian landlord. so, i took the bait with intent. and, predictably...
"sorry. unit's been rented."
fuck.
i'm supposed to call somebody a little after18:00, and i get a machine. so, i take a random guess at one of the places nobody picks up at - and get through to somebody.
this is a big basement for cheap; it seems like it's what i want. so, i'm excited to get down there.
when the landlord shows up, i take a quick run through, and it's clear i want to sign the lease. but, he seems intent on putting me through a "stress test" to ensure i'm not schizophrenic.
in some sense, it was like having an interview with a lewis carroll character - not because it was patently absurd, but because it was clearly unserious. he's trying to bait me on things like the moon landing, and jew-hating - things i actually have subtle perspectives on, subtle perspectives that can be easily smeared or misconstrued. i have no idea whether we actually went to the moon or not, and i'm not about to make an argument one way or another - but, see, this is the correct argument, because it's almost impossible to make a reasonable deduction, due to the difficulty of the evidence, all around.
i'm not really interested in the arguments against the moon landing - they've mostly been debunked. but, that doesn't prove we went; that's a classical fallacy. try to convincingly prove we did land. you can't.
i actually caught him in a few contradictions.
see, at the end of it, he's the one that sounded nuts - but i'm not sure if it was serious or not. and, i'm kind of left unsure of how to walk away from it.
if this was an honest representation of the guy, he seemed like he belonged in an asylum. but, i don't think it was; and, if he was fucking with me for some strange reason, it doesn't change the fact that i liked the unit - and that i need to move asap.
he gave me a lease with something incoherent scribbled on it and asked me to call him later on. i sent him some links, instead. i may follow-up in a day or two.
i have never been diagnosed with schizophrenia, and i'm not sure why he'd be convinced i have it based on such a brief encounter, and no evidence - but perhaps trying to work through conspiracy logic is a little bit pointless, too.
in the end, i listened to this guy rant for almost an hour.
i checked my messages when i got home just before 21:00, and the initial guy asked me to come in sunday morning.
i knew this was a trick, but i definitely don't want a christian landlord. so, i took the bait with intent. and, predictably...
"sorry. unit's been rented."
fuck.
i'm beginning to understand that the reason these ads say STUDENTS ONLY is not that they want students, but that they want to overcrowd the housing, and charge by the head.
white people won't tolerate these kinds of living arrangements.
but, if you can cram sixteen people into a house made for four, and the people living there have always lived that way anyways, then you've made four times as much money as you would be by following the standards of privacy we take for granted in western civilization.
white people won't tolerate these kinds of living arrangements.
but, if you can cram sixteen people into a house made for four, and the people living there have always lived that way anyways, then you've made four times as much money as you would be by following the standards of privacy we take for granted in western civilization.
so, i saw a small two bedroom apartment this afternoon, or tried to - a group of five indian males had beat me to it, and i walked into the negotiation.
i was hoping to secure a two bedroom apartment for $800, which was the list price. but, he decided that, if there are going to be five people living in the two bedroom apartment, he should charge them $300 each.
for utilities.
so, they got there first and put down an offer of nearly twice as much. i didn't waste my breath arguing the point. but, it helped me understand the situation a little bit better.
regardless of the size of the apartment or of the number of people in the party, i cannot compete against this. if a two bedroom is listed at $800, and they come in with a party of five at $300 each, i lose. even a party of three at $300 each beats me. if a one bedroom apartment is listed for $700, and they want to come in with a party of three at $350/person, i lose, too.
but, how did we get these thousands of indian students, all of a sudden? this is crazy.
we shouldn't be having people living in close quarters like this, but so long as they keep offering these kinds of payments to landlords, the landlords are going to take them.
they also carried forward without a lease, which is telling. these kids don't know what they're doing. and, the landlord didn't want to tell them.
to a certain extent, they're being taken advantage of. the problem here is the landlord - he should not be renting out a two bedroom apartment to a group of five students. that's irresponsible and greedy.
but, if this is what is happening, i cannot compete with it. i need to find the right kinds of landlords, instead...
i was hoping to secure a two bedroom apartment for $800, which was the list price. but, he decided that, if there are going to be five people living in the two bedroom apartment, he should charge them $300 each.
for utilities.
so, they got there first and put down an offer of nearly twice as much. i didn't waste my breath arguing the point. but, it helped me understand the situation a little bit better.
regardless of the size of the apartment or of the number of people in the party, i cannot compete against this. if a two bedroom is listed at $800, and they come in with a party of five at $300 each, i lose. even a party of three at $300 each beats me. if a one bedroom apartment is listed for $700, and they want to come in with a party of three at $350/person, i lose, too.
but, how did we get these thousands of indian students, all of a sudden? this is crazy.
we shouldn't be having people living in close quarters like this, but so long as they keep offering these kinds of payments to landlords, the landlords are going to take them.
they also carried forward without a lease, which is telling. these kids don't know what they're doing. and, the landlord didn't want to tell them.
to a certain extent, they're being taken advantage of. the problem here is the landlord - he should not be renting out a two bedroom apartment to a group of five students. that's irresponsible and greedy.
but, if this is what is happening, i cannot compete with it. i need to find the right kinds of landlords, instead...
i think i did this once before, but let's understand what my court order actually did.
i signed a lease for $700 + hydro. i paid first & last's. and, i paid that rent for six more months.
but, the court order then did three things:
1) it ended the lease on sept 30th.
2) it reduced my rent to $525 for the last six months of my tenancy.
3) it ordered the landlord to pay moving costs.
so, the amount i owe the landlord is no longer $700/month, for ten months - but $700 for the first four months and then $525 for the last six months.
that means that i overpaid rent from april-june, by 3*175 = $525. this is the same as the amount of rent i didn't pay in july. so, i was entitled - by court order - to stay here for free in july.
as i paid last month's rent in december, i am also entitled to stay here for free for the month of september, with a balance of $175 - which i overpaid. so, that would reduce my august rent by a further $175, to $350. subtracting awarded moving costs, i have a balance of $50 to pay.
so, i am not withholding rent, at all. rather, my rent has been reduced by court order.
fwiw, the landlord has listed this unit on the market for $775, oblivious to anything that just happened. and, i hope the next tenant does the same thing.
the reason i did not pay the $50 for august is that i was hoping to move by september first, in which case the landlord would need to return my deposit - and the balance would be $650. and, if i can plan an escape in the next few days, still, i will place the landlord in collections for the balance owing - minus daily fees for however long i'm here.
if this situation is being presented differently, the people presenting it to you are being dishonest about it. it's one thing to disagree with the ruling. but, it's another to ignore it exists altogether.
it is very likely that i will pay the $50 in the next 72 hours, in which case the landlord and i will be even. the exception to this possibility happens if i sign a lease in the next 72 hours and vacate the unit promptly, in which case they will actually be required to return the remainder of the deposit.
i can have a judge explain this to you, if necessary.
i signed a lease for $700 + hydro. i paid first & last's. and, i paid that rent for six more months.
but, the court order then did three things:
1) it ended the lease on sept 30th.
2) it reduced my rent to $525 for the last six months of my tenancy.
3) it ordered the landlord to pay moving costs.
so, the amount i owe the landlord is no longer $700/month, for ten months - but $700 for the first four months and then $525 for the last six months.
that means that i overpaid rent from april-june, by 3*175 = $525. this is the same as the amount of rent i didn't pay in july. so, i was entitled - by court order - to stay here for free in july.
as i paid last month's rent in december, i am also entitled to stay here for free for the month of september, with a balance of $175 - which i overpaid. so, that would reduce my august rent by a further $175, to $350. subtracting awarded moving costs, i have a balance of $50 to pay.
so, i am not withholding rent, at all. rather, my rent has been reduced by court order.
fwiw, the landlord has listed this unit on the market for $775, oblivious to anything that just happened. and, i hope the next tenant does the same thing.
the reason i did not pay the $50 for august is that i was hoping to move by september first, in which case the landlord would need to return my deposit - and the balance would be $650. and, if i can plan an escape in the next few days, still, i will place the landlord in collections for the balance owing - minus daily fees for however long i'm here.
if this situation is being presented differently, the people presenting it to you are being dishonest about it. it's one thing to disagree with the ruling. but, it's another to ignore it exists altogether.
it is very likely that i will pay the $50 in the next 72 hours, in which case the landlord and i will be even. the exception to this possibility happens if i sign a lease in the next 72 hours and vacate the unit promptly, in which case they will actually be required to return the remainder of the deposit.
i can have a judge explain this to you, if necessary.
Thursday, August 30, 2018
well, the federal government didn't write the court ruling, rachel.
regardless, i've always thought the carbon tax should be federal, anyways.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trans-mountain-federal-court-appeals-1.4804495
regardless, i've always thought the carbon tax should be federal, anyways.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trans-mountain-federal-court-appeals-1.4804495
windsor - like detroit - is being absorbed back into the ignorance of rural conservatism, brought on by a combination of religious immigration and capitalist decline.
what was once an opportunity to build a new communist society, here, has been lost due to the high levels of immigration, designed to return the working class to the ignorance of religion.
what was once an opportunity to build a new communist society, here, has been lost due to the high levels of immigration, designed to return the working class to the ignorance of religion.
the empirical deduction is that windsor is no longer a good place for a queer artist to try and eke out an existence in.
rather, it is a good place for conservative families to come and raise families.
and, is that really what windsor wants to be known as?
a haven for the religious to breed in?
i'd like to think that windsor would rather be known as an escape for a queer artist to exist in. but, if that was ever true, it appears to be too late to reassert it, now.
and, i am now the refugee, aren't i?
rather, it is a good place for conservative families to come and raise families.
and, is that really what windsor wants to be known as?
a haven for the religious to breed in?
i'd like to think that windsor would rather be known as an escape for a queer artist to exist in. but, if that was ever true, it appears to be too late to reassert it, now.
and, i am now the refugee, aren't i?
islam is not a culture, it's an ideology - and one of the ways that ideologies enforce their control is through the abolition and subjugation of all culture. this was as true under stalin as it was under saladin.
there is no self-expression in islam. no individuality. no questioning of revealed wisdom. no revolution. no democracy. no deviation from the norm. it's just violently enforced conformity. and, nothing we can meaningfully refer to as a culture can exist under these kinds of oppressive circumstances.
if this place goes full muslim - and if this mess around nafta gets bad, it very well might - they're going to convert the nightclubs into madrassas - or, perhaps, harems. any venue that promotes free thinking will be dismantled.
and, you can't fight against a majority.
i have a few more weeks to figure this out. but, if the end result is that a starving artist can't find a place to live here, then the proper conclusion is that it is not a good cultural fit for a starving artist to live, is it?
there is no self-expression in islam. no individuality. no questioning of revealed wisdom. no revolution. no democracy. no deviation from the norm. it's just violently enforced conformity. and, nothing we can meaningfully refer to as a culture can exist under these kinds of oppressive circumstances.
if this place goes full muslim - and if this mess around nafta gets bad, it very well might - they're going to convert the nightclubs into madrassas - or, perhaps, harems. any venue that promotes free thinking will be dismantled.
and, you can't fight against a majority.
i have a few more weeks to figure this out. but, if the end result is that a starving artist can't find a place to live here, then the proper conclusion is that it is not a good cultural fit for a starving artist to live, is it?
the discrimination in housing in ontario is not something i'm the first person to draw attention to. the appropriate boards have drawn attention to it - and argued it's too big of a problem for them to police.
it's the kind of thing that needs an education campaign.
you see it in every ad.
STUDENTS ONLY.
FEMALES ONLY.
BOYS ONLY.
INDIANS ONLY. and, they'll even specify -
GUJARATI ONLY, HINDI ONLY, PAKISTANI ONLY.
SENIORS ONLY.
WORKERS ONLY.
and, those are only the ads i can see - in english, and for public view.
the big thing right now is students. and, it's about to flip. a few more days.
and, they're starting to do things like mark their ads with URGENT.
yeah, well, maybe you should stop discriminating against your prospective tenants, if you want to fill the vacancy urgently?
this is an emergency. there's people lined up to live here. but, they're all white people with jobs. somebody find me a 19 year-old female, muslim pakistani student immediately! i thought canada was a free market?
ugh.
but, what's increasingly concerning to me is that there's no bohemian escape in this town. there's no art district. there's nobody that gets a call from a composer/activist on the dole and says "you sound interesting. the neighbours will like you.".
for a supposedly left-leaning town, the people here seem to be remarkably conservative.
there's no time for the disabled, no time for queers and no time for artists.
again: it's increasingly clear that i don't want to live here, that the culture is dead here and it's time to get out.
there's no hipsters. no art village. no gay district. no culture....
it's just korans & capitalism, everywhere you turn.
we can fix this, though.
what i want to see is an ad for a non-smoking apartment with these wonderful words in the body:
ARTISTS ONLY.
it's the kind of thing that needs an education campaign.
you see it in every ad.
STUDENTS ONLY.
FEMALES ONLY.
BOYS ONLY.
INDIANS ONLY. and, they'll even specify -
GUJARATI ONLY, HINDI ONLY, PAKISTANI ONLY.
SENIORS ONLY.
WORKERS ONLY.
and, those are only the ads i can see - in english, and for public view.
the big thing right now is students. and, it's about to flip. a few more days.
and, they're starting to do things like mark their ads with URGENT.
yeah, well, maybe you should stop discriminating against your prospective tenants, if you want to fill the vacancy urgently?
this is an emergency. there's people lined up to live here. but, they're all white people with jobs. somebody find me a 19 year-old female, muslim pakistani student immediately! i thought canada was a free market?
ugh.
but, what's increasingly concerning to me is that there's no bohemian escape in this town. there's no art district. there's nobody that gets a call from a composer/activist on the dole and says "you sound interesting. the neighbours will like you.".
for a supposedly left-leaning town, the people here seem to be remarkably conservative.
there's no time for the disabled, no time for queers and no time for artists.
again: it's increasingly clear that i don't want to live here, that the culture is dead here and it's time to get out.
there's no hipsters. no art village. no gay district. no culture....
it's just korans & capitalism, everywhere you turn.
we can fix this, though.
what i want to see is an ad for a non-smoking apartment with these wonderful words in the body:
ARTISTS ONLY.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)