it's one thing to give a marginalized group a voice, and then completely ignore them. that is the typically "enlightened" liberal perspective - let them speak, they add "diversity" and "culture", and then just walk away and completely ignore them.
this is the status quo on the pseudo-left. but, this is deeply patronizing and deeply racist.
it is another thing to listen to the voices of the marginalized with goodwill, and make a good faith effort to take them into consideration. this ought to be the preferable approach, at face value. but, anybody who has actually done this has learned how impossible it is to stay consistent with an ideologically left approach and listen to these group at the same time - which is why they're so often ignored in the first place.
so, we're left with a pointless choice between ignoring them altogether and infantilizing them into something that isn't worth taking seriously, because you can't take a group seriously when they show up at a science conference and start taking about great spirits - you have to approach them with some patronizing concept of fiduciary obligation and patiently wait to ignore them, or you have to continue to marginalize them.
what you want is for these groups to be able to come to the table and be able to represent their interests using modern language, with an understanding of modern science and modern law. but, you probably realize they wouldn't be marginalized any more if they could stand up and speak for themselves, right?
i don't think that the liberals of past eras were wrong in pointing to education as a way out. today, we point to mary wollstonecraft as the originator of feminism for pointing out the idea that what women need is equal access to education, but we attack people who made similar arguments about indigenous groups as racists and colonialist wasters. it's not an inconsistency, it's an inversion; it's repressed racism for us to continue to cast them away as the other, and then justify that as an "embrace of diversity". if we saw therm as equals, we would insist on educating them so they can stand up for themselves, not let them languish aimlessly in their own ignorance, and then steal their resources when they can't present a defence of them.
it's not what we did that was wrong, it was how we did it. and, it is the how that we should be adjusting, not the what. because, the endpoint of education and modernization is the correct one, and the correct way for these groups to save themselves - and help the rest of us save the planet.
Monday, September 17, 2018
the idea that i would vent my frustration using violence is comedic.
i actually have a black belt in karate, which is something i picked up as a kid because i was being picked on. well, it was fairly coerced, but it came out of that necessity - i was a scrawny little kid that was unable to defend myself, so i got sent to self-defence classes.
the funny thing is that my dad was actually a semi-pro boxer at one point. he was drafted by the 67s, too. yet, i never learned to skate, and i never learned to fight. my mother would not allow it.
no, instead, i went to self-defence classes - where i was taught concepts of proportional force, as much as i was taught how to spar. i was just a kid; my black belt was more about self-confidence than skill in martial arts. as an adult, what i remember about it is more in the philosophical realm than the realm of actual fighting.
it is always a better idea to avoid a fight than start one because even if you are the greater fighter, you do not know what weapons your opponent has. you can't win by bringing fists to a knife fight.
intimidation is a key component of any conflict; if one can outsmart their opponent, they need not actually fight them.
and etc.
i think a part of the purpose of sending me to the classes was to bulk me up, as a part of the problem was that i was a little scrawny kid; it didn't seem to have the intended effect, and i ended up as a scrawny teenager, too. but, i learned those lessons well, and was mostly able to avoid conflict through those years, by consistently head faking my opponents.
i'm going to beat you down with words and lawsuits. and, i'm going to enjoy it, too.
but, i'm not a violent person, i never have been one and i couldn't imagine becoming one.
i actually have a black belt in karate, which is something i picked up as a kid because i was being picked on. well, it was fairly coerced, but it came out of that necessity - i was a scrawny little kid that was unable to defend myself, so i got sent to self-defence classes.
the funny thing is that my dad was actually a semi-pro boxer at one point. he was drafted by the 67s, too. yet, i never learned to skate, and i never learned to fight. my mother would not allow it.
no, instead, i went to self-defence classes - where i was taught concepts of proportional force, as much as i was taught how to spar. i was just a kid; my black belt was more about self-confidence than skill in martial arts. as an adult, what i remember about it is more in the philosophical realm than the realm of actual fighting.
it is always a better idea to avoid a fight than start one because even if you are the greater fighter, you do not know what weapons your opponent has. you can't win by bringing fists to a knife fight.
intimidation is a key component of any conflict; if one can outsmart their opponent, they need not actually fight them.
and etc.
i think a part of the purpose of sending me to the classes was to bulk me up, as a part of the problem was that i was a little scrawny kid; it didn't seem to have the intended effect, and i ended up as a scrawny teenager, too. but, i learned those lessons well, and was mostly able to avoid conflict through those years, by consistently head faking my opponents.
i'm going to beat you down with words and lawsuits. and, i'm going to enjoy it, too.
but, i'm not a violent person, i never have been one and i couldn't imagine becoming one.
i grew up as an opposition leftist in the 90s.
the core of my political identity is in alter-globalization, in opposition to "free trade".
if trump was a little more specific, such that i could take him seriously, as opposed to saying vague things like "it's the worst deal" and "we'll get a better deal", i might have endorsed him.
it's the most important thing. and, by a good margin.
and again: it's not like this new deal is perfect or anything. but, it's aiming for the goal of raising workers' standards in mexico, which is at the crux of the original problem. that is the fundamental problem that needs to be addressed, and it seems like it's being addressed...so, if i were an american, i would have to support that, even if i have qualms in other points.
the core of my political identity is in alter-globalization, in opposition to "free trade".
if trump was a little more specific, such that i could take him seriously, as opposed to saying vague things like "it's the worst deal" and "we'll get a better deal", i might have endorsed him.
it's the most important thing. and, by a good margin.
and again: it's not like this new deal is perfect or anything. but, it's aiming for the goal of raising workers' standards in mexico, which is at the crux of the original problem. that is the fundamental problem that needs to be addressed, and it seems like it's being addressed...so, if i were an american, i would have to support that, even if i have qualms in other points.
a big part of the initial calculus was that i simply didn't believe what he was saying on trade, because i'd heard it so many times.
clinton was going to pull out of nafta. & obama was, too. so, why would i believe either of them?
so, i never thought he'd pull out of the tpp.
& i never thought he'd take the lines he's taken on nafta - which aren't perfect, either. but preferable. definitely.
clinton was going to pull out of nafta. & obama was, too. so, why would i believe either of them?
so, i never thought he'd pull out of the tpp.
& i never thought he'd take the lines he's taken on nafta - which aren't perfect, either. but preferable. definitely.
so, let's say the democrats try to run on the left on immigration and the right on nafta, while trump runs on the left on nafta and the right on immigration.
well, i might agree more with the democrats on immigration - but i agree more with trump on nafta.
and, i care more about nafta than i care about immigration.
so, i'm going to vote for trump instead.
do you understand this?
well, i might agree more with the democrats on immigration - but i agree more with trump on nafta.
and, i care more about nafta than i care about immigration.
so, i'm going to vote for trump instead.
do you understand this?
donald trump could very well see himself facing a militant, pro-war, neo-liberal democrat that wants to ramp up the war(s), strengthen nato, resurrect the tpp, bring back nafta, etc.
and the neo-liberals are sitting there in their business suits and don't understand why i wouldn't want that, or why so many americans wouldn't want that.
there's still some bad sides to trump, no doubt. but, a lot of it is actually more about congress. so, one of the biggest arguments in favour of voting for clinton was the supreme court. but, if the congress can drag the process past the midterms, it may be a democratic majority that gets the final say. what would immigration reform look like with a democratic congress? &etc.
i'd obviously rather see the democrats run a left-wing option that wants to....that wants to carry through what trump has started on a lot of these points, to better conclusions than trump could. a bernie sanders, for example.
but that simply isn't likely.
and, if you made me choose, i'd probably pick trump as a lesser evil over a lot of the party's more likely candidates, on the issues that i actually care about.
and the neo-liberals are sitting there in their business suits and don't understand why i wouldn't want that, or why so many americans wouldn't want that.
there's still some bad sides to trump, no doubt. but, a lot of it is actually more about congress. so, one of the biggest arguments in favour of voting for clinton was the supreme court. but, if the congress can drag the process past the midterms, it may be a democratic majority that gets the final say. what would immigration reform look like with a democratic congress? &etc.
i'd obviously rather see the democrats run a left-wing option that wants to....that wants to carry through what trump has started on a lot of these points, to better conclusions than trump could. a bernie sanders, for example.
but that simply isn't likely.
and, if you made me choose, i'd probably pick trump as a lesser evil over a lot of the party's more likely candidates, on the issues that i actually care about.
what we learned in the 2016 election cycle was that the republican voter suppression tactics are extremely effective.
i'm not going to get into the details of american senate or house races from up here in canada. but, don't be surprised if the democrats have a hard time getting the vote out - or if that is, at least, the official narrative.
it's the people that scream 'fake news' that are pushing fake news. my analysis at the time was that if the vote is fair then hillary will win - but the vote is not fair, so you should expect trump to win. the details of predicting specific seat numbers in the house and senate is a much more complicated problem, and suppression is a much more variable factor. but, the same basic narrative is likely to hold.
the polling isn't wrong.
the vote is being suppressed.
i'm not in a position to make a prediction as to the outcome right now, and will likely not be before november.
but, the methodological pushback i want to present is the following: it's not clear why you'd vote for a democrat in the house or senate if you don't like donald trump, both because it's not causal and because trump may actually have an easier time getting much of his mandate through with a democratic congress. much of the pushback against trump is coming from corporate democrats, who are broadly on the right of the spectrum, and more similar to house republicans than house democrats. trump may be personally unpopular, but i may speak for a number of people when i suggest that i don't like him but am pleasantly surprised by a percentage of his policies. i could easily imagine a scenario where donald trump is the lesser evil in 2020. so, this is far too simplistic a way to understand what's going to happen.
i mean, if you want to fall into the cliche that he's unprecedented, that's more or less what i'm saying. but let's get out head around that. all the way.
i'm not going to get into the details of american senate or house races from up here in canada. but, don't be surprised if the democrats have a hard time getting the vote out - or if that is, at least, the official narrative.
it's the people that scream 'fake news' that are pushing fake news. my analysis at the time was that if the vote is fair then hillary will win - but the vote is not fair, so you should expect trump to win. the details of predicting specific seat numbers in the house and senate is a much more complicated problem, and suppression is a much more variable factor. but, the same basic narrative is likely to hold.
the polling isn't wrong.
the vote is being suppressed.
i'm not in a position to make a prediction as to the outcome right now, and will likely not be before november.
but, the methodological pushback i want to present is the following: it's not clear why you'd vote for a democrat in the house or senate if you don't like donald trump, both because it's not causal and because trump may actually have an easier time getting much of his mandate through with a democratic congress. much of the pushback against trump is coming from corporate democrats, who are broadly on the right of the spectrum, and more similar to house republicans than house democrats. trump may be personally unpopular, but i may speak for a number of people when i suggest that i don't like him but am pleasantly surprised by a percentage of his policies. i could easily imagine a scenario where donald trump is the lesser evil in 2020. so, this is far too simplistic a way to understand what's going to happen.
i mean, if you want to fall into the cliche that he's unprecedented, that's more or less what i'm saying. but let's get out head around that. all the way.
Sunday, September 16, 2018
Your complaint details
- Address
null
windsor
there was a phone call & a visit to my door, of a threatening, harassing and frankly simply incompetent nature.
- Incident Dates
-
- Date
- 12/9/2018
- Time
- 3:56
- Date
- 16/9/2018
- Time
- 12:00
- Summary of complaint
- Please note formatting has been stripped for preview purposes - original intact
this officer has threatened me with arrest for a non-crime on two occasions. the first occurrence occurred by phone, and i have a recording of it. the officer called me at 3:56 am - that is almost 4:00 in the morning - on sept 12, and threatened to arrest me for repeatedly responding to an online ad. the number that the officer called me from was . i txted a response to this number, and was told it is not an officer's number. it must have been a friend or partner's number, i suppose. i do have the recording of the officer identifying himself and can email it somewhere. i explained that my behaviour - repeatedly responding to an online ad for an apartment - is not harassment under the criminal code, and not only would i not stop, but i am preparing a human rights case against the landlord, for discriminating against me on enumerated grounds. the second occurrence happened at roughly 12:00 pm on sept 16th. two officers showed up at my door (the other was a white male officer and said nothing during the encounter), and this "constable mancino" threatened me with arrest a second time if i did not stop responding to the ad. i asked the officer to explain what harassment under the law is, and he failed to do so in a correct manner. he seemed to believe that harassment is merely annoying somebody, rather than threatening to harm them. of course, if that were true, then telemarketing would be against the law, and the jails would be full of call centre agents. it's just wrong. after determining that the officer did not understand the law, i told him i didn't have time for this, encouraged him to launch a report if he wanted to and went to close the door. he then put his foot in the door, preventing me from doing so. i informed him that he does not have a warrant, and yet he still refused to move his foot. he did eventually move his foot after i asked him to several times. he then threatened to arrest me if i reply to the ad again - not if i conduct in threatening or harassing behaviour, but if i merely reply to the ad. on his way out, i asked him for his badge number and he refused to give it to me. he started with "184" and then said he already gave it to me, which he did not. even if he had already given it to me, that would not be a reason to not give it to me again. when a citizen asks for a badge number, an officer should state it slowly and repeatedly if necessary. this officer may have been acting out of bias regarding my gender identity, as i am openly transgendered, but i cannot state that for certain. regardless, he should not have called me at 4:00 am from an unofficial police number that may or may not have belonged to his friend or partner, he should not have threatened me with arrest without understanding the nature of the law, he should not have prevented me from closing the door without a warrant and he should have given me his badge number when i asked. i would suggest that this particular officer has a superiority complex, is unreformable and should probably look for a different line of work.
i have filed a complaint on the following grounds.
1) calling me at 4:00 am from an unofficial #.
2) threatening to file charges on unjustified grounds.
3) refusing to let me close the door, without a warrant.
4) refusing to give me his badge number.
and, i do very much hope that he gets fired - or that it at least contributes to the process of him getting fired.
1) calling me at 4:00 am from an unofficial #.
2) threatening to file charges on unjustified grounds.
3) refusing to let me close the door, without a warrant.
4) refusing to give me his badge number.
and, i do very much hope that he gets fired - or that it at least contributes to the process of him getting fired.
Saturday, September 15, 2018
stop.
when did they test you?
did they do a blood test?
maybe they told you it's on the other side of the blood-brain barrier, so they can't do it.
did they do a dna test?
maybe they told you that they don't understand the genetics.
ok.
but, where is the test of this imbalance? where is the chemical evidence? have you seen anything of the sort, at all?
you haven't, have you?
in truth, it's just been presented to you in mystical terms, hasn't it? some fucking dualistic zoroastrian bullshit, or some hippie nonsense about forces out of sync.
"you are angry because your chemicals are imbalanced. let us medicate slowly on the one. deep breaths."
hey, at least they're not doing exorcisms. but, exorcisms involved herbs, too, you know....
when did they test you?
did they do a blood test?
maybe they told you it's on the other side of the blood-brain barrier, so they can't do it.
did they do a dna test?
maybe they told you that they don't understand the genetics.
ok.
but, where is the test of this imbalance? where is the chemical evidence? have you seen anything of the sort, at all?
you haven't, have you?
in truth, it's just been presented to you in mystical terms, hasn't it? some fucking dualistic zoroastrian bullshit, or some hippie nonsense about forces out of sync.
"you are angry because your chemicals are imbalanced. let us medicate slowly on the one. deep breaths."
hey, at least they're not doing exorcisms. but, exorcisms involved herbs, too, you know....
saying "you have an imbalance, so you should take this drug", without doing any testing to determine the existence of the imbalance, is actually scientifically equivalent to saying "your aura is off-centered, so you should take this herb".
without an empirical test, this claimed imbalance is no more real than any other mystical entity. it's an abstract idea. an aura. truly.
maybe you're into this shit, but it's not science!
without an empirical test, this claimed imbalance is no more real than any other mystical entity. it's an abstract idea. an aura. truly.
maybe you're into this shit, but it's not science!
that is what psychiatry is - it's a giant drug racketeering operation.
you go to the "doctor", who sells you drugs. these drugs don't fix anything, they just get you stoned, and leave you dependent on them, as well. and, that is the definition of a patient: a dependant drug addict.
well, unless an imbalance can be determined chemically, how can you tell you need help synthesizing this thing? you can't. nobody determined that this was wrong with you - they just gave you a drug that makes you high, and then asked you how you feel. and, you're high on the drugs they gave you - of course you feel better.
chances are that you don't have an imbalance at all, and you just like getting high - because that's all they did, was prescribe you drugs to get you stoned. it was never determined if you have an imbalance; it was only determined that you like the drugs.
again: if somebody can prove to me that i need something then i'll take them seriously. but, nobody wants to do that. all these "doctors" want to do is sell drugs to people that probably don't have anything wrong with them and probably don't need them...
you go to the "doctor", who sells you drugs. these drugs don't fix anything, they just get you stoned, and leave you dependent on them, as well. and, that is the definition of a patient: a dependant drug addict.
well, unless an imbalance can be determined chemically, how can you tell you need help synthesizing this thing? you can't. nobody determined that this was wrong with you - they just gave you a drug that makes you high, and then asked you how you feel. and, you're high on the drugs they gave you - of course you feel better.
chances are that you don't have an imbalance at all, and you just like getting high - because that's all they did, was prescribe you drugs to get you stoned. it was never determined if you have an imbalance; it was only determined that you like the drugs.
again: if somebody can prove to me that i need something then i'll take them seriously. but, nobody wants to do that. all these "doctors" want to do is sell drugs to people that probably don't have anything wrong with them and probably don't need them...
i am willing to acknowledge that i may have a condition of some sort, but i am not willing to experiment around chemical approaches to treating it. what i want to see is a test that defines a specific problem, and a specific solution to treating it.
so, i don't want to be told i'm "bipolar" or "schizophrenic", and should take these drugs with an unclear mechanism for it - these are meaningless diagnoses and shots in the dark at fixing an undetermined problem.
i want to be told i can't synthesize a specific protein, due to a specific genetic mutation. and, i want to take a targeted treatment option for it.
until then, i will refuse medication, outright - because i'm not being presented with a useful diagnosis, or being told that the medication will fix an actual problem.
what is actually happening is that i'm just being drugged for financial gain, at a devastating cost to my personal well being.
so, i don't want to be told i'm "bipolar" or "schizophrenic", and should take these drugs with an unclear mechanism for it - these are meaningless diagnoses and shots in the dark at fixing an undetermined problem.
i want to be told i can't synthesize a specific protein, due to a specific genetic mutation. and, i want to take a targeted treatment option for it.
until then, i will refuse medication, outright - because i'm not being presented with a useful diagnosis, or being told that the medication will fix an actual problem.
what is actually happening is that i'm just being drugged for financial gain, at a devastating cost to my personal well being.
the reality is that most of what we call psychology is utter quackery.
these diseases don't actually exist - there's no basis to test for them. if you have an infection, you can do a blood test to determine that you have it. if you have a psychiatric condition, you get five minutes with a "doctor" that presents a subjective opinion of your diagnosis, with no empirical basis whatsoever, and then prescribes a drug to address a problem that was never established exists in the first place.
so, let's say you think you have schizophrenia. you might imagine there's a way to test for that, right? a blood test? a dna test?
no.
the way they determine if you're schizophrenic - which is something that is claimed to be a physical health problem - is by observing your behaviour and then presenting an opinion on the topic.
there is absolutely no science involved in this process, whatsoever.
they then give you drugs that they claim are intended to reduce symptoms. but, without establishing a chemical basis of the symptoms, or even determining if symptoms are actually present, what could that possibly mean? again: let's say you have high cholesterol. well, they test to determine your cholesterol levels, first, and then give you drugs to chemically alter your cholesterol levels. but, nobody tests for a chemical basis of schizophrenia, so how can the efficacy of the drugs even be measured? what does it even mean to say they don't work?
this is not science, and it should not be treated as though it is. this should be treated like the quackery it is, and relegated to the dustbin of "alternative medicine".
if a doctor cannot give you a medical basis for your diagnosis, that is a chemical imbalance or a genetic abnormality, then they should not be administering you drugs.
at all.
these diseases don't actually exist - there's no basis to test for them. if you have an infection, you can do a blood test to determine that you have it. if you have a psychiatric condition, you get five minutes with a "doctor" that presents a subjective opinion of your diagnosis, with no empirical basis whatsoever, and then prescribes a drug to address a problem that was never established exists in the first place.
so, let's say you think you have schizophrenia. you might imagine there's a way to test for that, right? a blood test? a dna test?
no.
the way they determine if you're schizophrenic - which is something that is claimed to be a physical health problem - is by observing your behaviour and then presenting an opinion on the topic.
there is absolutely no science involved in this process, whatsoever.
they then give you drugs that they claim are intended to reduce symptoms. but, without establishing a chemical basis of the symptoms, or even determining if symptoms are actually present, what could that possibly mean? again: let's say you have high cholesterol. well, they test to determine your cholesterol levels, first, and then give you drugs to chemically alter your cholesterol levels. but, nobody tests for a chemical basis of schizophrenia, so how can the efficacy of the drugs even be measured? what does it even mean to say they don't work?
this is not science, and it should not be treated as though it is. this should be treated like the quackery it is, and relegated to the dustbin of "alternative medicine".
if a doctor cannot give you a medical basis for your diagnosis, that is a chemical imbalance or a genetic abnormality, then they should not be administering you drugs.
at all.
Friday, September 14, 2018
Thursday, September 13, 2018
the thing you have to understand about serving is that the judge isn't going to look at the rules and dismiss the thing on a technicality. serving has a function: to draw attention to an appeal. the person i'm serving must be made aware of the appeal. what i'm going to need to demonstrate, if i need to demonstrate it, is that the company knows what the appeal is, or should know what the appeal is, not whether some protocol is followed.
the bottom line is that she's evading, and i can show it.
the bottom line is that she's evading, and i can show it.
i can confirm that they got my money order, but my application might not be processed until monday.
i tried to personally serve this evening, but i got hung up on. that's twice now.
she's essentially been instructed to not communicate with me, and i know that because she told me. she wants me to go through the paralegal. so, if the corporation refuses to communicate with the tenant, and directs all communication to the paralegal, then serving means serving the paralegal, right?
that's not in the rules of service. the rules of service only talk about lawyers, and they're not going to tell me who their lawyer is. it's not transferable well, because the point of the process is to get a confirmation of representation - and a paralegal cannot represent anybody in divisional court in this province. it would be more like leaving it with a representative of the corporation than it would be like leaving it with a lawyer.
i sent an email to the paralegal, and i'm going to consider them served as of 00:00 on the 14th. but, i'm going to try a few different approaches, as well.
i'm doing an all nighter, and i will try to get her the document in the morning; if she hangs up on me, i'll call back and read it to her voicemail. then, i'll txt it to her. and, then i'll call her back again. if she still doesn't accept it, i'll leave a physical copy with the paralegal, and then fax one to the board through service ontario.
and, hopefully, i'll have an answer on the app tomorrow night.
i'm going to get some work done tonight...
i tried to personally serve this evening, but i got hung up on. that's twice now.
she's essentially been instructed to not communicate with me, and i know that because she told me. she wants me to go through the paralegal. so, if the corporation refuses to communicate with the tenant, and directs all communication to the paralegal, then serving means serving the paralegal, right?
that's not in the rules of service. the rules of service only talk about lawyers, and they're not going to tell me who their lawyer is. it's not transferable well, because the point of the process is to get a confirmation of representation - and a paralegal cannot represent anybody in divisional court in this province. it would be more like leaving it with a representative of the corporation than it would be like leaving it with a lawyer.
i sent an email to the paralegal, and i'm going to consider them served as of 00:00 on the 14th. but, i'm going to try a few different approaches, as well.
i'm doing an all nighter, and i will try to get her the document in the morning; if she hangs up on me, i'll call back and read it to her voicemail. then, i'll txt it to her. and, then i'll call her back again. if she still doesn't accept it, i'll leave a physical copy with the paralegal, and then fax one to the board through service ontario.
and, hopefully, i'll have an answer on the app tomorrow night.
i'm going to get some work done tonight...
there has been music coming up from downstairs for over 48 hours. and, the weird thing about it, right now, is that it's some kind of ebm.
that is, the kind of thing that you're supposed to experience in a live setting, with people.
and, i'm left imagining this 50+ year old woman, sitting in her apartment, by herself, listening to club music, smoking herself stupid and...what? imagining she wasn't 50+ years old? imagining she was out having fun? on a wednesday night? on thursday afternoon?
everything about this situation is just so remarkably pathetic. and, if there's any debate, the only meaningful one is whether she needs psychiatric help or should be tolerated.
but, the shift in mindset you need to have is around whether she's harmless.
she's not harmless.
she's severely degrading my health, by chain-smoking for hours at a time.
that is, the kind of thing that you're supposed to experience in a live setting, with people.
and, i'm left imagining this 50+ year old woman, sitting in her apartment, by herself, listening to club music, smoking herself stupid and...what? imagining she wasn't 50+ years old? imagining she was out having fun? on a wednesday night? on thursday afternoon?
everything about this situation is just so remarkably pathetic. and, if there's any debate, the only meaningful one is whether she needs psychiatric help or should be tolerated.
but, the shift in mindset you need to have is around whether she's harmless.
she's not harmless.
she's severely degrading my health, by chain-smoking for hours at a time.
right now, i have 5 units directly adjacent to this one: one on either side, and three on the floor below me. there are two further units directly below me, on the lower floors. it's the unit directly below me that is the major problem, but the other units have been minor annoyances.
this unit would only have three adjacent units to affect me: one beside me, and two on the floor below me. there would also be two above me. there would only be one unit below me. if the unit directly below me is non-smoking, and stays that way, it could work out just fine.
this unit would only have three adjacent units to affect me: one beside me, and two on the floor below me. there would also be two above me. there would only be one unit below me. if the unit directly below me is non-smoking, and stays that way, it could work out just fine.
a living situation update. there's not a fun story with this, but it might be the way out.
i put an application down on tuesday, but i didn't want to put the check down with it. i frankly didn't expect to be approved. but, i looked into it and...
i can't get a certified check from my bank, anyways. they just don't do that. and, my daily limit for the money order was too small..
or, at least, that was my excuse.
i just felt it was pointless to buy a money order, get rejected and then have to get it back. its only $7.50, but i have better things to do with $7.50, you know? and, what if they decide not to give it back? so, i put the app down without the check and called in the morning...
she wouldn't even look at it. fuck.
but...
there are no other applications.
i had to do it...
so, there's a money order with my name on it in a box at one of the york buildings, and i'll have to follow up on that tomorrow. if i'm the only applicant, it's a question of the merits. which, even so, are at best 50/50.
i picked up some new vlog batteries on the way home, so i'll be back to that, too.
the unit shouldn't be better, but i've been in that building twice now and have not smelled any smoke, so i decided to take the leap on it, sort of thing. it's a little smaller than this one, but more compact. and, it's on a corner, so i should get some cross flow. that's one of the biggest problems in this unit: the prevailing winds are in the opposite direction, so the smoke just hangs and has to be pushed out using heat or fans.
am i worried about it? yeah. more than a little bit. and, half of me is hoping it gets denied, so i can keep looking.
i have some more appointments this week.
i have not served yet.
and, this disgusting, filthy, vermin below me appears to have quit her job, as she hasn't left for work in days, making the situation that much less bearable.
i put an application down on tuesday, but i didn't want to put the check down with it. i frankly didn't expect to be approved. but, i looked into it and...
i can't get a certified check from my bank, anyways. they just don't do that. and, my daily limit for the money order was too small..
or, at least, that was my excuse.
i just felt it was pointless to buy a money order, get rejected and then have to get it back. its only $7.50, but i have better things to do with $7.50, you know? and, what if they decide not to give it back? so, i put the app down without the check and called in the morning...
she wouldn't even look at it. fuck.
but...
there are no other applications.
i had to do it...
so, there's a money order with my name on it in a box at one of the york buildings, and i'll have to follow up on that tomorrow. if i'm the only applicant, it's a question of the merits. which, even so, are at best 50/50.
i picked up some new vlog batteries on the way home, so i'll be back to that, too.
the unit shouldn't be better, but i've been in that building twice now and have not smelled any smoke, so i decided to take the leap on it, sort of thing. it's a little smaller than this one, but more compact. and, it's on a corner, so i should get some cross flow. that's one of the biggest problems in this unit: the prevailing winds are in the opposite direction, so the smoke just hangs and has to be pushed out using heat or fans.
am i worried about it? yeah. more than a little bit. and, half of me is hoping it gets denied, so i can keep looking.
i have some more appointments this week.
i have not served yet.
and, this disgusting, filthy, vermin below me appears to have quit her job, as she hasn't left for work in days, making the situation that much less bearable.
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
“The thinking is that (the premier) is prepared to stand up to the courts"
in a constitutional system of government, the premier does not "stand up" to the courts, but defers to them.
whatever thinking is behind this is very dangerous.
it is the idea that canadians want a lapse in the rule of law. and, if that is what we are to see from this government, it is a justification and an invitation for open revolt.
in a constitutional system of government, the premier does not "stand up" to the courts, but defers to them.
whatever thinking is behind this is very dangerous.
it is the idea that canadians want a lapse in the rule of law. and, if that is what we are to see from this government, it is a justification and an invitation for open revolt.
so, that's what you do as an activist: you argue that the state has lost all justification for authority, because it has broken the social contract, by abolishing the rule of law.
but, what do you do legally?
you appeal.
i think a part of the problem here is that the supreme court hasn't dealt with these cases very often. there should be a deeper level of case law around s. 33. something frivolous like this ought to be squashed on appeal, but it's going to require creating a judicial precedent that, frankly, nobody really thought was necessary.
what doug ford would do if he wasn't an irresponsible despot would be to send the issue to the supreme court as a reference, and have them work out the proper precedent.
but, he is an irresponsible despot.
so, he won't do that.
somebody is going to have to actually appeal. it's a shame you can't send the bill to his estate...
but, what do you do legally?
you appeal.
i think a part of the problem here is that the supreme court hasn't dealt with these cases very often. there should be a deeper level of case law around s. 33. something frivolous like this ought to be squashed on appeal, but it's going to require creating a judicial precedent that, frankly, nobody really thought was necessary.
what doug ford would do if he wasn't an irresponsible despot would be to send the issue to the supreme court as a reference, and have them work out the proper precedent.
but, he is an irresponsible despot.
so, he won't do that.
somebody is going to have to actually appeal. it's a shame you can't send the bill to his estate...
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
see, the fact is that douggie really thinks getting elected gives him absolute power.
...because he doesn't have the slightest concept of constitutional government. at all.
the tyranny of the majority is generally seen as a tory idea. it points out the importance of a limited scope of government power, and a system of checks and balances, in order to prevent abuses of power. and, this is all very conservative in scope.
what doug ford is really standing up and saying is "i don't understand what a conservative governing philosophy is". no conservative would argue that an elected premier has absolute authority over the courts; any conservative would argue that that's preposterous, and that a strong court system is required to keep people like doug ford in line, and prevent them from abusing power, or behaving foolishly, or both.
so, who is he representing?
a despotic streak on the contemporary right, and one that's largely being imported.
this is authoritarianism and despotism, it's not conservativism - not even of a reactionary sort.
(and that's a friendly message from the left.)
...because he doesn't have the slightest concept of constitutional government. at all.
the tyranny of the majority is generally seen as a tory idea. it points out the importance of a limited scope of government power, and a system of checks and balances, in order to prevent abuses of power. and, this is all very conservative in scope.
what doug ford is really standing up and saying is "i don't understand what a conservative governing philosophy is". no conservative would argue that an elected premier has absolute authority over the courts; any conservative would argue that that's preposterous, and that a strong court system is required to keep people like doug ford in line, and prevent them from abusing power, or behaving foolishly, or both.
so, who is he representing?
a despotic streak on the contemporary right, and one that's largely being imported.
this is authoritarianism and despotism, it's not conservativism - not even of a reactionary sort.
(and that's a friendly message from the left.)
Monday, September 10, 2018
it is no surprise at all that doug ford thinks he's above the law, and that the rules don't apply to him.
so, as frightening as this is as a tone issue, it's absolutely expected.
you should expect this kind of corruption and abuse of power from this government. daily.
the notwithstanding clause is largely meant for national security issues. you have to remember that canada didn't have a constitution until 1982, so the various governments were apprehensive about signing away too much power. trudeau actually pointed out that the constitution was a consequence of the october crisis, but a lot of people at the time were wondering why he gave in to the bleeding hearts - and what would happen if they couldn't restore order by force.
this kind of frivolous use is unheard of. but, we elected a buffoon, and we need to expect him to act like one.
fwiw, i have little interest in how many city councillors are elected in toronto.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/judge-ruling-city-council-bill-election-1.4816664
so, as frightening as this is as a tone issue, it's absolutely expected.
you should expect this kind of corruption and abuse of power from this government. daily.
the notwithstanding clause is largely meant for national security issues. you have to remember that canada didn't have a constitution until 1982, so the various governments were apprehensive about signing away too much power. trudeau actually pointed out that the constitution was a consequence of the october crisis, but a lot of people at the time were wondering why he gave in to the bleeding hearts - and what would happen if they couldn't restore order by force.
this kind of frivolous use is unheard of. but, we elected a buffoon, and we need to expect him to act like one.
fwiw, i have little interest in how many city councillors are elected in toronto.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/judge-ruling-city-council-bill-election-1.4816664
is chrystia freeland's gender a difficulty for the us side?
i might suspect that her height is a bigger issue.
we were concerned about them pushing us around, and we sent a 4' 12" journalist in a prom dress to stand up for us.
does anybody have one of those milk crates for her to stand on? i think i have a soapbox she can borrow, just a second...
i might suspect that her height is a bigger issue.
we were concerned about them pushing us around, and we sent a 4' 12" journalist in a prom dress to stand up for us.
does anybody have one of those milk crates for her to stand on? i think i have a soapbox she can borrow, just a second...
well, where did the idea that canada and mexico should act in solidarity against the united states come from, in the first place?
was canada colonized by the spanish or the english? is it a borderline third world country, or a g7 economic powerhouse?
it's nice to argue that canada has more leverage if it aligns with mexico, but that presupposes that mexico and canada have common interests. in fact, our interests are diametrically opposed. so, it was a ridiculous premise from the start.
and, this was the point i was trying to get across: our interests were never aligned with mexico against american investment, but always aligned with america against the race to the bottom that happens when you bring a third world economy into a free trade deal with two major economies, as an equal.
you can't blame mexico for stabbing us in the back. they never had any reason to take our side, or be our ally. and, we were stupid to ever think that would happen.
we were even more stupid to prioritize the interests of a state we share common concerns about with our primary ally, over that of our primary ally.
the sad part is that it may expose some underlying perception of what canada is by the colonial liberal elite. mexico north was always a pejorative term, meant to expose the decline in living standards nafta was going to bring forward. to an elite that just sees the country as a set of resources to refine and export to foreign markets, maybe canada really isn't that different than mexico.
we should have put our own interests first. we were simply fools not to. but, maybe it's less clear what 'our' means.
was canada colonized by the spanish or the english? is it a borderline third world country, or a g7 economic powerhouse?
it's nice to argue that canada has more leverage if it aligns with mexico, but that presupposes that mexico and canada have common interests. in fact, our interests are diametrically opposed. so, it was a ridiculous premise from the start.
and, this was the point i was trying to get across: our interests were never aligned with mexico against american investment, but always aligned with america against the race to the bottom that happens when you bring a third world economy into a free trade deal with two major economies, as an equal.
you can't blame mexico for stabbing us in the back. they never had any reason to take our side, or be our ally. and, we were stupid to ever think that would happen.
we were even more stupid to prioritize the interests of a state we share common concerns about with our primary ally, over that of our primary ally.
the sad part is that it may expose some underlying perception of what canada is by the colonial liberal elite. mexico north was always a pejorative term, meant to expose the decline in living standards nafta was going to bring forward. to an elite that just sees the country as a set of resources to refine and export to foreign markets, maybe canada really isn't that different than mexico.
we should have put our own interests first. we were simply fools not to. but, maybe it's less clear what 'our' means.
to be clear.
what this is going to do is put me on month-to-month at the rent reduction, $525, until i can get out of here.
they can try and file an n4, but i think they'll lose. they can try an n5 if they want, but they'd have to win an argument, and that might be harder than they think; i have two bullshit n5s as it is, and the first one is almost at six months.
it's going to be as hard for them to get me out as it is going to be for me to get out. and, it's not going to be cheap, either.
they're better off waiting me out. but, they've consistently made stupid choices...
what this is going to do is put me on month-to-month at the rent reduction, $525, until i can get out of here.
they can try and file an n4, but i think they'll lose. they can try an n5 if they want, but they'd have to win an argument, and that might be harder than they think; i have two bullshit n5s as it is, and the first one is almost at six months.
it's going to be as hard for them to get me out as it is going to be for me to get out. and, it's not going to be cheap, either.
they're better off waiting me out. but, they've consistently made stupid choices...
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.
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)