if it's not clear, i oppose punitive measures in the justice system, and am in favour of restorative approaches that focus on integration, not retribution.

because i'm an educated liberal.

and we're like that.

it seems that the liberals are trying to prove they're tough on crime in order to attract the "tim horton's socialist" voters.

they had a lock on educated voters, but they sem more interested in governing in a way that is designed to appeal to dropouts. and, the sad part is that this is calculated.

they really do think we're this stupid.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/8xk5z5/justin-trudeaus-crime-bill-is-just-the-latest-liberal-social-justice-mishap

http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2015/10/a-debate-on-historical-importance-of.html

so, how is an anti-trans christian female really a repressed lesbian?

well, the real problem is just that they're attracted to us, and can't deal with it - so rather than admit that they have a sexual attraction to women, they insist that we're men. that way they don't have to face up to what they're feeling.

and, i've been over this repeatedly.

trust me, ladies: if you think i'm hot, it's because you like girls, whether you realize it or not. maybe you like the idea of a girl with an erection, sure. but, it's the girl you like - because there's nothing masculine in front of you.

at all.

are radfems really just repressed transmen that take out their frustrations on transwomen because they can't deal with it?

i don't mean the christians, who are probably mostly repressed lesbians. i mean the fake leftists.

is the answer to help them transition?

i actually don't think that getting rid of gerald butts is going to help trudeau much, or that he's really the cause of the problems.

i'd be agitating much harder to send katie telford back to school and tell her to work her way back up from the bottom.

dear ndp,

you're not going to win the next federal election & you know it. but, can you focus on getting rid of chrystia freeland for me? please?

this is an attainable goal. you can win this riding; she should be unpopular within it....

thanks,
deathtokoalas.

i'm not joking.

reading your kids fairy tales is the mental equivalent of giving them junk food; it does to their minds what sugar does to their teeth.

and, you probably didn't turn out ok - or at least not by my standards.

just read your kid science, instead.

the only thing i was ever read was dr. seuss, and it was pretty interactive.

my dad would take me to the library and get me to read to him; my grandmother would buy me books, and i'd read them to myself. and, i actually distinctly remember resenting being pandered to, when people tried to read things to me - as though i couldn't do it myself.

http://www.cbc.ca/parents/learning/view/how-to-handle-reading-your-favourite-childhood-story-to-your-kid

so, they gave us both n4s.

i'm to stop opening the windows in the hallways and stop propping the doors open. we can talk about that later. for now, i can deal with that.

she's to stop smoking in the unit.

my n4 is bullshit. i have to presume that hers is, too - but it is at least true that her habits are interfering with my enjoyment of the property, and fairly substantively, in the form of contact highs and nose bleeds. i just spent yet another day barely able to get out of bed because i'm too tired to move. i'm hoping the rain saves me, over night...

i haven't seen her n4, i was just told that she received it. so, i don't know exactly what it says. i know that it's almost impossible to follow through with this kind of threat, so i'm not holding my breath. but, i overheard her talking about it on the phone, and she's at least upset by it - so i've got a good starting point.

windsor is cheap. she seems to have a job doing something overnight. what she wants is a place where she can chain smoke marijuana and listen to loud music. because this area is so cheap, she's better off renting a townhouse - maybe with a friend or two. she's just not living an apartment-friendly lifestyle...a desire for gratuitous drug use & loud music really requires renting or buying a house....

so, they've at least done their due diligence, in promptly responding to my complaint, and we'll see where we are with this at the end of the month.

for right now, i'm going to let the air turn over with the rain and focus on the rebuild. i'm fully expecting to need to continue taping & tarping, but we'll see if i can back to setting up the studio tomorrow or maybe the next day.

let's aim for getting through 2015 as a transition point.

if the guy won't even run...

these kinds of appointments are the sorts of things that kill them, as they really do undermine the democratic process. what ends up happening is that the activists go elsewhere, or stay home. it's less about this guy and this riding and more about a cultural approach to how representatives are chosen.

i've noticed that the liberals have a lot of unnominated ridings. all politics is, of course, local. they could save themselves by allowing people to build local movements around local issues.

....which is, of course, how this is supposed to work, after all.

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/04/03/wynne-stops-plan-to-appoint-st-pauls-candidate-clearing-the-way-for-a-contested-nomination.html

but, i mean, i don't make rock music.

i'm not a rock musician.

i'm an experimental/classical composer.

so, if you want to work out your fantasies about sex, drugs & rock 'n' roll then you're going to need to find a rock star, first - and that person is not me.

in my existing discography?

i'm stone cold sober through every nanosecond of it.

i have never recorded a single part drunk or stoned.

sorry.

(i'm not actually going to sound like lou reed because i don't write or record folk music. but you get the point)

i just kind of need to get this point down.

musicians don't actually do drugs when they're recording. they might do drugs between recording sessions. but, a musician trying to record something on drugs is going to probably be out of tune, out of time and unable to creatively approach much of anything.

drugs don't make you smarter. drugs don't make you more creative. and, drugs don't make you more productive, either. what drugs do is make you dim-witted, uncreative and slow to react.

you'll end up making trash that sounds like lou fucking reed at his worst.

go ahead and look into it. ask your favourite musician: have they ever recorded anything stoned or drunk? if you have any taste, the answer is almost certainly that they haven't - or, if they have, that they wish they could go back and fix it.

sorry.

so, this is the real importance of getting the smoke out of the recording space. yes, my health is important - &, yes, my gear is important. but, i need to make sure that my recording space is free of outside air contaminants; otherwise i'm not going to be very useful when i'm trying to multitrack guitar parts, or play a drum fill in 17/8.

the conservative party of canada was opposed to free trade until 1984 - because it held to the old tory mercantilist model of state capitalism. it broadly rejected the ideology of free markets as a lot of liberal nonsense. but, it had to change under mulroney, given where thatcher and reagan were headed - neo-liberalism.

the legacy of canadian toryism is probably why canada was so slow to embrace neo-liberalism.

in canada, these ideas of free trade & free markets are historically attached to the liberal party.

what happens repeatedly in canada is less that the conservatives are able to get more people to vote for them and more that the liberals have become very good at getting people to stay home, altogether.

it's worse than the disaster scenario.

trudeau has been lucky; jagmeet singh and andrew scheer are both unelectable.

but, if he doesn't find a way to excite all of the people he's disappointed, liberal turnout is likely to collapse, with unpredictable (from this distance) consequences.

conservative minorities. green party breakthroughs. bloc resurgences. all of this kind of wacky shit happens when the liberals are too uninspiring to get people off their asses to vote for them...and we've seen it all before for that reason...

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.ca/2015/10/just-some-final-notes-on-election.html

i should be rebuilding for the next few hours, at least.

i took advantage of a lull in the smoke to start rebuilding the apartment. i'm pretty sure i have the bedroom secured, so long as nobody smokes in the window; i've rebuilt the space so that everything is on the other side, and it's a more rational construction (closer to how i wanted it in the other apartment), so i'm happy about that.

what really happened was that it rained, which freaked me out a little, and made me realize i'd have to flip the living room around, too. so, i rebuilt the bedroom altogether. and then i started rebuilding the living room...

the rain was the best possible thing for the air quality in the unit, so i'm excited about more rain over the next few weeks, and a possible return to seasonable temperatures mid-month. it was so clear in the unit, that i thought maybe the letter had succeeded in modifying some habits.

it was about 3:00 that the illusion lifted, as a plume of smoke came up behind the closet - where i was setting up my keyboards - that was powerful enough to knock me out.

i now have that entire area tarped over, and i'm back to the waiting game, to see. i'll have to give it a week or two to see if that's enough...

i can't have my gear sitting over a smoke plume. i mean, my health is concern enough. but, if it's powerful enough to get me stoned, it's powerful enough to damage electronics.

as to the mechanics of this, it must be fairly exotic. occam's razor suggests that it seems like what is happening is that somebody is hotboxing the closet - that there are multiple people smoking in the enclosed unit with the intent of preventing circulation. but, there's no functional ceiling in the closet; the truth is that it's a dumb place to hotbox, because it's all just pluming out upwards.

another possibility is that she might actually be burning herb as a part of some kind of ritual, which just sounds like a waste of drugs, but explains why the cabinets are such a recurring problem. she may have some kind of shrine under there or something, and she may keep moving it because i keep blocking off the air with tarps.

whatever the source of this is, it's not a single individual smoking. it's either somebody burning it like incense, or it's multiple people burning large blunts at the same time. and, when it comes up in these waves, it hits you like exhaust from a bus or hot air from a hand dryer - if you're standing in it, it's like taking a deep hit on something. and, it's knocked me out, now, several times.

it's maybe easy to understand why the tape isn't working in some spaces, then. this isn't just a run-of-the-mill smoker. this is a smoke machine, of some sort. and, i'm going to need tarps or serious renos to resolve it.

i'll know by the end of the month whether i'm able to stop it, or if i'm going to need to seek a way out of the lease, with proper compensation.

it is andrea horwath that will make ontario great again, if that's what your idea of great is - even if most voters don't know it.

it is doug ford that represents the future of the right, in a multicultural interfaith coalition against secular liberalism - even if he doesn't fully realize it.

and, it is kathleen wynne that represents continuing the forces of progress, secularization and liberalism - even if she seems intent on distracting you from it.

the reality is that if you want bill davis back then horwath is your ticket - and if there's any truth in the idea that ford (who, rather, represents new conservatives, most of them brown) makes horvath look better, this is why.

but, if you'd like to move forwards, the liberals are the most progressive choice.

i've been clear that i see the ndp as the more fiscally conservative party, which is a fact-based analysis, and that i interpret the liberals as existing further left - not because the liberals are raving socialists, but because the ndp is really a moderate old-tory style conservative party, leaving the centrist liberals as the best thing we've got.

just look at the media narrative.

they're constantly smearing and ripping wynne apart, but they actually tend to cover horwath pretty favourably. you'll even see ndp strategists posting in the sun - fairly frequently. why is that, do you think?

unfortunately, a strong ndp showing will probably just split the vote and elect ford in a landslide.

wynne needs to start hitting horwath, and stop copying her.

the real problem for wynne right now is that the ndp do appear to be strengthening, finally. and, why wouldn't they be, given that wynne has essentially endorsed them?

the narrative is that the gap has closed, or that this is an outlier poll.

my analysis is that this is actually consistent with what reliable polling has suggested they've been at the whole time.

however.

forum is sketchy, and i don't know why. they fluctuate all over the place - sometimes they're dead on, and sometimes they're completely wrong. so, pointing out that this is about what i thought isn't that relieving given that we're talking about forum.

the same thing happened in the last election. the tory media pumped out all of this panel analysis - which is more like a focus group than a poll - claiming the liberals didn't have a chance. they then mislabelled these things as "polls". this was designed to frame the narrative around a certain liberal loss, to influence public opinion in their favour. but, the reliable polling was...reliably close...for pretty much the whole campaign.

then, when the liberals won a majority, everybody claimed they were shocked. but, they shouldn't have been, at all - it was what the actual polls said the whole time.

if decided voters are putting the conservatives around 36-37%, then they're likely running around 32-33, and the liberals have a better than decent chance - not because the budget has saved the day, but because her unpopularity was always exaggerated in the first place.

but, i would like to see more reliable polling, please.

http://poll.forumresearch.com/data/6db584c0-cdaf-446b-b79a-6c7d54cb6c4bOntario%20budget.pdf

they got me buying my meds, and i had to go home to call them, as i don't have a cell phone. i barely made it back to the store...

i'm not going to kill anybody if i don't get my meds. but, what if i really needed them?

and, the reason for this is simply to brand the new card to the cashier. there's no other reason to force the switch.

it's irresponsible.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/former-pc-financial-customers-say-frozen-simplii-bank-accounts-causing-undue-hardship-1.4600627

what the problem is

second-hand smoke of at least six types:

1) tobacco (confirmed) (hallway)
2) marijuana (confirmed) (downstairs unit)
3) sage/incense (confirmed) (downstairs unit)
4) an unknown sweet smell (possibly oxycontin) (downstairs unit)
5) an unknown acidic smell (possibly heroin) (downstairs unit)
6) an unknown stimulant without a strong smell (possibly crystal meth) (downstairs unit)

symptoms of the problem

- sore throat
- both an inability to sleep for days & an inability to stay awake [altered sleeping patterns]
- heart palpitations
- marijuana contact highs
- headaches
- nose bleeds

i have been to the hospital twice for heart palpitations, restlessness and nose bleeds.

the seriousness of the problem

in addition to experiencing undesired effects of these drugs, it must be stressed that smoke is the leading cause of death.
smoke is the leading cause of death.

smoke is the leading cause of death!

even in the united states, a country grappling with a severe gun violence problem, second-hand smoke kills nearly twice as many people as guns, every year.

this is not a minor annoyance or a mere inconvenience. this is a serious health concern, on the level of asbestos or lead in the unit. lead is, in fact, a component of second-hand smoke.

what the law says

20 (1) A landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining a residential complex, including the rental units in it, in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and for complying with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards.  2006, c. 17, s. 20 (1).

in the year 2018, it must be understood by everybody - landlords, tenants and the court - that a unit full of second-hand smoke is not compliant and must be repaired to prevent the smoke from entering the unit.

what has already been done

- holes have been patched over with duct tape & plastic tarps at considerable personal cost (~$300). this has been of varying effect but is ongoing. it is clear that this will not be successful in some parts of the unit, which will require deeper repairs to smoke proof the unit.
- i have asked the downstairs tenant to smoke less, to no avail.
- i have called the police, to ask them to ask her to smoke less, or outside, to no avail.
- i have left the windows in the unit wide open, to my own discomfort, to varying effect. this is currently absolutely necessary, as a starting point. unfortunately, the downstairs tenant appears to actually be purposefully smoking through my windows in a possible attempt to upset me. i am merely confused by this.
- i tried to open the window in the hallway, but this was bolted down by staff. the doors to the stairways are also repeatedly closed by cleaning staff, when i open them.

proposed solutions

- hallway: to begin with, can we leave the doors open so that the air can circulate? and, is there not a way to open the windows to facilitate air flow?

i am currently more concerned about my personal unit, and there are four potential approaches to the problem.

1) discuss the problem with the downstairs tenant, indicating the seriousness of it.

i have already tried to speak with this tenant, and have already asked the police to speak with her. in both cases, she made pledges that she has not kept. while the easiest thing to do would be to get her to smoke outside and away from the windows (which would also be good for her health, considering how much smoke she produces, and of so many different types), i understand that this comes with no enforcement mechanism, and that voluntarism is always at the whim of the volunteer. i’m willing to allow a further request to play out, though.

ultimately, success in a voluntary approach requires this tenant understanding the seriousness attached to the dangers of second-hand smoke, including to herself, which is something that both smokers & non-smokers in this society refuse to get their heads around. we are collectively deeply ignorant about this and seem to be unwilling to change or learn the facts.

2) remove the source of the smoke.

while it is difficult to remove a tenant for smoking cigarettes inside their unit in ontario, it is not impossible if it is part of a complaint by another tenant. more pertinent to the issue at hand is that this tenant does not appear to be a cigarette smoker at all, but is rather an exceedingly heavy marijuana smoker (as well as a smoker of other unknown substances). marijuana remains illegal in canada until further notice and, despite the claims of the sitting government, canada’s obligations under international law are likely to prevent full legalization; this is more likely to be a broken campaign promise than an imminent reality. as a landlord, you would be in your rights to remove this tenant for illegal behaviour. and, i can provide information about relevant police reports.

that said, i understand that this would be a difficult and lengthy process with an unclear end point. further, if this tenant were to be replaced by another heavy smoker, the whole thing would be a waste of time.

3) smoke-proof the unit.

as mentioned, a great deal of effort has already been put into duct-taping around the holes in the unit, and some plastic tarps have even been purchased to block off certain areas. but, there are many areas that cannot be approached this way, particularly areas around the cabinets and other built in features, such as the electrical box. i believe that this is a potentially successful approach, but i understand that it will come with some cost to the company.

i suppose it is up to the company to carry-out a cost-benefit analysis: is it worthwhile to smoke-proof this unit, or is the high turnover rate of a smoke-filled unit (and the subsequent legal costs attached to it...) a worthwhile cost of business?

4) end my own tenancy, with relevant compensation.

i would be willing to discuss this as an exit point, if none of the other options are considered worth pursuing. however, i would expect that such a process be carried out formally through the proper social justice tribunal, where a compensation can be agreed upon in mediation, or determined by a judge. my requests for compensation would be comprehensive, but fair.

should none of these options be pursued by this time next month, i will take the necessary legal steps to pursue one of them on my own.

ok.

i'm finally at the point where i wanted to stop and re-evaluate: election finished, vlog begun and back to work.

the vlog & the blog merge, at this point. i quit smoking at the beginning of 2016. but i need to...

i kind of want to get a move on this. there's a thousand pages on the 2016 us election. do i really want to upload this right now?

the flip argument is that i'm kind of stuck in bed until i can get the second-hand smoke issue dealt with. the other half of the apartment is kind of  a dead zone, for now.

i guess the pages split in mid-2016.

i think the signal increases, at least.

right now, i'm hungry - and i need to spend the morning writing an essay for my landlord.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.ca/2015/10/well-i-was-by-far-closest-of-any-of.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.ca/2015/10/i-complain-about-models.html

actual results:

liberal - 184  (missed by 25ish)
conservative - 99  (i nailed this)
ndp - 44 (i nailed this)
bloc - 10 (missed by 25ish)
green - 1

my argument was that the increased liberal numbers in quebec would elect a lot of bloc mps, by accident. it turns out that this was too fancy of an argument, and i would have totally nailed it had i just looked at the swings directly.

that's not a request to go bother the introverts, wherever you are.

don't do it.

they don't want you to.

if i was at a party right now, i'd be sitting in the corner wishing i was at home.

i really, truly hate people, in general.

i am hoping the weather picks up soon, though. it might be nice to be at a concert....

i would happily be the bastard that killed jason kenney.

he'd regenerate, though.

again.

and again.

again: i don't celebrate christian holidays.

at all.

it's no doubt a function of the nature of the films...

the social network ost is a livelier, more engaging listen that actually holds up as one of his better records; the girl with the dragon tattoo ost is cold and disengaging, and more difficult to listen to actively, although i'm finding it functional as background music, right this moment.

i think you have to get your head around the idea that these are mostly jams, rather than compositions - you may be hearing some overdubs thrown in, but this is mostly being constructed on the fly, making it a type of twisted jazz, really. there's also a huge amount of sampling in both of these, which i'm not about to criticize from some position of purity, but do need to point out; as these are both mostly improvised works and soundtracks rather than standalone compositions, sampling exists in a different context. the reason you need to point it out, though, is that the tracks come in the form of templates.

reznor has a habit of repeating himself, and he's done the same thing with his soundtrack work - if you include ghosts, it really all bleeds into itself and starts to stagnate some time around 2012. you could argue, then, that it works best if you pull it all together into a ten or fifteen disc set and think of it as a single work.

i have no criticism beyond that point - everything he's done with ross in this style is enjoyable, as repetitive as some of it may be. but, standing in 2018, maybe it's time to move on.

i need to repeat.

if there is any discernible movement in the polling right now, it's away from the liberal party and towards the green party. and, this makes a lot of sense, given that trudeau has been a disaster for the environment, in his zeal to approve every pipeline that he can.

i'd like to see regional numbers, though, and they're not available. is this cross-country, or localized in bc?

federally speaking, there has not been any meaningful polling measuring a shift from the liberals to the conservatives at all. so, i'm not going to provide an explanation for something that there is no evidence of.

there has been a push by the tory media to frame a specific narrative using bunk "polling". that is all.

the liberals are down a little, but the conservatives remain flat. these votes are not moving from the liberals to the conservatives, but from the liberals to elsewhere.

the most likely explanation for this is that trudeau has not followed through on anything that he promised.

it appears that trudeau was given a longer than normal grace period to follow through, and this may have confused people into thinking that policy doesn't matter. most people don't follow the news daily, so it may have taken some time for the facts to get there. but, when reliable polling comes out and finds these lost votes floating around between "undecided", "ndp" and "green", it will be clearer that he's not losing votes on his right, but on his left.

that said, low turnout or a spike in the green vote could lead to a conservative minority.

satanism only makes sense in the framework of christianity.

real atheists rejects satanists as reactionary christians - and satanism as irrational.

something should also be said about the parallels between secular humanism and natural law theory, which is a christian idea, in origin. i'm not an advocate of natural law theory, exactly; it's not scientific inquiry, and science really needs to take precedence over logic. but, you can't really understand secular humanism without having read a little aquinas.

when somebody says "i'm not a christian", that doesn't only mean that they don't believe in angels and demons, or trinities, or zombies, or cannibalism.

it also means that they reject the christian value system.

of course, there are varying levels of rejection, and what that means is complicated. but, the key to understanding an atheist is removing yourself from the framework of christianity, first. it's very hard to understand the irreligious when you've spent your entire life chained in the cave of religion.

so, for something like drug addiction, a christian is going to frame the issue in terms of a value system that upholds hard work, and rejects sloth as a sin. a christian would consequently consider addiction as a "sinful" lifestyle that is rebellious, because it rejects "god". this would then be contrasted with a pious lifestyle. somebody that upholds sobriety would consequently be godly, in their rejection of sinfulness.

i've repeatedly ranted against the protestant work ethic and upheld sloth as a virtue.

but, this entire discussion exists within the framework of christianity itself, and the aim of an atheist is to reject this. a humanist would not care about what somebody might imagine that god would think of the scenario. an atheist does not believe in concepts of sin, and so does not interpret drug use or promiscuity through a filter of rebelliousness or sinfulness, but rather seeks to rationalize it by empirically analyzing it's effects on the individual's health.

so, where a christian may be tempted to certain behaviours as rebellious and sinful, because the issue was framed that way to them, an atheist is likely to flatly reject such behaviours as irrational and harmful to one's health - which is why the christians framed them that way in the first place.

this is why religion is so damaging to a healthy society, and why it is so important to rationalize away these concepts of "sin" and "rebellion", as they manufacture stupidity, rather than abolish it.

somebody rebelling against religion may consequently see an atheist and a religious conservative as somewhat equivalent, because they're telling them the same thing about their destructive behaviour. but, the truth here is that the reason this is happening is because rebellion is irrational - and the true thing to learn from this is that rebels are idiots.

ned would march downstairs and give these people a hug and try to get them to rehab, because their lives are valuable, and god loves them.

i'm out to destroy them and leave them for dead, because i don't fucking care about them at all.

i care about my health.

and, i'm not going to "chill out" and accept your ignorance about the dangers of second-hand smoke - i'm going to get a court to uphold my rights.

the flanders joke was that it's very hard (stupid, frankly) to love your neighbours, when your neighbours are people like the simpsons. but, the buffoon tries, anyways. it was a deep caricature of christianity.

a rational flanders would have built a moat between the properties, or moved away, or bombed them, or something - for the good of humanity. but, because he's a christian, he insisted on loving and forgiving and accepting them. and, that's the joke - it's about how stupid christianity is, because it would preach acceptance rather than seek to protect itself from obvious harm.

you're not supposed to identify with these people; it's satire, and they're literally cartoon characters.

fuck your neighbours.

i mean, i understand that there's a physical reality to the addiction.

this isn't a choice...

but i simply don't want this.

you can't even get me to watch a 30 minute tv show. how are you going to get me to waste entire weekends on drugs?

again: i'm just feeling indigestion, right now. it's not serious. i'm probably being paranoid. but, it's just not going to happen; it's not going to be a situation where i'm forcing myself to give up something i like for my health, but a situation where i'm eager to clear something i don't like out of my system, at whatever pain that comes with it.

i'm about as likely to get converted into an opiate addict as a devout muslim is likely to be converted into a bacon eater.

i'm not worried about getting addicted to anything. i am worried about going through withdrawals.

and, i will go through withdrawals, however difficult they are, and repeatedly, if forced to.

i have absolutely no romantic delusions attached to drug use, at all. i understand it's a chemical dependence that my body can defeat. and, about the only thing i'm likely to find myself concerned with is in maximizing productivity - and how impossible that is under the influence of opiates.

if this somehow gets me fucked up, i'm going to hate it, and cry for however long it takes to pass through.

cocaine is something i might develop an addiction to, if i were to play with it. but, my interest in depressants is zilch.

how do i feel?

head is a little blurry. stomach hurts a little. it's mild - just annoying, really. more indigestion than inebriation. if i need to, i'll get to the hospital; right now, i'm more likely to eat.

fwiw, it should be obvious that i don't celebrate christian holidays. at all.

but, this woman isn't going to rise on the third day, if she goes under tonight.

i'm very close to calling them in on heroin.

the smell is of acetic acid, and this seems to happen on friday nights, although it also sometimes smells kind of like soapy wine. again: i have no experience with heroin and would not be able to identify it, but research tells me that it smells like vinegar due to the cutting agents.

if anybody ever offered me heroin, it is unlikely that i would be able to refrain myself from beating the shit out of them.

i'm not sure why else there would be repeated vinegar smells rising from downstairs. on weekends. it seems obvious.

tonight is a thursday, but it's a long weekend. and, i'm holding back because i don't want an ambulance to wake her up.

it would be the easiest solution, wouldn't it? and, wouldn't it be a matter of time, anyways?

i mean, it's probably not something you heard from many kids in the 90s.

marilyn manson sounds like something my mom would listen to. yuck.

but, *shrug*.

i mean, it's maybe easier to understand why i was so revolted by manson when you consider that my mom was a massive ozzy fan.

yeah, my dad was a metalhead.

he was more into prog-metal, but he was a metalhead - he followed prog into metal when prog died. well, metal and blues. there was a lot of high-end blues done in the 80s.

and, my mom is really a metalhead. my dad just wanted the musicianship; he was less of a nerd than me, but leaned that way. my mom is full into satan-worship, leather jackets, motorcycles, gratuitous drug use and forehead beer can smashing. she's a stereotype.

and, it's absolutely the reason why i grew up hating metal.

but, this is a normal gen x reaction to the excesses of the baby boomers.

she's like the ice queen.

y'know?

i mean....this is why people don't like kathleen wynne.

she comes off as kind of machiavellian. calculating. inhuman, almost. and that seems to be allowing the propaganda to work.

they need to get out her hugging babies and cuddling cats and stuff.

what wynne is doing is actually more harperesque than trudeau-lite: it's micro-targetting, but in the form of very targetted social programs rather than in the form of boutique tax credits. and, the bulk of it actually seems kind of poorly thought out.

one hopes that wynne's goal is eventually universal drug coverage. and, even if the thing ends up overseen nationally, it is going to be administered provincially - this is a constitutional reality. so, a universal drug coverage bill would certainly mean universal coverage for seniors. but, we already have an income-tested system for seniors - meaning what wynne's bill does is give free coverage to people that have already been determined to be able to afford it. it is literally a bribe...

again: if the end goal is universal coverage, then this happens, one day. but, the way she's doing it is really kind of slimy.

one could say the same thing about socialized babysitting for people between 2.5 and 4. it's designed to appeal to young mothers, many of whom may have never voted before. tactical. cynical. kind of slimy.

but, i wouldn't vote against any of it, either.

i'm actually all about the status quo, this time around. i'd just like to keep things moving as they are.

so, i'd really like to hear an update on the plan to get organic waste out of landfills - which is due any day, now. and, some kind of report on the ubi would be interesting, too.

yeah.

what i'm going to do for this month is just level with her - put the facts down on the table and let them determine what way they want to go.

they have three options:

1) prosecuting the tenant below me for illegal behaviour. that is going to be expensive, and they may even lose the court case. but, she may leave on her own rather than fight. even so, what happens if another smoker moves in?
2) spend what will probably be thousands of dollars smoke-proofing this unit, after i force them to via court order. my attempts to smoke-proof the unit have not been successful.
3) just let me break the lease and leave. although i'm going to ask for financial compensation (in the form of moving costs), and it means re-opening a  vacancy, this is by far the cheapest option.

we can talk further in april.

i'm not doing this right now, but i'm going to have to search the case law for examples where second-hand smoke - and specifically second-hand marijuana smoke - is considered an "uninhabitable" situation.

A landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining a residential complex, including the rental units in it, in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and for complying with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards. 

i don't know if there is precedent around this, but i'm willing to make a novel argument - and push it to divisional court - if i have to.

a unit full of second-hand smoke should be considered unfit for habitation.

that said, i'm not going to get the police report for the 31st.

so, this isn't going to happen until april.

and i want to finish 2015, first.

what i'm going to have to do is give the landlord an ultimatum:

- take my smoke complaint seriously, and take steps to remove the tenant below me, or
- fight me in court, understanding that i'm trying to get out of the lease.

they're going to lose a tenant, either way. do they want to lose a law-abiding non-smoker that cares about respecting the building and the other tenants, or a disgusting, filthy ashtray of a person that doesn't care about anybody but herself?

i actually suspect they'll chose the smoker.

and, that's just confirmation that i need to get out.

this is the snoop-turing thesis.

my lease here is until december.

i'm starting to realize that i'm going to have to move if i want to maintain my mental health.

this place is going to drive me insane.

it's a shame; the problem isn't the building, it's the tenants. i like the location...

i'm going to have problems with smokers regardless of where i move, this is true. but i probably have the most disgusting person in the city below me. it's just constant - this person is chain-smoking 24/7. and, i have no serious legal options available to me to stand up for myself.

i don't want to be the person that dedicates my life to winning tenants rights for non-smokers. i have better things to do.

so, i'm going to file a smoke complaint with the intent of getting the board to cancel the lease and have the property manager pay my moving costs out. the landlord is really correct when she says that she can't do anything. but, that means that she should be liable to help me move, then.

if i file a smoke complaint, the landlord is required to make a good faith effort to address it. but, if she's telling me right off the bat that there is no solution to this, then that good faith effort should be interpreted as a way to help me move.

she should have told me that there were smokers in the building and that the place is uninhabitable for non-smokers.

i would request that people get the help that they need.

i just want people to leave me alone.

but, when does a childish crush become an unhealthy obsession?

no mentally healthy adult would behave like this.

fwiw, i was probably being kind in suggesting they're in their 30s.

they may very well be in their 40s.

these people are continuing to go out of their way to eject smoke into my apartment, and i'm just left with two conclusions:

1) it's hard to believe that they're so pathetic that they enjoy this, but it must be because they have some kind of incredibly immature crush on me. i believe it's well understood that marijuana leads to arrested development. but, this is grade school type behaviour. they're acting like a couple of little girls teasing the boy they like.
2) i need to be extra careful to ignore them, as they seem to be feeding on the lack of consent.

(as readers here know, i'm not actively attracted to women, and consider myself asexual.)

but, i kind of want to tell them to go smoke somebody that wants it; i figure they owe me $1000 in labour for cleaning up their constant stream of filth, but they could easily argue that they've paid it off in marijuana that i don't want....maybe i'll just lean over the window and breath the next time i do want to get baked...

i actually felt that how to destroy angels was...

she's a better front than him, for the style. my thought at the time was that if reznor is bent on being a pop star then this is a way better way to do it.

that said, i was also hoping that this pop outlet would help him focus on a more serious streak, and in a sense i guess it did - although it all came out in soundtrack work.

it's not his best work. but, i'll take the htda stuff over with teeth or the slip - absolutely.

but, you could make either argument (that it killed him & that it saved him) and be right.

so, how bad is the slip?

i don't think i listened to it all the way through, on release. it was that bad: i couldn't make it through it...

in hindsight, i understand that it wasn't meant for me. this is a record that was meant for people ten years younger than me, that had interacted with reznor in a completely different way and wanted something from him that was almost the diametric opposite of what i wanted from him.

it's a sort of a greatest hits record, in the sense that every track on the record recalls one of his hit tracks from previous years. you can call it a summary if you want; a retrospective. i actually think it's more of a rebranding - for that younger audience. these seem like replacements.

and, replacements for what? well, it's also very clearly a record that is designed primarily for a live audience.

i don't know how calculated it was, but it was probably thought through at some point: the purpose of the slip appears to have been to replace old songs in the setlist with new songs that are vaguely equivalent. the purpose of this was probably primarily lyrical. and, i'm not getting anything more or less out of it.

i kind of liked the old songs, though, and have never warmed to the record.

it's maybe not technically as bad as with teeth, but i tend to rank it at the very bottom of the list, anyways.

the reason that nobody talks to america anymore is that nobody trusts america anymore.

so, everybody appears to be operating around their airspace without telling them what they're doing. all of these alliances and strategic operations are taking place, and the americans are just out of the loop.

this has just left america grasping for a light switch in the dark.

they need to get out pronto. asap. now.

the state department is clueless; the united states has no idea what's going on, anymore.

sadly, what's unfolding in the united states state department right now is justifying the kinds of arguments that authoritarian states - like russia and turkey - use to discredit democracy.

it's chaos. insanity. disorder.

tillerson was clueless enough, himself, and never should have been put into this position. now, the department is falling apart, you've got the second major turnover in months...and they can't do basic analysis any more...

is trump at least smart enough to realize he should recuse his country from a conflict that it no longer understands?

http://www.newsweek.com/us-actually-agrees-iran-syria-says-turkey-helping-isis-attacking-afrin-852159

i speak for a great deal of canadians outside of quebec when i say that i would have liked to vote for gilles duceppe, if only i could have.

i still think the qs is poised for a major break through, and that the harder couilliard fights on his right, the larger the swing will be. these four-party spectrums get so messy.

the quebec liberals are too right-wing for my tastes. i would like to see qs cut substantively into their voting base, especially with recent immigrants.

but, if couilliard wants to split the caq vote up a bit, he might want to go out of his way to remind everybody that legault has renounced sovereigntism, making him a local representative of the federal conservative party.

this is no doubt the opposite of what he is thinking.

it's the smoke that's the problem.

but, it seems like it's really eating that makes me so tired - this is the catalyst.

so, i'm going to avoid eating until the end of the day.

no, i'm not the hopeless nerd that wants to be cool.

i'm the "cute nerd" that's constantly frustrated by the world's refusal to treat me like the nerd that i am.

what i long for is the isolation and ostracization that i can't get, because i'm cursed with being too good looking.

i really do need to call a dentist.

i wanted to wait until i was sure i'd quit smoking...

odsp covers basic cleaning, which is all i really need.

i'm going to print this off and leave it on a few doors.

i'm not convinced that first-hand vaping is much better than smoking. but i've been around the pens at bars, and they don't produce the same level of second-hand smoke.

http://stonerpros.com/reasons-to-vape/

even norml comes right out and says it, although they're also being confusing, and it's kind of maddening.

there have been studies that have suggested that the active ingredients in marijuana - thc & cbd - may have anti-oxidant properties, but the way this is presented pretty much everywhere is grossly misleading.

some of the studies have even gone so far as to suggest that thc might shrink tumours, it is true, but what these studies did is inject the compound directly into the tumour at concentrations that are beyond anything we could imagine. you'd have to condense thousands and thousands of joints worth of thc into a syringe to get these kinds of properties. the amount of thc you get from smoking bud is absolutely clinically useless.

so, these reports say things like "it's true that marijuana smoke has been found to produce pre-cancerous cells...but it also has thc", with the implication that it balances out. but, that is dishonest. marijuana smoke has carcinogens in very, very high concentrations (equivalent or higher than tobacco smoke) and trace amounts of anti-oxidants. they don't balance out.

in very, very high concentrations, nicotine could potentially reverse ageing. but, nobody talks about that when discussing the effects of smoking.

you can wait fifty years for these studies to come back, but unless you've smoked yourself retarded, you know it's going to give you cancer - and there's no use in pretending you don't.

http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/cannabis-smoke-and-cancer-assessing-the-risk

 “Cannabis use could already be responsible for one in 20 lung cancers diagnosed in New Zealand,”
 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cancer-cannabis/cannabis-bigger-cancer-risk-than-cigarettes-study-idUSHKG10478820080129

see, and then she burns incense to cover up the smell.

the incense is probably worse than the pot.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/nov/26/passive-smoking-deaths-who-report

deaths by gun violence: 33,636 (2013, wiki)
deaths by second-hand smoke: 53,800 (1997, california epa)

these are american numbers, to demonstrate the point (gun deaths in canada are far less).

i don't know why they attribute this to a conservative blowhard, rather than a humanist scientist; it's a scientific fact, not a religious opinion.

but it's true.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/29/george-will/claims-smoking-kills-more-people-annually-other-da/

"they're not hurting anybody, police resources should be deployed towards people that are harming others."

https://www.theguardian.com/news/reality-check/2013/dec/18/cigarettes-or-war-which-is-the-biggest-killer

so, what's the way out of this?

it's edibles.

if i were a sitting senator, i might contemplate sending the bill back in order to relegislate the issue around making access to edibles easier, and access to bud almost impossible.

as a society, we really ought to be coercing people to start eating it and stop smoking it - not just for the benefit of users, but also for the health of everybody else.

so, when you recognize that complications from smoke inhalation is the leading cause of death in society, what does it mean to argue that the cops are wasting their time dealing with smoke inhalation issues?

smoke kills more people than guns, gangs, alcohol, sexual violence & virtually everything else you can come up with, combined.

if we were to be rational about the data, we would have to conclude that the primary purpose of the police should be to ensure that people aren't smoking anywhere near where it can be inhaled by anybody. they should be in special facilities, that you need to put hazmat suits on to enter.

i need to repeat this: smoke is the leading cause of death.

smokers kill more people than gangs.

smoke is more dangerous than guns.

we've got this all backwards.

but, how can we be so ignorant? what's underlying this absurdity?

it's probably some good old fashioned toxic masculinity. for, while it may be true that smoke is more dangerous than guns, fighting smokers isn't quite like fighting gangs. it doesn't have that combat component, that feeling of danger.

but, we need to be more rational about this - and that means getting more strict on smokers, not less strict.

there's this idea that marijuana doesn't kill anybody. i've stated it myself. but it's wrong.

if you were to claim that tobacco doesn't create overdoses, you'd be correct. so, would you then claim that tobacco doesn't kill anybody?

overdose deaths from tobacco: 0.

in fact, tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death.

one of the things about prohibition is that it skews the statistics, and i'll admit that it's never going to be easy to separate deaths caused by tobacco from deaths caused by marijuana, because it's such a heavy overlap. when a marijuana smoker gets lung cancer, or heart disease, it's never going to be clear if the primary cause is the marijuana or the tobacco that this person also smokes, along with the unhealthy diet and the sedentary lifestyle. what we can say, right now, is that prohibition removes marijuana from the statistics.

full legalization should hopefully allow us to better understand marijuana smoke as a risk factor for heart disease, for cancer, for emphysema, for diabetes, for stroke - for all the things we've tied so heavily to tobacco.

and, in a decade or two, this idea that marijuana doesn't kill anybody is going to be a surreal joke about how ignorant we were.

09/15 is finally done, and it was something like 3-4 months in size.

october should be much, much less intense.

this may end up being a short day, or i might just be taking a nap. the air in here is far better than before, but i had to hover over a space to block it and it's not clear at this point if it's made me tired, or if i'm just agitated and drained.

i wanted to make some calls but slept all day - again, possibly due to air pollution. hopefully, it's just a nap so i can get on to things tomorrow...

...but, i'm into the last few weeks of the election, now.

regarding the "free syrian army".

you need to be careful with videos coming to you from the region, because it's 98% propaganda, and intended to sway western attitudes. but, these aren't good guys, and they're going to do bad things.

the difference between the saudi-backed groups and the turkish-backed groups, however, is that the saudi-backed groups are being funded by people that want to set up these systems permanently, while the turkish-backed groups are foreign mercenaries being used as muscle - and the eventual intent is to clear them out and restore order.

so, yes: they are more or less the same thing, on the ground. but, the people paying them have almost diametrically different intentions. back when this was a turkish-saudi proxy war to take over the space left vacant by russian influence, there was little reason to think the turks would have supported anything other than a democratic transition, while the saudi aim appears to have been to prevent a democratic transition.

what the kurds were trying to do in the area was not sustainable, and not an intelligent approach, in the long run. they can't fight professional armies, like this. as a taz it served it's purpose; now, it's time to pack their things and start over somewhere else. and that is what this was - a taz. it could have never been permanent.

permanent change must be structural.

so, it's crazy to suggest they won't get slaughtered, if they stay.

the way to get rid of the fsa, from here on in, is through syrian law enforcement. expect the turks to cut the cord fairly soon.

so, the kurds would be wise to retreat to safer areas, to let the turks run through. erdgan is a belligerent fool with a military force that cannot be effectively resisted. but, once the region is returned to assad, they will no doubt be allowed to return.

and, again: it defies reason to suggest that the turks have any interest in annexing this region, or in provoking a wider conflict with the kurds in the region.

the area on the other side of the euphrates is more complex, as it is not clear if or when the united states intends to leave. nobody wants the turks to get into a fight with the americans. but, the russians are going to agitate for the territorial integrity of the syrian state.

nor is the obvious solution of partition acceptable to the turks, because it would be a kurdish state.

it's consequently hard to see a way out of this: unless america acknowledges defeat and withdraws, turkey is on the path to direct conflict with the united states over a plot of land with virtually no strategic value to the empire at all.

https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/03/ypg-pushed-out-tal-rifaat.html

i have to remind you every once in a while that i'm not a young person.

i was born the same year that britney spears was. which would make me the same age as her.

(actually, i'm almost a whole year older than her, as i was born at the very beginning of 1981)

the spokesperson of my generation is not a dead musician, or a profound writer, or a fashion icon or an entrepreneur...

it's conan o'brien.

this guy.

nobody else permeates our thoughts the way that conan does.

and, this is how you know you're gen x - when the conan jokes flow like water, and the people around you get it instantly, and effortlessly join in.

this is an essential services that sufficient tax revenue must be generated to fund.

next.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/recycling-blue-box-challenges-evolving-tonne-1.4584484

john bolton is very scary, and i don't want to temper anything he's said - it's every bit as outrageous as anybody is saying.

(although he happens to be correct about china, which should be obvious to anybody with a pulse.)

but, he's the national security advisor and not the national security dictator. and, we know that trump is ultimately inadvisable.

trump may very well be looking to start a war. but, there's not a lot of places to bomb right now. and, i suspect that when he finally does it, it will look more like the falklands than it does like fallujah.

the reality is that the left media has a narrative to uphold, here. it needs dollars, too.

i did not receive the eucharist.

i was not "confirmed".

if the public school system had started at the same age as the catholic school system, i would have never been baptized, and would have been sent to a public school.

my maternal grandmother is an anglican; my mother isn't even really an atheist, so much as she's just disinterested in the topic altogether. my dad would have probably baptized me, but my mom didn't want me anywhere near the catholic church, as she was convinced all the priests were gay paedophiles. she was less pro-atheist and more anti-catholic.

but, the fact that she agitated for me to be baptized as a way to get me to school quicker indicates the deep disinterest in religion that i was raised into.

i vaguely remember it - i was just instructed to sit still while he sprinkled some water on me. i mean, it was kind of scary - i was old enough to be cognizant of what was happening, without being old enough to understand it. she attached absolutely no meaning to it, whatsoever.

my paternal grandmother (who is probably part genetically jewish, but was raised italian catholic) always saw me as a heathen.

my mom sent me to pre-school because she was a negligent alcoholic that didn't want to take care of me. and, then she had me baptized at the age of four three to send me to a catholic school for the same reason (the public schools at the time only had kindergarten starting at age five).

but, i wasn't born smart. i'm a statistical norm; i got a head start.

i mean, i guess you can look at it two ways.

- is this designed to help mothers enter the workforce?
- is this designed to help kids achieve their full potential?

while both things are important, i'm kind of more interested in the latter. and, i guess the plan that was announced was more focused on the former.

i just don't know why you'd do this without focusing on the former though - it's kind of missing the broader point, in just focusing on the moms.

i liked the martin/dryden plan a lot, which would have ensured that we're not merely leaving kids with babysitters, but leaving them with licensed learning professionals that can help put them on the right path at an early age. studies are crystal clear that kids that go to pre-school are better positioned to learn as they advance through life.

if that is actually what is being proposed, wynne should announce it. i'm not directly affected by socialized babysitting; i wouldn't vote for or against it. but, the pre-school component is a broader social engineering change that i'd have a stronger level of direct support for, as it affects everybody's future in a positive way.

i'm unclear - is this socialized babysitting, or is it an expansion of the school system?

i would strongly support expanding the school system, but i....why promote socialized babysitting when you can expand the school system?

i guess the difference is that i'd actively support expanding the school system, and be more or less indifferent to socialized babysitting.

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/03/27/ontario-budget-to-fund-free-child-care-for-preschoolers-by-2020-as-part-of-22-billion-plan.html

trudeau no doubt thinks that complying will take the issue off the table - because he doesn't realize that trump is just fucking around with him, anyways.

donald trump doesn't actually think that anybody is flooding the canadian market with anything. but, he does think that justin trudeau is a complete idiot. and, trudeau's reactions are, unfortunately, just proving trump right.

not only will trump not react positively to the concessions, he will hold them over trudeau as evidence that he was right all along - that canada really is getting flooded with cheap metals, as can be seen by the steps taken to prevent it.

but, we must not take this as evidence of trump's strategic brilliance - we must take it as evidence of trudeau's absolute idiocy.

for, it is easy for a bully to take advantage of a moron.

they should not be negotiating with trump at all; canada should refuse to negotiate with terrorists.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/canada-gives-border-security-extra-powers-to-crack-down-on-cheap-steel-aluminum-1.3860246

i'm just not somebody that wants to smoke pot at home; i'm somebody that likes to smoke pot when i'm out at a concert, or out dancing.

it's a social drug - very much like alcohol. and, the only people that smoke alone, at home, are the marijuana equivalents of sad alcoholics. losers. hopeless losers...

the vast majority of people are going to want to smoke with people, at a party, or at a bar.

all the concerts and parties are in detroit. it follows that it's actually detroit that i'm more interested in, when it comes to legalization; legalizing it here is actually kind of useless to me.

given where windsor is on the map, legalization in michigan will make going to windsor flat out stupid, because it will require passing the border twice. and, as everybody knows, the worse direction is on the way into the united staes.

no sane american would cross the canadian border to get stoned, and then go back through american customs. they'd be setting themselves up for detention. it would be far less dangerous to buy it illegally. but, if michigan legalizes, the decision to cross to be legal moots itself.

windsor is boring.

full stop.

pot won't make it less boring.

in fact, as a windsorite, i'm far more excited about the possibility of legalization on the other side of the border. that's going to be a much more impactful legal change, for me.

anybody that thinks people are going to come to windsor to get stoned has not spent any time in detroit, which may even end up legalizing it first.

if i haven't been clear - and i think i have been - i have absolutely no opposition to gmos, and in fact tend to get rather snotty with people that think they pose some kind of threat. there is no logical reason to think they might, and the science is crystal clear that they don't.

if you want to have your food labelled, i don't have any particular opposition to this, but it's not something i'd think twice about. and, it's not my issue to fight.

to the contrary, i'm likely to get rather squeamish when i hear people repeating the same scaremongering, anti-science nonsense.

that said, i'm not happy about patenting grains, either. but, that's a separate issue than the safety concerns, which are as specious as anything you hear coming from anti-vaxxers.

"alleged incident of Qur'an-ripping"

it's all right-wing tory media, to this point, that's pushing this - media with very conservative perspectives. more balanced media sources haven't picked up on this, yet.

but, the language is highly concerning: as though disrespecting the koran is now being treated as a crime. is this where the conservatives are leading us?

i'm not there, yet. and, i'm trying not to kneejerk to the media coverage - i'm trying not to get alarmist. but, if this turns into something, we're going to have to organize a national day of koran ripping, in protest.

free speech is fundamental to a free society. it's one thing when it's just some religious people in a mosque or a church yelling at each other; it's another when the cops get involved.

nobody would think twice about it if they were ripping pages out of a bible....which is how it should be...

turns out navdeep has an mba.

explains everything.

no, navdeep.

the charter doesn't say you have the right to worship without criticism from private citizens. the freedom of assembly applies in this situation, not the right to religious freedom - and it applies equally to both parties. most importantly is the right to free expression, which is what the charter truly upholds, here.

this is a common mistake made by people without legal backgrounds.

what it says is that the state can't discriminate against people on the basis of religion.

somebody needs to give navdeep a crash course in constitutional law, clearly.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/peel-police-incidents-islamic-centres-hate-motivated-mischief-mosques-1.4592993

two minutes of googling presents this, but it seems to be at some kind of an official event.

surely somebody has a picture of them. i don't mean in the act, i just mean at all.

here's the thing: when somebody frequently has sex for money over decades, it's easy to believe they would claim they had sex...for money. which isn't to say that she's lying, exactly, so much as it is to say that a prudent individual would require independent verification before taking her seriously, because who knows, really?

i'm just saying it's fishy. i have no idea. and i ultimately don't care.

i'm not getting into the porn star & trump thing.

but, the situation strikes me as pretty fishy.

does anybody have any pictures?

ok.

this eric brazeau guy has a history of assault. that's a little more complicated than the article is suggesting.

assault is obviously not speech. i may have been tricked by some fake news, there.

this is embarrassing.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/anti-islamic-pamphleteer-gets-nine-months-for-promoting-hate-but-can-still-hand-out-flyers/article17760151/

i mean, the court got it right in throwing out the charges (minus time served - which he should have been compensated for), but to think they locked him up for nine months for free speech is outrageous...

could you imagine a dystopian future where the left leads the fight against pamphleteering?

that wouldn't be a left at all - that would be an authoritarian right. no left worth calling itself such would support any legal action against pamphleteering whatsoever.

i'm not being alarmist, or perhaps i'm being proactively alarmist; i understand that the police need to investigate a complaint, and i'm not suggesting they shouldn't be doing so.

but, the police should be coming back to the mosque with some stern words about freedom of expression - and a clear explanation that this type of behaviour is constitutionally protected in this country.

you couldn't find a more basic defense of free speech rights than this if you tried.

"possible mischief with a hate bias"

what?

you can't arrest people for pamphleteering.

ever.

no exceptions.

and, canadians need to freak out if this ever starts happening.

islam must find a way to adjust to a free society; i'm not throwing away freedom of speech because some people find it upsetting.

right now, all i see is some police carrying out a report. they have a responsibility to the community to do this, on request. but, civil liberties groups need to be on stand by to mobilize against a possible assault on free expression, here.

i might suggest a more productive use of her time, but i'm going to freak out if somebody gets charged for desecrating the koran in canada.

that's not a 'hate crime'. that's the literal definition of free speech.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4103314/peel-police-investigating-hate-motivated-incident-islamic-centre/

again: the idea that the liberals were going to walk into the next election with 50% support was always absurd.

so long as they are polling in the 40+% range, they're outperforming realistic expectations.

they're not going to get more than 40% of the vote; don't imagine they are.

they will get somewhere in the mid to high 30s; that's a more realistic goal.

few people expected them to win a majority, in the first place, and they should probably not expect to hold on to it, either - unless they can sweep quebec. that's their only serious chance of holding on...

a realistic expectation is that they're going to lose seats in the east, in alberta and probably also in ontario. the only place for growth is quebec.

but, i would welcome a coalition government; it's what i wanted in the first place.

the vikings were really remarkably successful, weren't they?

maybe, a little too successful, if you see what i mean.

there's a developing understanding that the viking attack on europe was a reaction to the advance of christianization, and that the historical sources (written almost entirely by the church...) just kind of "forgot" to record that fact. but, you have to understand that the scale of devastation that the spread of christianity brought to northern europe was many times worse than anything the vikings produced. charlemagne literally slaughtered entire castes of people. again: the records are poor, but it could have been in the hundreds of thousands, in an era where the population was much, much lower than today.

if you're standing in denmark, and you're watching what's happening directly to your south, it's hard to imagine that you wouldn't want to respond. and, the culture to the north was shared, so the danes were capable of a call to arms.

again: this much is developing scholarship. i'm not making this up. this is not novel.

what i'm willing to put forward is the idea that they may have even been interpreted as liberators by a european population that was struggling against colonization by the roman/christian church. the vikings very specifically targeted the christians, pretty much everywhere they went, which is why the texts, written by monks, demonized them so terribly. and, sure - they burnt down a fair number of churches. the traditional explanation was that they were pillaging, although, as mentioned, this is evolving to the idea that the vikings were carrying out what they saw as acts of self-defense.

but, there are these reports of continuing odinism deep in england and france well into the enlightenment. the old religion really went underground. as far as anybody knows, it eventually disappeared; at the least, if they're still out there, it would be useful for them to inform the views of these "neo-pagans" that have as much in common with the indigenous european religions as harry potter - the old religion is lost to history. but, we know damned well that it survived way, way longer than history officially records.

and, even if the western europe of the time was pious to the church, what allegiance ought it have had to these frankish warlords, that ruled through tyranny and heavy taxation, as they put in motion the beginnings of feudalism? at least the vikings believed in democracy.

it's just hard to read the history critically without coming to the conclusion that there were substantive parts of these populations that helped the invasions. the timelines are incredible: paris conquered as quickly as it took to sail up the seine. how does that happen without local support?

but, the idea is taboo.

i would request that more serious historians look into this more carefully.

so, what is ghosts?

at the time, people were comparing it to the tail end of the aphex twin's career, even though reznor had been playing with the style for over a decade. it was a reflection of a deficit of context.

what reznor did with ghosts is kind of sneaky, as he would have released it with the title etudes in a previous era. and, i think that in order to understand what ghosts is you need to go to look into the genre itself, perhaps beginning with debussy's livres.

when you put it into this correct context, ghosts actually becomes an academic exploration of his composition style. reznor has a kind of idiosyncratic approach to tonality, defined by a highly minimalistic approach to dissonance. so, he uses a lot of pedal tones, and then sprinkles "wrong notes" over them in predictably calculated ways. that's the crux of his style, stated in easy to understand terms.

when understood this way, you can actually identify ghosts as somewhat of a pivot in his career. broadly speaking, these are not new themes. but, the disc defines the approach he's taken to soundtrack music, since.

if year zero was both a comeback and a coming-back-down-to-earth, ghosts was the logical conclusion of that process, in charting a new direction for his creative output. and, while i haven't followed this new direction as closely as i followed the previous one, or at least haven't up to this point, it is certainly a turn towards the tasteful that is worth respecting.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
ADDICTION IS AGENCY

the language the cop used was "nice".

it was,

i talked to the tenant downstairs, and she seems really nice.

the cop then underhandedly implied i was a fag for trying to throw her out, rather than trying to get to know her. and, he was absolutely right, although i'd reject the implication that there's something wrong with that.

a lot of people of either gender are going to interpret a 30-something curvy pothead as "hot", and i don't doubt this. but, everything about what's happening is utterly revolting to me.

this is not my type, and never was.

i'm not likely to date anybody of either gender again, but i'd be more likely to go for an underweight straight-edge vegan than a pothead that looks like a stripper. insofar as i am attracted to women, or ever was, i definitely have always preferred the modern yoga body to the traditional hour-glass...

i'm actually just likely to interpret curvy women as overweight. that whole culture around large asses is just gross, to me, and i've always felt the same way about large breasts.

but, regardless, i wouldn't date a pothead. it would have been easier to stomach when i was a smoker, but now that i'm not, it's really a non-starter. it's just not a quality i'd want out of somebody i'm spending a lot of time with...

the reason i was thinking about sarah last night was that i had to call the cops, not once but twice. i was supposed to write this up a little, but the smoke has been so thick in here that i've been having trouble staying awake since i finally crashed on saturday morning...

i think i'm awake, now.

the cops think i'm wasting their time, but i don't remotely agree. libertarians might present arguments about legalization leading to less policing, but this is a guess - and i'm not sure an evidence-based analysis would uphold it. regardless, that has nothing to do with the reasons marijuana is being legalized, here. the government has been clear that the purpose of legalization is to reduce use - especially amongst youth - and not to promote wider use.

the government of canada recognizes that recreational marijuana use is a substantive health problem and is adjusting it's approach to the drug in order to reduce use. nothing in the changes to the laws sanctions or promotes consensual drug use, or ignores the damages created by second-hand smoke - especially to those that do not consent to be influenced by it.

if you think otherwise, you need to educate yourself on what is actually happening.

and, i don't expect it to be legalized, anyways.

if somebody put drugs in my drink that would be a reason to call the cops, right? so, why is it different if somebody put drugs in my air supply?

if somebody was burning paint thinner in the apartment downstairs, that would be a reason to call the cops, right? so, why is it different if somebody is burning marijuana?

we have these irrational ideas attached to consumption. but, if somebody makes a choice to burn any other carcinogenic chemical inside, we reference their choice in the matter as a legal concept called mens rea. that's all i'm getting out of this - that they're making the choice to pollute the air and make me sick, i.e. they're not doing it by accident and are consequently liable for the consequences.

but, drug addicts see themselves at the centre of the universe. they think everything is about them. no; this is about me, this is about my air, this is about my rights.

i was able to get the cops out here late on friday night and early on saturday night, so there will be two reports for me to reference to the landlord. the tenants eventually promised to smoke outside; we'll see if they do or not. evidence right now is sketchy. i'll make the foia request for data tomorrow.

i'll also be getting the hospital records from the times i went in for observation.

the cops kept telling me to call the landlord, but they appear to have gotten the process backwards. the cops are right that there's little they can do, and i understand that, but a warning from the cops is actually less of an escalation than a formal complaint. so, if i'm going to be doing this proportionately and fairly, i need to call the cops in to talk to them before i agitate for eviction. and, if they change their habits to smoking outside, then that request will have worked - they will have saved themselves from eviction, even if what that means is giving them more time to find a different place.

if they don't change their habits, i'll be able to present evidence to the landlord that the police officer identified the smell of marijuana, that the tenant admitted to smoking inside the unit (!) and that there is consequently grounds for eviction, due to illegal behaviour on the premises of the property.

and, what did i really think of sarah over all of those years?

i thought the idea was toxic; it could have only ended tragically. i was, frankly, morbidly afraid of impregnating her. it's a hard thing to articulate: it could have been a sweetheart story, and maybe in some ways even should have been, but it would never have lasted. she became sort of unstable in high school; i might have seriously damaged her. i actually think i did the right thing for both of us in avoiding her.

but, if you could have wiped away those memories, i might have accepted the advances.

you could write a movie about this and only scratch the surface, and it's not what i want to be ranting about tonight, which i've mostly spent cleaning.

i dated a different sarah in the early 00s. there's some substantive overlap in personality, beyond the given name.

actually, i should point out that sarah is responsible for one of the most profound & defining things that anybody has ever said to me, and she probably doesn't remember it - although she probably does remember most of the other things i've posted here.

it was on the bus. we only took the bus together for a few years, so it must have been between grades 6-8.

she sat down beside me - with a shirt on - and actually addressed me fairly sternly, using my full name, as per usual, which essentially nobody else ever did:

jason, everything in life is a joke to you, isn't it? you just refuse to take anything seriously. you think every single possible thing that happens is always a joke of some sort. but, there are things in life that are serious. 

i'm not sure she was right about the second part. but, the first part allowed me to see myself in the mirror in a way i hadn't seen myself before, and it's stuck with me all these years for that reason....

i don't think sarah's crush on me ever receded, but rather went through a number of weird phases, all of which were no doubt outside of any reasonable approximation of reality, but purely in the realm of her own fantasy.

so, there was a period in the eighth grade where she'd take her shirt off and sit beside me on the school bus, or even sit in the seat in front of me and hover her bra an inch from my nose. i was the only 'boy' left on the bus for the rest of the ride; through whatever mix of coercion and thrill, she had a couple of her friends mimic her, as well. the game was that i had to keep ignoring her - but she was also no doubt demonstrating that she'd grown a pair, since she was little. i was always well trained, and fully capable of continuing to ignore her...but this went on for months....

it wasn't until the twelfth grade that she finally snapped. i had moved across town, so we weren't on the same bus, any more. we hadn't been in any of the same classes in years, either. but, i happened to get on a (city) bus she was also on; we made eye contact, and so i instantly stopped and sat a distance away from her, as i always did. she leaped up and came storming across the bus, screaming at me, startling confused passengers...

you're a fucking idiot. you know that? you think you're so damned smart, but you're just stupid. you're so stupid. so, so, so stupid.

my best guess is that she finally realized at that point that i was never going to stop ignoring her - and i never was.

i don't think i've seen her since.

when i was in the third grade, there was a girl that had a crush on me named sarah. i didn't realize it at the time, but, in hindsight, i'm sure that she picked me out because we both had vaguely latin backgrounds - she was hispanic, even had a very latin name, and i guess i was the only kid around for miles that looked a little like her. i can't remember what country in central america that her parents were from....

she was an awkward kid - quite dominant, in fact. she was a bit of a star hockey player, and known for it. so, she was quite fit - in very good shape. when she wanted something, she took control of the situation and went and got it; that was entirely natural to her....

i was a bookworm - and not interested. she kept trying various tactics, and i kept ignoring her. i don't know if i ever admitted to her that i was actually ignoring her, or if she just always thought i didn't notice; she doesn't seem to have figured it out on her own. she always got what she wanted by taking it, remember. in fact, she ended up escalating quite dramatically, by shooting elastic bands at me.

you know the way: elastic hand gun. you pull the trigger by removing your finger and it flies...

see, as mentioned, i fully well knew that she was trying to get my attention - and i wasn't at all interested. she really wasn't my type; i just saw her as a dumb jock. so, i went and told the teacher that she was shooting elastics at me.

he looked at me like i didn't have a father. "jason, when.."

"yeah, i know", i told him rather brusquely, "but i'm more concerned about my eyes.".

he rolled his own, and separated her from me. i was happy that she left me alone - but she confronted me about it afterwards, with tears in her eyes.

"jason, don't you know why i.."

"yeah, i do know." - i said, while walking away.

in the end, i gave in and let her take me to the dance. in the process, she probably became the first person to realize that i'm transgendered - before i even really did myself; she ended up crudely fag hagging me at eight years old, in the girls' washroom at the elementary school dance before leaving me there to go dance with some actual boys.

this is maybe the first of a dozen similar stories. and, all i can say is that past behaviour is a strong predictor of future behaviour.

the reason i got out of it was the echo chamber effect, combined with the authoritarian power of the written media. but, both of these problems do have a solution - critical thinking skills. it's only when you add the third ingredient of a public school system that has minimized the importance of critical thinking that we end up with the problems we're facing, today.

apparently, studies suggest that people don't read the articles before they share them, but just get the information out of the headlines. headlines are even more authoritarian than stories, partly because they're so short.

what i found was that it was almost impossible to argue with people using facts once they fell down this rabbit hole of accepting headlines as authoritarian sources of knowledge. they would just respond by repeating more authoritarian headlines. or, the lovely "i don't believe your facts because they contradict the memes.".

i had to stop because i was driving myself crazy. my feed was just full of trash, and i had to debunk it, because i'm like that. so i found myself spending hours educating people that refused to be educated, and eventually gave up altogether.

if we can get to the kids then this shall pass. if we can't? it could be a problem.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-the-pessimists-might-be-right-social-media-may-have-plunged-us-into-a-new-dark-age

what anarchists believe is that our rights end where the rights of others begin.

and, that is simply a statement that respect is the fundamental idea that society should be built around.

nihilism is consequently the anti-thesis of anarchism. and, as much as the new left is increasingly libertarian, the new right is increasingly nihilist...

in a very real sense, the contemporary alt-right is about elevating disrespectfulness to an ideal.

there's a broad consistency around these positions taken by these alt-right political commentators. on almost every single issue, the thing reduces to a refusal to behave respectfully - and this inherently american idea that freedom means the ability to be disrespectful towards the people around you.

it's this kind of evolution of thatcherism, this neo-randianism, this coalescence of these ideas that selfishness is a virtue and society doesn't exist, into this vehement insistence of the right to be disrespectful as a fundamental speech issue.

and, there probably isn't a solution besides treating these people the way that they insist on treating others, and hoping their nihilism means they die quickly.

tory media,

can you write me an essay explaining to me why it is that you have such a hard time understanding why it's disrespectful to gender people without their permission? in the process, can you explain to me what the purpose of nonchalantly gendering people as an irrelevant triviality in unrelated conversations is in the first place?

the last part is important.

thanks,
dtk

wait, it's puppy day?

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.ca/2015/09/rrrring-trudeau-hello-obama-id-just.html

i'm going to file a formal complaint for the tenants downstairs due to the smoke, but i'm going to wait until they're not expecting it.

i'm not sure when.

i'm not broadcasting it...

they're growing plants in there. i want to make sure the landlord catches them red-handed.

in the mean time, i'm going to be very quiet, and just carefully go about doing things that are designed to upset them - because i'm convinced that their behaviour is malicious, at this point.

the only tattoo i ever seriously considered getting was i'm not a trendy asshole, in the tramp stamp location.

or, maybe it was my arm. it was a long time ago....

it's perhaps useful to enumerate the ways in which a chinese presence exists here, but it's disingenuous to suggest that the russian influence here is much less - or that our own influence in asia is much different.

the fundamental difference is how they see us.

russia views canada as an old british colony - a former ally against the nazis, and, as a descendant of roman christianity, a cultural cousin. russia legitimately wants peace. russia truly wants friendship.

the chinese view canada as a satellite of the united states, and the continent of north america, more broadly, as an open land to colonize - not dissimilarly to how europeans once saw this continent.

so, the russians seek co-existence; the chinese seek control and dominance.

might that change? it's unlikely, really, because it's cultural. the chinese are supremacists. they want to dominate the world, and subjugate everybody else. we were once like that, too, but we only changed by assimilating the conquered peoples - which means that if the chinese are to follow us into cosmopolitanism, they will have to defeat us, first.

i don't think there's some easy solution. china prides itself on the age of it's civilization, but that perception of itself as central to history is exactly what the problem is.

china probably has to be destroyed.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/china-is-a-bigger-threat-than-russia-but-you-wont-hear-trudeau-say-it/