everything we can be taught about humans through the medium of film is either written somewhere in shakespeare, or written in an ancient greek tragedy.
we just need to throw off these victorian shackles to see it.
Thursday, April 26, 2018
because we can't forget about ann coulter - or ayn rand, for that matter.
but, this is actually missing the point. destroying the hero isn't and shouldn't be a gendered or racialized activity - we should destroy all heroes, and instead learn to live for ourselves, based on our own ideals and visions.
i'm sorry to be the old nerd, here. but, this is why shakespeare has such a central place in our culture: his heroes always have flaws, and those flaws always lead to tragedy in the end.
we live such sheltered existences, today. but, taking a step away from the disney stories and fairy tales is really about reclaiming our humanity. we don't need a radical revolution to do this: it's sitting in our curriculums. we just need to rekindle it.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/12/29/how-wonder-woman-and-the-last-jedi-could-make-our-politics-worse.html
but, this is actually missing the point. destroying the hero isn't and shouldn't be a gendered or racialized activity - we should destroy all heroes, and instead learn to live for ourselves, based on our own ideals and visions.
i'm sorry to be the old nerd, here. but, this is why shakespeare has such a central place in our culture: his heroes always have flaws, and those flaws always lead to tragedy in the end.
we live such sheltered existences, today. but, taking a step away from the disney stories and fairy tales is really about reclaiming our humanity. we don't need a radical revolution to do this: it's sitting in our curriculums. we just need to rekindle it.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/12/29/how-wonder-woman-and-the-last-jedi-could-make-our-politics-worse.html
so, to recap.
ford is not a vote for the past, but a vote for the new world order as jason kenney imagined it - a world of interfaith prayer services and religiously motivated government as an opiate for the masses, to allow the banking class to sell the province off. he's a walking imf restructuring program, and by the time he's done we'll end up like sri lanka. or maybe mexico. it's the next step in the race to the bottom...
wynne is a vote for the broken multicultural model, not as initially envisioned by pearson and trudeau but as broken by mulroney and harper. it's less that this is intentional; the point is that she's still imagining the ideals of a pearson, while attaching them to the policies of a harper, and can't see through these contradictions. she thinks you can just put an openly trans person in the same room as an imam and have them find some common cause, rather than dealing with the reality of them wanting to kill each other.
but, horwath is truly a vote for ontario's past - the publicly held resources, the strong union jobs, the dominant manufacturing sector. she may be substituting in government for lost benefits, and that's a step forward really, anyways. but, she alone has a vision to return the province to what it was, rather than to push it forward into some unknown. she's the actual conservative in the race.
i'm not going to vote on immigration policy. it's a federal responsibility. and, my preferred option is to see the feds return to policies that allow us to return to the vision of pearson, as well as some government policies to undermine the role of religious institutions in daily lives. i want these migrant groups to join the growing atheist consensus, and stop fighting it. but, if you do want to vote on immigration, these are the actual choices as they are.
and, it makes it clear why ford is not trump and why running against him as though he is will lead to certain defeat: the liberals don't need to find a way to hold wandering white voters, they need to find a way to stop their immigrant base from aligning with their actual values.
ford is not a vote for the past, but a vote for the new world order as jason kenney imagined it - a world of interfaith prayer services and religiously motivated government as an opiate for the masses, to allow the banking class to sell the province off. he's a walking imf restructuring program, and by the time he's done we'll end up like sri lanka. or maybe mexico. it's the next step in the race to the bottom...
wynne is a vote for the broken multicultural model, not as initially envisioned by pearson and trudeau but as broken by mulroney and harper. it's less that this is intentional; the point is that she's still imagining the ideals of a pearson, while attaching them to the policies of a harper, and can't see through these contradictions. she thinks you can just put an openly trans person in the same room as an imam and have them find some common cause, rather than dealing with the reality of them wanting to kill each other.
but, horwath is truly a vote for ontario's past - the publicly held resources, the strong union jobs, the dominant manufacturing sector. she may be substituting in government for lost benefits, and that's a step forward really, anyways. but, she alone has a vision to return the province to what it was, rather than to push it forward into some unknown. she's the actual conservative in the race.
i'm not going to vote on immigration policy. it's a federal responsibility. and, my preferred option is to see the feds return to policies that allow us to return to the vision of pearson, as well as some government policies to undermine the role of religious institutions in daily lives. i want these migrant groups to join the growing atheist consensus, and stop fighting it. but, if you do want to vote on immigration, these are the actual choices as they are.
and, it makes it clear why ford is not trump and why running against him as though he is will lead to certain defeat: the liberals don't need to find a way to hold wandering white voters, they need to find a way to stop their immigrant base from aligning with their actual values.
the exact problem is that they've come to embrace religious pluralism as a collection of trivial differences, and the exact reason they got to this point is that they're a lot of smug, upper class atheists that refuse to take the threat of religion seriously.
now, we have a developing problem with the return to a religious society, which is in a direct conflict path with the total collapse of religion in the native-born population.
and, this is going to be the political spectrum of the future: white atheists with liberal perspectives vs brown theists with conservative ones.
of course, i'm not suggesting mutual exclusion. but, that's going to be the basic division. and, it's going to be racial and cultural because the brown theists will insist that it must be, as the white atheists insist that it can't be.
the new political axis is science v faith.
and neither side wants to bridge that gap and get along.
now, we have a developing problem with the return to a religious society, which is in a direct conflict path with the total collapse of religion in the native-born population.
and, this is going to be the political spectrum of the future: white atheists with liberal perspectives vs brown theists with conservative ones.
of course, i'm not suggesting mutual exclusion. but, that's going to be the basic division. and, it's going to be racial and cultural because the brown theists will insist that it must be, as the white atheists insist that it can't be.
the new political axis is science v faith.
and neither side wants to bridge that gap and get along.
what's actually happening to the liberals is that the muslims don't like them because theu're pro-gay, and the gays are uneasy about them being pro-muslim, and the jews don't like them being pro-muslim, and the muslims don't like them being pro-jewish and..
rather than have everybody working together, everybody is turning on them.
because you can't just imagine radical inclusion without undoing the ignorance that prevents it.
that's magical thinking - it's not reason.
rather than have everybody working together, everybody is turning on them.
because you can't just imagine radical inclusion without undoing the ignorance that prevents it.
that's magical thinking - it's not reason.
that doesn't make wynne the maga candidate; wynne is really living in a fantasy reality, a projection of what was supposed to happen with increased immigration, but didn't. so, she ties together racism and "islamophobia" and homophobia as something to build a united front against, without realizing that the most homophobic members in society are racial minorities, the most anti-islamic groups are recent immigrants from asia and the most racist groups are religious fundamentalists. it's an incoherent worldview that belongs to the 1990s.
the "make ontario great again" candidate is neither doug ford nor kathleen wynne, ir's andrea horwath.
the "make ontario great again" candidate is neither doug ford nor kathleen wynne, ir's andrea horwath.
ford's chances this cycle are a direct consequence of the changes in demographics that occurred in this country under the previous conservative government.
and, that's why he's some kind of anti-trump, rather than some kind of mini-trump: what he really represents is the collapse of ontario into a third world society, where conservative social values run rampant through an ignorant population and thieves at the top make off like bandits.
and, the only demographic chance of beating him back is if white voters find a way to unite against him to uphold the secular values that we're in danger of losing.
but, it's the feds that need to learn this lesson to save the country from ruin.
and, that's why he's some kind of anti-trump, rather than some kind of mini-trump: what he really represents is the collapse of ontario into a third world society, where conservative social values run rampant through an ignorant population and thieves at the top make off like bandits.
and, the only demographic chance of beating him back is if white voters find a way to unite against him to uphold the secular values that we're in danger of losing.
but, it's the feds that need to learn this lesson to save the country from ruin.
when exactly did the supreme court rule in favour of the government's right to pipeline expansion?
how do governments even have rights?
more incoherent nonsense from the tory media.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-trudeaus-student-grant-kerfuffle-is-the-latest-act-that-could/
how do governments even have rights?
more incoherent nonsense from the tory media.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-trudeaus-student-grant-kerfuffle-is-the-latest-act-that-could/
donald trump did quite well with indian-american immigrants, as well.
ford is actually exactly the kind of candidate that the indian community wants: staunchly pro-market, opposed to any kind of state regulation, clearly not gay and with a bit of a macho streak. and, he's male. that's key. these groups tend to retain attachments to traditional conservative value systems, are very pro-family and lean libertarian on economic policy.
and, they don't like muslims.
at all.
liberals need to come to turn with the reality that they're out of touch with immigrant communities in this country, who have absolutely no attachment to their insular white delusions of multiculturalism, and that it's going to cost them dearly at the ballot box.
what wynne represents is what out of touch white people think brown people want; she doesn't remotely represent what brown people actually want.
ford is actually exactly the kind of candidate that the indian community wants: staunchly pro-market, opposed to any kind of state regulation, clearly not gay and with a bit of a macho streak. and, he's male. that's key. these groups tend to retain attachments to traditional conservative value systems, are very pro-family and lean libertarian on economic policy.
and, they don't like muslims.
at all.
liberals need to come to turn with the reality that they're out of touch with immigrant communities in this country, who have absolutely no attachment to their insular white delusions of multiculturalism, and that it's going to cost them dearly at the ballot box.
what wynne represents is what out of touch white people think brown people want; she doesn't remotely represent what brown people actually want.
tanya granic allen's riding has a south indian plurality, and they are the most anti-muslim group out there. that said, she may have difficulty gaining traction in this riding, as her message would be most popular in a riding with a larger muslim majority.
it is, of course, the muslim groups that are most vocal in opposition to her sex-ed policies - and wynne should expect to lose muslims in this election, given that her policies are unpopular amongst them, and her opponent is popular amongst them.
this is another tactical mistake; she should have allowed an open nomination in this riding.
what i'm realizing this cycle, is that i agree with 90% of wynne's policies, but disagree with 90% of her tactics.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/04/26/premier-surprised-controversial-pc-candidate-tanya-granic-allen-is-running-for-any-party-in-2018.html
it is, of course, the muslim groups that are most vocal in opposition to her sex-ed policies - and wynne should expect to lose muslims in this election, given that her policies are unpopular amongst them, and her opponent is popular amongst them.
this is another tactical mistake; she should have allowed an open nomination in this riding.
what i'm realizing this cycle, is that i agree with 90% of wynne's policies, but disagree with 90% of her tactics.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/04/26/premier-surprised-controversial-pc-candidate-tanya-granic-allen-is-running-for-any-party-in-2018.html
i woke up to a bit of a curveball.
the property manager showed up a little after 11:00, and handed me a new set of building regulations.
- no smoking
- no drugs
hrmmn.
everybody in this building smokes pot. this was never my intent, but i guess the owner had to buckle.
if the other tenants are upset about the universal application of the rules, they should blame her, and not me. i only care about my own unit. she's the one that cried that it's not fair. it's her fault.
that said, these rules are not enforceable, and i don't have any faith in these tenants to obey them - or in management to enforce them. they're just going to spend a lot on legal costs, with no end point.
she's smoking right now.
so, i mailed the t2 & t6 this morning.
and, i have a letter for the property manager., as well.
A T2 and T6 were completed on the evening of April 25th, 2018, with intent to process them on April 26th.
On the morning of April 26th, before these documents were processed, Ina appeared at my door with a new list of rules, including a no-smoking rule and a no drugs policy.
I do not have faith in the tenant to abide by these rules, and I do not have faith in the management to enforce them. My last smoke complaint was met by a request for me to move, so I don’t expect anything different in the future. And, as I am typing this, I can smell marijuana wafting into the unit from downstairs.
So, the documents were processed on the afternoon of April 26th, despite the existence of the new rules. Should the situation improve, to my surprise, by the time of the court appearance, I will cancel the court date. I would actually prefer not to move, I just can’t stay in an unhealthy unit. Be advised that I can always reapply for an end to the tenancy, with proper compensation.
Despite Ina’s claims, there was no law passed in Ontario restricting smoking indoors. There was in fact a law passed in Ontario restricting the outdoor use of cannabis. I do not think that Ina was confused, I think she was being dishonest. My legal opinion is that an action against the tenant below me would be unsuccessful, given the current legal realities. The legal reality in Ontario is that it is the ownership’s responsibility to renovate the unit, or compensate me for moving costs and damages. I did not write these laws, and do not like them much, but they are as they are.
In the mean time, I am making the following requests for renovations in the unit. There will be further requests made as the tape is fully removed.
Bedroom
When I moved into this unit, the bedroom had cracks in the wall. This was presented to management in writing, and I took pictures, as well. I eventually noticed smoke seeping in the cracks. As I did not want to be a nuisance tenant, I hoped that covering the cracks with tape would keep the smoke out. This was actually partially successful. However, management has asked me to remove the tape. I believe it is reasonable to request that the holes be patched, in exchange for removing the tape.
I have left a tarp over the water closet in the short term, until a proper discussion can be had on how to fix the water closet.
I also acknowledge that the baseboards will need to be repainted, but, as a tenant, I don’t care much about this. I would, however, advise management to contemplate the wisdom in seeking legal action over $5 worth of paint, considering that they are unlikely to even win the case at all. It would be a better idea to just paint the baseboards.
I will at least apologize for the inconvenience, but would request that you in turn realize the desperation underlying it.
Door Frame
While the seal on the new doors is in fact quite impressive, the frame was never completed properly. In an attempt to be a quiet tenant, I simply taped around the frame. This was reasonably effective. As per the request of management, I have removed this tape, but feel it is reasonable to ask for the management to compensate by caulking the door frame. This is actually a simple request to finish a job that was never really finished.
Once these issues are dealt with, similar small requests will be made on the other side of the unit.
the property manager showed up a little after 11:00, and handed me a new set of building regulations.
- no smoking
- no drugs
hrmmn.
everybody in this building smokes pot. this was never my intent, but i guess the owner had to buckle.
if the other tenants are upset about the universal application of the rules, they should blame her, and not me. i only care about my own unit. she's the one that cried that it's not fair. it's her fault.
that said, these rules are not enforceable, and i don't have any faith in these tenants to obey them - or in management to enforce them. they're just going to spend a lot on legal costs, with no end point.
she's smoking right now.
so, i mailed the t2 & t6 this morning.
and, i have a letter for the property manager., as well.
Update on the Situation in Unit 15
A T2 and T6 were completed on the evening of April 25th, 2018, with intent to process them on April 26th.
On the morning of April 26th, before these documents were processed, Ina appeared at my door with a new list of rules, including a no-smoking rule and a no drugs policy.
I do not have faith in the tenant to abide by these rules, and I do not have faith in the management to enforce them. My last smoke complaint was met by a request for me to move, so I don’t expect anything different in the future. And, as I am typing this, I can smell marijuana wafting into the unit from downstairs.
So, the documents were processed on the afternoon of April 26th, despite the existence of the new rules. Should the situation improve, to my surprise, by the time of the court appearance, I will cancel the court date. I would actually prefer not to move, I just can’t stay in an unhealthy unit. Be advised that I can always reapply for an end to the tenancy, with proper compensation.
Despite Ina’s claims, there was no law passed in Ontario restricting smoking indoors. There was in fact a law passed in Ontario restricting the outdoor use of cannabis. I do not think that Ina was confused, I think she was being dishonest. My legal opinion is that an action against the tenant below me would be unsuccessful, given the current legal realities. The legal reality in Ontario is that it is the ownership’s responsibility to renovate the unit, or compensate me for moving costs and damages. I did not write these laws, and do not like them much, but they are as they are.
In the mean time, I am making the following requests for renovations in the unit. There will be further requests made as the tape is fully removed.
Bedroom
When I moved into this unit, the bedroom had cracks in the wall. This was presented to management in writing, and I took pictures, as well. I eventually noticed smoke seeping in the cracks. As I did not want to be a nuisance tenant, I hoped that covering the cracks with tape would keep the smoke out. This was actually partially successful. However, management has asked me to remove the tape. I believe it is reasonable to request that the holes be patched, in exchange for removing the tape.
I have left a tarp over the water closet in the short term, until a proper discussion can be had on how to fix the water closet.
I also acknowledge that the baseboards will need to be repainted, but, as a tenant, I don’t care much about this. I would, however, advise management to contemplate the wisdom in seeking legal action over $5 worth of paint, considering that they are unlikely to even win the case at all. It would be a better idea to just paint the baseboards.
I will at least apologize for the inconvenience, but would request that you in turn realize the desperation underlying it.
Door Frame
While the seal on the new doors is in fact quite impressive, the frame was never completed properly. In an attempt to be a quiet tenant, I simply taped around the frame. This was reasonably effective. As per the request of management, I have removed this tape, but feel it is reasonable to ask for the management to compensate by caulking the door frame. This is actually a simple request to finish a job that was never really finished.
Once these issues are dealt with, similar small requests will be made on the other side of the unit.
like, i've had women sit on my lap at parties while i'm in the middle of a conversation, and have had to carefully squeeze out of it to finish the conversation, to the confusion of everybody.
i'm going to want to talk to you until the sun comes up before we do any lap-sitting.
but, this seems to be considered old-fashioned or boring or something.
i'm going to want to talk to you until the sun comes up before we do any lap-sitting.
but, this seems to be considered old-fashioned or boring or something.
i think the reason i'd prefer an older woman is because it's going to be more of an intellectual thing than a physical thing.
and i think the reason i'd prefer a younger dude is because it's going to be more of a physical thing than an emotional one.
i mean, if i wanted to hang out and chum around with hot guys, i'd just be gay. i don't really enjoy the company of men at all. but i am physically attracted to them...
on the other hand, while i prefer the company of women, i don't get nearly as aroused by them.
and i think the reason i'd prefer a younger dude is because it's going to be more of a physical thing than an emotional one.
i mean, if i wanted to hang out and chum around with hot guys, i'd just be gay. i don't really enjoy the company of men at all. but i am physically attracted to them...
on the other hand, while i prefer the company of women, i don't get nearly as aroused by them.
i continue to get more attention from women than men, which is...
i can't pretend i understand, but what can i do about this?
i get chased around, from time to time, mostly by younger girls that don't fully realize how old i am and think they can convert me or something. they tend to have drastically inaccurate perceptions of me. i know better than to get caught up in something like this. and, they give up after a little while, when they realize i'm not into it. i get the impression that they tend to conclude that i'm some kind of idiot for not going for them, and maybe they're right, who knows? it doesn't seem to cross their mind that i'm more into guys.
and, i've got the eye of a few guys as well - mostly older for some reason. i get the impression that they tend to conclude i'm not much of a girl, after all - because i'd clearly melt for them if i was. if i can resist them, i must be a dude, right? right...
i'd be more likely to go for older women and younger guys.
but, the point is that i get plenty of opportunity. both ways.
i'm just not into it. and especially not casually.
i don't want to stand here at 37 and claim i'll never have sex again, but i'm going to have to get to know somebody for a while, first, and my lifestyle doesn't currently suggest that this is very likely to ever happen.
a one-night stand, for me, is something that is really out of the question.
i can't pretend i understand, but what can i do about this?
i get chased around, from time to time, mostly by younger girls that don't fully realize how old i am and think they can convert me or something. they tend to have drastically inaccurate perceptions of me. i know better than to get caught up in something like this. and, they give up after a little while, when they realize i'm not into it. i get the impression that they tend to conclude that i'm some kind of idiot for not going for them, and maybe they're right, who knows? it doesn't seem to cross their mind that i'm more into guys.
and, i've got the eye of a few guys as well - mostly older for some reason. i get the impression that they tend to conclude i'm not much of a girl, after all - because i'd clearly melt for them if i was. if i can resist them, i must be a dude, right? right...
i'd be more likely to go for older women and younger guys.
but, the point is that i get plenty of opportunity. both ways.
i'm just not into it. and especially not casually.
i don't want to stand here at 37 and claim i'll never have sex again, but i'm going to have to get to know somebody for a while, first, and my lifestyle doesn't currently suggest that this is very likely to ever happen.
a one-night stand, for me, is something that is really out of the question.
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
so, i have a t2 and a t6 filled out.
i am requesting:
$1000 - moving costs
$1000 - bed
$1000 - couch
$500 - dry cleaning & laundry
$200 - tape & tarps
$100 - cleaning supplies
============
$3800 + a tbd percentage of rent paid, which will be $5600.
at 25%, that will be over $5000.
they will also no doubt hire lawyers.
the law is an ass, here. but, hopefully the court will make renting to inside smokers quite expensive, and hopefully that will create some pressure to put some more reasonable laws in place.
nobody should be allowed to smoke inside, ever. ten feet from the house should be the law....
i am requesting:
$1000 - moving costs
$1000 - bed
$1000 - couch
$500 - dry cleaning & laundry
$200 - tape & tarps
$100 - cleaning supplies
============
$3800 + a tbd percentage of rent paid, which will be $5600.
at 25%, that will be over $5000.
they will also no doubt hire lawyers.
the law is an ass, here. but, hopefully the court will make renting to inside smokers quite expensive, and hopefully that will create some pressure to put some more reasonable laws in place.
nobody should be allowed to smoke inside, ever. ten feet from the house should be the law....
i'm going to repeat this: the liberals should be running on their record in government.
they've made a lot of accomplishments.
and, they've put things in motion that i'd like to see come to their conclusions.
conservatives can whine and moan about conservative things, but i don't care about any of these things, because i'm not a conservative.
they've made a lot of accomplishments.
and, they've put things in motion that i'd like to see come to their conclusions.
conservatives can whine and moan about conservative things, but i don't care about any of these things, because i'm not a conservative.
i just want to be clear.
it's not going to be the thing that determines my vote.
but, i'm certainly not opposed to raising corporate tax rates to eliminate the deficit. it's better than cutting services to do it, anyways.
a provincial level of government is different than a federal level of government, because it can't print money. so, ontario will in fact have to pay it's debt off, eventually.
but, the thing is that the only actual consequence of running a large public debt is in investors ratings, and these are political, anyways. i guess, in that sense, it makes sense for the ndp to try and avoid giving moody's anything to play with...
but, i need to reiterate that i'm more likely to get skittish about the ndp if they make the debt the focus of their campaign than applaud them for "being responsible". despite the public misperception, the ndp has a history of cutting services to pay off the debt - they are the party with the most fiscally conservative track record. corporate tax rates don't raise very often. if horwath insists on broadcasting an obsession with lowering public debt, i'm going to interpret it as broadcasting an intent to cut services, regardless of the platform. at the end of the day, that's the most likely thing that happens.
we live in a reality where politicians campaign on one thing and do another. this is one of those scenarios where you need to look in between the lines. the ontario liberals have a good track record on this - and that's what i think they should be running on, their record. the ndp, less so. frankly.
those are the empirical facts.
so, horwath needs to be careful.
if we're going to elect new democrats and get conservatives anyways, i'd rather split the vote.
it's not going to be the thing that determines my vote.
but, i'm certainly not opposed to raising corporate tax rates to eliminate the deficit. it's better than cutting services to do it, anyways.
a provincial level of government is different than a federal level of government, because it can't print money. so, ontario will in fact have to pay it's debt off, eventually.
but, the thing is that the only actual consequence of running a large public debt is in investors ratings, and these are political, anyways. i guess, in that sense, it makes sense for the ndp to try and avoid giving moody's anything to play with...
but, i need to reiterate that i'm more likely to get skittish about the ndp if they make the debt the focus of their campaign than applaud them for "being responsible". despite the public misperception, the ndp has a history of cutting services to pay off the debt - they are the party with the most fiscally conservative track record. corporate tax rates don't raise very often. if horwath insists on broadcasting an obsession with lowering public debt, i'm going to interpret it as broadcasting an intent to cut services, regardless of the platform. at the end of the day, that's the most likely thing that happens.
we live in a reality where politicians campaign on one thing and do another. this is one of those scenarios where you need to look in between the lines. the ontario liberals have a good track record on this - and that's what i think they should be running on, their record. the ndp, less so. frankly.
those are the empirical facts.
so, horwath needs to be careful.
if we're going to elect new democrats and get conservatives anyways, i'd rather split the vote.
is this even possible?
well, i know what it feels like to be high, and i know that the smoke is getting me high. i'm not guessing that maybe i'm this mysterious thing called "being high". i'm identifying something i know very well.
i think that the basic idea here is correct: it's hard for second-hand smoke to get you high.
what are the facts, here?
1) this building has no "ventilation system". my windows are wide open when they can be, which is not always. hers are shut. it's certainly not a "hot box", but the smoke is only exiting one direction, and it is up. the winds tend to blow around the building rather than into it.
2) the floors basically aren't there. so, it's like i'm sitting in an open concept above her, directly in her exhale path. sometimes, it's like she's blowing it in my face.
3) i have a very, very low tolerance to marijuana. it appears to be unusually low. i also know this from experience.
4) she has a very high tolerance.
5) she smokes very potent marijuana. it appears to be very high cbd, very low thc. i actually think that the terpene stuff is bullshit. but, this is the kind of pot that knocks you out for days, without really getting you "high".
6) she smokes very big joints, and smokes them frequently.
all of these factors are going to play into this. and, all i can say is i know what i'm feeling, and it's pretty real. this is the experiment, and these are the results i'm reporting. somebody else may have different experiences, due to a higher tolerance....
....but i'm perfectly comfortable with stating that i'm getting knocked out by a high volume of high potency marijuana, even in a relatively open space, but i recognize that it depends on whether i get into contact with what i call a "plume" or not.
i'm not watching her from downstairs, but a "plume" probably happens when she takes a hard three or four hit toke on one of these huge joints. when that happens, i'm getting the smoke burned off the joint (which is substantial), the smoke missed in the toke and the exhaled smoke. what i'm getting at is that the way she smokes is very wasteful, and i'm actually getting a lot of uninhaled marijuana as a result of it.
the smell itself is not going to do it. i have to walk into one of these plumes. and, because she seems to be smoking near my bed [both before and after i moved my bed], that is exactly what is happening, repeatedly.
https://www.livescience.com/50880-secondhand-marijuana-smoke-effects-drug-test.html
well, i know what it feels like to be high, and i know that the smoke is getting me high. i'm not guessing that maybe i'm this mysterious thing called "being high". i'm identifying something i know very well.
i think that the basic idea here is correct: it's hard for second-hand smoke to get you high.
what are the facts, here?
1) this building has no "ventilation system". my windows are wide open when they can be, which is not always. hers are shut. it's certainly not a "hot box", but the smoke is only exiting one direction, and it is up. the winds tend to blow around the building rather than into it.
2) the floors basically aren't there. so, it's like i'm sitting in an open concept above her, directly in her exhale path. sometimes, it's like she's blowing it in my face.
3) i have a very, very low tolerance to marijuana. it appears to be unusually low. i also know this from experience.
4) she has a very high tolerance.
5) she smokes very potent marijuana. it appears to be very high cbd, very low thc. i actually think that the terpene stuff is bullshit. but, this is the kind of pot that knocks you out for days, without really getting you "high".
6) she smokes very big joints, and smokes them frequently.
all of these factors are going to play into this. and, all i can say is i know what i'm feeling, and it's pretty real. this is the experiment, and these are the results i'm reporting. somebody else may have different experiences, due to a higher tolerance....
....but i'm perfectly comfortable with stating that i'm getting knocked out by a high volume of high potency marijuana, even in a relatively open space, but i recognize that it depends on whether i get into contact with what i call a "plume" or not.
i'm not watching her from downstairs, but a "plume" probably happens when she takes a hard three or four hit toke on one of these huge joints. when that happens, i'm getting the smoke burned off the joint (which is substantial), the smoke missed in the toke and the exhaled smoke. what i'm getting at is that the way she smokes is very wasteful, and i'm actually getting a lot of uninhaled marijuana as a result of it.
the smell itself is not going to do it. i have to walk into one of these plumes. and, because she seems to be smoking near my bed [both before and after i moved my bed], that is exactly what is happening, repeatedly.
https://www.livescience.com/50880-secondhand-marijuana-smoke-effects-drug-test.html
nope.
knocked out, again.
around 6:00.
this stuff is very, very powerful, but it's not any fun to get a headache and pass out. no euphoria. no buzz. no "high". just overwhelming lethargy, and a really nasty throb in the head.
i might actually recommend actual marijuana to get rid of this.
i can't write like this.
knocked out, again.
around 6:00.
this stuff is very, very powerful, but it's not any fun to get a headache and pass out. no euphoria. no buzz. no "high". just overwhelming lethargy, and a really nasty throb in the head.
i might actually recommend actual marijuana to get rid of this.
i can't write like this.
well, that gets me through dec of 2015, anyways.
i have a headache. again.
i'm going to get something to eat and hope it wakes me up a little and then get to writing that essay, with the full intent to mail it today. i've always tended to avoid doing school work when stoned (drugs and school don't go well together, kids), so i might have to wait for the influence to wear off a little, first.
i'm going to enter this journal into evidence, so i'll be posting detailed accounts of when the second hand smoke has an effect on me.
season 2 ends about a week into january, and the music blog is going to be updating sporadically afterwards. that should actually speed me up quite a bit.
i have a headache. again.
i'm going to get something to eat and hope it wakes me up a little and then get to writing that essay, with the full intent to mail it today. i've always tended to avoid doing school work when stoned (drugs and school don't go well together, kids), so i might have to wait for the influence to wear off a little, first.
i'm going to enter this journal into evidence, so i'll be posting detailed accounts of when the second hand smoke has an effect on me.
season 2 ends about a week into january, and the music blog is going to be updating sporadically afterwards. that should actually speed me up quite a bit.
i'm actually looking forward to turning 40, so i can say it.
thirty-something isn't scary.
but, they leave you alone when you tell them you're 40.
so, i do - but i'm lying.
it'll be nice when it's actually true...
they see me as a peer, but my interest in twenty-somethings is non-existent. i see them as children.
thirty-something isn't scary.
but, they leave you alone when you tell them you're 40.
so, i do - but i'm lying.
it'll be nice when it's actually true...
they see me as a peer, but my interest in twenty-somethings is non-existent. i see them as children.
something like a smashing pumpkins reunion is....
if it's, like, the only thing to do that month, and i need to get out of the house, maybe.
but, it's probably going to cost too much, and it's probably going to be in a venue that is too big to get anything from, and i'd probably have a better night listening to the records at home.
i never saw the pumpkins live. i had an opportunity in....i think it was 2000....but i'd grown out of arena rock shows at that time, and just didn't think it would be a good night.
they apparently lost power that night, and people told me after the fact that i was right. but it's not the point.
i think rock music loses it's power when the venue gets over 2500 people. i'm just not into the festival thing. it just doesn't appeal to me, much.
there's the odd exception that i've made, mostly for acts that strike me as specifically arena rock bands, and i'm a bit more lenient about open air festivals, but i tend to hold to it.
i know i'm never going to get to see the pumpkins in a club, but i also know i wouldn't enjoy it in a bigger context.
if it's, like, the only thing to do that month, and i need to get out of the house, maybe.
but, it's probably going to cost too much, and it's probably going to be in a venue that is too big to get anything from, and i'd probably have a better night listening to the records at home.
i never saw the pumpkins live. i had an opportunity in....i think it was 2000....but i'd grown out of arena rock shows at that time, and just didn't think it would be a good night.
they apparently lost power that night, and people told me after the fact that i was right. but it's not the point.
i think rock music loses it's power when the venue gets over 2500 people. i'm just not into the festival thing. it just doesn't appeal to me, much.
there's the odd exception that i've made, mostly for acts that strike me as specifically arena rock bands, and i'm a bit more lenient about open air festivals, but i tend to hold to it.
i know i'm never going to get to see the pumpkins in a club, but i also know i wouldn't enjoy it in a bigger context.
in case there is some confusion, let me be clear.
i could not have voted in the last american election.
but, my heart was with jill stein, and my brain was with hillary clinton - as a lesser evil choice.
barely.
so, i made the argument that you should vote for clinton to beat trump. but, this was intellectual.
the truth is that i probably wouldn't have voted at all.
stein made the argument that it really wasn't clear that clinton was a lesser evil, and i think that she was right on that point. she may have been a lesser evil on the environment, which would have been my dominant voting concern. it is not clear that she was a lesser evil on the economy, and she was probably a greater evil on foreign policy.
i'm ultimately of the view that trump has not demonstrated much policy that is substantively different than clinton's - i'm not sure that clinton would have been much different.
we'll see, in the end, what kind of major policy initiatives come out of trump's presidency. as of now, he's really been a caretaker president.
i could not have voted in the last american election.
but, my heart was with jill stein, and my brain was with hillary clinton - as a lesser evil choice.
barely.
so, i made the argument that you should vote for clinton to beat trump. but, this was intellectual.
the truth is that i probably wouldn't have voted at all.
stein made the argument that it really wasn't clear that clinton was a lesser evil, and i think that she was right on that point. she may have been a lesser evil on the environment, which would have been my dominant voting concern. it is not clear that she was a lesser evil on the economy, and she was probably a greater evil on foreign policy.
i'm ultimately of the view that trump has not demonstrated much policy that is substantively different than clinton's - i'm not sure that clinton would have been much different.
we'll see, in the end, what kind of major policy initiatives come out of trump's presidency. as of now, he's really been a caretaker president.
Tuesday, April 24, 2018
this is such a weird map.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ontario_Provincial_Election_1990_-_Results_Map.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ontario_Provincial_Election_1990_-_Results_Map.svg
if doug ford gets ~38% - a number roughly in sync with donald trump's approval rating - do you think he should get the keys to the government?
i don't.
i'm in support of a coalition government, even if it only lasts long enough to prevent ford from taking power.
and, he's going to have to poll at roughly 45% to prevent that coalition from forming - which i think is very unlikely.
i don't.
i'm in support of a coalition government, even if it only lasts long enough to prevent ford from taking power.
and, he's going to have to poll at roughly 45% to prevent that coalition from forming - which i think is very unlikely.
i need to reiterate: i have not seen any reliable polling that indicates that ford is beyond minority territory.
i am still expecting a coalition government as the most likely outcome.
but, key constituencies are starting to turn in irrational ways - indicating that this might be becoming one of those random expressions of mass stupidity that is inevitable in any democracy.
i am still expecting a coalition government as the most likely outcome.
but, key constituencies are starting to turn in irrational ways - indicating that this might be becoming one of those random expressions of mass stupidity that is inevitable in any democracy.
not only is doug ford unlikely to spend money on more infrastructure, he's very likely to sell a good percentage of it.
perhaps what the unions are really more interested in is a tax cut.
i've had these discussions; workers don't tend to understand economics very well, and tend to get their information from very bad sources. they're consequently easy to take advantage of with what are essentially appeals to ignorance.
they believe in trickle-down economics. no; stop. they really do.
i will not be surprised if unions vote for ford. but, i'll be disappointed in the stupidity of it.
unions + immigrants is a winning coalition. it's a familiar one, too, isn't it?
the left needs some serious reflection, from pseudo to literal.
perhaps what the unions are really more interested in is a tax cut.
i've had these discussions; workers don't tend to understand economics very well, and tend to get their information from very bad sources. they're consequently easy to take advantage of with what are essentially appeals to ignorance.
they believe in trickle-down economics. no; stop. they really do.
i will not be surprised if unions vote for ford. but, i'll be disappointed in the stupidity of it.
unions + immigrants is a winning coalition. it's a familiar one, too, isn't it?
the left needs some serious reflection, from pseudo to literal.
i just took a walk downstairs to investigate the banging, and i caught her leaving in a waiting car, which is not conclusive.
she's obviously not going outside to smoke, because she's smoking inside - and she's already had a few.
so, i'm actually left with one of two conclusions: either she left for work a little late tonight or she's slowly moving things out.
if the smoke continues over night, and right now it seems like it's going to, i'm actually going to have to conclude that she's in the process of moving and question the property manager about it tomorrow before i mail the documents.
i don't know if having her move is good enough, any more. i know it's worth giving it another try, though. it's the easiest answer...
i could, of course, cancel the court process, as well.
she's obviously not going outside to smoke, because she's smoking inside - and she's already had a few.
so, i'm actually left with one of two conclusions: either she left for work a little late tonight or she's slowly moving things out.
if the smoke continues over night, and right now it seems like it's going to, i'm actually going to have to conclude that she's in the process of moving and question the property manager about it tomorrow before i mail the documents.
i don't know if having her move is good enough, any more. i know it's worth giving it another try, though. it's the easiest answer...
i could, of course, cancel the court process, as well.
unfortunately, she appears to be home tonight.
but, i'm wondering if she misread the n5.
i'm not getting an honest response from management; they're playing stupid about it. but, that's just it - they're just bluffing on everything. i can read. to the contrary, this woman is obviously not very bright.
when i made the second smoke complaint, it was after ten days. now, the n5 can be confusing, if you're already stupid to begin with, and this is what i meant when i pointed out that the property management was feigning incompetency.
the first n5 is just a warning. it says knock it off in the next ten days, or i'm going to try and evict you. now, it also comes with a date on it, but the date is really meant for the second n5, not the first one.
my n5 had the date of april 23rd on it, but it wasn't a meaningful date. it was either included out of incompetency, or out of an attempt to frighten me.
a stupid or ignorant person could get the notice and conclude that they have to move by the 23rd. and, if that is the case, i would expect that this woman would actually be moving out over the week.
that might explain why she's not working, and also why i'm hearing a lot of banging.
so, should i wait this out, or what?
when i called in on day 11, i got the (i think feigned) confused reaction from management, indicating they were holding to it. but, i know better.
does she?
hrmmn.
but, i'm wondering if she misread the n5.
i'm not getting an honest response from management; they're playing stupid about it. but, that's just it - they're just bluffing on everything. i can read. to the contrary, this woman is obviously not very bright.
when i made the second smoke complaint, it was after ten days. now, the n5 can be confusing, if you're already stupid to begin with, and this is what i meant when i pointed out that the property management was feigning incompetency.
the first n5 is just a warning. it says knock it off in the next ten days, or i'm going to try and evict you. now, it also comes with a date on it, but the date is really meant for the second n5, not the first one.
my n5 had the date of april 23rd on it, but it wasn't a meaningful date. it was either included out of incompetency, or out of an attempt to frighten me.
a stupid or ignorant person could get the notice and conclude that they have to move by the 23rd. and, if that is the case, i would expect that this woman would actually be moving out over the week.
that might explain why she's not working, and also why i'm hearing a lot of banging.
so, should i wait this out, or what?
when i called in on day 11, i got the (i think feigned) confused reaction from management, indicating they were holding to it. but, i know better.
does she?
hrmmn.
to be a little bit more clear.
it's not whether i'm cool or not that tends to get me upset. i don't care. i really don't. and i don't care if not caring is cool or not, either. or if...
it's the vacuous, empty and nihilistic definition of 'cool' that gets me wishing i lived on another planet.
i'm happy to hang out with the nerds.
it's the popular kids that make me depressed.
it's not whether i'm cool or not that tends to get me upset. i don't care. i really don't. and i don't care if not caring is cool or not, either. or if...
it's the vacuous, empty and nihilistic definition of 'cool' that gets me wishing i lived on another planet.
i'm happy to hang out with the nerds.
it's the popular kids that make me depressed.
i'm actually hoping for a rainy, cold summer in order to keep this person off the porch, so i can get some air in here.
there's no protection from the rain, there. and, the humid air is the best antidote for the smoke from downstairs, too.
it looks like the rain we were supposed to get this week isn't going to show up :(
there's no protection from the rain, there. and, the humid air is the best antidote for the smoke from downstairs, too.
it looks like the rain we were supposed to get this week isn't going to show up :(
well, i think it's worn off, now.
but i'll never make it there by 4:30.
i wanted to be there this morning, but i was literally too stoned to move for the last seven hours, from the secondhand smoke. this is a measure of the depth of the problem. and i'm not exaggerating; i was up in the afternoon, yesterday, i should not have been tired this morning. that was a short day....
i want to put the term 'stoned' in quotes, because it's not exactly like that. it's more like a sedative - and i've pointed out before that i suspect she is smoking opiates, at least sometimes. the pot obviously doesn't do much for her, right? and, this happens sometimes - i get a whiff of something and just fall over, for hours.
but, this is also typical of government pot, in my experience. government pot doesn't get you high, it just knocks you out. and, with the way they're prescribing it as an anti-depressant or pain reliever (rather than as the psychedelic it's used as, recreationally), that kind of makes sense. i don't know if it's a sativa/indica thing or something else, but government pot is really more like valium than it is like pot. and, as you might expect, that's not any fun.
the shit the government is going to eventually export is not going to be bc bud. it's going to be this over the top, sedative-heavy government pot engineered to feel like i'd imagine an opiate does. it's going to make you tired and insular, rather than euphoric and extroverted. and i don't expect to have much interest in it.
i'll have to try again tomorrow.
*shrug*.
i'm actually going back to sleep for a bit.
but i'll never make it there by 4:30.
i wanted to be there this morning, but i was literally too stoned to move for the last seven hours, from the secondhand smoke. this is a measure of the depth of the problem. and i'm not exaggerating; i was up in the afternoon, yesterday, i should not have been tired this morning. that was a short day....
i want to put the term 'stoned' in quotes, because it's not exactly like that. it's more like a sedative - and i've pointed out before that i suspect she is smoking opiates, at least sometimes. the pot obviously doesn't do much for her, right? and, this happens sometimes - i get a whiff of something and just fall over, for hours.
but, this is also typical of government pot, in my experience. government pot doesn't get you high, it just knocks you out. and, with the way they're prescribing it as an anti-depressant or pain reliever (rather than as the psychedelic it's used as, recreationally), that kind of makes sense. i don't know if it's a sativa/indica thing or something else, but government pot is really more like valium than it is like pot. and, as you might expect, that's not any fun.
the shit the government is going to eventually export is not going to be bc bud. it's going to be this over the top, sedative-heavy government pot engineered to feel like i'd imagine an opiate does. it's going to make you tired and insular, rather than euphoric and extroverted. and i don't expect to have much interest in it.
i'll have to try again tomorrow.
*shrug*.
i'm actually going back to sleep for a bit.
in one of the strangest demonstrations of surveillance yet, i'm listening to one of the remixes i spun off at the end of 2015 (http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2015/12/insp.html) and it starts actually interfering with the loopback at the low frequencies, due to the depth of the bass drum.
there are several mixes of this track that use the same drum pattern, so i check each of them, and they all do the same thing.
i was able to solve it on a reboot.
but, it seems like what i was hearing was the bass beating out of phase with itself as it was being captured by the monitoring software.
again: i actually don't care if i'm monitored. i'm boring as fuck.
but, i can't create music when the monitoring software is degrading my audio quality, like this...
there are several mixes of this track that use the same drum pattern, so i check each of them, and they all do the same thing.
i was able to solve it on a reboot.
but, it seems like what i was hearing was the bass beating out of phase with itself as it was being captured by the monitoring software.
again: i actually don't care if i'm monitored. i'm boring as fuck.
but, i can't create music when the monitoring software is degrading my audio quality, like this...
but, it's just...
it's never been my thought process.
i've never been angry or sad or depressed and said "i need to get high". to the contrary, i've been angry or sad or depressed and decided to stay home and go to bed early, instead.
i need to be in a good mood to go out drinking & smoking, or i don't go out. i wouldn't want to get high if i wasn't feeling up to it.
& this is maybe why i don't really understand this. the premise of "medicinal marijuana" is combining two things - drugs & depression - that seem to be in contradiction with each other, to me.
when i'm depressed, i go to bed early; i only do drugs when i'm feeling great, and want to have a good time.
how did this get so confused?
it has to be capitalism that's at the root cause of this.
it's never been my thought process.
i've never been angry or sad or depressed and said "i need to get high". to the contrary, i've been angry or sad or depressed and decided to stay home and go to bed early, instead.
i need to be in a good mood to go out drinking & smoking, or i don't go out. i wouldn't want to get high if i wasn't feeling up to it.
& this is maybe why i don't really understand this. the premise of "medicinal marijuana" is combining two things - drugs & depression - that seem to be in contradiction with each other, to me.
when i'm depressed, i go to bed early; i only do drugs when i'm feeling great, and want to have a good time.
how did this get so confused?
it has to be capitalism that's at the root cause of this.
but, i don't associate drugs with depression.
being sad doesn't make me want to get high. getting high is something i do when i'm in a good mood, not something i do when i'm upset. i don't even know what being high and depressed is even like - i've never experienced this. i'd imagine it would just make me more upset. and, the stronger the smell of drugs is, the sadder i'm going to get.
it's not a comfort, or a crux, or something i do alone - it's a social activity that i always used to do with friends, and now do, at least, in public.
when i'm upset, i just want to go to sleep and wake up fresh - ie not hungover.
not tonight. tonight, i just need to deal with it. coffee...
being sad doesn't make me want to get high. getting high is something i do when i'm in a good mood, not something i do when i'm upset. i don't even know what being high and depressed is even like - i've never experienced this. i'd imagine it would just make me more upset. and, the stronger the smell of drugs is, the sadder i'm going to get.
it's not a comfort, or a crux, or something i do alone - it's a social activity that i always used to do with friends, and now do, at least, in public.
when i'm upset, i just want to go to sleep and wake up fresh - ie not hungover.
not tonight. tonight, i just need to deal with it. coffee...
it's not being around people that makes me upset. if anything, being around people makes me exceedingly angry.
it's the nature of humans that makes me upset.
people just smoke drugs, and don't care. they destroy the planet; they destroy themselves. they don't plan, they don't think ahead - all they care about is the present moment.
why can't people be more altruistic, and more interested in living healthy and productive lifestyles? why are so many humans these depraved, selfish utility monsters that destroy everything in their paths? why are we so easily controlled by media into believing such utter stupidity?
you try to live a healthy lifestyle, you try to give back, you try to do what you can to not contribute to all of these social and environmental problems, and all you get in return are these self-absorbed retards that can't even be bothered to get off of their obese assholes to go smoke a fucking joint, when somebody tells them it's making them sick.
i need to get out of here asap.
preferably to a planet with a different dominant species.
it's the nature of humans that makes me upset.
people just smoke drugs, and don't care. they destroy the planet; they destroy themselves. they don't plan, they don't think ahead - all they care about is the present moment.
why can't people be more altruistic, and more interested in living healthy and productive lifestyles? why are so many humans these depraved, selfish utility monsters that destroy everything in their paths? why are we so easily controlled by media into believing such utter stupidity?
you try to live a healthy lifestyle, you try to give back, you try to do what you can to not contribute to all of these social and environmental problems, and all you get in return are these self-absorbed retards that can't even be bothered to get off of their obese assholes to go smoke a fucking joint, when somebody tells them it's making them sick.
i need to get out of here asap.
preferably to a planet with a different dominant species.
to be clear: i've got the drug addict below me, and have had to open my window to deal with it.
now, there's a tenant next door that is sitting on her porch smoking, so opening the window is no solution.
i don't currently have a functioning laptop, but i'm considering spending my days at the library until i can get out.
now, there's a tenant next door that is sitting on her porch smoking, so opening the window is no solution.
i don't currently have a functioning laptop, but i'm considering spending my days at the library until i can get out.
if you're forcing me to choose, i would rather deal with second hand tobacco smoke.
it's gross. and unhealthy.
but, at least it doesn't make you tired....
there's a new problem: some ugly, fat wench is sitting in my fresh air intake and smoking 24/7, meaning i'm in the same impossible situation, once again.
what i'm experiencing is just a background general smoke: i can't tell what kind of smoke it is, and it may even be all mixed up. it's just burning my throat.
i want to finish 2015 before i get to the write-up to get out of here.
it's gross. and unhealthy.
but, at least it doesn't make you tired....
there's a new problem: some ugly, fat wench is sitting in my fresh air intake and smoking 24/7, meaning i'm in the same impossible situation, once again.
what i'm experiencing is just a background general smoke: i can't tell what kind of smoke it is, and it may even be all mixed up. it's just burning my throat.
i want to finish 2015 before i get to the write-up to get out of here.
Monday, April 23, 2018
listen.
if you want to kill yourself, it's easy enough to find a bridge or some poison or something else.
you don't need to trigger the cops, who probably want to catch you alive if they can, anyways.
canada has experienced a few unfortunate outbursts of mental illness. but, this doesn't appear to be a terrorist attack - nor have any of the incidents here been accurately described that way.
it seems like this person was suicidal and wanted to go out in a bang.
if you want to kill yourself, it's easy enough to find a bridge or some poison or something else.
you don't need to trigger the cops, who probably want to catch you alive if they can, anyways.
canada has experienced a few unfortunate outbursts of mental illness. but, this doesn't appear to be a terrorist attack - nor have any of the incidents here been accurately described that way.
it seems like this person was suicidal and wanted to go out in a bang.
outrageously, the response from the landlord was to suggest that if i can't deal with the smoke then i should move.
that's the literal definition of negligence, in context.
"if you don't like the mold on the ceiling, you can always move."
"if you don't like the asbestos in the living room, you can always move."
it's the same thing, legally.
you see this frequently with legal illiterates: i'm just getting some, like, nineteenth century contract theory bullshit. libertarianism seems to be the basic starting point of ignorance, in this culture.
so, i'm going to have to write the board an essay, and this won't get mailed until tomorrow. the basic argument is negligence under the health regulations, and liability for breach of the enjoyment covenant.
but, i got a mailing address, at least. that wasn't obvious.
the truth is that they're actually kind of walking into a trap; it's not like i set the trap, but , if i did, they'd have walked right into it. they've given me everything i need to make the argument for negligence...
and, i need to reiterate: i like tort law. i think more of the law should be organized around tort law principles. tort reform, to me, means expanding the principles of tort law to further destroy contract theory. it's the criminal law that i don't like, and it's classical liberalism that pisses me off...
that's the literal definition of negligence, in context.
"if you don't like the mold on the ceiling, you can always move."
"if you don't like the asbestos in the living room, you can always move."
it's the same thing, legally.
you see this frequently with legal illiterates: i'm just getting some, like, nineteenth century contract theory bullshit. libertarianism seems to be the basic starting point of ignorance, in this culture.
so, i'm going to have to write the board an essay, and this won't get mailed until tomorrow. the basic argument is negligence under the health regulations, and liability for breach of the enjoyment covenant.
but, i got a mailing address, at least. that wasn't obvious.
the truth is that they're actually kind of walking into a trap; it's not like i set the trap, but , if i did, they'd have walked right into it. they've given me everything i need to make the argument for negligence...
and, i need to reiterate: i like tort law. i think more of the law should be organized around tort law principles. tort reform, to me, means expanding the principles of tort law to further destroy contract theory. it's the criminal law that i don't like, and it's classical liberalism that pisses me off...
"sex work is work".
ok.
well, then you'd be willing to do it for minimum wage, then - as an employee of a multinational corporation, run by men who take in six figure salaries.
right?
careful.
i think women are better served by the status quo, myself.
and that we should rather be focusing on ways to create better jobs.
ok.
well, then you'd be willing to do it for minimum wage, then - as an employee of a multinational corporation, run by men who take in six figure salaries.
right?
careful.
i think women are better served by the status quo, myself.
and that we should rather be focusing on ways to create better jobs.
if you like a glass of wine now and again does that mean you're an alcoholic?
that you want your bed to smell like spilled vodka, and stale puke?
that you want your kitchen to smell like gin, or your bathroom to smell like barley?
that you want your clothes to smell of elderberry?
that you drink so much that you fall over?
just because you like a glass of wine at christmas, or a beer at a show? really?
this is not binary. we don't have to choose between never smoking and smoking an ounce a day. there's a large spectrum...
that you want your bed to smell like spilled vodka, and stale puke?
that you want your kitchen to smell like gin, or your bathroom to smell like barley?
that you want your clothes to smell of elderberry?
that you drink so much that you fall over?
just because you like a glass of wine at christmas, or a beer at a show? really?
this is not binary. we don't have to choose between never smoking and smoking an ounce a day. there's a large spectrum...
i'm posting in the rebuild right now about how marijuana isn't addictive.
and, it really isn't.
this is the first pot addict i've ever met...
and, she's no doubt more addicted to the idea of the drug than the drug itself. she probably thinks it makes her cool, or something; it's probably some kind of fear of missing out.
"marijuana is not physically addictive" is a factual statement. that is science. but, they claim it's "psychologically addictive" - which means that heavy users can trick themselves into thinking they're addicted, when they really aren't.
it's more like they want to be addicted, because they think being addicted is cool, and they don't want to miss out.
twisted. truly.
but, as i am contradicting myself, let be me clear: i am well aware that marijuana is not an addictive substance, and when i'm ranting about this woman being a drug addict, i shouldn't be taken fully literally. she's a wannabe addict.
and, it really isn't.
this is the first pot addict i've ever met...
and, she's no doubt more addicted to the idea of the drug than the drug itself. she probably thinks it makes her cool, or something; it's probably some kind of fear of missing out.
"marijuana is not physically addictive" is a factual statement. that is science. but, they claim it's "psychologically addictive" - which means that heavy users can trick themselves into thinking they're addicted, when they really aren't.
it's more like they want to be addicted, because they think being addicted is cool, and they don't want to miss out.
twisted. truly.
but, as i am contradicting myself, let be me clear: i am well aware that marijuana is not an addictive substance, and when i'm ranting about this woman being a drug addict, i shouldn't be taken fully literally. she's a wannabe addict.
"so, how does she go out to party all the time, then?"
i don't.
i went out once in november, once in december, zero times in january, february or march and twice in april.
i'm often able to save a few dollars over the winter, so that i can go out more frequently in the summer. i also get those gst checks in every three months. but, the budget gives me about $100/month to spend, most months - which is enough for one or two nights out
and, the truth is that i spend most of my time inside in front of the computer.
as you can see.
i don't.
i went out once in november, once in december, zero times in january, february or march and twice in april.
i'm often able to save a few dollars over the winter, so that i can go out more frequently in the summer. i also get those gst checks in every three months. but, the budget gives me about $100/month to spend, most months - which is enough for one or two nights out
and, the truth is that i spend most of my time inside in front of the computer.
as you can see.
do i really have to make this argument?
i have one source of income: odsp.
it's $1150/month.
my expenses are $1026/month [if i spend $200 on groceries, which is often an exaggeration].
where do you propose that i get all of this money to get stoned all of the time?
i don't have an alternate source of income. i don't have a marijuana card.
please just accept the fact that i don't smoke.
i have one source of income: odsp.
it's $1150/month.
my expenses are $1026/month [if i spend $200 on groceries, which is often an exaggeration].
where do you propose that i get all of this money to get stoned all of the time?
i don't have an alternate source of income. i don't have a marijuana card.
please just accept the fact that i don't smoke.
it's not that i'm living some kind of ascetic lifestyle or something.
i don't have any kind of philosophical objection to being a stoner - it's just not my idea of a good time.
i simply prefer being sharp-witted, awake, alert. i don't enjoy the sore throat. i don't like being tired....
if i was going to get addicted to something, it would be cocaine, not marijuana. as it is, i'm usually fine with coffee.
i don't have any kind of philosophical objection to being a stoner - it's just not my idea of a good time.
i simply prefer being sharp-witted, awake, alert. i don't enjoy the sore throat. i don't like being tired....
if i was going to get addicted to something, it would be cocaine, not marijuana. as it is, i'm usually fine with coffee.
Sunday, April 22, 2018
i need to be clear: the problem here is not the drugs, it's the user. drugs don't smoke themselves.
if she were to go take a walk, she wouldn't be bothering anybody. she really wouldn't.
but, her insistence on smoking inside is very much bothering somebody: she's making me very sick, and dramatically negatively impacting on my quality of life.
my costing is as follows:
$1000 for moving costs
$300 for materials used to smoke-proof the apartment (which the landlord ordered me to take down)
$500 for laundry & dry-cleaning
$100 for cleaning supplies
$500 for a new bed [my mattress is ruined]
25% of rent paid is $1400, presuming the lease ends august 1st.
==========
$3800
i hope it makes people think twice about renting to drug addicts.
if she were to go take a walk, she wouldn't be bothering anybody. she really wouldn't.
but, her insistence on smoking inside is very much bothering somebody: she's making me very sick, and dramatically negatively impacting on my quality of life.
my costing is as follows:
$1000 for moving costs
$300 for materials used to smoke-proof the apartment (which the landlord ordered me to take down)
$500 for laundry & dry-cleaning
$100 for cleaning supplies
$500 for a new bed [my mattress is ruined]
25% of rent paid is $1400, presuming the lease ends august 1st.
==========
$3800
i hope it makes people think twice about renting to drug addicts.
i'm going to say this one more time.
- the liberals should support pharmacare.
- the liberals should kick the sex work thing down the road a little; it's maybe encouraging in some sense to hear younger people think we're ready for this, but the older generation really isn't and, as a gen xer, i continue to feel torn in between the need to rip down patriarchal rules and protect women from predatory men. if you do this tomorrow, you'll just be legalizing human trafficking at the expense of brown people and for the dubious benefit of rich white girls that won the genetic lottery and want an easy dime.
- the liberals should campaign against the ndp's plan to legalize all drugs, by presenting it as a crazy right-wing idea, which is what it actually is. this is friedman, it is not marx or even keynes. special attention should be drawn to pointing out that canada is not the united states, and does not treat drug users like the united states does; the policy is essentially based around the misunderstanding that we do, and the fact is that we don't. let this join the list of goofy ndp priorities, like abolishing the clarity act and getting rid of the senate, that voters don't actually want at all.
- the liberals should support pharmacare.
- the liberals should kick the sex work thing down the road a little; it's maybe encouraging in some sense to hear younger people think we're ready for this, but the older generation really isn't and, as a gen xer, i continue to feel torn in between the need to rip down patriarchal rules and protect women from predatory men. if you do this tomorrow, you'll just be legalizing human trafficking at the expense of brown people and for the dubious benefit of rich white girls that won the genetic lottery and want an easy dime.
- the liberals should campaign against the ndp's plan to legalize all drugs, by presenting it as a crazy right-wing idea, which is what it actually is. this is friedman, it is not marx or even keynes. special attention should be drawn to pointing out that canada is not the united states, and does not treat drug users like the united states does; the policy is essentially based around the misunderstanding that we do, and the fact is that we don't. let this join the list of goofy ndp priorities, like abolishing the clarity act and getting rid of the senate, that voters don't actually want at all.
given that she's obviously smoking this much because she can't get high any more, she's probably actually at risk of moving to something harder.
i've seen studies arguing both ways, and they're probably both right, depending on the context. i can understand how marijuana could help a heroin addict - although i might suggest methadone, instead. less harmful. on the other hand, when your tolerance to marijuana is as absurd as this woman's is, and the delivery method is giving you pneumonia, it's easy to understand the appeal of something stronger, too.
it probably depends on what stage the addict is in. an opiate addict that wants to get better but is physically addicted could use pot as a crutch, even if they relapse in the long run; a desperate pothead that just isn't getting high anymore might look at opiates as the only way to get what they're after. and, i might have thought that was obscure a few months ago, but i never thought i'd meet somebody that smokes as much as she does, either.
she's obviously just not getting high.
i've seen studies arguing both ways, and they're probably both right, depending on the context. i can understand how marijuana could help a heroin addict - although i might suggest methadone, instead. less harmful. on the other hand, when your tolerance to marijuana is as absurd as this woman's is, and the delivery method is giving you pneumonia, it's easy to understand the appeal of something stronger, too.
it probably depends on what stage the addict is in. an opiate addict that wants to get better but is physically addicted could use pot as a crutch, even if they relapse in the long run; a desperate pothead that just isn't getting high anymore might look at opiates as the only way to get what they're after. and, i might have thought that was obscure a few months ago, but i never thought i'd meet somebody that smokes as much as she does, either.
she's obviously just not getting high.
the way marijuana works is that the more you smoke, the less high you
get. all drugs are like this: it's the law of diminishing returns.
so, if you wanted to emulate me, for whatever reason, the way to do this is to only smoke once in a while. that way, you get really high from just getting in on the odd round. when you smoke as little as i do, you only have to buy a $5 pre-roll to get stoned enough that you're still feeling it in the morning. those rastas don't even get a buzz off of that.
whatever media exists of me baked is in fact strong evidence that i don't get high very often, as i would be less obviously trashed if i did.
and, the key to accomplishing this level of inebriation on a regular basis is actually to buy into the culture of sobriety. my daily drug of choice is coffee, not marijuana. i've quit tobacco. but, i drink a pot of coffee a day, and only smoke up a couple of times a month - if that. some months, i don't get stoned at all.
you need that space to prevent yourself from developing tolerance; what my media footprint really is is a lack of tolerance, due to sporadic use.
if i smoked as much as people seem to think i do, i wouldn't get high in public at all - i'd just be your average "chill" stoner.
and, if i disappear from public view for a long period, as i tend to, it's safe to assume i'm completely sober during that period. and, i don't want to build up a tolerance - that would just make my infrequent binges less fun.
this should all be obvious, but it isn't, for some reason. people seem to think i somehow get completely ripped from a random toke at the bar, then go home and smoke mad amounts. but, that doesn't actually make any sense, and you should all know that it doesn't...my obviously low tolerance is evidence that i don't smoke much at all....
right now, i just have a sore throat and wish i was more awake.
she's still blazing. every twenty minutes. it's surreal.
so, if you wanted to emulate me, for whatever reason, the way to do this is to only smoke once in a while. that way, you get really high from just getting in on the odd round. when you smoke as little as i do, you only have to buy a $5 pre-roll to get stoned enough that you're still feeling it in the morning. those rastas don't even get a buzz off of that.
whatever media exists of me baked is in fact strong evidence that i don't get high very often, as i would be less obviously trashed if i did.
and, the key to accomplishing this level of inebriation on a regular basis is actually to buy into the culture of sobriety. my daily drug of choice is coffee, not marijuana. i've quit tobacco. but, i drink a pot of coffee a day, and only smoke up a couple of times a month - if that. some months, i don't get stoned at all.
you need that space to prevent yourself from developing tolerance; what my media footprint really is is a lack of tolerance, due to sporadic use.
if i smoked as much as people seem to think i do, i wouldn't get high in public at all - i'd just be your average "chill" stoner.
and, if i disappear from public view for a long period, as i tend to, it's safe to assume i'm completely sober during that period. and, i don't want to build up a tolerance - that would just make my infrequent binges less fun.
this should all be obvious, but it isn't, for some reason. people seem to think i somehow get completely ripped from a random toke at the bar, then go home and smoke mad amounts. but, that doesn't actually make any sense, and you should all know that it doesn't...my obviously low tolerance is evidence that i don't smoke much at all....
right now, i just have a sore throat and wish i was more awake.
she's still blazing. every twenty minutes. it's surreal.
i don't normally sit in this room.
as far as i can tell, she lights a joint about every 20 minutes. and, i've seen these things - they're not joints, they're cigars, really.
she's been chain smoking since about 3:30, maybe a bit before. she seems to have overwhelmed my defenses around 3:30, anyways. let's say 3:40 to make the math easier.
that means she has smoked at least 10 cigar-sized joints in the last 3.5 hours. that's probably at least $50 worth of pot. in the last 3.5 hours. by herself.
that's more expensive than cocaine.
me? i take one three-toke pass between sets and i'm licked until the morning. and, then i don't touch it for three weeks - until the next show.
if she's smoking that much, the sad truth is that it must be because it doesn't actually get her high, anymore. and, so, what's the point of even smoking it?
it's easy to deduce that this woman goes to work all day in order to spend all her money on a drug that makes her really sick, pisses off her neighbours and doesn't even get her high.
doctor's orders?
what a sad joke.
this isn't a medicine, and it's not doing anything for her.
it's an addiction that is ruining her life.
as far as i can tell, she lights a joint about every 20 minutes. and, i've seen these things - they're not joints, they're cigars, really.
she's been chain smoking since about 3:30, maybe a bit before. she seems to have overwhelmed my defenses around 3:30, anyways. let's say 3:40 to make the math easier.
that means she has smoked at least 10 cigar-sized joints in the last 3.5 hours. that's probably at least $50 worth of pot. in the last 3.5 hours. by herself.
that's more expensive than cocaine.
me? i take one three-toke pass between sets and i'm licked until the morning. and, then i don't touch it for three weeks - until the next show.
if she's smoking that much, the sad truth is that it must be because it doesn't actually get her high, anymore. and, so, what's the point of even smoking it?
it's easy to deduce that this woman goes to work all day in order to spend all her money on a drug that makes her really sick, pisses off her neighbours and doesn't even get her high.
doctor's orders?
what a sad joke.
this isn't a medicine, and it's not doing anything for her.
it's an addiction that is ruining her life.
in fact, i am a health nut and enviro-fascist.
i have an extremely healthy diet.
i don't smoke.
i get a lot of exercise.
i recycle in buildings that don't.
i compost.
i don't own a car; i walk, i bike.
i had a struggle with cigarettes that i've won. but, my entire life is centered around minimizing my carbon output and living as healthily and as safely as possible. and, living in other people's smoke is consequently an impossibility - a contradiction, an unacceptable premise.
i have an extremely healthy diet.
i don't smoke.
i get a lot of exercise.
i recycle in buildings that don't.
i compost.
i don't own a car; i walk, i bike.
i had a struggle with cigarettes that i've won. but, my entire life is centered around minimizing my carbon output and living as healthily and as safely as possible. and, living in other people's smoke is consequently an impossibility - a contradiction, an unacceptable premise.
i'm very sorry if you thought that i was some kind of advocate for heavy drug use, but i've been very clear that i am not.
most marijuana users are not drug addicts, as most alcohol users are not alcoholics. but, the ones that are addicts need help, not normalization.
all i care about is my lungs, which i have gone to great lengths to keep healthy by quitting smoking over two years ago and cannot allow to be damaged due to the selfish negligence of asshole neighbours.
i do not care what happens to her.
she's created her own problems.
most marijuana users are not drug addicts, as most alcohol users are not alcoholics. but, the ones that are addicts need help, not normalization.
all i care about is my lungs, which i have gone to great lengths to keep healthy by quitting smoking over two years ago and cannot allow to be damaged due to the selfish negligence of asshole neighbours.
i do not care what happens to her.
she's created her own problems.
no, she's back to smoking again in her usual spots.
the t2 will be mailed on monday.
that's the end of this.
and, don't let anybody tell you that "medicinal marijuana users" aren't drug addicts. there's no other way to understand this: this person is an addict, and she's not going to stop.
she didn't stop when i asked.
she didn't stop when the cops asked.
she didn't stop when the landlord asked.
and, she didn't stop when the owner asked.
that is drug addiction.
period.
t2 is coming.
i need to get out of this hellhole...
the t2 will be mailed on monday.
that's the end of this.
and, don't let anybody tell you that "medicinal marijuana users" aren't drug addicts. there's no other way to understand this: this person is an addict, and she's not going to stop.
she didn't stop when i asked.
she didn't stop when the cops asked.
she didn't stop when the landlord asked.
and, she didn't stop when the owner asked.
that is drug addiction.
period.
t2 is coming.
i need to get out of this hellhole...
the smell in here tonight is tobacco, but i can't get a handle on the source.
it's absolutely revolting.
but, the thing is that a part of it might be the actual floor, and the smell might be the building adjusting to the spring. and, if i'm not careful, i could be blaming people for something that is actually nobody's fault.
also, given that the source is unclear, i could be mistaking the smell of tobacco for the smell of mold.
it's annoying that this happened on the first night after moving my bed out, but it's also a saturday, and i need to deal with one thing at a time.
if or when i move out of here, i'm going to need to be more careful in analyzing the tenants. again: i like the building. it's that i don't like the other people living in it.
it's absolutely revolting.
but, the thing is that a part of it might be the actual floor, and the smell might be the building adjusting to the spring. and, if i'm not careful, i could be blaming people for something that is actually nobody's fault.
also, given that the source is unclear, i could be mistaking the smell of tobacco for the smell of mold.
it's annoying that this happened on the first night after moving my bed out, but it's also a saturday, and i need to deal with one thing at a time.
if or when i move out of here, i'm going to need to be more careful in analyzing the tenants. again: i like the building. it's that i don't like the other people living in it.
Saturday, April 21, 2018
i actually don't think this is ford's election to lose. the numbers suggest a coalition government, not a tory victory.
this has been wynne's mandate to blow. and she's blown it. badly.
and, it's frustrating, because i support most of the policies and actually don't want a change in government. but, every time she opens her mouth, something bad happens.
this has been wynne's mandate to blow. and she's blown it. badly.
and, it's frustrating, because i support most of the policies and actually don't want a change in government. but, every time she opens her mouth, something bad happens.
again: maybe kathleen wynne might want to take a look at the results of the last american election, before she paints her opponent as the victor of it.
?
the criticism of the liberals, for years, has been that they live in a bubble. *sigh*.
this is going to be a difficult couple of weeks.
she should have stepped down.
?
the criticism of the liberals, for years, has been that they live in a bubble. *sigh*.
this is going to be a difficult couple of weeks.
she should have stepped down.
so, what's happening in the saga of the second-hand smoke, now well into it's second year?
as far as i can tell, the woman directly below me is still not smoking in the unit. so, i'm still holding off on that t2. i'm not holding my breath, though.
last night, however, around 1:00, i got a nasty whiff coming from what i think is the tenant diagonally below me. but, i think i can fix that.
it's not that i want to pick on the tenant directly below me, it's just that there's no solution due to the geometry of the unit, and, frankly, the amount of smoke involved. the guy directly across me smokes a little bit - like, a pinner on friday nights, right; minimal. i had fixed that by taping up the door frame. i took the tape down, so i'll have to put in a request to caulk around the frame, instead. problem solved. if the person on the diagonal smokes a little, on weekends or something, i think we can solve that by building up the baseboards - or maybe by asking the person to smoke on the other side of the unit. the point is that there's a solution. unfortunately, it doesn't matter where the woman below me smokes, and i've learned that i can't keep it out - either one of us has to leave, or she's gotta stop smoking. there's no compromise - it has to be absolute.
see, and she's going to cry that it's not fair that she has to stop while everybody else gets to smoke, and maybe that's true. sometimes, life isn't fair. but, all i care about is keeping the smoke out. i'm not pretending that this isn't a difficult situation, i'm just being crystal clear that all i care about is my own well-being. so, i'm not interested in the application of fair laws across the building; this is simply not my prerogative. she happened to be unlucky enough to have a vocal non-smoker move in above her, and the property owner happens to not be sticking up for her. that's how this cookie has crumbled.
i still expect to be the one that moves, in the end, but we're not there, yet.
i flipped out a little last night, because the smoke triggered the bronchitis. i've moved everything out of the bedroom and will need to put in a work order on monday or tuesday. right now, the space is airing out, and i'm going to need to clean the remaining glue out before i put the order in.
what does it look like?
well, it looks a tad worse. i lost a little bit of paint; it's nothing structural, and all of the problems that exist already existed. but, i'll acknowledge some aesthetic issues with the existing damage. which is...
ok: imagine there's a crack in the wall, and imagine that there is smoke seeping in through the crack. so, i put duct tape over the crack as a simple solution - and it mostly works, at least in the short term. then, when i take the tape down, on request of the owner, i peel a little paint off from around the crack, making the crack look a little worse.
you could make the naive argument that i ought to be liable for the damage, but this is really absurd - there was already a crack in the wall and it already needed to be fixed. rather, i'm going to make the following argument:
1) there was a crack in the wall.
2) smoke was coming in through the crack.
3) therefore, i blocked off the crack with duct tape.
4) the property owner has requested that i remove the duct tape.
5) therefore, i am going to request that the crack be fixed to prevent further seepage.
and, i mean, they could sue me if they really want. they'll probably lose. and, even if they win, they'll never get anything out of me.
they should just fix the cracks.
and, that's where i am right now: i have everything back in the living room, i'm caustically waiting for the woman downstairs to light a blunt, which will trigger the final exit, and i'm going to give the property manager a letter in the next few days asking that the cracks in the bedroom be fixed,.
regarding the paint...
yeah. i lost a little paint.
they employ a full time painter.
and they'd have to paint, aytways.
again: they'll spend thousands trying to extract a few dollars out of me, they'll probably lose and if they win they'll never see it. it's going to cost them $10 worth of paint to just fix it.
but, you can't quantify stupidity.
right now, i'm going to eat and try to spend the night rebuilding.
as far as i can tell, the woman directly below me is still not smoking in the unit. so, i'm still holding off on that t2. i'm not holding my breath, though.
last night, however, around 1:00, i got a nasty whiff coming from what i think is the tenant diagonally below me. but, i think i can fix that.
it's not that i want to pick on the tenant directly below me, it's just that there's no solution due to the geometry of the unit, and, frankly, the amount of smoke involved. the guy directly across me smokes a little bit - like, a pinner on friday nights, right; minimal. i had fixed that by taping up the door frame. i took the tape down, so i'll have to put in a request to caulk around the frame, instead. problem solved. if the person on the diagonal smokes a little, on weekends or something, i think we can solve that by building up the baseboards - or maybe by asking the person to smoke on the other side of the unit. the point is that there's a solution. unfortunately, it doesn't matter where the woman below me smokes, and i've learned that i can't keep it out - either one of us has to leave, or she's gotta stop smoking. there's no compromise - it has to be absolute.
see, and she's going to cry that it's not fair that she has to stop while everybody else gets to smoke, and maybe that's true. sometimes, life isn't fair. but, all i care about is keeping the smoke out. i'm not pretending that this isn't a difficult situation, i'm just being crystal clear that all i care about is my own well-being. so, i'm not interested in the application of fair laws across the building; this is simply not my prerogative. she happened to be unlucky enough to have a vocal non-smoker move in above her, and the property owner happens to not be sticking up for her. that's how this cookie has crumbled.
i still expect to be the one that moves, in the end, but we're not there, yet.
i flipped out a little last night, because the smoke triggered the bronchitis. i've moved everything out of the bedroom and will need to put in a work order on monday or tuesday. right now, the space is airing out, and i'm going to need to clean the remaining glue out before i put the order in.
what does it look like?
well, it looks a tad worse. i lost a little bit of paint; it's nothing structural, and all of the problems that exist already existed. but, i'll acknowledge some aesthetic issues with the existing damage. which is...
ok: imagine there's a crack in the wall, and imagine that there is smoke seeping in through the crack. so, i put duct tape over the crack as a simple solution - and it mostly works, at least in the short term. then, when i take the tape down, on request of the owner, i peel a little paint off from around the crack, making the crack look a little worse.
you could make the naive argument that i ought to be liable for the damage, but this is really absurd - there was already a crack in the wall and it already needed to be fixed. rather, i'm going to make the following argument:
1) there was a crack in the wall.
2) smoke was coming in through the crack.
3) therefore, i blocked off the crack with duct tape.
4) the property owner has requested that i remove the duct tape.
5) therefore, i am going to request that the crack be fixed to prevent further seepage.
and, i mean, they could sue me if they really want. they'll probably lose. and, even if they win, they'll never get anything out of me.
they should just fix the cracks.
and, that's where i am right now: i have everything back in the living room, i'm caustically waiting for the woman downstairs to light a blunt, which will trigger the final exit, and i'm going to give the property manager a letter in the next few days asking that the cracks in the bedroom be fixed,.
regarding the paint...
yeah. i lost a little paint.
they employ a full time painter.
and they'd have to paint, aytways.
again: they'll spend thousands trying to extract a few dollars out of me, they'll probably lose and if they win they'll never see it. it's going to cost them $10 worth of paint to just fix it.
but, you can't quantify stupidity.
right now, i'm going to eat and try to spend the night rebuilding.
The U.S. and Britain have accused the Syrian government and Russia of delaying the investigation in Douma to stage a cover up.
is this the same mainstream media that consistently accuses social media of peddling conspiracy theories based on flimsy evidence?
the situation is a surreal joke: the most flimsy conspiracy theories consistently come from the united states state department.
i welcome the investigators, but they are not god, either, and need to be subject to a critical analysis, themselves.
is this the same mainstream media that consistently accuses social media of peddling conspiracy theories based on flimsy evidence?
the situation is a surreal joke: the most flimsy conspiracy theories consistently come from the united states state department.
i welcome the investigators, but they are not god, either, and need to be subject to a critical analysis, themselves.
Friday, April 20, 2018
maybe we could even take a step back and ask the more fundamental question: why is drug use even a problem in the first place?
why not just shrug the issue away? their lives belong to them. they can do what they want.
a christian might find that appalling. but, you see, i don't actually disagree at all - in theory, that is actually my perspective on the thing: people ought to be able to do what they want to their own bodies. sure. so, then, legalize it, right?
the problem arises when people do what they want to their own bodies, and then show up at a hospital asking for help. at that point, it's no longer about what they're doing to their own bodies, it's about what they're costing society. and, for me, that is what the problem with drug use actually is: the wasted resources that it costs society. and, with opiates particularly, there's not a way to use them that doesn't end up with the user in the hospital, wasting society's resources. we don't have to do this experiment over and over again. we know what the result is - and should consequently ban the use of the substances.
you'll notice that things like the sanctity of life, or the soul of the individual do not enter my reasoning at any step. i don't even reject them, in my reasoning. i just don't even consider them.
do you see how the difference really is religion?
why not just shrug the issue away? their lives belong to them. they can do what they want.
a christian might find that appalling. but, you see, i don't actually disagree at all - in theory, that is actually my perspective on the thing: people ought to be able to do what they want to their own bodies. sure. so, then, legalize it, right?
the problem arises when people do what they want to their own bodies, and then show up at a hospital asking for help. at that point, it's no longer about what they're doing to their own bodies, it's about what they're costing society. and, for me, that is what the problem with drug use actually is: the wasted resources that it costs society. and, with opiates particularly, there's not a way to use them that doesn't end up with the user in the hospital, wasting society's resources. we don't have to do this experiment over and over again. we know what the result is - and should consequently ban the use of the substances.
you'll notice that things like the sanctity of life, or the soul of the individual do not enter my reasoning at any step. i don't even reject them, in my reasoning. i just don't even consider them.
do you see how the difference really is religion?
i'll state this again, maybe a little more clearly this time.
as a social anarchist, my focus when it comes to drugs is about managing resources. i don't particularly care much about saving the lives of drug addicts, as i don't consider those lives to be very valuable. what i care about is minimizing the resources that society wastes on drug addicts, with the aim of redirecting those resources towards more valuable uses. while this may appear to be somewhat similar to the desires of a fiscal conservative on the surface, and i will admit to some common cause with fiscal conservatives at a very shallow policy level, it's really a drastically different perspective when analyzed in any level of detail. so, i will support the supervised injection sites (because it minimizes resources wasted treating drug addicts for hepatitis, and aids) while opposing any grand scheme to sink billions into a national prevention program. targeted schemes to save money (and therefore resources..), though, are a good idea - and i will likely support most of them, as they are articulated.
this is very different than a religious perspective, which has somehow ended up on the pseudo-left in this country, but really belongs to the right, which would be focused on saving the lives of each and every drug addict, in order to save their souls or something. i suspect that most people couldn't really explain why they want to save the lives of drug addicts; it's more of a feeling than a thought. but, if you are to attach it to any kind of thought, it would be a religious one. these people want to redirect large amounts of public resources into saving the lives of drug addicts, with little thought about the resource accounting that such a thing would necessitate, and little interest in whether these kinds of things are effective. they're frankly not likely to understand that saving drug addicts means losing cancer patients; they'll argue that this is a false choice, because they're imagining infinite resources, without really thinking about it.
anarchists are legitimately quite different than even marxists, who are nowadays actually pretty utopian. we seem like we don't fit in on the left. but, we're really what the actual left is. and, the difference is that we've moved past religion.
it really is religion that is the difference, here.
as a social anarchist, my focus when it comes to drugs is about managing resources. i don't particularly care much about saving the lives of drug addicts, as i don't consider those lives to be very valuable. what i care about is minimizing the resources that society wastes on drug addicts, with the aim of redirecting those resources towards more valuable uses. while this may appear to be somewhat similar to the desires of a fiscal conservative on the surface, and i will admit to some common cause with fiscal conservatives at a very shallow policy level, it's really a drastically different perspective when analyzed in any level of detail. so, i will support the supervised injection sites (because it minimizes resources wasted treating drug addicts for hepatitis, and aids) while opposing any grand scheme to sink billions into a national prevention program. targeted schemes to save money (and therefore resources..), though, are a good idea - and i will likely support most of them, as they are articulated.
this is very different than a religious perspective, which has somehow ended up on the pseudo-left in this country, but really belongs to the right, which would be focused on saving the lives of each and every drug addict, in order to save their souls or something. i suspect that most people couldn't really explain why they want to save the lives of drug addicts; it's more of a feeling than a thought. but, if you are to attach it to any kind of thought, it would be a religious one. these people want to redirect large amounts of public resources into saving the lives of drug addicts, with little thought about the resource accounting that such a thing would necessitate, and little interest in whether these kinds of things are effective. they're frankly not likely to understand that saving drug addicts means losing cancer patients; they'll argue that this is a false choice, because they're imagining infinite resources, without really thinking about it.
anarchists are legitimately quite different than even marxists, who are nowadays actually pretty utopian. we seem like we don't fit in on the left. but, we're really what the actual left is. and, the difference is that we've moved past religion.
it really is religion that is the difference, here.
see, this is stupid though - those injection sites save the health care system billions by keeping down the spread of infectious diseases. a fiscal conservative ought to support the sites.
and, you can't help drug addicts. that's what the science says - there's nothing you can do, but let them go.
once in a while, they'll help themselves, and it won't matter what you did or didn't do to help them.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/04/20/tory-leader-doug-ford-says-hes-dead-against-safe-injection-sites.html
and, you can't help drug addicts. that's what the science says - there's nothing you can do, but let them go.
once in a while, they'll help themselves, and it won't matter what you did or didn't do to help them.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/04/20/tory-leader-doug-ford-says-hes-dead-against-safe-injection-sites.html
there's nothing "progressive" about decriminalizing drugs or prostitution - although the latter is potentially less of a problem, if enacted as an effect of full gender equality. to put it another way: once we have full gender equality, then we can start talking about legalizing prostitution. until then, legalized prostitution is inevitably going to take advantage of women for the financial benefit of men - and that is the simple fact of it, no matter how many fat bros want to argue otherwise.
with drugs, however, progress means getting past them, not getting used to them. giving up on the fight to get rid of drugs is cynicism of the highest order, it's not progress.
i'd support pharmacare.
but, where is the pressure to stop the pipelines and push forward on the transition off of carbon? this is a far more pressing concern than legalizing nihilistic and anti-social behaviour is.
it's a little worrying. the liberal party conventions of the past were always very left-leaning. this sounds more like it's a meeting place for the libertarian right.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/04/20/grassroots-liberals-pressure-trudeau-government-to-be-more-progressive.html
with drugs, however, progress means getting past them, not getting used to them. giving up on the fight to get rid of drugs is cynicism of the highest order, it's not progress.
i'd support pharmacare.
but, where is the pressure to stop the pipelines and push forward on the transition off of carbon? this is a far more pressing concern than legalizing nihilistic and anti-social behaviour is.
it's a little worrying. the liberal party conventions of the past were always very left-leaning. this sounds more like it's a meeting place for the libertarian right.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/04/20/grassroots-liberals-pressure-trudeau-government-to-be-more-progressive.html
again: forum is consistently doing something in it's polling that i think needs to increase it's margin of error. it might just be the ivr system. i don't know. but, they seem to have a margin of error that's closer to 10% than 3%. i don't know why that is, it's just how the numbers tend to work out.
i don't think that the liberals got a bump from the budget, and i don't think it disappeared over the last week, or whatever it was. that would suggest that the voters are currently volatile, and i don't think that's true; rather, i think that their polling methods are quite volatile, and that's really what you're seeing in their results, which tend to fluctuate all over the place.
with everything considered - the no doubt large undecided vote, along with the inherent tory bias in phone polling - i have little reason to think that the tories are running higher than the mid 30s. it would be useful if they published undecideds and hang-ups, but they can stand on their record in not doing so, in the end. at least, if they tell me the undecideds i can explain why they're not as wrong as they might appear; if they don't tell me the undecideds, i have to just point out that it's unclear how many people are undecided.
but, i will say this again: firming ndp support in ontario is the thing that the liberals need to be most concerned about. and, their current tactics of mimicking the ndp are predictably going to backfire on them. any rational voter, right now, is just going to see the liberals as ndp-lite, and opt to vote for the real thing, instead.
i don't think that the liberals got a bump from the budget, and i don't think it disappeared over the last week, or whatever it was. that would suggest that the voters are currently volatile, and i don't think that's true; rather, i think that their polling methods are quite volatile, and that's really what you're seeing in their results, which tend to fluctuate all over the place.
with everything considered - the no doubt large undecided vote, along with the inherent tory bias in phone polling - i have little reason to think that the tories are running higher than the mid 30s. it would be useful if they published undecideds and hang-ups, but they can stand on their record in not doing so, in the end. at least, if they tell me the undecideds i can explain why they're not as wrong as they might appear; if they don't tell me the undecideds, i have to just point out that it's unclear how many people are undecided.
but, i will say this again: firming ndp support in ontario is the thing that the liberals need to be most concerned about. and, their current tactics of mimicking the ndp are predictably going to backfire on them. any rational voter, right now, is just going to see the liberals as ndp-lite, and opt to vote for the real thing, instead.
The causes of earthquakes in eastern Canada are not well understood.
ok.
i guess the plate must be splitting somewhere, but note that the great lakes are thought to be glacial...
http://www.seismescanada.rncan.gc.ca/zones/eastcan-en.php
ok.
i guess the plate must be splitting somewhere, but note that the great lakes are thought to be glacial...
http://www.seismescanada.rncan.gc.ca/zones/eastcan-en.php
we've seen this before.
at the time, the media said all of the same things it's saying now.
we do lived in a post-truth society: and western media are the biggest liars.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-un/u-n-has-testimony-that-syrian-rebels-used-sarin-gas-investigator-idUSBRE94409Z20130505
at the time, the media said all of the same things it's saying now.
we do lived in a post-truth society: and western media are the biggest liars.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-un/u-n-has-testimony-that-syrian-rebels-used-sarin-gas-investigator-idUSBRE94409Z20130505
i have no idea who is responsible for the attacks, because there hasn't been an investigation. how could i know who is responsible, without reading an investigation, first?
am i supposed to take nikki haley at her word? what a fucking joke.
but, past precedent would suggest that the most likely culprit - as it has been in the past - is american-backed rebels, looking to generate the kind of reaction from trump that is being broadcast on western media (even though the president really took advantage of the situation to push his own interests, and did not actually come to anybody's defence at all).
am i supposed to take nikki haley at her word? what a fucking joke.
but, past precedent would suggest that the most likely culprit - as it has been in the past - is american-backed rebels, looking to generate the kind of reaction from trump that is being broadcast on western media (even though the president really took advantage of the situation to push his own interests, and did not actually come to anybody's defence at all).
listen.
this is the right way that you approach this.
then, once the report is released, two things can happen:
1) it can be critiqued, to determine flaws and exaggerations. peer review.
2) action can be taken, where deemed appropriate.
the world can't be allowing the united states to go around bombing people based on gut instincts, and colloquialized applications of terms from probability theory - as disingenuous as that may even be, in the precise example.
can i see your hypothesis testing, ms. may? no? k. didn't think so.
i'm not even going to say the bombing shouldn't have happened, as that would be just as bad as jumping to the conclusion that it ought to have. the problem here is a lack of due process - and this is absolutely necessary to establish, in context.
the united nations doesn't appear to be working any more, and i don't have specific suggestions as to approaches or paths to reform, but we need to find a way to re-establish process. the world cannot be a macrocosm of the wild west; there must be a sheriff in town.
as far as i can tell, the only major western politician that has reacted intelligently to this is jeremy corbyn.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/04/13/47-groups-urge-un-secretary-general-act-syria
this is the right way that you approach this.
then, once the report is released, two things can happen:
1) it can be critiqued, to determine flaws and exaggerations. peer review.
2) action can be taken, where deemed appropriate.
the world can't be allowing the united states to go around bombing people based on gut instincts, and colloquialized applications of terms from probability theory - as disingenuous as that may even be, in the precise example.
can i see your hypothesis testing, ms. may? no? k. didn't think so.
i'm not even going to say the bombing shouldn't have happened, as that would be just as bad as jumping to the conclusion that it ought to have. the problem here is a lack of due process - and this is absolutely necessary to establish, in context.
the united nations doesn't appear to be working any more, and i don't have specific suggestions as to approaches or paths to reform, but we need to find a way to re-establish process. the world cannot be a macrocosm of the wild west; there must be a sheriff in town.
as far as i can tell, the only major western politician that has reacted intelligently to this is jeremy corbyn.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/04/13/47-groups-urge-un-secretary-general-act-syria
the smell tonight - and this isn't the first time - is overwhelming levels of garlic.
this is actually leading me back to meth; maybe they are smoking outside, but i can smell their armpits from here, kind of thing. meth users are known to smell like garlic - like, not from the smoke, but from the body odour.
nobody eats garlicy meals for hours straight. i guess somebody could have left something out, but it's happened repeatedly.
somebody could have terrible gas, and i could be smelling it over and over again. it's actually quite plausible.
it could be another distraction tactic - burning garlic so i can't smell the pot.
but, the reality is that all evidence points towards this building being some kind of meth centre - either through production, or through massive use.
is there some possibility that all of the potheads around me are smoking laced pot and don't know it? well, three months ago i'd have told you that the premise of meth-laced marijuana is crazy talk. you'll find it with pcp from time to time, unfortunately - it's unpleasant; you deal with it. but, meth? this isn't real, right?
maybe it is.
i may never figure out what the truth is around this. i've got clues, and i can put them together, but getting some kind of confirmation is going to be almost impossible. and, i'm no doubt just scratching the surface of something.
i don't need or even want to know, frankly.
but the clearer the meth connection gets, the more i want out.
it's possible that somebody just needs to shower more frequently. but, it's really one thing after another...
this is actually leading me back to meth; maybe they are smoking outside, but i can smell their armpits from here, kind of thing. meth users are known to smell like garlic - like, not from the smoke, but from the body odour.
nobody eats garlicy meals for hours straight. i guess somebody could have left something out, but it's happened repeatedly.
somebody could have terrible gas, and i could be smelling it over and over again. it's actually quite plausible.
it could be another distraction tactic - burning garlic so i can't smell the pot.
but, the reality is that all evidence points towards this building being some kind of meth centre - either through production, or through massive use.
is there some possibility that all of the potheads around me are smoking laced pot and don't know it? well, three months ago i'd have told you that the premise of meth-laced marijuana is crazy talk. you'll find it with pcp from time to time, unfortunately - it's unpleasant; you deal with it. but, meth? this isn't real, right?
maybe it is.
i may never figure out what the truth is around this. i've got clues, and i can put them together, but getting some kind of confirmation is going to be almost impossible. and, i'm no doubt just scratching the surface of something.
i don't need or even want to know, frankly.
but the clearer the meth connection gets, the more i want out.
it's possible that somebody just needs to shower more frequently. but, it's really one thing after another...
"burn bay leaves in the house and see what happens after ten minutes"
i'm going to ask for an x-ray of your lungs, and observe that you're coughing your ass off.
smoke is smoke.
so, stop burning shit inside...it's all the same cancer-causing smut...
tobacco. marijuana. sage. now, bay leaves. it's all the same thing.
i'm going to ask for an x-ray of your lungs, and observe that you're coughing your ass off.
smoke is smoke.
so, stop burning shit inside...it's all the same cancer-causing smut...
tobacco. marijuana. sage. now, bay leaves. it's all the same thing.
Thursday, April 19, 2018
tonight was a little weird.
i took some of the tape off of the kitchen cabinets, and what it revealed was this overpowering smell of bay leaf, that i remember smelling when i first moved in - and which was in fact the initial reason that i taped up the cabinets. the smell of marijuana only presented itself once the smell of bay leaf had subsided.
see, here's the thing: i don't actually care about the smell. this is a rank, nasty smell - granted. but, it's a minor annoyance. what i care about is the damage caused by second hand smoke - which means that burning sage inside would be as bad as smoking pot. worse, really, because it's pointless.
as it is, i don't know if the request not to smoke was heeded or not because i couldn't smell anything over the bay leaves.
i'm not sure where the smell of bay leaves is coming from, but i suspect that re-opening the hole on the bottom of the cabinet has left me at the whim of a number of tenants. i remember concluding at the time that the cabinet must be connected to six units moving down, around the plumbing, and that it was just never properly finished - thereby meaning that i can plausibly smell the guy three floors down when he makes a burrito. it's maybe facile to suspect that the smell of indian food is coming from the indian tenant, but it could very well be true. at the least, this is the same stench that came in when i moved in, so it's not infrequent. and, in the end, whether this is by design (by the pothead) or by coincidence doesn't matter.
i need to reiterate that bad smalls are not the same thing as second-hand smoke, and that this is a fundamentally different type of problem.
nonetheless, while the tape was only partly successful in keeping the smell of marijuana smoke out of the cabinets, it was actually quite successful in keeping out the smell of everybody else's food. if she surprises me and continues to smoke outside for any length of time, if she even is at all right now, i'm still going to need to get somebody in to fix the cabinet. i had an easy solution that worked well, but we can go with a more expensive solution if the property owner would prefer. i don't expect this happens; i'll be surprised if she's not blazing all day tomorrow.
for right now, i'm going to have to suffer this, keeping in mind the following truth: if i can smell their stinky herbs, then they can smell my fresh citrus air fresheners, too. and, i can be pro-active in pushing nice smells down to ward off their evil ones.
i've got about 1/4 of the tape off, but in the process of everything happening over the last few days, i've aggravated an injury i suffered last week when i was cleaning up my bicycle. it's a small cut on my right thumb (the most important finger.....) that has reopened and that i'd like to close before i continue with the process of ripping up tape off of baseboards. so, i'm going to wait until monday before i get back to that.
i actually don't have anything planned this weekend; it seems to be quiet in detroit. i may change my mind at the last minute, but i'm expecting to stay in and type. i keep pointing out that december shouldn't take long, once i can sit down and do it. if the weekend goes through uneventfully, i guess i'll get to clearing off the tape on monday; if it doesn't, i guess i'll file the t2 on monday morning, and focus on looking for new apartments, then pull the rest of the tape off as i'm moving out.
i took some of the tape off of the kitchen cabinets, and what it revealed was this overpowering smell of bay leaf, that i remember smelling when i first moved in - and which was in fact the initial reason that i taped up the cabinets. the smell of marijuana only presented itself once the smell of bay leaf had subsided.
see, here's the thing: i don't actually care about the smell. this is a rank, nasty smell - granted. but, it's a minor annoyance. what i care about is the damage caused by second hand smoke - which means that burning sage inside would be as bad as smoking pot. worse, really, because it's pointless.
as it is, i don't know if the request not to smoke was heeded or not because i couldn't smell anything over the bay leaves.
i'm not sure where the smell of bay leaves is coming from, but i suspect that re-opening the hole on the bottom of the cabinet has left me at the whim of a number of tenants. i remember concluding at the time that the cabinet must be connected to six units moving down, around the plumbing, and that it was just never properly finished - thereby meaning that i can plausibly smell the guy three floors down when he makes a burrito. it's maybe facile to suspect that the smell of indian food is coming from the indian tenant, but it could very well be true. at the least, this is the same stench that came in when i moved in, so it's not infrequent. and, in the end, whether this is by design (by the pothead) or by coincidence doesn't matter.
i need to reiterate that bad smalls are not the same thing as second-hand smoke, and that this is a fundamentally different type of problem.
nonetheless, while the tape was only partly successful in keeping the smell of marijuana smoke out of the cabinets, it was actually quite successful in keeping out the smell of everybody else's food. if she surprises me and continues to smoke outside for any length of time, if she even is at all right now, i'm still going to need to get somebody in to fix the cabinet. i had an easy solution that worked well, but we can go with a more expensive solution if the property owner would prefer. i don't expect this happens; i'll be surprised if she's not blazing all day tomorrow.
for right now, i'm going to have to suffer this, keeping in mind the following truth: if i can smell their stinky herbs, then they can smell my fresh citrus air fresheners, too. and, i can be pro-active in pushing nice smells down to ward off their evil ones.
i've got about 1/4 of the tape off, but in the process of everything happening over the last few days, i've aggravated an injury i suffered last week when i was cleaning up my bicycle. it's a small cut on my right thumb (the most important finger.....) that has reopened and that i'd like to close before i continue with the process of ripping up tape off of baseboards. so, i'm going to wait until monday before i get back to that.
i actually don't have anything planned this weekend; it seems to be quiet in detroit. i may change my mind at the last minute, but i'm expecting to stay in and type. i keep pointing out that december shouldn't take long, once i can sit down and do it. if the weekend goes through uneventfully, i guess i'll get to clearing off the tape on monday; if it doesn't, i guess i'll file the t2 on monday morning, and focus on looking for new apartments, then pull the rest of the tape off as i'm moving out.
i noticed something a bit like a really, really big truck driving by,
it could have actually been a really, really big truck driving by - although such a truck would have had to have been really, really big.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/earthquake-amherstburg-ontario-southwestern-detroit-river-usgs-windsor-london/99803/
it could have actually been a really, really big truck driving by - although such a truck would have had to have been really, really big.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/earthquake-amherstburg-ontario-southwestern-detroit-river-usgs-windsor-london/99803/
the straw is a kind of useless thing, really, and i wouldn't mourn it's end.
but, if you are more smitten by it than i, we could always shift to making it out of something biodegradable, like hemp.
more broadly speaking, i would rather see the way we manufacture plastic transformed, even revolutionized, than the way we use it dictated by the state.
but, if you are more smitten by it than i, we could always shift to making it out of something biodegradable, like hemp.
more broadly speaking, i would rather see the way we manufacture plastic transformed, even revolutionized, than the way we use it dictated by the state.
that was truly bizarre.
this enforcer of a man shows up, with a thick french accent, looking like denis coderre, that time he filled in for dave semenko, and declares, with a snort, that there shall be no smoking in the building.
he claims that there is a no smoking clause in the lease (there is not).
he claims that he could enforce such a clause (he could not).
and he has decided, by decree that this is the solution to the problem.
further, i am to remove all of the tape from the wall.
i'm going to take the tape down, but i hardly have faith in the outcome. it's just that i'd have to take the tape down anyways, so i'd might as well do it now.
regardless, that means they get another day or two to put off the t2.
note that tomorrow is 4/20.
i mean, don't get me wrong - i hope this works. is it "crazy enough that it just might work"? who knows. who knows. we'll see. but, i think the outcome is a foregone conclusion, and...
...i should really go ahead and start writing the t2 up tonight.
right now, i'm going to lose another day on the unit. ugh.
this enforcer of a man shows up, with a thick french accent, looking like denis coderre, that time he filled in for dave semenko, and declares, with a snort, that there shall be no smoking in the building.
he claims that there is a no smoking clause in the lease (there is not).
he claims that he could enforce such a clause (he could not).
and he has decided, by decree that this is the solution to the problem.
further, i am to remove all of the tape from the wall.
i'm going to take the tape down, but i hardly have faith in the outcome. it's just that i'd have to take the tape down anyways, so i'd might as well do it now.
regardless, that means they get another day or two to put off the t2.
note that tomorrow is 4/20.
i mean, don't get me wrong - i hope this works. is it "crazy enough that it just might work"? who knows. who knows. we'll see. but, i think the outcome is a foregone conclusion, and...
...i should really go ahead and start writing the t2 up tonight.
right now, i'm going to lose another day on the unit. ugh.
well, everything is in order in the space, or at least as much as it can be for now.
i'll find out in a few hours if my next step is to wait for renovations, or to file a t2 to end the tenancy.
at the least, i won't be spending any more time rearranging furniture in the other room; i should get back to this shortly, one way or another.
i'll have to continue to run through the files after jan 10th. but, it should pick up quite a bit after that, as the blog started when i picked back up in june; the direction of information then flips, and it becomes about pulling information down, rather than putting it up.
thankfully, the weather seems finally set to turn, so i should be able to keep the windows open most of the time.
i'll find out in a few hours if my next step is to wait for renovations, or to file a t2 to end the tenancy.
at the least, i won't be spending any more time rearranging furniture in the other room; i should get back to this shortly, one way or another.
i'll have to continue to run through the files after jan 10th. but, it should pick up quite a bit after that, as the blog started when i picked back up in june; the direction of information then flips, and it becomes about pulling information down, rather than putting it up.
thankfully, the weather seems finally set to turn, so i should be able to keep the windows open most of the time.
well, there's my quarterly stomach wrench.
it's officially spring in windsor. finally. but i need to sit for a bit, too...
as with the last few days, i had difficulty getting out of bed this morning, no doubt due to the poor air quality in the unit. the property owner - from bc - woke me up, with a request to inspect the unit today.
this is actually what i want. sort of. i think. i mean, i put in the request for renovations. so, the next step is to inspect the two units - and i did hear the knock downstairs a few minutes before hand.
there's an off chance they could show up with an n5 or something, but if they do that i'm going to file a t2 anyways, so it's just a waste of time - that would be stupid of them. i've been clear that i want to leave, i'm just giving them a last opportunity to save my tenancy before i get the court to let me out. trying to evict me for trying to smoke-proof the apartment when i'm trying to get out of the lease due to second-hand smoke is likely to get me some judicial sympathy. it would make more sense for them to just buy me out.
i think they're worried about the duct tape. it's not the problem they're maybe imagining it is, partly because of the smoke, itself. the first place i taped up was the closet and the tape had been dried out by the smoke within three months. judging by that, the tape may fall off on it's own by the summer; even if it doesn't, it should come off cleanly with a wet rag.
so, if they try to do that, i'll have to countersue for the cost of the tape - which i was going to do anyways - and then disassemble all of the tape. i'll have to show up with some pictures indicating that there is no damage at all, but that i still want out of the lease, anyways. oops?
i decided that i'd spent the first part of the day rebuilding, get something to eat and clean the place up overnight. if the place is too cluttered, they could claim a fire code violation; obscure, but i didn't want to give that to them. and, if they come in tomorrow with a renovation plan, i could still salvage the tenancy - so why not set up the unit? there's still some chance i could get started on period 3 before i leave here.
i couldn't stay awake so i stopped to eat early and got to cleaning early. and i got a little optimistic about things. maybe this will work out?
but, i got the plumes coming up from downstairs around 21:00, and it was just too much - this place is not inhabitable.
still, i carried through to see, and i'm going to be sad to leave here, even though i must. i like this place for what it is, but it's just not a healthy place to live, and i'm getting to an age where i need to be concerned about my health. it would be negligent to my own well-being to let myself exist in this kind of environment any longer than necessary.
the immediate fire code issue is resolved, at least. i mean, the place was always navigable. but, i'm quite thin.
i'm hoping it's just a nap, but these stomach wrenches really require me to stop until they pass.
it's officially spring in windsor. finally. but i need to sit for a bit, too...
as with the last few days, i had difficulty getting out of bed this morning, no doubt due to the poor air quality in the unit. the property owner - from bc - woke me up, with a request to inspect the unit today.
this is actually what i want. sort of. i think. i mean, i put in the request for renovations. so, the next step is to inspect the two units - and i did hear the knock downstairs a few minutes before hand.
there's an off chance they could show up with an n5 or something, but if they do that i'm going to file a t2 anyways, so it's just a waste of time - that would be stupid of them. i've been clear that i want to leave, i'm just giving them a last opportunity to save my tenancy before i get the court to let me out. trying to evict me for trying to smoke-proof the apartment when i'm trying to get out of the lease due to second-hand smoke is likely to get me some judicial sympathy. it would make more sense for them to just buy me out.
i think they're worried about the duct tape. it's not the problem they're maybe imagining it is, partly because of the smoke, itself. the first place i taped up was the closet and the tape had been dried out by the smoke within three months. judging by that, the tape may fall off on it's own by the summer; even if it doesn't, it should come off cleanly with a wet rag.
so, if they try to do that, i'll have to countersue for the cost of the tape - which i was going to do anyways - and then disassemble all of the tape. i'll have to show up with some pictures indicating that there is no damage at all, but that i still want out of the lease, anyways. oops?
i decided that i'd spent the first part of the day rebuilding, get something to eat and clean the place up overnight. if the place is too cluttered, they could claim a fire code violation; obscure, but i didn't want to give that to them. and, if they come in tomorrow with a renovation plan, i could still salvage the tenancy - so why not set up the unit? there's still some chance i could get started on period 3 before i leave here.
i couldn't stay awake so i stopped to eat early and got to cleaning early. and i got a little optimistic about things. maybe this will work out?
but, i got the plumes coming up from downstairs around 21:00, and it was just too much - this place is not inhabitable.
still, i carried through to see, and i'm going to be sad to leave here, even though i must. i like this place for what it is, but it's just not a healthy place to live, and i'm getting to an age where i need to be concerned about my health. it would be negligent to my own well-being to let myself exist in this kind of environment any longer than necessary.
the immediate fire code issue is resolved, at least. i mean, the place was always navigable. but, i'm quite thin.
i'm hoping it's just a nap, but these stomach wrenches really require me to stop until they pass.
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
i've said this repeatedly: i am incapable of passing the workplace behaviour test.
that is supposed to be the easy one.
but, i've failed it repeatedly.
i simply don't understand it.
note that i've aced the competency tests, though. my iq scores are quite high; it's my behaviour that is unacceptable.
so, what i need is an isolated environment, where i can keep social interactions with others to an absolute minimum. this apartment is not that space...
that is supposed to be the easy one.
but, i've failed it repeatedly.
i simply don't understand it.
note that i've aced the competency tests, though. my iq scores are quite high; it's my behaviour that is unacceptable.
so, what i need is an isolated environment, where i can keep social interactions with others to an absolute minimum. this apartment is not that space...
somebody with a social aptitude as low as mine is going to require drugs and/or alcohol to function in a social situation, and will regularly abuse substances due to feelings of social inadequacy; somebody like me is consequently not well advised to medicate with mind-altering substances, as it is likely to trigger episodic behaviour rather than alleviate it.
i have never been (substantively) diagnosed with depression.
i have never experienced treatment for depression.
i do not believe that i suffer from depression.
i am diagnosed with "social anxiety disorder", which is like the lowest level of personality disorder. i do believe that i have a personality disorder. however, i've never been able to get this diagnosed because i supposedly am not episodic.
in fact, i believe that i am constantly episodic, but i just can't get a doctor to take the evidence i've provided seriously because it's not coming from a police report or a hospital. this is the catch-22: i can't get diagnosed until i do something crazy, but i've generally been able to utilize the resources available to me effectively enough to stop myself from going over the precipice. so, the more that the system works, the weaker my argument that i need it is.
unfortunately, i may need to go through a court process to get properly diagnosed - that's how a mental health system works in a calvinist society. and, if i never get through the court process, i may never get properly diagnosed - despite presenting myself repeatedly to mental health professionals for this purpose.
the basic understanding of the situation is that my social skills are too chronically underdeveloped to allow me to function in any kind of workplace. there's lots of jobs i could theoretically do, if i wanted to, but i can't handle the social component.
i'm going to argue with management. i'm going to argue with staff. my co-workers will dislike me, and i will dislike them, back. i will not want to spend time with them. i will be passed over for promotion, as i am unable to build social relationships. and, i will ultimately demonstrate little interest in what i'm doing, as a consequence of it.
we generally think of disability in terms of mental or physical aptitude. but, there is a third dimension - social aptitude - that is every bit as important in gaining and holding employment. in some ways, this is the most important skill of all.
and, my diagnosis is that my social aptitude is so low that you can label me socially retarded.
i would be willing to explore this further through treatment. but, there is not a solution to this problem.
i have never experienced treatment for depression.
i do not believe that i suffer from depression.
i am diagnosed with "social anxiety disorder", which is like the lowest level of personality disorder. i do believe that i have a personality disorder. however, i've never been able to get this diagnosed because i supposedly am not episodic.
in fact, i believe that i am constantly episodic, but i just can't get a doctor to take the evidence i've provided seriously because it's not coming from a police report or a hospital. this is the catch-22: i can't get diagnosed until i do something crazy, but i've generally been able to utilize the resources available to me effectively enough to stop myself from going over the precipice. so, the more that the system works, the weaker my argument that i need it is.
unfortunately, i may need to go through a court process to get properly diagnosed - that's how a mental health system works in a calvinist society. and, if i never get through the court process, i may never get properly diagnosed - despite presenting myself repeatedly to mental health professionals for this purpose.
the basic understanding of the situation is that my social skills are too chronically underdeveloped to allow me to function in any kind of workplace. there's lots of jobs i could theoretically do, if i wanted to, but i can't handle the social component.
i'm going to argue with management. i'm going to argue with staff. my co-workers will dislike me, and i will dislike them, back. i will not want to spend time with them. i will be passed over for promotion, as i am unable to build social relationships. and, i will ultimately demonstrate little interest in what i'm doing, as a consequence of it.
we generally think of disability in terms of mental or physical aptitude. but, there is a third dimension - social aptitude - that is every bit as important in gaining and holding employment. in some ways, this is the most important skill of all.
and, my diagnosis is that my social aptitude is so low that you can label me socially retarded.
i would be willing to explore this further through treatment. but, there is not a solution to this problem.
Tuesday, April 17, 2018
i don't have a lot of positive things to say about the bush family, but i can't imagine what tomorrow looks like after 73 years.
that's something deserving of empathy, regardless of the topic of conversation.
i mentioned this the other day into my vlog camera. it'll come up to youtube, one day.
i'm walking by a cemetery and there's this old woman howling at the gravestone. i'm thinking to myself...
you howled at this poor bastard every day for how many years, and then you show up to his gravestone to keep at it? jesus, lady. it says rest in peace.
i'm an asshole, and i have a dark sense of humour, but i'm not heartless. and, the thought crosses my mind: i'm glad i'll never have to deal with that.
i could barely handle breaking up with somebody after a couple of years.
after 73 years? i don't think i'd make it a day.
not even if i hated the fucker, in the end.
that's something deserving of empathy, regardless of the topic of conversation.
i mentioned this the other day into my vlog camera. it'll come up to youtube, one day.
i'm walking by a cemetery and there's this old woman howling at the gravestone. i'm thinking to myself...
you howled at this poor bastard every day for how many years, and then you show up to his gravestone to keep at it? jesus, lady. it says rest in peace.
i'm an asshole, and i have a dark sense of humour, but i'm not heartless. and, the thought crosses my mind: i'm glad i'll never have to deal with that.
i could barely handle breaking up with somebody after a couple of years.
after 73 years? i don't think i'd make it a day.
not even if i hated the fucker, in the end.
the person that i smoked most often with as a teenager used to get it from his older brother.
we had a bit of a falling out, and the next friend i met got it from somebody he got in contact with through his older brother.
i was the oldest, and my dad wouldn't admit it, so i didn't have any contacts - i had to rely on my friends for it.
this is the reality: kids get it from family members or the family members of friends, not shady weirdos on school playgrounds. and, no amount of regulation, however well meaning, will stop somebody from smoking their kids or younger siblings, or their friends, when they feel the time is right.
we had a bit of a falling out, and the next friend i met got it from somebody he got in contact with through his older brother.
i was the oldest, and my dad wouldn't admit it, so i didn't have any contacts - i had to rely on my friends for it.
this is the reality: kids get it from family members or the family members of friends, not shady weirdos on school playgrounds. and, no amount of regulation, however well meaning, will stop somebody from smoking their kids or younger siblings, or their friends, when they feel the time is right.
my dad claimed he quit years ago, although i caught him red-eyed a few times. he wouldn't admit it; he had some kind of weird thing about it.
but, the first person i saw smoke a joint was my friend's dad. i think we were in the 7th grade - late, because i was a little sheltered, growing up on a military base.
a few years later, that same friend would bring pot to school and smoke it at lunch. and where'd he get it from? his dad.
this is the whole point, guys. it's a part of the culture. it's not some shady thing. the idea is that we can better address health & safety issues by normalizing and destigmatizing it on a legal level - while putting more of a focus on how absurdly unhealthy it is.
the idea that kids should be - or even could be - kept away from marijuana is simply not realistic. it is far too deeply embedded in the culture for this.
which is obvious.
so, why isn't it obvious to the premier?
but, the first person i saw smoke a joint was my friend's dad. i think we were in the 7th grade - late, because i was a little sheltered, growing up on a military base.
a few years later, that same friend would bring pot to school and smoke it at lunch. and where'd he get it from? his dad.
this is the whole point, guys. it's a part of the culture. it's not some shady thing. the idea is that we can better address health & safety issues by normalizing and destigmatizing it on a legal level - while putting more of a focus on how absurdly unhealthy it is.
the idea that kids should be - or even could be - kept away from marijuana is simply not realistic. it is far too deeply embedded in the culture for this.
which is obvious.
so, why isn't it obvious to the premier?
i'm a humongous introvert.
i don't have any friends.
so, finding drugs is a difficult process. i have to go talk to people, pretend i like them, even hang out with them for a little while, sometimes.
i'd rather just go to the fucking store.
that's the point. that's why casual users support legalization: because we don't like the social requirements attached to finding drugs.
so, you've got this completely backwards.
i don't have any friends.
so, finding drugs is a difficult process. i have to go talk to people, pretend i like them, even hang out with them for a little while, sometimes.
i'd rather just go to the fucking store.
that's the point. that's why casual users support legalization: because we don't like the social requirements attached to finding drugs.
so, you've got this completely backwards.
i'm sorry.
i don't even know where it came from. was it my profile pic? the fact that i'm vocally pro-legalization?
did you have some desire to uphold me as a high-functioning drug addict?
all of it was a lie - but it wasn't a lie i told. i was clear about the truth, whenever i could be.
i am not and never have been a pothead. i've only ever smoked sporadically and recreationally. once in a while - and generally sparingly.
very little of the writing i've done has been under the influence of drugs. that's a false perception, and one i've never perpetuated - the misunderstanding is 100% on your side.
and, if you think about it, it's really the casual users that benefit the most from legalizing the drug, as we don't buy large amounts in bulk, anyways - we don't mind if we overpay a little, because we don't buy much, anyways. what's more important to us is being able to find it on the rare occasion we want to, because we don't have dealers and don't know where to go to find it.
heavy smokers generally tend to be pessimistic about this, and largely ok with the status quo. it's the infrequent users that want this to happen.
it's not my fault. i told you - again and again and again. you didn't listen.
there's an old cliche about not judging a book by it's cover. i suppose this needs to be updated slightly, but the idea is no less valid: don't judge an individual by their memes.
i don't even know where it came from. was it my profile pic? the fact that i'm vocally pro-legalization?
did you have some desire to uphold me as a high-functioning drug addict?
all of it was a lie - but it wasn't a lie i told. i was clear about the truth, whenever i could be.
i am not and never have been a pothead. i've only ever smoked sporadically and recreationally. once in a while - and generally sparingly.
very little of the writing i've done has been under the influence of drugs. that's a false perception, and one i've never perpetuated - the misunderstanding is 100% on your side.
and, if you think about it, it's really the casual users that benefit the most from legalizing the drug, as we don't buy large amounts in bulk, anyways - we don't mind if we overpay a little, because we don't buy much, anyways. what's more important to us is being able to find it on the rare occasion we want to, because we don't have dealers and don't know where to go to find it.
heavy smokers generally tend to be pessimistic about this, and largely ok with the status quo. it's the infrequent users that want this to happen.
it's not my fault. i told you - again and again and again. you didn't listen.
there's an old cliche about not judging a book by it's cover. i suppose this needs to be updated slightly, but the idea is no less valid: don't judge an individual by their memes.
also - for those that are curious, there will, in fact, be a youtube / music review blog, and it will go over all of the music discussions that i've skipped at the two existing blogs.
but, this will only become relevant when i launch the music review site, and that won't be for years, probably.
yes. there will be a point in the mid 2020s where i'll post youtube comments from 2014 to a blogspot archive - along with facebook posts from 2009.
the existing focus is really on building liner notes for inri000-inri074, and then tying them altogether into the aleph discs.
but, this will only become relevant when i launch the music review site, and that won't be for years, probably.
yes. there will be a point in the mid 2020s where i'll post youtube comments from 2014 to a blogspot archive - along with facebook posts from 2009.
the existing focus is really on building liner notes for inri000-inri074, and then tying them altogether into the aleph discs.
that gets me through november, 2015, which was still a heavy posting month. it took ten days to finish, but i didn't spend most of those 10 days posting, so, if i can keep up that kind of productivity, i could be done december in a day or two.
i didn't get my blast of smoke tonight around 21:30. that's a positive. i think i should be alert for a good while, then.
this is taking a long time, and i kind of knew it would, but it's not a choice i have to make. i need to at least follow this through up to mid 2016 in order to finish the liner notes for inri000. and, given that i'm coming up on inri015 in the alter-reality, that's going to push me through until late 2016, at least.
also, keep in mind that the next things to do are to finish the aleph discs, as well. the period 1 aleph disc should be ready to ship by the end of 2020. so, i'd might as well just push through.
i'll look back on this in a few years and be glad i did it.
i didn't get my blast of smoke tonight around 21:30. that's a positive. i think i should be alert for a good while, then.
this is taking a long time, and i kind of knew it would, but it's not a choice i have to make. i need to at least follow this through up to mid 2016 in order to finish the liner notes for inri000. and, given that i'm coming up on inri015 in the alter-reality, that's going to push me through until late 2016, at least.
also, keep in mind that the next things to do are to finish the aleph discs, as well. the period 1 aleph disc should be ready to ship by the end of 2020. so, i'd might as well just push through.
i'll look back on this in a few years and be glad i did it.
Monday, April 16, 2018
also: i've been over this before...
if you're a free market libertarian type, you might misunderstand a lot of my arguments as being socially conservative. but, that's the restricted spectrum at work. i'm usually pretty good at pointing out why my arguments are on the actual left, rather than the pretend left that the restricted spectrum presents, but i'll admit it gets tiring to repeat myself. at the least, there's enough material here now that you should be able to put the logic together, if you've been reading this for any extended period of time....
the simple statement is that leftists find themselves more concerned about things like resource management than liberals do, because we reject the premise of infinite growth. we try to avoid scaremongering around artificial scarcity, but we're far more serious about the realities around actual scarcity, and consequently far more conscious of how to utilize scarce resources in ways that ensure everybody has access, not just those that have the financial ability.
as liberals tend to promote markets, they react to the problems around scarcity by merely increasing prices. that reduces access, thereby saving the scarce resource by only making it accessible to an elite. the more scarce the resource, the more expensive it becomes. leftists tend to argue that this doesn't seem very liberal, really; we insist that everybody should have access, which means we need to manage it better than just setting a price on it.
well, almost everybody should have access, anyways.
some restrictions are going to be necessary. and, this is the ideological breaking point between liberalism and the left: do you want access to scarce resources to be determined by wealth, or would you prefer it to be determined by need? and, if so, are you willing to put reasonable restrictions on access to scarce resources, to ensure that they are available to most - or will you allow those resources to be accessed at will by those that have the finances to pay for it?
in between liberalism and the left exist the hippies. in the distant european past, the hippies were actually fundamentalist christians; a little further back, and they become heathen peasants. marx called them "utopian socialists" and contrasted them with what he called "scientific socialism". these people want universal access to scarce resources, and the only argument they present to justify this is in the realm of magical thinking. they deny that scarce resources are actually scarce. these people are unfortunate, but they are also rather numerous, and they're largely outside the realm of meaningful discourse.
if you're a free market libertarian type, you might misunderstand a lot of my arguments as being socially conservative. but, that's the restricted spectrum at work. i'm usually pretty good at pointing out why my arguments are on the actual left, rather than the pretend left that the restricted spectrum presents, but i'll admit it gets tiring to repeat myself. at the least, there's enough material here now that you should be able to put the logic together, if you've been reading this for any extended period of time....
the simple statement is that leftists find themselves more concerned about things like resource management than liberals do, because we reject the premise of infinite growth. we try to avoid scaremongering around artificial scarcity, but we're far more serious about the realities around actual scarcity, and consequently far more conscious of how to utilize scarce resources in ways that ensure everybody has access, not just those that have the financial ability.
as liberals tend to promote markets, they react to the problems around scarcity by merely increasing prices. that reduces access, thereby saving the scarce resource by only making it accessible to an elite. the more scarce the resource, the more expensive it becomes. leftists tend to argue that this doesn't seem very liberal, really; we insist that everybody should have access, which means we need to manage it better than just setting a price on it.
well, almost everybody should have access, anyways.
some restrictions are going to be necessary. and, this is the ideological breaking point between liberalism and the left: do you want access to scarce resources to be determined by wealth, or would you prefer it to be determined by need? and, if so, are you willing to put reasonable restrictions on access to scarce resources, to ensure that they are available to most - or will you allow those resources to be accessed at will by those that have the finances to pay for it?
in between liberalism and the left exist the hippies. in the distant european past, the hippies were actually fundamentalist christians; a little further back, and they become heathen peasants. marx called them "utopian socialists" and contrasted them with what he called "scientific socialism". these people want universal access to scarce resources, and the only argument they present to justify this is in the realm of magical thinking. they deny that scarce resources are actually scarce. these people are unfortunate, but they are also rather numerous, and they're largely outside the realm of meaningful discourse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)