we can't even think of a word that rhymes.

well, how many times do i have to tell you?

the only legit Stupid Rock Music i remember enjoying snickering to was the alice cooper classic, school's out but wasn't that in the 70s?

and, i liked queen, generally, but that's different.

my uncle (also dead.) was cool enough to dub the duke suite onto one side of a 60 minute tape for me.

i'd have much, much rather listened to this than 'hot for teacher' or 'more than words' or something.

there's a reason i got so big into nine inch nails, and it's because it was a natural extension of what i grew up with.

my favourite records when i was very young were like songs from the big chair & strange animal & so & parts of invisible touch.

i guess i had a soft spot for bon jovi. briefly. but that's as deeply as i ever delved into hair metal.

it's not like he held to it as he aged, but it's his era, it's not my mine.

my dad had a hard time with grunge, which i guess is when he stopped caring much about popular rock music, but he liked the more commercial side of alternative rock. he was actually a big collective soul fan. blues traveller. yeah - fucking blues traveller. there was a repressed hippie in there somewhere...

my dad was born in the late 50s, so he spent most of the 80s in his 20s. and, while he may have preferred to listen to prog, it largely ceased to exist after about 1977 - which was about when he turned 20, and also about when hair metal started.

he liked technical music. for a while, hair metal was the closest thing to it that he could find.

he was constantly on the brink of bad taste. of the two of us, he would have been far more likely to enjoy a guns 'n' roses or even a metallica record, but he would have argued that metallica was too heavy for him (he didn't like the vocals, basically.) and he at least had the good sense to realize that axl rose was an idiot, even if he couldn't figure out that david lee roth was.

regarding 80s music in his collection, i ignored all that stuff and went straight for the gabriel & the waters & the tears for fears & the srv. when i was very young, it was mostly the synth pop i found to be compelling...and you can hear that in my early work. dramatically.

my dad liked extreme.

that's something we didn't agree on.

at all.

other example of absolute disagreement would include: rush, yes, dream theatre & van halen.

you'll notice a trend, if you look carefully.

i actually think that nuno bettencourt is an incredibly overrated guitarist, and that the band he's associated with is categorically terrible.

listen.

isn't it up to women to decide if they want to go to a crisis centre or an abortion clinic? why would you go to a christian help group if you want an abortion? and, if the implication is that these women can't figure it out, isn't that demeaning and paternalistic?

i just don't know how this even became a debate.

activists are better off using more hands-on methods to intervene in abusive situations than they are in getting the state to order religious groups to hand out pamphlets; the bigger issue is getting people away from abusive institutions in the first place.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/opinion/the-court-ruled-correctly-on-the-travel-ban.html

no, marijuana is not "a part of a balanced breakfast".

what does it mean for me to break even?

i signed a lease in 2013 for $650 all inclusive, and the place was perfectly sized. my income at the time was $1075, not including tax rebates. that's about 60% of income - relatively high, but i was happy.

today, my income is $1151. the equivalent percentage of my income works out to $695.95. i'm currently paying $700.

i understand that housing inflates slightly, but it should not be growing faster than inflation.

that said, i know i got a good deal - and i know i'll need to shop for a bit to find another deal that good.

i found one today, but she wants a student. sadly.

so, i got a very quick response on my request to reschedule: i used the wrong form.

well, i had previously made a request to move the hearing forward, called a "request to extend or shorten time" form. if the request to move a hearing up is a request to shorten time, a request to push the hearing back should be a request to extend time, right? that's rational, isn't it? so, i used the same form to request an extension that i did to request an expedited case. what makes more sense than that?

it turns out that there's a "request to reschedule hearings" form, but you only use the request to reschedule when you want to reschedule later on (that is, extend time); when you want to reschedule sooner, you request to shorten time. meaning, there's a different process to extend than there is to shorten - despite the form being to request to extend or to shorten.

it's less legalese and more bureaucracy.

worse, there's a caveat: i need to ask for consent to reschedule later.

now, i grasp the value of doing this, don't get me wrong, but the situation is really not consistent with itself. i can unilaterally schedule a hearing. i can unilaterally ask a hearing be held sooner - which is a reschedule request, isn't it? and, i can even unilaterally cancel a hearing by not showing up. but, if i want to reschedule a hearing, i need to ask for consent.

sort of.

i could always cancel the hearing by not showing up, and then reschedule it later by reapplying, right? and, that's what i think i'm going to do...sort of....

i need to write this down because the second-hand smoke is affecting my ability to think clearly, right now, against my will. it's the perfect example of why i need out: i'm trying to carefully work through the logic of planning a move out properly, and i can't focus because i'm forcibly second-hand stoned. i can't be trying to work out recursion relations right now, but how about that? it's surreal, it really is. i'm too stoned to be able to focus on planning to escape from the drugs. fuck.

so, the reason i wanted to file the extension is so i could withhold rent on the 1st. it's just about optics, right? if i withhold rent on the 1st and show up to a hearing on the 5th, they can throw that at me, and i look like a bum. yeah, i'm going to explain the situation and keep paying rent if i have to, but it's better if i just put it off. and, even if i'm still stuck here at a hearing date in october, i can point out that i've paid rent since then, and will until i can plan an escape. at the least, i'm escaping the situation of suing somebody for damages days after i've withheld rent.

but, if i have to ask for consent, the logic of tiptoeing around the situation evaporates.

i have a showing across the street from their rental office tomorrow, so i'm wondering if it makes sense to leave them a letter when i'm there. the letter would say something like "in pursuant to the previous letter..", and lay out a request for consent to reschedule. it's just that i'm wondering if i may catch something over the next few days when everybody else is distracted. the apartment tomorrow looks a little small, but it's cheap - so, if it's big enough, it's good enough, if there aren't smokers (let's be realistic: there probably are). she didn't know, on the phone. then, i caught a standalone house for $600, which would be completely fucking perfect, but the idiot landlord only wants to rent to students, which makes no financial sense on her behalf. odsp is the most stable income in the city. why would you rent to some kids that could move out in october after flunking their midterms when you can get a longterm tenant on odsp? that's just dumb. really, really dumb.

but, it demonstrates the point: i could get lucky. i mean, you can't predict stupidity, but an ideal option just appeared and disappeared in front of me, right? if i can sign something for august 1st in the next ten days, i want to appear at that hearing on the 5th...


the reason i filed today was because i wanted to make sure the board had a week to process it, but it seems like it's only going to need 24-48 hours, if that. in fact, the form specifies 48 hours. so, i could have waited anyways - and probably should have. i may have been saved from a mistake, there.

hey, i'm largely winging this. i've never done this before. that's why clear thinking is so important.

i think i want to lay the situation out clearly.

if consent to reschedule is not granted, i'm going to unilaterally cancel the hearing and refile the same case the day of the previous hearing. i'll have it ready to go and stop at the office on the way home. so, the choices are that we can reschedule the existing hearing or we can start the process a second time. why bother denying consent, then?

well, the answer to that is that they could file an eviction notice the next day - but, if they do that, i'll carry through with the hearing. and, it wouldn't necessitate the need for costs, anyways.

and, if i'm going to give them this letter, i'd might as well wait until the very last minute, which would be when i don't pay my rent, rather than tomorrow afternoon. it may be a nice idea to think i can trick them into giving consent and then not pay rent, but i don't think i have the timelines - and i don't think that wrath is worth generating. i'm still a little apprehensive about an illegal eviction attempt.

but, what if i withhold rent on july 1st, and move august 1st? if i do that, i'll have at least $1200 for moving costs. i'll be broke, but at least i'll have a receipt to take to the court.

the flip side is that if i win money for a new couch & bed then i won't bother to move the ones i have, which would save me a lot on moving costs. i may even be able to try and sell them.

so, i don't want to give them anything until saturday.

and i'm not sure yet exactly what that should be.

it's either going to be a statement that i'm moving on august 1st, or it's going to be an attempt to strong-arm a rescheduling or it's going to be a statement that i've changed my mind and am ready to go for the fifth, in which case the judge will almost certainly reschedule.

yeah.

i'm glad that didn't work...that was a little premature...

i don't actually have to technically file until the 3rd.

now, here's an interesting grey area - what if i get consent to reschedule and change my mind before i file?

i want to specify that i'm not really acting in a shady manner, here. i'm trying to get out as soon as possible, and i'm going to eventually sue them for costs. these things are certain. and, so, to an extent, i'm acting in their interests, as well. what's less clear is timelines. and what i'm trying to avoid is a situation where i move before i'm ready, and just have to do it again.

i guess what i wanted to figure out is if i should make the request for consent tomorrow afternoon, and the answer is that i shouldn't. and, i shouldn't have tried to file today, either - that was premature on my behalf.

legal historians will look back on this and criticize the opposition for politicizing the argument.

it was never a muslim ban, and the idea that it was was playing politics with something that should have been opposed more strenuously. and, i'll flip this around: the reason i couldn't support it was because it wasn't a muslim ban. i'd be perfectly ok with telling radical muslims from specific unstable reasons that they're not allowed in the country. the problem with the legislation is that it also extends to atheists, jews, christians and others that may be trying to flee muslim extremism, in countries were apostasy can be a death sentence.

the opposition should have accepted the administration's argument at face value, and challenged whether it's likely to be effective. but, while that may have been a better legal argument, it would have been a much weaker political one. so, it would have led to less coverage and less fundraising and less rallying - or at least it would within a certain segment of the population that notably does not include independents or swing voters.

this outcome of playing politics with a serious legal question is pretty much a catastrophe. they lost the case - which means all these non-muslims are going to be stuck in these muslim countries, now, and face persecution for their (non)-beliefs, there. moderate & atheistic university students, many of them women, are going to be sent to rot in the fucking madrassas. on top of that, the administration is going to effectively skew the opposition as a bunch of backwards muslim-huggers, and that's a bad narrative for the voters that democrats need to win to hold seats. so, they're going to lose the political battle, along with the legal one.

to an extent, they walked right into his trap by allowing him to control the narrative. they should have challenged the premise. and - like stephen harper - this victory is not a function of the despot's brilliance, but of the opposition's weakness.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-supreme-court-ruling-trump-travel-1.4722234

in fact, there were periodic celtic uprisings in western europe right up until the collapse, when celtic identity largely disappeared in the german onslaught.

for all the romanticization that occurs in humanities departments, western europe always saw the romans as invaders, and never really adopted a roman identity.

so, i'm watching democracy now and they have an irish correspondent on and i'm thinking to myself geez, does he ever look french.

which is not surprising, if you know the history. but, let's walk that back just a tad.

the french are named after the franks, of course. of course? well, where did the franks come from?

what year did the franks invade the roman empire? what river did they cross to do it?

so, this would suggest that the area now known as france was in the roman empire before it was called france. what was it called, then?

who made it a province in the empire? what year?

and, so who were the people that lived in france before the romans conquered it? what language did they speak?

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2013/11/dogs-are-incapable-of-mens-rea-i-dont.html

also, don't tell me smoking pot is "cool".

to begin with, that's wrong. it was never cool. it's not cool now. the beatniks were losers. the hippies were losers. and, the potheads of today are losers, too.

if your kids smoke pot, it's not because it's cool, it's because they're losers and you're either too out of touch or too lost in self-delusion to clue into it. don't fall into that trap.

but, even if it were true, that wouldn't make it ok - just as all the propaganda in the world from edward bernays doesn't make smoking cigarettes ok, either.

science-based policy is not about what's cool, it's about what's true.

i mean, say it how you want.

it's bad etiquette.

it's impolite.

it's a filthy habit....

...but, understand that this was the premise in the first place: that it's ok as long as you're not bothering anybody, and that once you start bothering people, it's not ok any more....

we need to uphold and maintain the idea that smoking pot is something you do away from other people.

the building i'm in right now is actually a good example.

i'm trying to escape a terrible situation with a government-protected drug addict ruining the entire building, who is being coddled by a property manager that seems to be her smoking buddy. but, the actual owner just declared the building non-smoking, and i've been told that the manager has been instructed to take advantage of the new lease requirements in not renting to smokers.

right now, these buildings are full of smokers. but, as tenancies open up, they're going to be pushed out - and it's going to be harder and harder for them to find a place to stay, while it's easier and easier for me to find a place to breathe.

the smokers will complain, of course. but, i think this is the correct rights balance: smokers should get used to a future where they need to start renting rooms in houses, or buying the houses themselves, because apartments are turning over on this.

and, why should a smoker be allowed to ruin everybody else's good time? it's 2018. we know with absolute certainty what smoking does to people's health. this is scientific fact. and, the premise of agitating for legalization has always been that it's harmless, and this does remain true, so long as the social stigma remains attached to it. for years, the argument was always "they're in a field over there, they're not harming anybody, they'll be gone in ten minutes, just leave them alone.". that argument simply does not transfer over, remotely, at all, to somebody that is sitting inside an apartment building smoking an ounce of pot day after day - that person is harming everybody stuck consuming their filth.

and, this is the literal definition of filth. you're just delusional to deny it.

if we want to transfer the argument over, it should only apply to people that own their own property - and smokers that want to rent should continue to go out in the field, where they're not bothering anybody, as that was the premise in the first place.

so, the longer i wait, the better my chances actually become.

i need a relatively big, non-smoking space for dirt cheap.

i simply can't fit my stuff in a small space, and i simply don't want to live with smokers.

and, i'm stuck here until it comes up.

that's reality...but, the lease changes might be opening up the market i want, too. we'll see.

that building i saw today might be very different six months from now, if they're serious about throwing the smokers out.

if i get into a bad situation, i may have to move into an office space, short term, which isn't as crazy as it sounds. i can claim it's a recording studio. could even get a small bar fridge. there are very, very cheap office spaces around with communal showers that i'm sure nobody else uses; the problem is i don't expect to be able to claim rent.

right now, i'm paying $700 for rent. $479 is listed as shelter, and then i have to pay $221 out of my other costs. if i can get an office space for ~$300, that would be the same thing as paying around $800 in rent, which is the absolute maximum i'm budgeting for. i'd no doubt have to leave my couch here. but, i'm not sure i can salvage it, anyways - the smoke coming in is really that filthy.

if it comes to that, i'll just lock myself inside somewhere for a winter and get as much work as i can done until i can get out.

hopefully, something comes up soon and i can get out fairly quickly, with costs.

so, it seems like i'm out of options for arranging an august 1st move in date for july 1st.

it's after 9:00 pm on june 25th and there are still listings coming up for july 1st. i need my deposit back if i'm going to move for august 1st. that's just how shit works - and i'll have to argue the point in court, if it comes to it.

i got a letter in the mail today telling me i can pick up the police reports that i filed in march. i'll need to use that as evidence for the eventual hearing.

and, tomorrow, i'm going to have to file the request to extend the court date until...i'm going to guess the earliest dates are in october. if it's denied, i'll plan to go to court on july 5th. if it's accepted, i'll withhold rent on the 1st, give them a letter indicating that i don't necessarily plan to move at the end of the month (and will resume normal payments until i move out, if i don't) and wing it from there.

i confirmed today that i'm going to lose my oesp credits when i move, so i'm better off ramping up the hydo than cutting it down. it's about $200 in credits, so that should be enough to get through as much of the last year of vlogs as i can. but, i'm going to catch up on the rebuild tonight instead - because if the request for the extension gets denied, i'll have to use that document to build a journal, by the 5th. i'll at least have several weeks to create vlogs, after that.

so, i'm probably not going to hit the july 1st deadline, but i might have the last year's worth of vlogs ready to publish by august 1st.

the smoke was not bad this evening, but it's gotten very bad over the last hour. hopefully, she's leaving, soon, for the night.

i don't want to drag this on - i want out. but, the reality is that my resources are limited, and there's nothing to gain by moving into another unit with the same set of problems - i'll just have to go through this all over again.

to be clear: there is a very high chance that i'm going to vote green in what is probably an ndp lock in 2019.

if the green candidate sucks, as they sometimes do, i'll likely stay home.

but, if you want to make the election about rubber-stamping nafta, that's just another reason to cast a protest vote.

we saw a good example of how fixed election laws undermine democracy in the tpp negotiations in 2015.

the sitting government should have realized that this was a ballot issue, and either scheduled the election before the final signing or after the released text, to allow for a referendum on it. instead, it subverted democracy by signing a secret agreement at the last minute, preventing anybody from reading it in time for the vote.

i know that this sounds crazy to the political establishment & media elites, but the fact is that these people don't believe in democracy at all.

a ruling party and sitting prime minister with a strong commitment to democracy would recognize the canadian people's right to self-determination and both purposefully schedule the election around amendments to nafta as a ballot issue and go out of it's way to educate voters on it's contents, not try to find a way to schedule nafta negotiations around an arbitrarily fixed election date.

i was actually hoping that trudeau would be quite aggressive in undoing the legacy of stephen harper. the fact is that he's largely upheld it.

i, for one, would happily vote against nafta, should that be the next ballot question.

i technically voted for frank schiller in 2015. and, right now, i really wish he was in parliament.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-a-snap-election-unlikely-but-with-the-obstacles-ahead-liberals-may-be-tempted

you think you're a responsible landlord?

yeah, you're responsible, alright - responsible for costs and damages.

that unit is going to sit forever.

smokers are going to see the non-smoking listing and recoil. non-smokers are going to walk in and walk right out.

so, i walk up to the building and the first thing i see is a non-smoking sign - and at least 30 cigarette butts littered around in front of it, indicating two things:

1) there are many smokers in this building.
2) the rules don't appear to be being followed.

so, if the first thing i see is a bunch of butts in front of a non-smoking sign, how confident should i be that i'm going to keep the smoke out of the unit?

and, why bother advertising a unit as non-smoking when so many of your tenants are smokers?

so, i'm not impressed to begin with, to put it lightly.

i call the rental office and indicate that i had an appointment at 9:00.

"something changed over the weekend."

she then hung up on me. i call back...

"is the unit still available?"

she said to come back at 2:00.

i don't think i'm going to bother. again: it's a shame. it's a nice, older building. good location. but, full of filthy people...

so, i've rebuilt from july-october, 2013 this afternoon. october seemed unusually heavy, due to getting back on the internet after a two month layoff.

this is also an error-checking process, and i've updated a couple of little things.

i should probably try and get a few hours of sleep tonight, but she's home and blazing non-stop, as she does - just chain smoking one after another. and, i've been through this before. i went through it two weeks ago: i fall asleep in the smoke and then i can't get up until noon.

but, i have an appointment at 9:00 in the morning.

so, i'm tired, but i'm afraid that if i fall asleep, i'll end up too stoned (due to sleeping in the second hand marijuana smoke) to get up. and, as it is, i may very well walk in there with red eyes, and smelling like drugs. that doesn't help my chances in getting out of here, does it?

what a catastrophe.

what a fucking mess...

listen.

i don't want to pretend i've ruled out future companionship altogether; that would neither be honest, nor particularly human.

but, i simply don't connect well with normal people. the kind of companionship i'd be seeking would be pretty much the nerdiest thing you could imagine - to a point where it's essentially incomprehensible.

capitalism just doesn't allow for people like me. and, i'm not interested in changing myself, either; a companion would need to help me accomplish my existing goals, not present me with an entirely different set of goals.

i understand that i'm hard to get your head around, but that's pretty broad. just think of it like this: when you've spent your whole life in your own head, the idea of carrying out the rest of your days there is relieving, and the idea of being pulled out is far from emancipatory, but actually kind of frightening.

it's an imperfect analogy, but go watch the shawshank redemption and pay attention to morgan freeman's character.

freedom is a strange thing.

it was none other than habermas that would refer to foucault as a "young conservative", as thinker after thinker then struggled to grapple with him in a left-wing context, while being aware that he didn't quite fit.

i've argued repeatedly that he's essentially a vulgar burkean, in the sense that he takes conservative assumptions at face value, and then attempts to co-opt them - in contrast to the vulgar marxists that defined high finance and industrial capital in the middle of the twentieth century, and sought to rule by taking marxist assumptions at face value, and co-opting them. and, so, as was once remarked, that makes him "some kind of leftist", but one that has a fundamentally right-wing worldview. if the fords & rockefellers knew that marx was right, and sought to undermine him for their self-interest, foucault likewise knows burke is right and seeks to find some away around it - which means that either foucault is wrong (and marx is right), or the fords & rockefellers are (and burke is right). of course, that's quite simplistic, but necessarily so.

leftists used to take the much simpler approach of simply arguing that marx was right and burke was wrong. that's not necessary, i suppose - i suppose you can believe burke was right, and yet wish he wasn't. i'm just not sure why you'd identify on the left, if that's the case. but, whatever the case may be, and whatever you may believe, i must insist that it's disingenuous to suggest that rejecting burke is somehow an obscure position on the left, even if we're in a point of backwardsness, as of today.

i'm going to avoid making calls today, on second thought.

i'll take a closer look monday morning.

on twenty-seventh thought...

this catastrophe of an apartment is going to be a space solely of typing and writing.

i will not record here.

and, the alter-reality has advanced into the internet era, now.

so, let me set up the politics blog for the alter-reality, too and move forward as one after i move.

i actually do not expect this to take nearly as long.

there will be a third blog for music reviews, but i'm not touching that at all right now.

traditionally, empires don't seek balanced trade relationships with their colonies; rather, they seek to extract as much wealth from them as possible, by advancing a one way model of trade.

rhetoric of america as an empire is not new.

but, trump's insistence on it actually acting like one certainly is.

if trump doesn't like our contribution to nato, we could always shut down norad in protest.

increases in nato spending are about the last thing i had in mind when i cast my vote. why don't we focus on greater integration with the coast guard? or on responses to climate change?

but, it's not like i don't get the actual point, here. trump is a spokesperson for the military-industrial complex, which sees canada as a customer. so, it wouldn't make sense to import metals from canada; canada is supposed to be an export market.

this is how a traditional, nineteenth century empire works: the homeland makes stuff, and the colonies buy it. trump's job is consequently to sell us his country's stuff. and, the big ticket items are military...

if that is how the americans really see us, then perhaps we should toss some of their tea into the ocean.

yeah.

on second thought, why don't i get that in order after i check the listings after lunch.

i'm also going to need to call the oesp tomorrow, and figure out what happens to these electrical credits.

if i have to use them before i move, i should get the other machine on compressing vlogs for the last year.

i wanted to to fix the other laptop and use it for a dedicated vlog machine, but, right now, that seems pretty distant, with all this chaos going on. i guess i could get these compressed and published for the first after all...even if it's just raw, for now....

i napped on friday evening and woke up friday night after she'd left to go where she goes and finished archiving the facebook page over night. that was planned; it's not acceptable, but it's pragmatic on my behalf to try to schedule work periods for when she's gone. she was smoking all day saturday, but the steam was actually effective in keeping the air clear, and i actually had what was a really long, nice day - not crashing until late on saturday night. i'm at least happy that i had a productive day...

the smell today is mostly of stale tobacco, from who knows where in the building or even outside. but, she is smoking down there...so i don't have the option to close the window....i'm just steaming out as much as i can....

the music vlog is now completely backed up in the master archive. so, the next thing to do should be to distribute the material in the master archive back out to the two vlogs, and also to the music master list. but, i am also going to need to use the master archive to build the journal for the court date, whenever it is. ideally, i'd be able to do that after i've weaved everything together...

i'm going to get something to eat, and then check listings. if i see some more leads for august, i'll wait for the rescheduling request; if not, i'll put that in on monday, after the showing in the morning (which i expect to be a bust, but need to try...). i'm going to get back to what i was doing for the night, and could conceivably get most of the way through the summer done. i'll know in a few days if i need to fast forward or not.

so, the next section to rebuild is from june 19th to dec 8th - and that is the last rebuild. it's all archiving after that.

lastly, i suppose that it would be prudent to run the master list through an error-checking process before i start using it to publish liner notes.

when? before i move. hopefully.

the republicans are what happens to liberalism, once stripped of it's ideals and values.

anything to maximize profit.

anything at all.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-06-23/private-prison-shares-rise-us-eyes-more-migrant-family-detention-space

at some point it will click: this drug addict is costing me a lot of money.

in this circumstance, i have to hope the landlord eventually takes it out on the pothead; all i can do is extract damages for negligence.

and, i'm sure he will, eventually.

i mean, if the action was meant to punish this woman for her actions, and it was, then i'm certain she paid dearly, in the end - and there was really nothing i could have done to hold the space, anyways.

i just want to clarify a point, as i'm backing up the music vlog...

the last time i had an argument with a landlord, i put a case for thousands in claims on hold, was admittedly outmanoeuvred (albeit trivially, from my perspective, as i could not have claimed any winnings and there could not have been another outcome) and ended up getting evicted. so, i lost pretty badly, right?

well, it must have cost her at least five thousand dollars to evict me - plus whatever money flowed around under the table (i'm pretty sure some did.). added up, i may have spent $20 on printing costs. maybe. and, any money i would have "won" would have had to be returned to disability. i lost a plum spot, but i didn't lose any money on the move. further, it did become clear over time that she wanted me out, regardless - there wasn't anything i could have done to reverse the situation. even if i had won the case, she would have kept trying to get me out. i was fighting it on the hope that she was planning to sell..

i was clear in all of my communications with her that the purpose of the fines was to act as a disincentive for the continuing harassment, not as a means for me to make money from the situation. i even offered to donate the money to charity, at one point. what i wanted was for the harassment to stop. so, i was actually using the money as leverage - i didn't expect to ever see it. and, the other option was to just sit there and let them harass me, which was unacceptable...

but, the reality is that i didn't incur any losses, so i didn't have any grounds for action.

this is a different scenario. i might not be able to keep rent money, but i should be able to keep damages, and i should be able to apply moving costs. so, this case is worth fighting, and i intend to follow through one way or another.

so, i've got the facebook part of this updated now, and it shouldn't have taken nearly that long, but i was occupied by other things, too.

the next task will be to copy the rest of the music vlog into the master document.

i'm getting there.

really.

it's just the industrial reserve army.

https://monthlyreview.org/2017/02/01/marx-on-immigration/

listen.

there is a long history of writers with engineering degrees, isn't there?

maybe you might think of me as just another writer that gave up on the world, but i think of myself as the musician in the list.

i'm not exaggerating.

it's 75% As, 20% Ds and 5% Bs and Cs.

i'm your typical floater/dreamer artist - over-educated in philosophy, but disinterested in financial aspirations, and really focused solely on my art at the expense of anything and everything else.

facebook wants to know my education history. did somebody ask?

i went to carleton university, off and on, from 2000-2013. i was at various times enrolled in math-physics, mathematics, gender studies, music, english, computer science & law. i consequently have several undeclared minors, as well as an undeclared masters in mathematics, in addition to my b. mathematics (honours) (2006).

in hindsight, i would characterize my time in the math department as a large survey of the field. i did not walk out with any useful specialization, or any particular interest in developing one. i went back to study computer science because i learned that a math degree was really not very useful, and then walked out a half credit short after deciding that i just didn't want to work in the field. it's something that happens - you get to the end of a degree, and just don't want to do it any more. i got done three years of law in the process, and walked away for similar reasons. i had ambitions to fight the bastards, and just realized that the system is hopelessly rigged.

if i was born rich, i might have stayed in law, but you can't fight the good fight on that level when you're born poor.

through it all, my heart was always in music. i eventually made a choice to stop caring about bullshit and just follow my heart.

my gpa is in the B+/A- range, but it's an average of very good marks and very bad marks, rather than a lot of Bs. i tended to either ace courses or flunk them outright, and that's a story that will come out in the alter-reality.

it's an important historical question: why are we so rich, when they're so poor?

and how can we fix that?

i mean, what do we want, here?

do we want to end up more like them by importing their problems?

or do we want to help them become more like us?

it's hardly colonialism, when we're talking about what are, after all, spanish and portugese colonies - and the legacies of them. we should be looking at commonalities and asking what wrong there that went right here. but, i think we should separate our criticism of colonialism from our criticism of the methods colonialism used during less enlightened periods, too.

nafta was supposedly intended to improve the mexican economy; educated people know better than to pretend this is true.

but, i would rather see resources put into fixing the situation in latin america - a good neighbour policy - than open borders to accept refugees fleeing the catastrophe that america created there.

and, these countries are going to need these refugees to help them do that.

i've indicated that i would rather support humane detention, but are there exceptions where i would support release?

very limited ones.

but, i'm going to provide arguments that are very different than the ones you hear on the right.

i would want to see the following conditions set for release, to begin with:

- a released family must have existing family resources in the united states (or, as it may be, in canada - but our system is currently wide open). so, you can release an immigrant family to an existing family. i would not support releasing completely new families into the country. and, why not? the reason is that this reduces the supply of housing, thereby increasing the cost of rent, which puts real strains on working people and people that rely on assistance. in canada, it puts a strain on resources to provide subsidized housing. if you ask poverty advocates in the united states or canada, they will tell you that the system is strained as it is. but, if the family can find a way in that does not strain existing resources then that is potentially grounds for exception.

- a released family should not be allowed to work until or if it is granted status, and if they are found to be working while waiting then that should be grounds for immediate deportation. all costs should be shouldered by relatives. again: this is not what you're used to hearing. but, increasing the supply of labour (especially temporary or restricted labour) puts downward pressure on wages, which harms workers.

you're not going to hear these arguments from trump, but this is actually unfortunate, as i suspect it's what a number of people that voted for him actually want to hear from him.

and, you'll note that these arguments and conditions are specific to refugees, rather than immigrants, who are largely coming in with advanced degrees, job prospects and nest eggs.

it's the society that is sick.

i get it.

that said, i could look at it the other way, too - i should be excited if i can find a landlord with the foresight to advertise with sufficient notice.

it's june 22nd, and there are still listings coming up for july 1st.

and, i've been told by one property owner that if i want to apply for august 1st then they won't take my application until after july 1st. of course, they are requesting first & last.

so, what is the expectation, then? are they expecting to rent solely to people moving away from parents? from break-ups? from eviction notices?

or is this just a good example of the short-sightedness of capitalism & the self-destructiveness of accumulation?

i don't know, but i'm learning the lesson: by following the rules, i'm getting burned.

you'd think they'd stop making the same mistakes and begin to realize that if they want a good tenant then they should advertise a month ahead, but that's going to mean losing a month's rent - or taking a bad tenant to court. so, the bad tenants set the rules, and the property owners follow along, out of greed. what ought to be a way to determine a stable tenant from an unstable one gets abolished; the idea may have even been largely forgotten. the market here operates entirely on the last minute. people live week-to-week. tenants get evicted mid-month, and move in on random dates. it's complete anarchy in living arrangements...

allowing my landlord to hold last month's rent, then, puts me at a disadvantage, as i can't compete with people getting evicted, or students saving up deposits. or, not unless i take matters into my own hands.

it needs to be one way or the other: if we're going to have first & last, it ought to be enforced. and, if we're not going to enforce it, we ought to get rid of it.

i can't afford to give my landlord a $700 gift for negligence in maintaining the unit. sorry. so, i'm going to have to take a bold stand, and argue the point in court: in order to be a serious participant in the market, i need to reclaim my last month's rent deposit. otherwise, i'll be here forever.

i'd suggest that the landlord write her mpp a letter requesting stronger enforcement of this rule on the market. so long as i continue paying rent regularly, such an action should not affect my credit.

the air quality in here tonight was horrific, and i spent the evening sleeping as a result. i think i'm alert, now, and ready to get some work done over the quiet hours of the night & the morning.

claim: the english & american (and french, too) puritans of the sixteenth & seventeenth centuries, along with the jesuits and other fundamentalist christian groups, were every bit as barbaric as modern-day islamic jihadists, and should have been resisted by civilization using contemporaneously comparable methods.

or, you could make the claim the other way around - but i would not agree.

discuss.

but, when are we going to genetically engineer a bear-cat?

this is what the court orders were trying to shut down, and what trump's executive order is going to bring back.

mackenzie-king - A
st. laurent - B
diefenbaker - B
pearson - A
trudeau - A
mulroney - F
chretien - C
martin - F
harper - F
trudeau - D?

carter - F
ford - F
nixon - F
johnson - A
kennedy - C
eisenhower - D
truman - F
fdr - A

it's admittedly hard to weigh it, right now.

but, in absolute terms?

from a hard-left perspective, you could get more positive change out of trump than obama - even if you get deeper negatives, too.

or you might not.

hard to say, still...

reagan - F
bush - F
clinton - C
bush - F
obama - F
trump - D?

trump and obama have both been bad for the planet.

but, is trump worse than obama?

it's not obvious.

trump's climate policies appear to be worse than obama's, but i'm still waiting for him to start a war.  trump's economic policies are clearly worse, but there's still some chance he might get a daca answer through, where obama failed. he may fail to get rid of nafta, but at least he stopped the tpp. & etc.

what i'm saying is that i'm not willing to judge yet. but, i'm actually expecting trump to end up with one of the better ratings in the post-reagan era, when you balance everything out.

to be clear: this is a question of whether trump ends up with an F or a D. but, the only other president with a passing grade in most of our lifetimes is clinton...so, a D is actually pretty good, on the curve.

...as low as the standards have become.

it took a few hours to clear my sd card off. i'm clearly not going to make the july 1st deadline, but i am still vlogging.

i'm going to have to make some calls in the morning, but the non-response from my landlord regarding july's rent suggests to me that it isn't coming - which means i won't be able to move on july 1st, even if i find the perfect spot. but, it also means i might have to withhold rent, without a clear intent to move.

there is some possibility that i could convince somebody to let me sign a lease for august 1st on an empty unit, but it's not likely.

the way this is supposed to work is that you're supposed to sign a lease for the next month, and then use your last month's rent for it. that way, everybody has proper notice and can plan. but, this doesn't seem to be reality at all. the units on the market are either available immediately or for july 1st. i have every reason to think that i'm going to run into the same problem next month - meaning that, by being responsible and following the rules, i'm just going to get burned. i could even be in a situation where the unit sits empty because the landlord would rather gamble, and we all lose - stupid, sure, but that's capitalism for you.

so as long as i'm not staying here for free at any point, i think that, if the situation comes in front of a judge, i'll be able to win the argument. and, if i can't find anything for august, i may even be able to get away with keeping august's rent for moving costs, so long as the issue eventually comes up in court.

but, keeping july's rent means i'm going to have to fight the case on the 5th, unless i fax in a request to move it forward.

yeah...

i'll think this through properly for monday.

right now, i want to try and finish what i didn't finish yesterday.

how is the air quality in here? well, the pothead appears to have reappeared, unfortunately. i'm feeling tired and drained from it, it always hits you between the eyes, but i'm hoping i can blow it off for a few hours at least.

i'd like tonight to be an all-nighter, to get these loose ends tied up early in the morning and to sleep next in the afternoon. we'll see if i can struggle through the drugs and accomplish this or not.

when somebody says 'non-smoking', that means "no inhalation of combustible material in the form of smoke particles", namely:

- no smoking tobacco
- no smoking marijuana
- no smoking crack or cocaine
- no smoking crystal meth
- no smoking heroin
- no smoking sage
- no smoking oregano
- no smoking plastic
- no smoking rubber

no inhalation of burning things. period.

that was devastatingly disappointing.

i was expecting a female landlord; it turns out that was the actual landlord's mom, and the landlord is some jockish looking frat boy that works in construction or something. he lives downstairs.

the ad said no pets. they have a large dog on the ground floor, and one presumes that living there means dodging the dog on the way in, through the fenced yard. what no pets apparently means is "my dog does not play nice with others".

the ad said no smoking. but, this frat boy smells like a bong, and is clearly smoking pot in the kitchen below me. there are vents coming up from downstairs.

"when somebody says non-smoking, that doesn't mean pot."

it doesn't? in what universe?

so, i thought i was getting the top of a non-smoking, pet-free house with a nice, quiet older female living downstairs - and would instead be living on top of a pothead frat boy with a violent guard dog.

i would also gain the privilege of buying a washer & dryer.

no thanks. next.

back to the drawing board...

"i know you don't seem too hopped up, but it's after 6:00. and..yes....i know there's an after hours at the diner, but we follow the rules here."

well, it's either happy hour or tokes for tots, right?

i'd take a day care over a happy hour any day...

"it's 6:00 pm, kids. last call for soda, or your mom will kill me. i repeat: last call for soda."

why is having a kids night at the local club so crazy?

they have pizza. kids like pizza.
they have juice. kids like juice.
they have music. kids like music.
they have clowns, i mean regulars. err...

they have a big yard for kids to play in.

call it tokes for tots.

eh?

so, there's some liberals arguing that in order to end the separations of families (which is something i don't support as a broad principle - i support court ordered separation, when justified under precedent and afforded due process), they should stop detaining migrants altogether (which i don't support, either - i support humane detention as a deterrent).

this is an example of the kind of logical error that liberals - or, dumb hippies, more specifically - are constantly making, and that leftists and conservatives both have so much difficulty following.

this is a typical hippie-style argument.

1. x.
2. we want y to be true. (or, we believe in y).
3. as x is true, and we want y to be true, then, therefore, y.

and, they then demonstrate their argument by marching and dancing and singing, thereby showing you how genuinely they truly believe in y - as though that's supposed to create a deduction where none actually exists. 

from time to time, they actually have an argument, which some more intelligent leftist makes for them, and they then think their singing and dancing is actually convincing, so they keep doing it.

if they want to have a discussion about detaining migrants, that's fine. but, nobody is going to have that discussion in the context of policies around removing kids from detention - not the administration, not enforcement agencies and certainly not the courts.

that is a debate that needs to be had on it's own merits, whatever your views on the topic happen to be.

well, his reaction is missing the point, but the policy he's defending is correct - that kid needs to be taken out of detention and placed in proper care, not sent to sit in jail with it's parents.

...which is why the courts have made the orders, as they have: that kid should not be in any kind of detention at all. ever.

i can't understand how anybody could be so clueless and ignorant as to look at images of a disabled child crying as it's parents are being led to jail and conclude that the answer is to send the disabled child to jail with the parents.

that response to that situation is retarded. really.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/06/19/former-trump-staffer-corey-lewandowski-dismisses-story-of-immigrant-10-year-old-with-down-syndrome-taken-from-parents-with-wah-wah.html

of course doug ford is going to lay off public sector workers, and you're a fucking idiot if you believed him when he said he wouldn't.

the public sector is the largest employer in this province.

a hiring freeze will just hurt tax revenues, put a greater strain on social services and create greater competitive pressures in the private sector.

just out of school? good luck finding a job.

so, expect the unemplyment rate to shoot up, too - along with the deficit.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontarios-doug-ford-orders-hiring-freeze-for-public-servants/

again: anything that increases the supply of electricity will increase the price of electricity.

the system was designed specifically for this purpose; shutting this down is going to send electricity prices through the roof.

maybe you shouldn't have voted for somebody that didn't publish a platform?

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/06/20/ontario-set-to-hit-the-brakes-on-electric-vehicle-rebates.html

this is going to increase the supply of electricity, which will increase the rates.

you didn't vote for higher prices, did you?

well, you don't understand how the system works. that's the problem...

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/06/19/news/under-doug-ford-ontario-will-stop-putting-green-rebates-your-pockets

and, of course, i have every intent of smoking any pot that i do smoke well away from the house.

my habits will no doubt change a little, too.

i'm used to buying a large amount in mid december and smoking every day until early january. this is because i generally have not had easy access - i have to find it once and make it last from the solstice until my birthday (january 13th).

if i can just go to the store and buy a gram or two at a time, i'm more likely to space it out a little. instead of buying a quarter or more at one time and nursing through it, i'll be able to buy a gram for christmas, a gram for new year's and a gram for my birthday - which is half as much, overall, and should leave me with sober days, in between.

i'm not interested in just randomly getting stoned for no reason, and never have been.

i'm feeling like i need to spend the summer catching up for all the lost productivity over the last six months...like i need to go to summer school this year because i burned out last semester....

i have to admit that i wasn't expecting the senate to pass the pot bill before the next election.

am i celebrating? no. i don't smoke haphazardly, like that.

i'm going to be skipping my normal mid-year cave this year. it's just not where my head is; i just don't want to. at all.

so, if it's legal in october, i probably won't buy any until the end of december. and, after that, i probably won't buy any until the summer of 2019. because i really honestly only buy twice a year, on average.

the process of legalization in michigan is more interesting to me - because there's just not anything fun to go out and do, here.

i expect that the judiciary will probably double down; stare decisis doesn't have a mechanism to respond to memes on the internet.

they may specify that certain conditions are not acceptable, but they're not going to overturn the process, as it's being directed by a long legal precedent around the best interests of the child. you don't get to overturn precedent with an online poll....

in the mean time, expect them to just throw the kids in the holding cells with their parents, and for a lot of people to be deported with little process.

so, if you're a little slow, or brainwashed by (social) media, this is what happened today with the detention policy.

- there is a rule in the united states that says you can't hold kids in detention. because they're kids. and it's detention.
- this rule is expensive to enforce, and makes it harder to deport migrants by adding a layer of bureaucracy, around kids.
- so, the republicans (in apparent collusion with the democrats) cooked up this media campaign to make you feel bad for kids that had been separated from their parents, under court order, for their best interests.
- under manufactured popular pressure, the president relented, by signing an (illegal) executive order that ends the separation of kids at the border.

what's next?

what's next is that, free of the problems associated with caring for migrant children, the administration is going to push for quicker deportations. families will no longer be able to use their kids as a "loophole" to claim status - the whole family will be given the boot as quickly as possible, and likely without meaningful due process.

the purpose of this scam - which included pleas from both melania and ivanka - was to make it harder to claim refugee status in the united states.

liberals just got played. badly. worse than i've ever seen...

no new listings today.

well, there's one that i'm going to hold off on for now, and put aside - it's just a little too expensive.

i saw something this afternoon, and while i feel it was acceptable, i didn't really want to jump on it. it's going to be a lot easier for me if i plan a month ahead so that i can just use last month's, rather than have to write a letter to demand it. they want july. if the existing landlord writes me a check for last month, it should be an easy move; if she doesn't, it's going to be...let's use the word tight.

if i get this sorted out in time, i will plan to reactivate the court date, which is on the 5th - and that could get me a large settlement, or a larger win. could. if that doesn't work - or they just don't pay - it's going to be tight, for the rest of the summer. and, moving, itself may prove difficult.

the one i'm seeing tomorrow night is for august and that's a lot better, in terms of finances - it means i'll have an extra $1300 to plan around, and i'll know the outcome of the court date by the time i move.

on top of that, it was just a little further out of town than i'd like. and, while the unit is convincingly non-smoking, it's also off what is really a highway through the middle of the city. the fact that i went in rush hour reminded me of this. the one tomorrow is in a cul-de-sac, with a park around the corner...

i mean, i don't know what's going to happen tomorrow. and, i could miss an opportunity on the first spot - which is maybe what i even subconsciously want. do i really want this space? it would be that much easier if i could take it for august...

if i don't get this worked out by july 1st, i'll need to pay my rent, and flip the process over to planning for september. but the $700 i have in savings should increase to closer to $1100, which will make the process a little less tight if i have to do a quick move for august. if i do absolutely nothing at all, i should be able to put aside about $300/month, and $400/month on gst months. so, if this drags on a while, the process gets easier to afford.

and, if i lose an eviction case without compensation, i may just stop paying rent to try to mad dash it out, too.

the easy solution is to move into the place i'm seeing tomorrow night.

how's the smoke situation, here?

they've both disappeared, apparently. or maybe they both sept all day. we'll find out soon enough....

i got a few months done last night and hope to finish off the rest of it tonight.

so, this is what they actually wanted - it saves money.

you idiots....

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/20/17484546/executive-order-family-separation-flores-settlement-agreement-immigration

"i never said he couldn't have ice cream.

it was melania that said he couldn't have ice cream.

what i...no, listen...what i said is that he can have the best ice cream, the greatest ice cream...ice cream so cold it'll turn his socks blue....he'll just have to wait until tomorrow. that's all."

"this just in...

.....we have footage of barron crying, because dad said he couldn't have ice cream. democrats are motioning for impeachment."

fuck.

when vox is the voice of reason, we're losing our collective minds.

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/20/17485488/executive-order-immigration-trump-families-together

i'm going to hope that we're just not used to this internet thing yet and we'll wise up to it in a generation or two.

'cause if we don't....yikes...

i guarantee somebody has a story of hadrian crying when justin got up to go to the bathroom.

should he be forced to step down, or what?

but, understand that the equivalent policy, here, is taking the crying kid into the bathroom with you.

kids will cry and yell and scream when you go grocery shopping without them.

aversion to that can't be a basis of policy decisions, or a determinant of what's in their best interests.

you do realize that the result of trump's executive action is that they're going to send these kids to jail, now, rather than to foster care...

i guess it's a reflection of the time; this is what rule by social media looks like.

let's hope that the experts prevail over ignorance and emotion, in the end, and these kids aren't left to languish in prison with their parents.

i think the ndp has this backwards - we should be emulating the policies in the united states, to get more kids into foster homes instead of leaving them in detention.

our practices appear to be far worse than theirs.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4283134/canada-migrant-families-children-detention/

no, i'm not going to stand up for an outdated, patriarchal institution that i've spent my whole life arguing against.

i'm going to stand up for the rights of the child.

birth parents do not own their children, and do not have rights to raise them, or really any special authority over them at all. all of the rights in this situation belong to the child. and, the court needs to always have the rights of the child at the centre of it's decision making. policy should be written to accommodate this, not frustrate it.

the reality is that separation is in the best interests of the child in the vast majority of these situations.

but, i will repeat that i understand that this is not the reason underlying the policy, either.

is separating kids from their parents at the us-mexican border a terrible inhumane thing that should stop?

there may be some problems with the policy as it's being implemented, but they aren't related to the idea itself. so, if the question is whether i think it's fundamentally wrong to break up families, the answer is that i don't, because i'm not a conservative, and i don't recognize the primacy of hetero-patriarchy in ordering society from the top down: i will argue that there are plenty of scenarios where it is in the best interests of a child to separate it from it's family.

one example of that would be if their parents are so reckless as to drag them thousands of miles into a foreign country, across deserts, and dodging traffickers and other criminals, with little access to food or resources. that would easily meet the definition of negligence under our laws - and, because i'm not a conservative, i'm very much in favour of taking kids away from negligent parents. and, you need to understand that your ideological views on this point are not absolute, and people have every right to disagree with you on them.

that said, the purpose of taking the kids away should be to act in the children's best interests, and i recognize that this is not exactly what the united states is doing. rather, the separation policies are designed to act as a disincentive towards migration, and tend to end up as a warehousing process.

if the intent of a person or a family is to enter into a country as a refugee, these people should be detained at their point of entry until they can be fully processed, and either granted status or sent back the other way. but, that detainment should be humane, and when separation does happen, it should be court-ordered and subject to due process.

but, not only do i not condemn the practice outright, but i largely encourage it, as it is usually going to be in the best interests of the child to take them away from these reckless, homeless & jobless migrant parents and put them in more stable situations.

i know: i'm evil, right? well, i'm a godless leftist that wants to abolish the family structure altogether. that's indeed pretty evil - if you're a conservative. sure.

this is such a stupid narrative...

there is no such thing as "happiness". it's just a meaningless label that people put on things. again: this is basic marxism. if you can trick a slave into thinking she's happy, she'll tell you she is; meanwhile, the most free person in the world can get suicidal over existential dread.

there was a group of philosophers many years ago called verificationists that argued that statements that cannot be verified are completely meaningless. now, godel throws a wrench in this, granted. but, i remain of the opinion that "i am happy" and "i am unhappy" are equally meaningless statements, because there's no way to understand what they mean.

it is generally understood, however, that people that refer to themselves as "happy" tend to avoid drug use - and that people that use drugs tend to refer to themselves as "unhappy".

i'm not irritated due to a low happiness quotient. i'm pissed off because the drugs are making me physically ill, and less productive than i could be, otherwise. and, it's that lack of productivity that is making me frustrated.

i would be much happier if i could get a reliable intake of fresh air.

today was spent looking for apartments, and while i was largely disappointed, i think i've got a good lead for thursday night.

i'm hoping to finish the review section tonight.

so, why would trudeau support such a monstrous swindle as this?

well, he is a trust fund kid.

but, he governs on opinion polls, and opinion polls have consistently shown that canadians are indeed extremely confused about nafta, partly because the initial debate around it was so confusing.

the liberals tried to argue that they support free trade and oppose nafta (the correct position, fwiw), but the reality of the "free trade" part of nafta being an orwellian distraction never got through to canadians, who have always interpreted the north american "free trade" agreement as a free trade agreement - and believed that was a good idea. after all, it was designed as a legacy project for the elder trudeau, based on the reciprocity deals of his idol, laurier.

it's the liberal position on this that is consequently so disappointing. they came in with this list of demands that we haven't heard anything from since, while ignoring the parts of the deal they initially opposed - because they're morbidly afraid of getting lost in the same debate. but, they were right then, and now they have the data to prove it. instead, they're governing as conservatives, while paying lip service to ndp ideals.

people have accused the liberals of lacking principles for years. that is what their approach to this is really demonstrative of: they're more concerned about electoral politics than they are about good governance.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2018/06/18/should-canada-give-up-on-nafta-yes.html

i was hoping that that apartment was a few floors up, but it was essentially on ground level, and had easy access from the back door.

it was a little small, sure. but, the real issue is that i need something more secure than that. it's a shame, as the location was really ideal.

clock's ticking...

no new apartments up this weekend.

have a lead for something might really like, though.

remember: this is either going to the tenant board to get costs or going to the hrc to get costs. the tenant board should be a faster process...

as is always the case, this is taking a little longer than expected, but i've got the list updated from the time i moved to windsor until the time i started up the vlog, now.

what i was intending on doing was making sure the facebook page was properly archived, but i decided i had to update the concert reviews in order to comprehensively do that.

i'll be carrying through with this until i get up to 06/16 - so a little less than a year. then, i'll be keeping it up to date as i catch up.

anything before the move to windsor will come up in the alter-reality.

http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/index.html

i'm an anarchist, and virtually everything i listen to has a lineage in anarcho-punk.

so, aesthetically "punk" music celebrating being the boss strikes me as kind of shocking, whether it's coming from a confused point of capitalist fem-washing or not.

fuck bosses.

listen, i'm dealing with the same problem that every leftist in the world has dealt with.

i'll stand up and say:

"i'm not really opposed to gun control, exactly, but i understand that tighter restrictions on guns isn't going to undo the war economy or fix the culture of violence that leads to this madness..."

and, i know that all i'm going to get in return for articulating my well thought out points is howls of nra sympathizing (despite the reality that i've never even seen a gun before....) and accusations of pushing right-wing messaging, despite the fact being that i'm actually trying to push back against this moralizing christian progressivism with what is really marxism 101 - the social revolution must come first.

and, that's just one example.

leftists have never gotten along well with liberals or "progressives", so it's not like this is some kind of surprising turn of events. it would just be useful to everybody if you'd understand what direction my criticism is coming from, namely the left, so i'm not continually confusing or disappointing people.

and, that is the only outcome if you don't relent on the facts, here: you have to give up on this and accept them i'm on the far left. otherwise, i'm just going to disappoint conservatives and the alt-right over and over, and i'm just going to confuse all these fake liberals and pseudo-leftists when they figure out that i'm actually a good deal more radical than they are...

but i'm not going to teach you anything you couldn't learn in more traditional sources, except regarding how confused and muddled the spectrum currently is. i can teach a self-identifying liberal why they're actually a conservative, and why my arguments - which they find so horrific - are actually right out of marx. but, they could teach themselves this, as well, by bothering to read up on it.

at the end of the day, the labels are kind of trivial. if this group of "progressives" are actually conservatives, and they dislike my "right-wing" views because they're actually marxist, then cutting through the language doesn't undo the outcome: they still don't like me, at the end of the day. & that's fine.

but, it's maybe a call to the left to reclaim some spaces, then - which is at the crux of it what i'm actually really all about.

and, of course, the most boring thing in the world is...

having a paying job.

to hell with that.

sitting on a patio and drinking and talking about nothing? painfully fucking boring.

sitting in a field and smoking pot? deathly boring.

campfires? sing-alongs? dinner dates? watching movies? i'd rather be sentenced to torture.

give me purpose, or give me death.

no, you know what's boring?

what's boring is getting fucked up by yourself.


that's boring as fuck.

again: i've never been more than a sporadic, social type smoker - and my tolerance has always been very low.

there is no point in my life where that much pot of that intense strength would have done anything different than knock me out.

and, you can see why i'm so pissed off about the situation; i had better things to do today than sleep for 12.5 hours.

but, this is all under the assumption that nothing replaces any of it, which is not realistic.

trump is actually helping us out by attacking europe & japan, simultaneously - because they're going to be looking for new importers at the same time that we're looking for new export markets, and vice versa.

i'm not suggesting that it will be an easy process; there are certain to be layoffs and downturns in some sectors. but, all of the analysis on the topic for years has been in a vacuum, and that vacuum no longer exists.

the fear that we'd be cast out from the american trading system is inverting itself; it is rather america that is pulling itself out.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trade-war-recession-ramifications-1.4710096

the smoke started coming in around 3:00 this morning and knocked me right out. i've been sleeping ever since. 12 hours of sleep? it smells like pot, but it is affecting me like an opiate. second hand.

so, i lost the day - what will probably be the nicest day of the year. right when i was feeling clear-headed and detoxed, too. :(.

let's see if i can finish what i was doing before i get something to eat.

actually, i've been straight edge for almost three weeks (excluding coffee and drifting smoke) and i feel pretty good about it.

given the circumstances, i don't expect to go out much this summer, and might not go out at all; therefore, i expect to be sober pretty much from now until hallowe'en.

the reason chretien signed nafta in the first place - despite campaigning against it - was that he realized that a bad deal was better than no deal, and he was right, at the time - because the deal included mexico, and we couldn't be left out of it (they'd have taken everything from us).

now, we're talking about making an already very bad deal an even worse deal. and, it still might be right that making a very bad deal an even worse deal is still better than there being no deal, if that bad deal still includes mexico.

but, there comes a point where that doesn't hold any more and you have to say "enough".

i'd be leaning towards slippery slop arguments on this, and arguing that we can't let it continue to slide, negotiation over negotiation.

what we want is a bilateral deal, whether the prime minister understands it or not.

when we shut down the institutions - the "asylums" - it was partly under the argument that these people would be better off if taken care of by their families. you'll hear thatcherites talk about the responsibility of the family, but i don't think that idea would have gotten traction in canada if not for the underlying idea that it is their parents that can love and care for them the best. it was done in their perceived best interests...

i think that this conclusion needs to be revisited.

these kids are death sentences.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/whitecoat/i-can-t-continue-to-do-this-forever-families-with-children-aging-out-of-care-seek-answers-1.4707909

i'm just in favour of dogs being bred solely for cuteness & docile companionship.

so, everybody that wants a dog should have a golden retriever. goldens for all, even.

i'm not being remotely sarcastic. i don't at all understand why anybody would want this scary, dirty thing to have to deal with when you can have something cute & cuddly, instead. it's just irrational to me. really.

fwiw.

the marijuana issue over the last few days has been largely reduced to smell - partly because i've taken the proper steps to deal with it. as best i can. but, tonight i have a headache deep in my eye sockets, and i suspect it's related to the second-hand smoke.

i mean, if your idea of "having a life" is working a 9 hour night shift and then going home and smoking an ounce of pot during the daylight hours, or waking up at 6 am and drinking and chain smoking until you pass out at 8 pm, then that's a very sad reflection on yourself and a very sad reflection on society, as a whole.

these are people that do not have lives worth living at all, which is perhaps why they need to numb it with substance abuse. that's very sad and all.

but, i have every right to demand that their destructive habits don't affect my own life, or the ability to accomplish the goals and tasks i've set myself to accomplish within it.

so, i'm trying to stay awake and be productive in building my period discs, and my neighbours are sitting around getting shitfaced and blowing all kinds of smoke at me, and i'm the one that needs to get a life.

right.

typical.

generally, you tell drug addicts to get a life, not people complaining about drug addicts affecting their quality of life - because i have a life to be concerned about the quality of, and they apparently don't.

that's the whole point.

not only did wynne not pick up increasingly sparse red tory support, but she lost her own base trying to do it.

if there's a broader structural lesson from the election, it may be that it's the evaporation of the clark swing. this was something that was easy to see coming, eventually.

...which means that liberals should stop trying to appeal to "progressive conservatives"; they no longer exist.

see, it's a catch-22.

to begin with, i'm never sure if they see axl rose or kurt cobain - or if that's even just exposing a generation gap, and they think i'm like ariel pink or something.

regardless, all of these options are terrible. when i identify as female, i actually mean it. and, if you ask around, you'll realize people eventually figure that out the hard way.

so, in trying to express myself as who i feel i am, people end up horribly misinterpreting me as something that i'm not. and, to an extent this ought to be easy to understand - a youngish woman that works in a library perhaps has a similar wardrobe to a male rockstar from the 90s, doesn't she?

- we both wear skate shoes.
- we both wear the same kinds of blue jeans
- we both wear snugly fitting tshirts
- we both have about the same haircut

so, you can take this costume and put it on a guy and get a rockstar, then take it off and put it on a female and get a librarian's assistant. a little bit of make-up just confuses the point further. when explained in this way, the confusion is maybe easier to understand: i'm trying to present myself as a bookish female, but i get badly misinterpreted as some nihilistic sex symbol anachronism, instead.

and, to the extent that i have a guy side? well, we're all bi-gendered in some sense; gender is a spectrum, so your average cis-female ends up something like 20% male. but, to the extent that the guy side exists, it's the exact opposite of that - it's neither kurt cobain nor axl rose but somewhere between michael stipe and ian mackaye, in that i'm not quite straight edge but i'm pretty white bread and overly nerdy. if i were to ever develop an interest in exploring my male side, the first thing i'd do is shave my head.

so, it's like - you can accuse me of false advertising if you really insist, but you're kind of missing the point.

it would just be nice if my day-to-day interactions with women weren't consistently so hyper-sexualized. that's what i'm complaining about. and, to an extent, avoiding that is the whole point of transitioning.

so, i went to see something today.

the girl next door seemed to want me to move in, although i suspect she drastically underestimated my age. i've been female-identifying for fifteen years, and i can't even go grocery shopping without getting fawned over by women that i can't tell are even of age or not. it's distressing.

the place wasn't close to being acceptable, though.

"So, if this president insists on punching you in the nose and eating your lunch, why would you continue to pretend he's still a great neighbor (sic) and go over to his place to spend your time and money?" 

because you're not buying anything from donald trump directly, who is horribly unpopular as it is.

we can't fall into this nonsense - we need to stand in solidarity with each other, not be manipulated into competing with each other.

i have no interest in boycotting american goods, or falling into any kind of jingoist narrative at all.

sorry.

that's a small step backwards for humanity, and a giant step backwards for canada.

"so, i said some things. you said some things, too. but those are just things that we said. we all say things.

you know, i had some objections against nafta, too...."

send chretien!

he's by far the closest analogue; they'll get along fine.

send douggy to the cottage for the summer.

i'm starting to think that the really disastrous handover of power here is in the desmarais bloodline.

whomever is the kingpin behind the scenes right now is making very stupid decisions, one after another. there needs to be a revolt right now at the very top.

can we please keep doug ford as far away from the trade negotiations as is possible?

look how they talked down to chris christie. they're going to treat him like the entitled fat idiot that he is.

he's a walking disaster.

i think they said 10 years last year.

that would be 9 years, now.

but, things may have happened, since, too. rents are back down a little, and i'm interpreting that as the influx of refugees moving further west.

could i stall here long enough to get into subsidized housing?

i doubt it.

but, i should call them in the morning to update the address, as it is. forgot to do that. i wonder if they can tell me what the eta is...

the waiting lists for subsidized housing are upwards of ten years, which is leaving people like myself in the situation of needing to pay market rent on a disability pension - which costs everybody a lot of money in the end.

hopefully, the new units are built to address second-hand smoking, given that it's understood that smoking and mental illness go together, and these buildings will need to accommodate those with mental illnesses as well as those with physical illnesses. it's not like this is an engineering challenge nowadays, it's just that so many of the buildings are so old....

it's going to be a while before this has any effect on me. and, i'm not happy about dilbert being the middleman, at city hall. if there's a body that will squander the funding, it's the windsor city hall.

but, it's long overdue and it's nice to see some action on it.

https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/news/2018/06/reaching-home-canadas-homelessness-strategy.html

hey, i don't know exactly where my genes are from, but it's from somewhere warm (southern italy? israel? africa?), and it's not my fault i ended up born here.

finally.

it's been years since we got some gorgeous weather like this.

and, i'm letting it all in the apartment, and not getting up until tuesday.

....& the thing about bmsr is that it would be nice to hear them live up to some of the potential they're hinting at, but never do. all you ever get from them are these boring little pop songs. when will they take the next level of abstraction and do something interesting with the form they're playing with?

in a different circumstance, i may have gone to see the stargazer lillies and stayed for the headliners. but, i shouldn't be wasting cash, right now.

but, i mean it wasn't...

sometimes, i try to grapple with a trend and, in the end, walk away from it just concluding it's not for me - i give it a fair hearing and rule against it sort of thing. but i actually do listen to it before i trash it.

i never gave that garage rock movement that existed at the time a second listen; i had about as much interest in the strokes as i had in calypso music.

it was just completely out of my sphere of interest. 

i actually don't think i've ever bothered listening to a strokes record all the way through.

i had friends into that scene, but i always thought it was stupid and avoided it pretty strenuously, from the start. there's really nothing that came out of it that i ever liked at all.

i may even go so far as to say that my reaction to it at the time was something along the lines of interpreting at as the final death blow to rock music as an art form - and, in hindsight, i may have been right.

there's just nothing going on but empty retro regurgitation - it's literally indiscernible from what it's copying. meaning it's the reduction of the form to a parody, a novel act.

and, i suppose that doesn't matter much to you if it's what you've always known, right? but it was actually really frustrating to see the media pushing this empty trash, after experiencing the high points of 90s art rock, which was actually relatively popular.

i spent the early 00s listening to post-rock.

the combination of heavy tariffs and a decreasing money supply could create a depression, rather than a recession.

they stopped printing money.

it's really as simple as that: the american economy grows when the feds print money, and it shrinks when they stop printing money. so, if you want growth, you must print money - and there is no outcome but recession if you don't.

the markets are actually being really stupid right now, because investors tend not to live in reality. but, the money is drying up...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-14/financials-etf-bleeds-cash-as-yield-curve-goes-flat-etf-watch

ok.

so, i know how i'm doing this: i believe in the right to fresh air, and that second-hand smoke causes cancer, so the management is discriminating against me based on creed by not accommodating for those beliefs.

but, what i'm going to ask for in restitution (basically, every cent i've paid in rent) overlaps with the tenant application i've suspended - for now. if i go through with that, and i'm awarded rent (which i did ask for), i'll be awarded damages twice - which they don't allow, for good reason. what that means is that i can't really file this until july 1st at the earliest.

if this somehow works out and i sign a lease for august 1st before july 1st, i'll need to reopen the tenant board case and put the human rights case on hold. i'd expect the judge to reschedule the hearing, and that's ok. i just don't want to double-dip.

if i'm sitting here on july 1st without a lease for august 1st, i'll mail the application before i pay my rent.

that means i've got a few weeks of work ahead of me, hopefully.

i'm willing to argue in court that atheism, science & secular humanism all fit the definition of a creed, as laid out here.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-based-creed/4-creed

the ohrc does not appear to be legislated to determine analogous grounds - it needs to interpret existing law, not write new law. the landlord & tenant board has the same mandate.

i'm going to have to derive my own grounds from enumerated ones, then.

if i feel like i'm being discriminated against due to being a non-smoker, what is that? i guess, using the logic of the people doing the discriminating, the reason i'm being treated differently is that i don't belong to their club - for that is how they see it, they see pot smokers as belonging to a club, and non-smokers as being outside of it.

i consider this absurd, and always have - potheads are the losers that think they're cool, but everybody else knows are losers. the actual cool kids just walk by and shake their heads and snicker. and, i've always approached smoking marijuana as doing something that was very deeply uncool, to the point of being a celebration of being outcast. but, one of the points i'm going to have to make in these hearings is that smoking pot isn't binary - it's not like you smoke every day or you don't smoke at all. most people that smoke, smoke infrequently; it's this idea of daily use that is unusual, and frankly deeply uncool. but, the building is full of habitual smokers (including management, apparently), and i'm not in their club, so i don't get equal treatment.

so, this seems to be the basis of the differentiation in treatment - i don't smoke every day (or even every month), so i'm not in their club, so i'm not cool, so i don't deserve equal treatment.

i don't want to be in their club, either. and, that would be because i don't have the same beliefs that they do. they seem to believe that smoking pot makes you cool, and they seem to believe that habitual pot use is not detrimental to your health, either - both beliefs that are not shared by the club i'm in, which is the club of atheistic & scientific secular humanists.

in my club, we believe in human rights - such as the right to fresh air. we also believe in the science that tells us that smoking is harmful to our health - both in the short term and also in the long term. by not accommodating these beliefs, the management is consequently discriminating against my creed of atheistic & scientific secular humanism.

so, that's what we're going to claim here: discrimination on grounds of disability regarding my bronchitis as well as discrimination against my belief in science & my belief in human rights.

i was diagnosed with chronic bronchitis from exposure to second-hand smoke when i was very young, and it has in fact acted as a trigger for many, many years.

i've periodically needed a puffer.

now, i haven't been triggered as badly as i could be, but it's because i've taken so many steps to deal with the issue - steps i've been demanded to stop, and eventually threatened with eviction over.

but, the actual grounds i'm being discriminated against is on not smoking. i am being treated differently, and the reason is that i don't smoke. rather than have my concerns addressed, i've been asked to leave. so, i really want to find an analogous ground argument...

afaik, all of the existing precedent for this is in british columbia, so this is going to be pushing new legal ground in ontario. call me the trailblazer, here - the pioneer.

i was hoping to get this done tonight, but spent hours dealing with a termite swarm. it's at least mostly stopped since i closed one of the six windows in this place, which they seemed to begetting in through - and w which there are now dozens of dead termites on.

i'd never seen this before, but apparently they fly into the lightbulbs, where they procreate, and their wings fall off. i've killed a handful of queens in here since i moved in, but i thought they were ants....they're termites....

*shrug*

i'll sleep on this and see if i can scheme something up in the morning. because i want to make the point clearer: they are discriminating against me because i don't smoke, and specifically because i don't smoke marijuana.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B79Yz_e6a6XNc3MyektfeGptWlE/edit

i actually think this is the right way to approach both of these problems.

*applauds*.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/10-patients-safely-receive-hepatitis-c-infected-lungs-in-new-clinical-trial-1.3972398

i'm still expecting this to be dragged on until it dies.

at some point, the government will need to prorogue. wait for it.

they may be intending to blame it on the conservatives and run on it in 2019. but, remember - it was trudeau that set up this sham of a senate, in the first place.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-accept-most-not-all-senate-amendments-to-marijuana-bill-1.3971400

i've always preferred montreal - and, now, it seems, detroit.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/jul/04/new-toronto-most-fascinatingly-boring-city-guardian-canada-week

"outside things" are boring...

i mean, i don't go outside in the winter, either.

because i don't like going outside.

at all.

how about staying inside and opening the windows to let the humidity in, while you lay in bed and read or listen to music?

you don't have to go outside to enjoy summer; you can let summer in the house, too.