and, so, we see the outcome of our religiously organized technocratic colonial outpost in the desert, our hopes for the modernization of the region through the proxy of western influence, here:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42507968

the jews are going to destroy themselves, anyways, just wait it out. they always do. this religion of theirs is absolutely toxic. it puts useful bounds around their ambitions, but they're never a moment's away from absolute collapse into brutal theocracy. when it comes, they will squander their advantages - the technology will rot, and the people will be at these crumbling walls, howling for it to stop. 

the turks don't still do this kind of thing, do they?

this saudi created mess in the middle east may end up with what the saudis really wanted, which was political maps redrawn to demonstrate actual influence. but, the map they imagined wasn't representative of actual influence. and, the map may be redrawn quite counter to their influences.

we're losing turkey at the worst time, right when the historic eastern mediterranean superstate is beginning to reconstruct itself. that was an alliance that the west should have tended closer to. but, i've written a few rants about the turks, and their rejection from europe really forces them to look to their southeast for cultural integration. europe is forcing turkey back into it's days of empire.

the existence of such an east mediterannean superstate is the historical norm. the phoenicians and greeks were initially very different people, but they were united under the control of the persian empire, and the eastern coast then hellenized rather willingly under the influence of alexander's descendants. from this point on, this region took on a fundamentally greek identity, including with the adoption of christianity, which is part of what allowed it to gain independence in the partition of the roman empire, as a greek state. this superstate was split into two by the advancing arab armies, not to be effectively reunited again until the turks recreated it in the form of the ottoman empire.

the saudis clearly had intended to dominate this region with religious warlords that were subservient to their commands, with no foresight as to the eventuality of revolt from such actors. but, they've been prevented from doing this by a coalition of russians and turks, operating in syria. they are going to get to redraw these maps, that do truly need to be redrawn.

the one thing that i want to add to this is that one of those upper level atmospheric effects that determines the location and duration of an outbreak of the polar vortex is how much sunlight is reaching the earth's surface. the current theory of ice ages, which is still young and will no doubt be much revised, argues that fluctuations in the earth's and sun's orbits can trigger the onset of ice ages. certainly, milder and hopefully less permanent fluctuations in the sun's strength are a dominant cause of the weather we experience in the populated regions of canada.

the weak solar cycle is almost certainly the dominant cause of the prolonged periods of exaggerated winter cold that we're receiving, even as the average temperatures keep climbing up.

here's an interesting idea: is there some force that would come and plunge us into an ice age, right when we're flooding the atmosphere with carbon? if you could imagine it: a higher consciousness in the universe, unleashing the cold almost as a means of self-defence. i admit i like the idea of planets as anthropomorphized objects; the ancients got that right. but, is the sun operating in conjunction with the other bodies, or is it a conspiracy of one? is this a universal force, or many forces in conflict? it's just a thought - imaginary. but, interesting, if you could conceptualize it. but, i want to think of it like running hot feet under cold water.

we can still have some hot summers here. maybe. but these cold winters seem like the norm, until the sun warms up.

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/polar-vortex-demystified-bitter-cold-next-week-in-canada/75743/

i've actually long been swayed by the hypothesis that religion, as we understand it, is basically an elaborately distorted ufo cult. these stories of contacts with ancient beings in the sky may have an empirical basis, if you allow for contact with extra-terrestrial life. well, it's a naturalistic explanation, is it not? the sky is at the core of so much religion...

i don't claim to be able to rigorously demonstrate this, but i think it's probably actually true, nonetheless. it's kind of unfalsifiable, right? but that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong - i'm post-godel, i'm sorry, it really doesn't. errr. bzzzztt. wrong.

it's certainly less convincing if it's unfalsifiable, i'll grant you that - it's not science. it's speculation. but, it might be science one day.

so, i don't find claims of entities in the sky to be particularly absurd or hard to believe - they've happened all throughout history, have they not?

i said all along that the way to beat the travel ban is to argue that it's ineffective in it's stated purpose, not that it discriminates due to religion. the president gets a lot of discretion; you have to basically prove he's acting irrationally, and so you must do so by taking his claim of needing the ban for national security seriously and then proceed to demonstrate that the ban does not in any way actually do this. they went after him with the wrong legal tactic last time and ultimately lost; this time, they're doing this right and should win.

they could stop the wall that way, too. again: if you want to challenge the president in court, you have to take what he says seriously to start off with. so, the wall is intended to stop migrants from entering without prior approval. a strong legal case can be made that this will not actually work, that it is in truth simply an irrational policy. the law can be struck down on review if you win this case. i'm not sure who gets standing in such a case, though.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-travel-ban-partially-lifted-1.4464042

if we're going to leave this up to government, the government has to listen.

cbd levels on the marketing is certainly a good idea. some consumers will seek higher cbd levels for medicinal reasons, while seeking to minimize thc levels. it's rarely going to work the other way. so, this is a request from concerned citizens that is absolutely reasonable, and that i dare suggest a market mechanism would more effectively generate. if government is going to control this, it needs to make the extra efforts to be responsive to reasonable requests.

the way they're planning on selling it strikes me as some kind of surreal joke, as though these policy makers determined their concept of the marijuana industry from gangster rap videos. one government representative suggested it would look something like a jewellery store. gotta protect tha bling. and, they're going to pat you down like you're buying from the mafia, or some mexican drug cartel. who is it that often compared the government to the mafia? again, it's like they got their concept of buying from hollywood films.

it's strange how fiction may actually create reality, in this context. well, how would these bureaucrats know any better, really? they have no first hand information, no empirical basis to draw deductions from. all they have is the depiction that is handed to them. and, this depiction is ubiquitous - it is across the spectrum of hollywood. it is not in independent films, but these bureaucrats can't be bothered with those, either. when fiction becomes ubiquitous like this, and government controls the commerce associated with it, the propaganda cannot not become reality. so, the government will create what it understands: an experience like going to see a kingpin.

it's crazy. of course.

they have to listen better. that's how to interact on an empirical basis, in context. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/patty-hajdu-pot-regulation-1.4461879

so, what am i doing this weekend?

well, i've got four days of cheap electricity, so i can work at a normal pace. i don't know what my electrical costs are going to be in this unit. i know that i'll get a credit applied eventually, but the process appears to be cumbersome and inefficient, so i don't know when. i tried to get them the information for mid-november, but they're telling me i need to wait two cycles, and not providing a coherent answer as to why. i got the thing escalated, at least. i don't know when to expect a response.

but, i'm conserving electricity in the mean time. my first bill should not be high, at least. the major cost is the fridge. i don't know after that. i need to get data before i can react to it.

i'm probably going to get some solar lamps and put them in the windows, then never turn the lights on. i have five giant windows in this apartment, six including the one in the bathroom. i really don't need lights at all. i'm going to need to check costs and crunch numbers to see if it makes sense, but it no doubt does. if they're around $20 each, it will make sense immediately. if they get to more than that i'll need to see...

i'm also considering getting a ups and using it as a battery, but that's going to again be determined by how much it costs and what my actual electrical costs end up being. what i could do with this is suck down electricity over night for use in the day, ensuring that i'm only paying off peak costs (except for the fridge and the cable modem), and i'm able to operate at will with the electrical.

the other thing i'm considering is just getting some solar panels and hooking them up to a battery. this would be intended for extraneous usage, like extra guitar effects or synthesizers. i'm just going to need to get an understanding of base usage, first.

the way this works is that they calculate the bill - and i have to pay something like $25/month just to use it - and then subtract $68 from the end of it. so, i'll get something like $40/month for free once it's set up. i actually don't expect my base usage to exceed this: fridge, other kitchen appliances, computers, tv, etc. but, if i decide that i want to spend all night every night for a month recording guitar parts through five processors, that's when it starts to add up - and where a solar source could be useful. like i say, i have these huge windows. but, i don't know where the technology is, and i don't know if i'll really need it.

see, the credit is cumulative. so, if it comes in at less than $68, i can transfer what's left to the next month. i don't actually expect this to be uncommon, especially if i get the solar lights up. that will mean i could see myself building credits - and that i can use those for my recording spurts.

right now, i really have no idea at all how this is going to play out.

but, i'm going to pick up where i left off, which is at compiling the blu-ray disc. i'm going to use it as an opportunity to double check all of the liner notes. that should be a day or two, at least...

hi.

so, the internet was hooked up late on the afternoon of the 21st. i
trust that the proper pro-rations will apply. i think this ought to be
straight forward. and, i'm happy to be back online and have things
back to normal.

but, i can't help but feel that a great deal of my time was wasted.

listen: i'm a highly patient individual and i'm highly adaptive to
situations. i could have and would have waited patiently until the
21st with nary a second thought, if that was the required action. and,
i would have been happy to see the tech when he finally arrived. but,
that's not what happened.

i called in in november to move the services and was told that they
could schedule me on the 1st of december, but it's often busy so if
they don't show up then i should wait on the 4th. so, i waited all day
on the 1st and all day on the 4th - a total of 18 hours. it later came
to my attention that cogeco had already informed your agent that they
would not be coming, but nobody relayed that information to me. so,
this 18 hours of waiting was preventable, and could have been
prevented by contacting me.

and, i would have been eminently reasonable had i been contacted and
asked to wait, as well.

a second install date was eventually arranged on the 12th. i expressed
repeatedly that i needed a technician to come in and crimp the ends
(the final process took mere minutes) and was told on the day before
the install that a technician would be there to do this. i waited
another 9 hours and did not see a tech, and was later told that none
was scheduled - that what was scheduled was a 'no truck' install, and
that a technician had indeed come, fiddled with the box and then left.
this was again preventable.

i was then told that the agent responsible for these lost 27 hours was
let go. i hope she finds a job that better suits her talents.

i could say something about my time being worth a dollar amount, and
attempt to charge you at a reasonable wage - at $10/hr (after taxes),
that would amount to $270, which would be nearly ten months of
service. but, i can see that this is too much.

i think that a more reasonable suggestion is to look at the three days
that were lost as events requiring some form of compensation, and i do
hope that i am effectively projecting that i aim to be reasonable. had
the cogeco agents not shown up due to any unforeseen event, from a
family emergency to an act of god, i could cite the fact of a
stochastic universe and wave it away as bad luck. but, your agents
were sitting on the correct information all three times.

there was no reason for me to wait on any of these days, as your
agents should have told me that nobody was scheduled.

my proposal is therefore this: that if each day spent waiting is a
separate event to require compensation, and i only purchase one thing
from you, then it follows that i ought to get three of the things that
i bought from you, which would work out to three months credit.

i live in a building with twenty other tenants, and they all saw me
sitting there for four days in december. i'm an honest person. and,
your self-interest is ultimately in damage control.

j

so, what happened to me?

well, i moved on the 1st, and my isp couldn't or wouldn't connect me until the 21st. i spent four full days waiting in my lobby before it got resolved. i spent a lot of days accomplishing little besides yelling at people on the phone. and, all i've really done besides that is clean in here and set the place up.

i can at least report that i've done a lot of thinking about what's going to happen, next.

i have a few remaining things to finish for period 2. it should be in a few days, i hope. then, i have to catch up on the alter-reality, and i'm aiming for a jan 13th date on that - we'll see. right now, i'm not expecting to upload any vlogs until july 1st, and i'm expecting the stagger to be a year, but i'm purposefully prioritizing this as least important, because it actually is. i need to get caught up in everything else, first, then fix that laptop, then get the vlogs edited...

so, i'm kind of just picking up where i left off.

the one thing i was following was this franken bit...

i tried to make the point clear enough, but let me repeat it: what happened to al franken has nothing to do with....what are they calling it? "sexual misconduct"? it's basically an accusation of deviance, or subversion , or something. "corrupting the youth". but, that's not what happened to al franken. what happened to al franken is that he ran his mouth off in the senate, and the bastards took him down for speaking truth to power. al franken was purged. and, the democrats didn't even give him the disrespect of putting him through an unfair mock trial.

so, yes: what the democrats did to al franken is truly a disgrace, but i'm not remotely surprised, because the democrats have always been the conservative party. i'm not sure if i explicitly predicted it, but i got pretty close; i predicted the resignation, at least.

what gets me about it is that the democrats then have the audacity to stand up and promote their behaviour as upholding a system of values. it is a system of values, i suppose, but it's a system of puritanical, right-wing and conservative values; these are not my values. i am a liberal. my values are not the fire and brimstone of retributive justice, but due process of law and the presumption of innocence. again: i'm not surprised that the democrats are not upholding my values, but i am a little surprised to see them upheld by right-wing demagogues that i don't usually have anything in common with.

but, i've been over this in this space. the democrats are and always have been the conservative party in the american political system. the republicans used to be the liberal party, but have become some kind of post-truth nihilist catastrophe. this has left a small number of liberals scattered across either party, and american liberals in a hopeless state of utter disenfranchisement. and, despite telling me what i want to hear, i know that the likes of tucker carlson are ultimately just disingenuously pushing buttons.

but, we can have this discussion of values, if you want, sure. i look at what the democrats did to al franken, and i see a conservative party obsessed with retribution that does not at all represent my values. then, i looked at the roy moore situation, and i see a liberal republican party that is willing to hold to the presumption of innocence in even the most extreme scenarios. i think roy moore probably deserves to be punished, and al fanken certainly doesn't - granted. but, it is the republicans that better reflect my liberal values, here - and the democrats that do not.

and, while it is true that the democrats were always the conservative party, they may want to think this through a little more carefully.

i expect the republicans to take al franken's seat and hold it for at least a generation.

deathtokoalas

the only solution is a massive, manhatten project style government-led initiative, and the state needs to print the money to do it.

(deleted response)

deathtokoalas

i don't care about the debt.

nov 9-10, 2017 vlog, where i get a new apartment and follow through on serving the old landlord.

this is the vlog for nov 8, 2017, where i go to lasalle to serve my landlord, run into problems with my bicycle on the way there and don't actually get back until the next morning.

there are a couple of static entries. it is possible that i may have thought the device was running when it wasn't, but i find the situation curious, yet again. the first static entry - 1354 - was recorded walking between grand marais and cabana, through what was a school yard. i didn't know where i was or what i was walking into, and the commentary was actually somewhat comical. i am disappointed in not having that recorded, whatever the reason. the second static entry - 1356 - was recorded at the intersection of cabana & the 401, and i was trying to figure the area out. i had not yet been to this part of windsor.

again - i don't know what happened, but it is at least consistent with the idea that i did not turn the camera on before i started talking into it, turned the camera on when i stopped talking, pulled it up to look at it and turned it off. i might have done that if i wasn't paying attention.

the other explanation is that somebody deleted the files.

i also have a clear recollection of filming quite a few more segments than appear and these segments would certainly appear to have been deleted at some point. again: i don't believe they would be recoverable at this point, and that's disappointing to me.

this is the vlog for nov 3-5, where i close inri057, go to see lee renaldo in detroit and don't get home until the next morning.

that was brutal.

everything else aside, the wide open window access at the fire escape made the place a non-starter. i need a safe space for my gear. that wasn't it.

and, my throat hurt just walking out of there.

at $725 + hydro, it's just a joke. $2000/month after taxes is the income of a young professional. that unit is more likely to appeal to a single mother on welfare. but, it would need to be brought up to code, first.

i've got lots of stuff planned for this week. hopefully, i find something. that simply wasn't acceptable.

so, what's my ideal unit?

1) i want it to be within walking distance from the tunnel. that's my singular concern regarding location. it can be in any direction, just not much further than i am now. so, that rules out anything east of walker road and anything west of huron church - and anything south of tecumseh. they're going to eventually build a bridge, but who knows when, and it's only valuable to me if i can bicycle over, at which point the city will open right up. if they don't allow bicycle access over the bridge, i'm going to need to continue using the tunnel, anyways, so it won't matter. we'll see if it even gets built. but, i'm going to start caring less in the next 5-10 years, too.

2) there should be a rule saying that you can't enter the building unless you're over 30.

3) no pets. and, the building should be pro-active in trapping strays.

4) no smoking inside or around the building. a designated smoking area should exist at the very distant end of the property.

5) no religious people allowed in the building. not even to visit.

6) i'd like to be on the third or fourth floor, facing away from the road.

7) 550+ square feet. 

8) 650 all inclusive or 600 + hydro.

i know that it's hard for extroverted people to understand, but social anxiety means the following:

1) i can't work.
2) i can't live with other people.
3) i don't have any friends,
4) i don't have any references.
5) i don't want to work, to live with others, to meet friends or to gain references. what i want is some place quiet where i can spend my time alone without other people bothering me.

but, it means i have an extra layer of complexity involved in this - and that i'm simply not well suited to get past it.

i'm going to have to find somebody willing to take a chance. not because i'm a risk - i'm not - but because i don't how to prove that i'm not.

and, the necessity of the appeal is that much more obvious.

i might get lucky tomorrow night. but, i have an irrational firm standing between me and what looks like an almost perfect unit. if that doesn't pan out, looking at the market, i'd guess it's probably going to take me upwards of six months to a year to find something.

i didn't create this problem.

also, just to kind of get a point across...

it doesn't cost me anything to go to court.

and, nobody's ever going to collect on any damages, either.

i have better things to do, of course. but, this is of minimal risk to me...

my honest analysis is that the adjudicator - perhaps in both cases - appears to have been driven not by a correct interpretation of the law, but by some "higher" concept of "morality" (which i claim is bullshit), in concluding that my landlord ought to have the right to move her sick mother in.

but, ignoring the question of faith, the court should not be adjudicating morality. and, i'm not driven by higher callings or magical beings. that's a lot of nonsense. rather, i will insist that the law be upheld. 

i can be a little more specific.

the tenant alleges in the request for review that the application should have been dismissed pursuant to section 83 of the residential tenancies act, 2006.

this is incomplete - 83(3), precisely.

first, if the tenant did not raise the specific argument at the hearing, it should have and could have been and therefore is not properly considered on review (my emphasis). 

this is kind of a half-truth, as the adjudicator has specific responsibilities under s. 83. you don't get to get away with an error in law because nobody pointed it out before hand; it's still an error in law and still justifies a review. it's true that i can't change my argument in review. but, the law remains the law, regardless.

but, the conditional clause here is false, because i did raise the specific argument at the hearing, which is what i put up for review in the first place. and, i pointed this out in the review body in two different ways. short of presenting audio evidence from the trial - which i will need to do on appeal, apparently - there isn't anything more convincing that i could have done to demonstrate this. but, a request for review is just that. a verbal or written rebuttal of this sort should, in truth, be enough to get back in front of a judge; we then determine whether i did or did not raise the argument at this point by going over the evidence that was presented and by listening to the audio of the tapes. 

to claim that if i didn't raise the argument then the review is improper is an almost true statement, granted. but, that's the question we're trying to determine: it's what the review is meant to come to an answer on. i claim i did raise the argument. so, the reviewer is supposed to get us back in front of a judge to figure it out.

her formal argument is in the form of:

1. x ----> y  
2. y

i don't dispute (1). but deducing (2) is a logical error because x has not been demonstrated, which is what the review is supposed to determine.

so, she's assuming the result of the review, rather than conducting it. and, that's misconduct on her behalf.

second, in paragraphs 21 to 23 the hearing member specifically turns her mind to the issue of section 83 and provides a detailed analysis.

see, now the fact that she dropped 83(3) previously is important, as this is a red herring - the discussion in 21 to 23 was about 83(1).

the hearing member has a broad discretion in issuing her order.

in fact, she does not. the case law is quite explicit that the clauses in 83(3) require hard stops. if there is any evidence that the action is being brought in retaliation, the adjudicator must dismiss - and she does not have discretion in balancing or weighing other interests against it. this is the importance of the evidence i've cited, which was ignored. and, it's the importance of this member being selective in the way she wrote her denial.

this board member obviously did not listen to the audio of the trial. she's essentially arguing from a point of ignorance, and making the assumption that the ruling was correct. then, she's producing very shoddy arguments to try and get to that predetermined conclusion.

i have no choice but to appeal.

yeah, i got the denial in.

it was from a different member of the board that wasn't at the hearing. 

she actually doesn't even say that i didn't raise the matter - she says that if i didn't raise the matter, then i should have. but, i did raise the matter, and she has no way of knowing if i did or not, without checking the audio. a priori, if she is going to contemplate what might happen if i didn't raise the matter, she should also contemplate what might happen if i did. and, if i did, the adjudicator clearly ignored the point. so, this is a fallacious argument, at best.

then, she claims i have the burden of proof here (edit: on review), which i do, but my only argument would have been to submit the entire audio of the trial, which would be unreasonable. and, i actually cited evidence, which the reviewer clearly didn't consult. this is again a question of misconduct; i put in the review that the judge didn't look at the evidence, and it is dismissed without consulting the evidence. then, they claim i didn't provide a burden of proof. well, you didn't look at the evidence!

she then claims that the hearing member explored the s. 83 in detail over 21-23 - which is true, but it explored the detail of 83(1) and not 83(3), which is the argument presented. this is a red herring.

the denial essentially did not address my request, and did exactly the same thing that i claimed was the problem in the first place: i claimed that the adjudicator didn't address the evidence, and the review then also doesn't address the evidence.

i'm going to have to serve the appeal on monday or tuesday.

i don't think i've ever said anything nice about the arcade fire.

that's over a decade of negativity, now.

if you were expecting me there, you've deeply misunderstood me; i think they're terrible, and always have.

sorry. that's not me. wrong person...

i'm just trying to imagine what i'd do if you permanently took away the gear.

i'd just snap. i'd be drunk all the time. i might end up in jail, even. i'd just stop caring at all.

and suicide is really a likely end point.

like i say - if it comes down to it, i'll go homeless in order to put my stuff in storage. i'd rather pay $400 for storage and eat out of a shelter than pay $400 for a room and sell or lose my gear. it's saving the electronics that will take priority over everything, even my own safety.

yes, i'm a materialist. i'm all about possessions. and i don't have any patience for your stupid hippie bullshit. 

and, no, i can't sell my gear - i wouldn't have any reason to exist, without it.

that would be a death sentence. i would kill myself. because i wouldn't have any reason to keep living...

it's kind of a real point when you're talking about a room, too, right.

i mean, i can't live in a room. i have thousands of dollars worth of gear. i can't leave it in the living room. i need a door to lock it behind. if it comes to it, i'll have to put it in storage, and i'd be more likely to just live in a shelter until i can find an actual apartment.

but, that's just the point: living in a room necessitates that you waste whatever extra money you have, because you can't spend it on anything valuable because you live in a room.

sure: an extra $400/month could be spent on gear. but, then i'd need an apartment to store it. i can't buy expensive gear and leave it in the room, that's not safe.

i guess if you're obese, you could eat more. i'm not going to do that.

on top of that, if you're stuck in a room, you're likely to feel the urge to get drunk, because you're bored and depressed, and perhaps stressed out from the forced interactions with the other tenants. 

so, i can't even make sense of what the intent even is. i'm not asking for special treatment, here. this is just a stupid way to manage something. it's really a very potent recipe for encouraging alcoholism, as far as i can see.

with low income tenants, you should be trying to taking away as much money from them as you can. 

i'm just trying to, like...

35% of $1200 is $420, which would be enough for a room. and, i'd then end up with about $400 unbudgeted, monthly. this is just standard disability. i'm not getting extra cash. 

what do they expect me to spend this on? beer? marijuana?

i'm disabled. what else am i going to spend it on? 

if i could find a place that cheap that is safe, i'd take it. sure. but, i can't imagine what i'd even do with the extra money. a good proportion of it would no doubt be spent on beer.

i'd rather have a nice apartment than extra beer money.

it's still not enough for a minimum monthly payment on my loan, fwiw.

if i'm going to launch a human rights complaint against marda, i'm going to make it class action.

let's shut these fuckers down altogether.

...and, i'm not ready to find a boyfriend, right now. i probably never will be.

a roommate is a non-starter because of the gear. i couldn't make it make sense anyways - nobody is going to let me set up a drum kit in the living room.

could i take a temporary apartment in a part of town i don't like, and then just leave everything packed and bail the moment something better comes up?

i might have to, maybe.

i'm just imagining what life would be like if i moved to the sandwich area, for example. there's literally nothing anywhere for miles that i'd go to. i went to that metal bar there once and swore i'd never go back. so, i'd spend all my time in my room by myself.

if i were to get out to go to the tunnel, i'd have to plan around an hour or an hour and a half walk to the tunnel. would i take the bus? well, could i walk faster? so, if the show starts at 20:00, i'd want to catch a 19:00 bus and leave the house at 17:30.

that doesn't look as bad as i thought.

maybe i should contemplate units that are a little further, after all.

but, it's such stupidity from my perspective, because i'm just going to end up transiting into town all of the time, anyways. i'd rather pay the extra funds, if they'd just let me.

i need to reiterate the point.

i've never missed a month of rent. never been late. was usually early.

and, i have $1500 in the bank to put down on first and last.

the problem is that the only vacancies in my price range are run by a management company that is illegally pushing down a rent to income ratio, and is refusing to rent to people with student loan defaults.

i could very well walk out of here via the process of putting my items in storage, and ending up in a hostel. and, odsp might even pay for it.

if i were to leave windsor, where would i go?

the only place that makes any sense right now is toronto. but, i'd have to hitch-hike down there and search for something out of a tim horton's. and, it's only going to happen when i'm done the legal fights here.

i could end up in the hostel for months because i have to stay here to sue these people.

it's an absurd situation. i have the means to pay, and there are vacant units in my price range, but i'm not allowed to apply for any of them.

i need to get caught up on the discography, because it's becoming clear that my main focus for the foreseeable future is going to be fighting multiple legal battles, simultaneously.

this is life. all i want to do is play guitar. but there's always some fucking bullshit. 

if i was going to be a lawyer, and i was never going to be a lawyer, then this is what i'd want to do - go after slumlords and try and take down the bourgeoisie. i wouldn't mind sitting on odsp and working pro bono. i gave up because i realized the system is rigged - that these legal principles are just imaginary things, really.

i could very well end up fighting an appeal to stay here as i go after the local management company on human rights charges to try and find somewhere to move to. i might need to fight legal battles on both fronts. and, then i'm doing what i didn't want to do - i'm working for no purpose, spending eight-ten hours a day fighting to keep the gear safe, but not being able to use it. that's as pointless as just getting a fucking job, right?

but, i may very well literally have no other choice.

if i'm lucky, the company will listen to me, or at least give me somewhere nice to stay. that will save everybody a lot of time, and let me get back to doing something i care about within a couple of weeks.

if not, this could be a really long slog.

gah.

i was focused, then scattered after lunch.

nothing. some expensive properties that tell me they're not renting when i call. is it the google voice?

"head office posts those, they don't have anything to do with us."

ugh.

well, they're all overpriced, anyways. i'd need some scheme.

inri055 is done. let me get back to writing it up. and maybe i can finally ship tomorrow.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/human-rights-and-rental-housing-ontario-background-paper/minimum-income-criteria#fnB216

it turns out that marda is not just preventing access to showings based on credit history, which is barely legal, but is also restricting access to showings based on income - which is completely illegal.

i'd rather get a unit than take them to the human rights tribunal, but what they're doing is atrocious and i'd take glee in shutting them down.

what i've done to start is lie on the application. you need to make $2000/month to get access to a $725/month apartment, which is ridiculous. i was making about $1800 after taxes when i worked for microsoft. you couldn't get into this apartment if you were the manager at mcdonalds.

but, it's an old, falling apart building. it should be full of pensioners and disabled people. right now, it appears to have a high vacancy - because this company is making it impossible to get in.

how do you calculate that you need $2000 for a $725/month apartment?

my expenses would be as follows:

725 (rent)
  85 (medication)
    0 (they advertise free wifi)
  60 (hydro)
200 (groceries)
  20 (laundry)
-----
1090

but, i get a $45 hydro rebate - unless it's electric heating, in which case i get even more.

so, i'm at $1045 in costs, maybe less - leaving me $150 spending money a month. that's a lot. what do i need $2000 for?

- a/c (no thanks)
- cable (no thanks)
- phone (no thanks)
- car (no thanks)

you get the point.

but, it's not up to some bourgeois entity to manage my finances for me. i don't want a fucking car; that's why i live downtown, so i can walk. and, fuck you for getting in my face about it.

the only way i could get to see the unit was to lie. so, i lied. and, i'll have to be persuasive when i get there in demonstrating that i'll be just fine after credits.

ugh.

fucking rentier capitalists with their property as theft. they ruin everything. never fails.

the single most important factor for me is that i need to be within a half hour walk from the tunnel.

so, that rules out the whole sandwich area - which is a pretty boring part of town, anyways.

i'm a downtown person. i want concrete and streetlights. i want 24 hour convenience stores. and, i don't want wild animals.

i also don't want to live on campus, or to close it. i don't get along with the younger generation very well. and, they don't recognize me as older than them. if i end up moving close to campus, i'm going to end up telling a bunch of kids to leave me alone.

the ideal zone is really a four or five block radius away from where i am. i'd rather move closer to town than away from it. and, stuff is coming up here. i just have to be patient.

it seems like hallowe'en is a holiday in the real estate business. nothing up today. but, i'm going to make a call around noon.

i'm going to be working on inri055 today, i think. i'm just waiting for information, right now.

i left a mix of this aside in may, 2015 but i don't quite remember why. my notes aren't helping. i know i wanted to redo the ambient mix - which wasn't very ambient - but that doesn't really explain why i have this transitional thing that i put aside. i kind of remember thinking that i just liked the combination as it was.

i also wanted a guitar mix.

so, that's three combinations. and, it should get the disc close to fill.

but, i stand by the view that a credit check is essentially useless for low income people.

you could have spotless credit. if you're low income, and you get fired, you're fucked. you could default. you could get evicted for non-payment. and, it wouldn't have anything to do with your existing credit. it's just a function of being poor.

it works the other way, too: you could have terrible credit, because you were fired, and you were evicted. you could have defaulted. you might live on social assistance, or you might have just had a bad year. it doesn't mean you're not getting money in NOW.

a credit check is designed for middle income people making middle income investments. it's an abuse of the procedure to use it as a means test to allow or disallow low income people into housing - because it's as likely to be wrong in it's conclusions as it is to be correct.

...and i don't want to hang out with boring bourgeois assholes or pretentious hipster dipshits. at all.

if i actually had a government or office job, i'd be the one that never goes to staff parties and eats lunch at my desk. because, i really don't want to hang out with you. 

if it comes down to it, i would rather be unemployed and stay in than be employed and not be able to go out because i have to work.

ok, here's another idea: parking.

there's some bigger apartment buildings running around 760-775. i'd be permanently defaulting on night-life to take that; i'd be falling from $200/month spending to under $100/month spending and, with the exchange, it would really leave me without the ability to go out very often. once a month. i could gamble on settling down a little anyways, but i'm not comfortable with defaulting on the option. and, rent isn't where i want the funds to disappear to.

but, if i get a dedicated parking space - which i will never use. i don't even have a license. - i could rent it out for what looks like more than $50/month. all of a sudden, that looks affordable. and, if i could just let the building deal with it maybe they'd cut the rent down by the difference...

on top of that, i can always *ask* about separating the hydro. then, the 775 potentially falls to 700. and, if i explain the scenario, i might get a reasonable reaction.

a big one bedroom apartment on the 6th or 7th floor with decent anti-smoke insulation (no balcony) would be a definite improvement. if it only costs me $30/month, after everything, that's a positive investment.

i can make some calls tomorrow.

i'm done for the night. i need to focus on the discography for a few hours. 

i'm also going to have to see if i can try and contact some of these property owners directly and explain to them that this management layer isn't just wasting them money but is actually preventing them from bringing in reliable and quality tenants.

i've had problems here, but it's because the family that lives here are idiots. most property owners would side with the tenants that want to mitigate smoke damage and cat feces on their property, not the ones that want to maximize the damage to it. nothing makes sense, here.

the truth is that i've treated this place better than the family that owns it does - and i've only come into conflict when i've insisted that they treat it better than they do.

i made a few calls this morning, but nothing much came up over night. there's one option that's a little more than i want but might be better - it's up a few floors, and the smoke issues might be better. but, it was up on short notice and i'm supposed to call back on friday.

i'm going to get something to eat and then give myself a few more hours. but, i'm going to need to pay my rent this evening if nothing else comes up before 17:00 - and then i'm looking for december 1st.

i've also decided that i'm going to get the appeals process in motion once i pay the rent.

hi.

my landlord is taking over my apartment for personal use. i need to be
out in a few weeks. you seem to be building a monopoly on vacant
spaces in this city, and you won't rent to me because i've defaulted
on my student loans. this is effectively cutting off my right to
housing.

but, this is not a good reason not to rent to me.

my loan default is a real thing, this is true. however, because i live
on disability, there is essentially no way for the state to collect on
it. i have done my due diligence and applied for loan forgiveness, and
they have told me that although i am permanently disabled i am not
"severely" permanently disabled, which is some kind of kafkaesque
nonsense. but, what it means is that, while the loan will continue to
collect interest for the rest of my life, this has no actual effect on
my income.

the fact is that i get around $1200/month from the government, every
month. this income cannot be touched by any collection agency. nor is
it under any threat of market failure - i cannot get fired, i cannot
get laid off, and i cannot get outsourced. if you were to compare me
to a wage worker, and you were to measure my value as a tenant solely
on my ability to pay, you'd have to conclude i'm a far safer gamble
for the reason that i'm immune to market forces.

i understand that you don't want to rent to people who manage money
poorly. but, student loan defaults are going to be an increasingly
common fact of life in this city, and if you are going to command so
much of the empty rental space, you should really be approaching the
situation a little differently.

i have been in this unit for four and a half years and i have never
paid my rent late. these payments will come in every month into
perpetuity. it makes no sense to deny me housing for this reason -
because i am a model tenant.

j

i want to be clear about how this company works.

let's say you went to school for a few years, came out with a degree in sociology - which means you get to be a manager at mcdonalds. but, let's say you actually are a manager at mcdonalds. so, you're working a 40+ hour work week and pulling in something close to $1700 a month. but, it took you a while to get there, and in the process you defaulted on your loan.

you have a steady job. a little authority, even. you want a $900 apartment. and, why not? you can afford it.

this management company will not rent to you due to the default. it doesn't matter that you're making more than enough money. it's an inflexible position across the board. 

and, they seem to be in charge of at least half of the vacant properties in the city - properties that should be occupied by low income people that probably don't have very good credit. 

is this even a human rights violation? i think there's a good argument for it. but, that's not exactly at the top of my mind, right now.

i could maybe file once i find somewhere.

that apartment i went to see was a little small, but i expected that.

the two reasons i couldn't consider it were as follows:

1) it had a really big window on the front entrance. i want the unit up a few floors to cut off broken window access. the less windows, the better. this place had smash and grab written all over it.

2) the front entrance was a shared porch with the unit beside it. there would have been somebody chain smoking a foot in front of my door.

this is windsor.

it's becoming clear that i'm going to have to appeal, probably as soon as i get the review in the mail.

i'll need to pay rent on wednesday if i don't find anything tomorrow, which at this point is pretty much certain.

i'm also realizing that it's less that the city doesn't have rental spaces - it does - and more that the market has been taken over by this management company. what happened to windsor, that had such low prices four years ago? marda. this company is inflating prices by introducing a management layer. and, they're refusing to rent to anybody that has defaulted on their student loans. i'm almost willing to argue it's predatory. but, somebody needs to step in and break them up...

if you're a building manager, you really ought to separate yourselves from this company: they are leaving spaces empty over issues that do not affect a tenant's ability to pay, and cutting off large segments of the market. it's not sustainable. it's just going to land people with steady incomes in the shelters.

and, the city should be questioning if they have too much market power and trying to find ways to break them up.

i'm sleepier than i should be. but, hopefully i can get some progress down tonight.

today didn't yield much - i'm going to look at something tonight that's a bit smaller but would give me an extra $50+ in my pocket a month, maybe $100 in the summer, but he got really apprehensive when i told him i'm on odsp. people have a lot of prejudices about this, and i'm fully aware of the problem of productionism, especially in a post-industrial area like this where there's so much unemployment, and it's created these hierarchies of exclusion. it's up to me to convince him that this attitude is just literal stupidity - i cannot work by doctor's order, and i have the safest check in town - but it's not the easiest thing to do. you'd think self-interest would be easier to enforce, but conservatism goes out of it's way to enforce irrationality and anti-intellectualism. i can't get fired. i'm guaranteed rent. pull your head out of your calvinist ass and recognize the superior tenancy value that i offer...

i have an appointment in the morning, but i don't even know if i'm going to go. i didn't realize that it's on the ground level. i'm curious, though.

the review was dismissed, as expected. i gave them a call about the leave date, and it hasn't changed. the review claims that i didn't raise the issue of 83(3)(c) - that's just false. i can think of at least twice that i raised it. so, the adjudicator seems like she realizes she's wrong, and is trying to back track by pretending i didn't raise the point. that's why she's not a judge, right? but, i can't review a second time.

unfortunately, the adjudicator has handed me a perfect case for appeal: she agrees that i would be right if i raised the point, then claims i didn't raise the point. but, i did raise the point. and, we can check the audio. so, now i have no choice but to appeal.

so, i'm considering launching an immediate appeal when the documents get here, just to get it out of the way. i can drop it at any time, i believe. i wasn't expecting a stay on review, but i wasn't expecting such a quick response, either. now that it's in front of me, and it's just wrong, i kind of feel like i have to act as quickly as possible.

i left a message with legal aid as well. i just want to go in and talk it over, make sure i understand the process and i didn't overlook something that's going to screw me over in the end.

but, i think that's it for listings, for the day. i should be more optimistic: if i find something i can get a appointment for every single day, i'm making good progress.

i'm going to eat. i finished the facebook section yesterday, and should close some discs tonight. i could ship tomorrow.

that was a bust.

the ad said $725 all inclusive. it's $725 + hydro. so, i'm looking at $750. he was representing a firm, and i wasn't going to take him down. this is on the extreme limits of what i can consider. is it better?

well, the existing tenant is a heavy smoker, and the apartment was full of cat shit. she's moving downstairs.

so, i would be moving into a unit with a heavy smoker downstairs that doesn't have a problem living in cat shit. that's not better - it's a $80/month rent increase with no benefit to me.

if it was just the habits of the previous tenant to deal with, i could air the place out. but, this is just a recipe for conflict. we're going to start fighting from day one. i could not get along with this person well enough to live in the same building as them.

my self-interest is not in moving into this unit. i'll have to keep looking. and, i now have fifteen days left to avoid an appeal.

today is a listings day. but i need to shower, first. yuck.

oct 18-19 vlog, where i go to court to fight a frivolous eviction attempt by an aggressive, malicious, dishonest landlord.

i have a recording of this, but i can't upload it, as it's against the law to distribute court recordings in public.

oct 6-7th vlog, where i go to touche amore and then spend the last hot night of the year out dancing.

oct 5, 2017 vlog, which is just an in between day.

oct 4th, 2017 vlog, where i close some discs in the morning (inri036-inri037), and go over to detroit to fix my bike, then go see sadie dupuis & deerhoof at the magic stick.

sept 29-30, 2017 vlog, where i start by formally closing inri026-inri035 on the vlog, then go to screaming females, and then go dancing in a warehouse until the sun comes up.

sept 23-24 vlog, where i go to a steve reich performance at the bottom of the dso and then dance all night, again.

sept 22, 2017 vlog where i sneak into the back of trinosophes for the last set of the first night of new music detroit and then go to a secret dance party over night, and don't vlog any of it.

sept 19, 2017 vlog, where i intend to take advantage of the unseasonable weather by putting closing inri031-inri034 on hold and going to a dj set for a few hours, but instead follow a local sound art label owner to somebody's house in an attempt to network, and then don't get home until the morning.

sept 16-17, 2017 vlog where i go to see goldie at the russell industrial centre, then go to a late party after. 

there was more filmed on this day, but it was deleted in a minimalist phase. i regret that, but it's gone. 

sept 15, 2017 vlog where i go to an all night party in hamtramck that gets shut down by the venue owner, and ends up going all night in the parking lot, instead.

sept 2-3, 2017 vlog, where i go to a dead industrial night in mexicantown and then to a populated over night antwon faulkner set in a warehouse. 

sept 1, 2017 vlog, where i go to a labour day party in hamtramck to see human eye, then get kidnapped by the locals and held in a tree fort, before they released me to my bicycle.

aug 29-30 vlog, where i prepare the case against the landlord for harassment, go to court and withdraw, with the hope that the issue might resolve.

aug 26-27th vlog, where i enjoy one more warm weekend for the summer, and finally get the all nighter in i was looking for. 

aug 25th vlog, where i go to see actress and get slowed down after the show by what seems like a low iron attack.

aug 18-19 vlog, where i decided not to waste the weather by essentially wasting the night.

aug 15-16 vlog, where i go back to the anarchist house to apologize for the food poisoning outburst, unaware of the potential underlying cause of iron deficiency.

aug 13 vlog, where i try to explain what happened the night before, and devolve into a discourse about squirrel evolution, in the context of a hominid extinction event.

aug 11-12 vlog, where i go to a doom rock show at the anarchist house in detroit, am handed something to eat and get trapped in my own body until the morning, awake but otherwise unable to function. 

the narrative here is of being given something to eat and reacting to the contents of it, but, in hindsight, i may have been experiencing the effects of iron deficiency. i did not have much to drink, and the alcohol alone was not the cause. that said, even if the reason for shutting down was due to iron deficiency, the brownie clearly had an overwhelming effect on me. i don't really know how to separate the issues, but i know now that i have long term iron deficiency concerns and that it appears to be exacerbated by heavy exercise.

aug 4-5 vlogs, which are two aimless nights out in detroit, where i'm really just going over to check on my bike. 

at this point in time, it was not possible to bring a bicycle back and forth across the border under the tunnel without disassembling it, first. it is now possible to do so. i should be able to drive across the new bridge when it's finished, if i'm still here, and if they do away with unscientific vaccination restrictions.

aug 3rd vlog, where i go to farmington hills to get a bicycle, get trapped in cougar country in the rain, bicycle back to detroit, stop at a show, stay overnight and eventually get home early in the morning.

july 24th vlog, where i go to detroit to drop off some recycling material, get a soundcard at the ups store, go to a jello biafra dj set and stumble on a crack in the pavement on the way home, spattering blood everywhere. therefore, i need a bicycle. 

july 23rd vlog, where i come to profound conclusions while purchasing lamps.

july 16-17 vlog where i bike out tecumseh to see a neurologist.

three night weekend, in which i go to a disappointing tea party show on thursday, go dancing on friday night and go to thurston moore on saturday night. july 13th-15th.

july 10-11 vlog, where i bike out to the edge of town and get stuck in the rain.

july 6th vlog, where i get my bicycle working for the first time in many years.