i will say this, though: detroit is perhaps unique amongst major cities in it's absolute contempt for people coming from outside of it to spend money in it.

most cities do everything they can to encourage people from outside the city to come and spend money there.

detroit is dead set on erecting bylaws and regulations that prevent people in the outlying areas from coming into the city to have a good time. detroiters seem to interpret this as some kind of threat to their community, rather than as the economic engine to revive it. and, they don't seem to understand that the root cause of the problems they have, in the first place, is capital flight as a consequence of these regulations.

if detroit city council had it's way, it would erect some good old city walls to keep all of the outsiders out.

it's all identity politics. but, it's self-defeating to the point that it might very well strangle the city to death.

this is why i'd support amalgamation in the counties around detroit, despite opposing it almost everywhere else.

i mean, maybe i should call eugene haslam and get him to open a venue in detroit, right?

it's the same basic, stupid problem; the difference is that there's ten times as many people in detroit as there in ottawa.

i want to be clear about detroit.

there's a market. a huge one, in fact.

(it's detroit!)

and, there are venues.

but, the people that own the venues want to cater to markets that don't exist, rather than ones that do.

so, we have empty venues, as we get skipped.

and, i'm not getting into the identity politics around a lot of it.

thoughts on the new chelsea wolfe record

so, am i a chelsea wolfe fan, yet?

i missed her in the fall in detroit (after catching her in 2016) because the venue (which had recently been shut down for overbooking a melvins concert) was sold out; the truth is that she could have probably filled a venue twice the size, but there wasn't one here for her to fill. this is actually becoming a problem in detroit, as we're down to one serious venue, here ('el club') and while it is great for what it is, it is also simply too small for a lot of what gets booked at it - including both the melvins and chelsea wolfe.

believe it or not, there is nowhere in detroit for a rock band that can fill a 2,000-3,000 seat arena. you can go smaller. you can go bigger. but, about 2,000 people is really the sweet spot for a solid concert and it just doesn't exist.

she probably should have played the majestic theatre, but it's been taken over by a management team that appears to be hostile to good music. to put it another way, the venue seems to be actively attempting to discourage anybody older than 30 from ever hanging out there ever again. this is the famous bowling alley in detroit...

i mean, i wasn't in on the call, but i promise you they wouldn't book the show. yeah. chelsea wolfe. this is the new detroit, folks....

anyways, how's the record?

well, i'm getting the same basic feel that i have from the last few: this is meant to see live. even the vocals are mixed in the distance, which is meant to facilitate extreme volume. i'm finding it enjoyable enough to listen to in the background. but, with all of the fancy headphone music out there nowadays, it's hard to see me coming back to this or really getting lost in it.

i bet the show was great, though.

i'm sure i'll get to see her play again, and that will be the best way to enjoy these songs.

i am sometimes indecisive, but i do not bluff.

you could say i'm ideologically opposed to bluffing. or, i can just tell you that i simply don't have time for that kind of fucking bullshit. i want full transparency and total honesty, and i'm more likely to just treat you like an insect than i am to "make a deal" if i conclude you're not trustworthy.

and, don't call my bluff, at least not to me. if you think you're calling my bluff, what you're actually doing is increasing the chances that i pull the trigger, because i'm likely to spend less time thinking something through once my sovereignty as an individual is challenged. the act of telling me that you don't think i'll do something is pretty much guaranteeing that i will actually do it.

but, i'm not interested in erecting elaborate plans for self-interest or world domination. i project myself as honestly and as plainly as i can, and i will very quickly escalate to treating you as a non-person if i don't get the same respect in return.

liars aren't people

the temperature outside has fallen, and the heat is working, but i don't understand what happened well enough to react.

the next time that happens, i'll have to hit the heaters in the hallways immediately in order to do some further testing.

i mean, there's three possibilities:

1) the heat was turned off, building-wide.
2) management turned the heat off in the hallways, and that in turn turned my heat off.
3) a tenant did (2), rather than management.

i had initially assumed (1). but i'm currently leaning towards (3).

what i will say is that i fully expect this to happen again in mid-march or early april, and while i'd rather not wait, i feel like i must.

no, i need to wait - because i need to experiment.

there's four floors in the building, stairways at opposite ends and a heater on each floor at each stairway, which is how many heaters?

i bet 30% of you can't figure that out.

but, i went around and turned them all on. then, the heat comes on in here about a half hour later.

it might be a coincidence. or it might be cause and effect. but, if i can just turn the heat back on in here by flipping the switch in the hallway, that's a lot easier than taking somebody to court.

i overheard somebody talking about their heater being connected to the ones in the hallway.

it also proves wrongdoing on behalf of somebody in the building. but, it expands the number of suspects to everybody in the building. i mean, i could be undoing what another tenant did.

if that's the case, and we can figure out who it is, i could maybe get the building on my side in coming down on them.

as before, this isn't about money. i just want the heat to work...

what i need to figure out is if my heater is connected to the ones in the hallway or not; if it isn't, i'll have to push back. if it is, i guess i have a fight with another tenant on my hands - one i intend to win, but one that is very different in scope.

ok, i've got something coming in the pipes, now. that's an improvement.

i'm going to have to put out a letter of some sort tomorrow, one way or another.

Feb 21, 2017

To The Management of ===================,

On the day of February 20th, 2017, some time between 7:00 am and 2:00 pm, the heat at =============== was apparently completely shut off, building wide. As of the morning of February 21st, there is neither heat in my apartment on the fourth floor nor is there any heat in the foyer.

As you are no doubt aware, provincial legislation on this topic states that heat is an essential service that must be provided from Sept 1 to June 1. As a tenant, I consequently expect to be able to access the heat in my apartment, at will, over this period, as that is what I am legally entitled to.

I do not believe that this was an accident, but rather a cost-saving mechanism.

As such, you have 24 hours to obey the provincial law before I file the appropriate paperwork at the Landlord and Tenant Board, seeking an order that you obey the law along with a pro-ration of my february rent for services not rendered.

Should the situation arise again, I will jump immediately to litigation.

While I do not seek conflict, I cannot accept a management decision to turn the heat off when it is barely 15 degrees outside, given that this is causing me great discomfort and it is simply blatantly illegal to do so. I am concerned about the implications of this policy in the spring and fall. To avoid further conflict, please simply obey the law, moving forwards.

still no heat.

this is what i'm going to do...

i'm going to write a letter to the landlord accusing the building of turning the heat off in february - which is never legal - and explaining that i expect to be able to access the heat in the apartment, at will, between sept 1 and june 1, which is what the law says.

if the heat turns on overnight, this letter will also state that i will file the appropriate grievances to the landlord and tenant board the day of noticing the heat being turned off a second time.

however, if the heat does not turn on overnight, the letter will explain that they have 24 hours to turn it on, or the complaint will be filed on the next day.

on second thought, i'm going to need a thermometer - which i don't have - before i can fill this out.

i don't what the temperature is inside.

i just know that i'm cold and the heat isn't turning on to address it.

and, i know that if i can't get the head on by the morning, i'm going to get a thermometer first thing tomorrow.

btw.

the sneaky trick that my old landlord used to evict me (and only worked due to a biased judge) is not applicable in this building.

i'm a good tenant, that simply demands that the laws are followed. and, i'll defend myself against retaliation.

15 degrees is cold.

25 degrees is comfortable.

35 degrees is ideal.

i mean, it's only 15 degrees today.

will i not have access to heat on an average 15 degree day?

i could see if it was 25 degrees, because then you can open the windows, but 15 degrees is simply not warm enough to turn the heat off.

what i've been doing is running the shower on full blast, full heat every twenty minutes.

i'm not going to argue with anybody about this. this place is not rock bottom cheap like the last one. i'm  paying for heat, and i will receive it on demand.

so, what am i doing?

well, first - it's cold in here.

and i'm very angry about it.

the law does not say that if you have an unseasonably warm day in february, you can turn the heat off. what the law says is that you have to provide heat.

and, i'm not going to pester the landlord about it. i'm going to sue her for two things:

1) an injunction forcing them to turn the heat on.
2) pro-ration of the rent compensating me for the heat that i paid for and did not receive.

yes, i think that litigation is the way to solve problems.

no, i don't care what the neighbours think.

that said, i'm going to wait a little bit because i recognize that i made an error: i knew it was going to be warm today, so i turned the heat down.

the lesson i've learned is that i should never, ever turn the heat down.

however, if the heat does not turn on before midnight, i will mail the documents in the morning; after talking with some tenants, i've learned that the landlord is quite negligent, and i simply don't have patience for dealing with negligence of this sort.

the law is not ambiguous, and i do not feel like i have the obligation to be patient about this.

second, it took me a little longer to do some cleaning and whatnot this week, but it's done now, and i'll be focusing on finishing up 7/15 tonight - so long as the heat turns on.

it's not my fault, i was sleeping.

you know your misanthropy runs deep when even your subconscious dream state starts throwing stuff around like this:

i don't want knowledge,
i want certainty! 

fucking humans...

to clarify: i'm broadly opposed to capital punishment, on the "what if we're wrong?" foundation of legal liberalism.

but, all rules require exceptions.

and, god's crimes are literally beyond parallel in scope and documentation.

could god receive a fair trial? certainly not. doesn't matter...

if we can prove a god exists, then we can find a way to stop it from existing, further; to an extent, proving that god exists is the same thing as disproving that what we're labelling god is actually immortal.

the only open question in my mind is "how do we actually physically end god's existence?".

of course, killing god will not put an end to faith. but, at least we can point to the historical record, label them flat-earthers and move on.

why should we show mercy to a god that has shown no mercy to us?

i'm not interested in "morals".

i'm interested in logic.

the likelihood of god existing is so low as to be negligible.

but, rare events happen.

and, if we somehow find out that a god does exist, we should try it for war crimes and, when convicted, execute it accordingly.