so, i'm finally done typing up the liner notes on this thing. i did a lot of second guessing, but i'm done with it.

i'm going to need to eat, first.

after that, i'll distribute it over facebook, do the actual liner notes and print it.

it's a civic holiday here tomorrow, so i'll have to wait until tuesday to ship. but it should be ready to go, a least.

tuesday should be a busy day, as i'll need to get groceries & get my bike fixed & call around about utilities & odsp, as well.

59 & 60 will be fast, but it looks like i'm going to have to do an aleph run after 60 so i probably won't get the next package done by tuesday. the next package will be 60 & 62 when it's ready to go, maybe by friday.

republishing inri058

there are a few ideas in my discography that i've explored from multiple angles, but nothing else at all like this track, which has been through multiple complete rethinks involving multiple people over the course of sixteen years. as the revisions are so diverse, i think that a comprehensive collection of interpretations is a proper entry within my discography.

in the end, this emerges as my seventh symphony.

the collection is to be arranged chronologically in four discs consisting of two 2xcd sets, with the first two discs consisting of mixes that were meant for inclusion in band projects and the third and fourth consisting of mixes that were created after the track was moved into my own various one-person projects. i've placed the third disc at the front of the sequence to stress the july, 2002 release date.

further discussions of the various incarnations of the tracks appear on the track pages, or are linked out from the track pages. please click through.

written over 2001 and rethought repeatedly over 2002, again in 2007, a third time in 2009 and one last time in late 2014. final mixes were completed over the last week of november and the first week of december, 2014. the concept was rethought on nov 3, 2017, which led to the inclusion of five more mixes and an expansion from two cds to four cds. as always, please use headphones.

the album version of the track (track 9), reconstructed in 2014, appears on my seventh record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/ftaa

the 2002 vocal mix appears on the rabit is wolf demo:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/rabit-is-wolf

this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2014, 2017). 

credits

released july 4, 2002

j - electric & acoustic & classical guitars, analog & digital effects & processing, electric bass guitar, synthesizers, drum programming, orchestral sequencing (12), drum manipulation, vocal manipulation, voice (9), digital wave editing, loops, equalizers, soundscaping, sampling, composition, production, cover art

sean - vocals/lyrics (2,5,7), ring modulator (7-9, 11, 13-14, 16)

greg - drum performance sample source (4, 6-9, 11, 13)

bob - hammering (3)

the rendered electronic orchestra on track 12 includes tuba, saxophone, flute, clarinet, orchestra hit, piano, violin, viola, cello, contrabass and various full string sections.

numbers refer to the physical tracklisting, rather than the bandcamp ordering.

regarding the vlogs...

yes, i'm still vlogging. the major purpose was to document the music, remember. the rest of it is just incidental.

if we assume that i get my keys on nov 29th, and everything works out properly, i should be done finalizing the discography up until about 2004, by then. i'm going to push through until i get to a point where i need to actually do some more recording. that's about that point - maybe a little later, maybe more like mid 2005. things start to get less linear around 2003 until about 2011. this is periods 3 (trivial group) & 4 (proverbs).

the next thing to do is to catch up on the alter-reality, which is getting a little bit urgent.

in order to get back to editing the hundreds of gigabytes of files i have to edit, i have to fix my main laptop, which fried in an electrical storm at the end of august. that is going to be my editing machine. and, i won't get back to doing that until i've caught up on the discography to a proper point.

i'm also going to be moving, now, so it makes sense to tie the apartment upgrades i was doing to setting up the new apartment. and, this won't be the first thing i do, either. i need bookshelves first, probably.

it probably won't be by january 1st. but it will happen, eventually. and, i might even decide to stagger it a year, in the end. it might be kind of intriguing: alter-reality by 20, vlogs by 1.

so, the next thing i have to ship is a four cd set and you can imagine that it's not obvious how to do this.

i actually looked at quad cases, but they don't make sense from a booklet perspective. i don't like the slim doubles, because you end up with a flimsy back in the cover art. and, while the sturdier doubles might be a nice way to professionally manufacture these, it would be kind of lame to drop a printer-paper booklet in.

i've decided i'm going to ship these in single cases for now. if i ever get them printed professionally, i'll revisit that. this particular release would make sense as two doubles.

so, i've updated the cover art on my previous two doubles, as well, and will need to make sure i'm creating the right kind of packaging in the future.

inri043:



inri047

so, i'm in for the weekend. i need to recuperate. my legs are still bad. and it's cold out.

the landlord is illegally coming by on a saturday. she claims she's bringing "the new tenant". well, we'll have to film this. if it's not her mom, i could get this process rolling early.

it's actually the end of a long day for me, right now. i think i'm going to eat and shower and go to sleep. but, that means i'll get tomorrow and sunday for music, and could even ship on monday.

i'll need to call both disability and the electric company on monday. i'll need to put up an ad on kijiji for the fridge, too - but pick-up after the 29th, if i get the keys. that's another $100, hopefully. well, it's what i paid for it. and it works. i checked briefly and it seems right for a functional, if old, fridge.

arranging the move will take priority. but, i expect to get caught up by the 29th, at the very latest.

nov 9th: served at 7:00 am.  saw apartment at 11:00 am.
10th:  signed lease at 11:30 am. mailed documents around 1:30 pm.

nov 11th & nov 12th & nov 13th: holidays

14: first day after mail
15: second day after mail
16: third day after mail
17: fourth day after mail

18th & 19th: holidays

20th: fifth day after mail. service effective.
21st: first day after service
22nd: second day after service
23rd: third day after service
24th: fourth day after service

25th & 26th: holidays

27th: fifth day after service
28th: sixth day after service
29th: seventh day after service. date of keys pickup. date of first & last drop-off. potential end of process.
30th: eight day after service.
dec 1st: ninth day after service. date of eviction notice. date landlord can call sheriff. date i will need to file on if i have to file.
file: 61a, 61b, 61c, request for hearing audio, form to wave fees
receive: stay. bring to sheriff.

2nd & 3rd: holidays

4th: 1st day after filing
5th: 2nd
6th: 3rd
7th: 4th
8th: 5th

9th & 10th: holidays

11th: 6th
12th: 7th
13th: 8th
14th: 9th
15th: 10th

16th & 17th: holidays

18th: 11th
19th: 12th
20th: 13th
21st: 14th
22nd: 15th

23rd & 24th & 25th & 26th: holidays

27th: 16th
28th 17th
29th: 18th

30th & 31st & jan 1st: holidays

2nd: 19th
3rd: 20th
4th: 21st
5th: 22nd

6th & 7th: holidays

8th: 23rd
9th: 24th
10th: 25th
11th: 26th
12th: 27th

13th  & 14th: holidays

15th: 28th
16th: 29th. order hearing transcript & file proof of order.
17th: 30th day after filing. 1st day after ordering hearing transcript.
18th: 2nd day after ordering hearing transcript.
19th: 3rd day.

20th & 21st: holidays

22nd: 4th day
23rd: 5th day
24th 6th day
25th: 7th day
26th: 8th day

27th & 28th: holidays

29th: 9th
30th: 10th
31st: 11th
feb 1st: 12th.
2nd:  13th

3rd & 4th: holidays

5th: 14th
6th: 15th
7th: 16th
8th: 17th
9th: 18th

10th & 11th: holidays

12th: 19th
13th: 20th
14th: 21st
15th: 22nd
16th: 23rd

17th & 18th & 19th: holidays

20th:  24th
21st: 25th
22nd: 26th
23rd: 27th

24th & 25th: holidays

26th: 28th
27th: 29th.
28th: 30th
mar 1st: 31st
mar 2nd: 32nd

3rd & 4th: holidays

5th: 33rd day after filing notice of transcript. begin perfection of appeal.  see rule 61.09(3).
6th: 34th
7th: 35th
8th: 36th
9th: 37th

10th & 11th: holidays

12th: 38th
13th: 39th
14th: 40th
15th: 41st
16th: 42nd

17th & 18th: holidays

19th: 43rd
20th: 44th
21st: 45th
22nd: 46th
23rd: 47th

24th & 25th: holidays

26th: 48th
27th: 49th
28th: 50th
29th: 51st

30th & april 1st & 2nd & 3rd: holidays

4th: 52nd. serve perfection documents.
5th: 53rd. mail perfection documents..
6th: 54th. 1st day after.
7th: 55th. 2nd.
8th: 56th. 3rd.

9th & 10th: holidays

9th: 57th. 4th.
10th: 58th. 5th day after.
11th: 59th day after filing notice of transcript. file notice of perfection.
12th: 60th day after filing notice of transcript.

hearing date set for june, maybe? july?

well, then.

that was an ordeal.

as of approximately 7:00 am this morning, my existing landlord is served with an appeal via giving the documents to her husband via police mediation. the plan was to fix the flat on my bike on the way there, but i couldn't get the right kind of tube and had to leave it locked at a canadian tire overnight. i thought it was a short walk from there; it wasn't. so, i had to stay up all night in a tim horton's and knock on the door repeatedly in the morning.

the walk to the landlord's place to personally serve the originating documents required multiple detours around highways and nature reserves in order to ensure an experience of unbroken suburbia - and minimal threat of attack by coyotes or cougars. or bears, for that matter.

this city is bigger than i thought it was. but, like detroit, it's mostly due to sprawl.

my feet are literally bleeding.

and, as of approximately 6:00 pm this evening, it seems as though i've found a place around the corner from here.

is it better? absolutely.

1) steam heat. so, not as dry.
2) it's $700 + hydro. if i stay here, i'll be paying $680 all inclusive as of april 1st. and the hydro should balance out with the oesp - i don't have or want an a/c and i'll conserve the juice if it's my purse. i don't know if i should expect yearly increases at the next place. if i don't get an increase until early 2019, which i think is likely because they can't increase for a year, it will likely literally balance out - because if i stay here i'll be paying very close to $700 on april 1, 2019. the difference may end up little more than a few months ahead on the inflation.
3) 4th floor means fresh air. no smokers through the windows. no cat shit on the window sill. it's not on a main street. it also probably means no roaches, so i should be able to keep the lights off most of the time. and, it means i'll get the heat rising from the units underneath me, rather than the freon pushing down rom upstairs.
4) it's about the same size, footage wise. the kitchen is smaller, but that doesn't mean anything to me. the stove works, which does. the bedroom is a bit bigger. there's storage space in the walls, which i'm keen on. i'll have to set the space up so the studio merges with the living room, which is a more normal arrangement for me, anyways. it's clear at this point that i won't be having anybody over, anyways.
5) tub, not a shower. better for shaving.
6) a block closer to the tunnel. same distance to convenience stores.

we negotiated a deposit over the phone; i'm going to sign a lease tomorrow. but, i'm going to post-date the check anyways, right? so, i'm thinking that if i can just give her the full first & last post-dated to the 30th then maybe she'll give me the keys early and i can start slowly walking things over. ideally, i'd be able to clear this place out in the next few days and then get some student movers to quickly take the rest out around the 1st. and, then, i don't need to carry through with this.

until i have the keys in my hands, i need to carry on with this process - which means mailing the letter tomorrow afternoon and setting myself up a flow chart of timelines, tonight.

i'm going to need to get to odsp, as well, and figure out what they'll pay for.

and i need to eat.

no. i need to serve personally.

they have kids. somebody will be home at 7:00. i presume that mom is living there, right now.

if i can't get it to the landlord, i can give it to an adult member (it might be mom. maybe the husband.) and then mail a second copy of it the next day.

and, i have a week to keep trying...

it's a decent bike ride. nice nights. i'll enjoy it.

showing at 4:00. then, this gets done.

no, i should sleep, and get back to it when i'm fresh.

that wasn't as hard as i thought, after all. i just had to get my head around what i was actually doing, first. it developed quite quickly, after that.

i have my two documents done. now, i  need to get them into the hands of my landlord. i just need to make sure i understand those rules.

i'm also going to need to get some documents down to city hall, including a request for a transcript of the audio from the last court date.

i'm still awake, so i'm going to keep going. first showing today is at 4:00.

step one.

done.

next, i need to get a list of the evidence. then i can serve. tomorrow, maybe...

i was going to drop it off, but i want to double check the rules around mailing. here's the thing: i fully expect them to lie and say they never got it. so, does that matter, really, if i mail it?

what if i use registered mail, or something? a tracking number...

i'll look into it.

Divisional Court, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N :

TA

Applicant

(Respondent in Appeal)

and

Jason Parent

Respondent

  (Appellant)

Proceeding under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

 NOTICE OF APPEAL

                THE APPELLANT, JASON PARENT, APPEALS to the Divisional Court from the order of Lorraine Mathers (Landlord and Tenant Board) dated Oct 23, 2017 made at London, Ontario.

                THE APPELLANT ASKS that the order be set aside and an order be granted dismissing the application dated Aug 30, 2017 brought by  to terminate the tenancy for landlord’s own use (the n12).

                THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are as follows: 

                Main Grounds under s. 83(3)

1.        Mandatory refusal applies to situations which the RTA provides are serious enough to justify refusal - regardless of any other circumstances. If a tenant raises circumstances which might fall into subsection 83(3), the Member must decide whether it applies (Forgie v. Widdicombe Place [2002] O.J. No. 2956 (Div. Ct.)). Further, once it is found that subsection (3) applies, the Member must refuse the eviction (Chin v. Hunt (1986), 17 O.A.C. 267 (Divisional Court)).

2.        Several pieces of evidence were presented to the board that raised circumstances which might fall into subsection 83(3) (see audio), and yet the board did not decide whether it applies, and did not refuse eviction. The board did not even analyze this evidence at all. Instead, it made it’s decision based entirely on other pieces of evidence and entirely on the question of good faith. This is an error in law, as the board decided not to address a question it was legally required to address, according to Forgie v. Widdicombe Place.

3.        Upon review, the reviewing member (Elizabeth Usprich) claimed that the board had broad discretion, implicitly citing the reasonableness standard of review. However, this is an error in law as the case law suggests that the board does not actually have broad discretion, must rule on the evidence when presented with it and must refuse eviction if necessary. In not upholding the existing precedent, the adjudicator exceeded her bounds and did not respect her jurisdiction.

4.        And, as the board does not have broad discretion under the case law, and the adjudicator must follow the existing precedent, this outcome does not fall into a range of acceptable outcomes. The adjudicator erred in not analyzing the evidence, at least. The question of the applicability of 83(3) should consequently be examined on a reasonableness standard of review: the divisional court must do the proper evidentiary analysis that the adjudicator failed to do.

5.        Further, given once again that the board does not have broad discretion under case law, and must follow the existing precedent, the outcome is also simply incorrect, and should be overturned on the correctness standard, as well. The adjudicator erred in not analyzing the evidence correctly, or even at all, and as a result of this came to the incorrect legal conclusion.

Specific Errors That Affected the Decision

6.        The adjudicator erred in claiming that “the tenant did not relate the particulars of what happened but only mentioned that she was verbally threatened with eviction”. An analysis of the audio will indicate that the tenant was in fact explicit about the particulars, and related it clearly to the previous case, SWT-01670-17, which was the primary basis of the defence under s. 83. The adjudicator could not have analyzed the relevant evidence under s. 83(3) if she claims it was never presented.

7.        The adjudicator erred in not drawing the obvious inference between the warning left on March 31^st and the previous case, SWT-01670-17. This was necessary in order to come to the proper conclusion. The adjudicator simply ignored the context around this evidence, then claimed the tenant never presented it.

8.        The adjudicator erred in deducing that a “written warning and final notice” is not a threat of imminent action, or indicative of an intent to evict.

9.        The adjudicator erred in not properly interpreting the letter left on April 1^st as an obvious set-up attempt.

10.     The adjudicator erred in claiming that “I note that there was no evidence in the Tenant’s email describing the events that suggested the Landlord threatened eviction”.

11.     The adjudicator erred in not properly interpreting the emails around the claimed difficulties in electronic payment on august 1^st as a clear documentation of a second obvious set-up attempt.

12.     The adjudicator erred in failing to note that the eviction notice presented on August 10^th was without cause (for being off of the property), and was a third clear obvious set-up attempt.

13.     The adjudicator erred in failing to note that the eviction notice presented on august 11^th was also without cause, and an actual clear admission of retaliatory action – a fourth obvious (if strange.) set-up attempt.

14.     The adjudicator erred in failing to deduce the obvious truth that re-serving already voided n4s is a clear indication of a desire to terminate the tenancy.

15.     The adjudicator erred in stating “Further the two letters the Tenant received gave no indication that the Landlords were seeking termination of the tenancy.”

16.     On review, the member (Elizabeth Usprich) erred in stating “First, if the Tenant did not raise that specific argument at the hearing it should have and could have been and therefore is not properly considered on review”. Forgie provides a clear precedent otherwise: that the adjudicator must interpret any evidence of this nature that exists. Yet, the fact is that the tenant did raise this argument, which can and will be demonstrated via the court audio.

17.     On review, the member (Elizabeth Usprich) erred in stating “The hearing member has broad discretion in issuing her order.”. Again, the precedent in Fergie and Chin is that the refusal is mandatory upon the existence of the relevant evidence

18.     On review, the member (Elizabeth Usprich) erred in stating “Rather it seems that the Tenant is attempting to re-argue his (sic) own position.”. Rather, it seems that the member is unaware of the proper precedent, in context.

General Error

19.     The board also made repeated errors in terms of the concept of a burden of proof, suggesting that it is the tenant’s responsibility to prove that the landlord is not in good faith. This is just a basic error of law as the burden of proof always lies with the party presenting the argument. We can’t have a system where landlords are free to make whatever claim they want, and just dare the tenants to prove them wrong, if they can. That’s really absolutely ridiculous: of course the burden of proof was with the applicant. These strange arguments may indicate a bias on behalf of this adjudicator towards property in general.

                THE BASIS OF THE APPELLATE COURT’S JURISDICTION IS: The appeal is from a final order of an adjudicator of an administrative tribunal, namely the Landlord and Tenant Board of Ontario.

                The appellant requests that this appeal be heard at 245 Windsor Ave, Windsor, Ontario.

getting there...

THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are as follows: 

                Main Grounds under s. 83(3)

1.        Mandatory refusal applies to situations which the RTA provides are serious enough to justify refusal - regardless of any other circumstances. If a tenant raises circumstances which might fall into subsection 83(3), the Member must decide whether it applies (Forgie v. Widdicombe Place [2002] O.J. No. 2956 (Div. Ct.)). Further, once it is found that subsection (3) applies, the Member must refuse the eviction (Chin v. Hunt (1986), 17 O.A.C. 267 (Divisional Court)).

2.        Several pieces of evidence were presented to the court that raised circumstances which might fall into subsection 83(3) (see audio), and yet the court did not decide whether it applies, and did not refuse eviction. The court did not even admit this evidence at all. Instead, it made it’s decision based entirely on other pieces of evidence and entirely on the question of good faith. This is an error in law, as the court decided not to address a question it was legally required to address.

3.        Upon review, the reviewing member claimed that the court had broad discretion, implicitly citing the reasonableness case of review. However, this is an error in law as the case law suggests that the court does not actually have broad discretion, must rule on the evidence and must refuse eviction if necessary.

4.        And, as the court does not have broad discretion under the case law, this outcome does not fall into a range of acceptable outcomes. The adjudicator erred in not analyzing the evidence, at least. This consequently should be re-examined on a reasonableness standard of review.

5.        Further, given once again that the court does not have discretion under case law, the outcome is also simply incorrect, and should be overturned on the correctness standard, as well. The adjudicator erred in not analyzing the evidence correctly, or even at all, and as a result of this came to the incorrect legal conclusion.

this is the meat and potatoes. i'll nitpick a few other things, because i can't bring anything new up after the fact, but this is what i'm focusing on.

i can't challenge the faith ruling. that's up to to the adjudicator - i have to wait until after the fact and sue, then. and had she examined the evidence, i'd have a hard time filling this out. but she was hasty. and maybe didn't take me seriously. and i have a good case for review, i really do.

if i move, it will almost certainly be to toronto.

i have better access to trans doctors, there.

and i have no interest at all in moving back to ottawa.

i'd say 90% likelihood to toronto, vs. 10% likelihood to waterloo. those are the only two serious options, right now.

but, i'm going to need to exhaust my options on appeal, first. that will likely take a long time. i guess if it happens i'll have to put my things in storage and hitchhike down there and live in shelters until i find something.... then i'll have to ship my things from windsor to toronto....

yeah.

seems like that's right.

well, here's the thing - i came here because it was cheap. and, it was cheap because nobody wanted to live here because there aren't any job opportunities.

if the housing situation in windsor is going to stay like this because it's become a magnet for migrants, i might have to migrate somewhere else.

http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/a-year-later-almost-1000-syrians-at-home-in-windsor

you know, i have to wonder if the low vacancy rate here is a consequence of the high number of refugees that were settled here. it's less that prices have gone up and more that vacancy rates have gone down.

i was actually hoping that an influx of refugees would lead to an increase in public housing, but that hasn't happened; instead, vacancy rates have just decreased.

nor, did i expect windsor - which has the highest unemployment rate in the country - to be a prime destination for settlement. why would you put refugees in an area of high unemployment?

well, unless you want to increase rent. but, that's market theory. and, market theory is bullshit. again: the prices really aren't higher, there's just nowhere to move to.

but, these people don't want what i want. they want to generate income. they want fancy houses. they want to send their kids to school. so, they're apparently moving west in large numbers - where they're told there's more economic opportunity.

again: i don't really think that increasing immigration is going to solve the country's economic problems. but, at the least, let's bring in wealthy immigrants. bringing in refugees is just always going to be a net drain.

and, no, it's not their fault. they took an opportunity. blame the government, not the refugees. and, don't even blame the government for bringing them here - blame the government for not investing in them properly, once they did.

you know, i might be able to win a case on reasonableness, anyways.

i would rather have the court consider correctness.

but, i guess the truth is that they're going to make that choice based on existing case law, and i don't even really get the benefit of a presentation. i'm going to throw all this shit down on the table, and they're the ones that are going to determine the correct standard of review.

reasonableness is supposed to provide for a lot of deference. but, it's not total. it needs to look at whether the ruling falls into a reasonable set of possible outcomes. the idea is that the court can set up a kind of multivalued function, but it's not supposed to pass judgement on the outcome, so long as it falls into the correct range it's defined in the mapping. but, it has to define the mapping, first. and, if i can convince the judge that the legislation is such that this outcome is outside of the proper mapping - because the adjudicator misinterpreted the evidence - then i could conceivably get the court to rule the outcome is unreasonable.

i should make both arguments.

1) the outcome is unreasonable, because the statue provides for minimal discretion.
2) the outcome is incorrect, because the statute provides for minimal discretion.

i guess the point is that the statute provides for minimal discretion, and she misinterpreted the evidence, producing a result that is both incorrect and unreasonable.

yeah.

ok.

i think i've got that clear in my head, now.

this day was less productive than i wanted, but i feel like i'll be awake for a while still.

i did see one place. it was a basement, not an apartment. i need an apartment. i left some messages. i have some showings tomorrow.

i'm hoping to serve on thursday, if i can get the documents in line.

i have 30 business days to serve from the 27th, but i need to get it done with enough time to get the stay to the sheriff.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

"so, what work did you produce on your shift this afternoon?"

"seventeen hamburgers, thirteen fries and twelve milkshakes."

no. that's not work!

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

i abuse the language like everybody else, but virtually every job in this economy is neither a job, nor is it work. it is a slave relation that prevents an individual from carrying out meaningful labour, or doing meaningful work. for, every moment that is spent doing forced labour is a moment that is lost in free labour.

and, what drives all of this slavery is the market, under the tyranny of the necessity of rent.

in a capitalist economy, nobody chooses to work to pay rent. rather, we are enslaved to produce a surplus value for the rentier class. we are all prostitutes, so why punish prostitutes? and, that endemic slavery - which most of us don't even acknowledge - prevents us from working on meaningful projects like science, literature and art.

the market allows the ownership class to discard labour it does not feel is valuable. this surplus labour is then left to starve. this is the category i exist within, largely by choice. because i want to spend my time on meaningful work, not on the forced labour that defines our economy.

but, in enlightened societies, the state steps in to stop nature from running it's course.

we need more subsidized housing. that's where i should be. that's what i need. that's what i want.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

it wouldn't make any sense for me to go out in a murder-suicide until i'm done my discography - and, even then, i've still got a lot of writing to do.

see, this is the point you're missing: my rejection of capitalism is not a reflection of my disinterest in meaningful work, but of the wasteful non-work that it forces almost everybody to engage in. capitalism is not work. capitalism is pointless labour, in the absence of meaningful work.

and, i have no interest in family or status; if i had a family (and i did...), i'd reject it (and i did...).

might i kill you all in the end? well, there's some logic in it. but, it's going to be a long time before this presents itself to me as a serious option.

right now, i need to find some place to exist to finish my discography in. i thought it was here. it should have been. but, i can't control who buys the building.

i'm not done here, yet, either. i'm making a good faith effort to find something. but, i'll probably be in this building for another five or six months, at least.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.