if i get some cash from the cops, i won't be restricted to living in ontario, anymore.
there are still benefits to waterloo. montreal has fallen down the list pretty far. but, the wildcard has always been victoria, which is not prohibitively expensive and is a ferry ride away from both vancouver and seattle.
i did mushrooms in a hostel there, once. they told us we couldn't camp near the ocean...
ontario is home, but it is dying, and, from a cultural standpoint, i belong in the northwest.
i've also been thinking about potentially moving back to scandinavia.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/british-columbia-electric-vehicles-car-2014-law/117455/
Thursday, November 22, 2018
what i'm going to say is that this doesn't appear at this point to have any effect on me at all.
it does seem as though this is more political than fiscal, and they're playing to their base rather than trying to cut costs. conservatives don't actually balance budgets, remember, and if they slash funding to a specific thing, it is generally with a political motive rather than with a fiscal one. what they do is play on prejudices and fears in order to maintain a control on power; the focus on welfare fraud is essentially a stale, if well-utilized and still well-received, strawman & canard to distract from their own actual corruption.
so, i don't expect this to get better until we can get rid of them. but, this specific update doesn't appear as though it is going to make things worse for me.
while increasing the earnings limit is not going to incentivize me to work, i don't have any particular opposition to the policy, either.
one of the things people have been worried about is that they're going to cut pharmaceutical access. if you ignore the obvious public health risks involved in taking medication away from the poorest people in society, that would actually be inconsistent with this kind of right-libertarian incentive system sort of thing they're adopting - which virtually all economists today will tell you has more to do with faith-based thinking (and, the religion is calvinism) than it has to do with economics. but, it would be more consistent of them to expand drug coverage to low wage workers, to remove the disincentive to work that comes with getting free drugs on welfare and having to pay for them when employed. this is an issue that multiple reports have pointed out, and i would support that - albeit in the interest of expanding drug coverage, rather than in the interest of removing a disincentive to work.
and, while i admit i have had difficulty getting a proper diagnosis, i am confident that i am creative enough to find a way around any newer or more restrictive definitions, even if it requires me to create an event in order to justify it. they keep telling me i'm not episodic. it's a catch-22; i can be episodic, if they insist.
just remember: this is political, not fiscal. always has been. always will be.
https://news.ontario.ca/mcys/en/2018/11/reforming-social-assistance.html
it does seem as though this is more political than fiscal, and they're playing to their base rather than trying to cut costs. conservatives don't actually balance budgets, remember, and if they slash funding to a specific thing, it is generally with a political motive rather than with a fiscal one. what they do is play on prejudices and fears in order to maintain a control on power; the focus on welfare fraud is essentially a stale, if well-utilized and still well-received, strawman & canard to distract from their own actual corruption.
so, i don't expect this to get better until we can get rid of them. but, this specific update doesn't appear as though it is going to make things worse for me.
while increasing the earnings limit is not going to incentivize me to work, i don't have any particular opposition to the policy, either.
one of the things people have been worried about is that they're going to cut pharmaceutical access. if you ignore the obvious public health risks involved in taking medication away from the poorest people in society, that would actually be inconsistent with this kind of right-libertarian incentive system sort of thing they're adopting - which virtually all economists today will tell you has more to do with faith-based thinking (and, the religion is calvinism) than it has to do with economics. but, it would be more consistent of them to expand drug coverage to low wage workers, to remove the disincentive to work that comes with getting free drugs on welfare and having to pay for them when employed. this is an issue that multiple reports have pointed out, and i would support that - albeit in the interest of expanding drug coverage, rather than in the interest of removing a disincentive to work.
and, while i admit i have had difficulty getting a proper diagnosis, i am confident that i am creative enough to find a way around any newer or more restrictive definitions, even if it requires me to create an event in order to justify it. they keep telling me i'm not episodic. it's a catch-22; i can be episodic, if they insist.
just remember: this is political, not fiscal. always has been. always will be.
https://news.ontario.ca/mcys/en/2018/11/reforming-social-assistance.html
at
15:51
i'm at nearly six months straight edge, btw - no drinking or smoking of any kind since i got back from movement at the end of may.
well, i haven't been to a concert or out dancing, so why would i want to get drunk or stoned?
well, i haven't been to a concert or out dancing, so why would i want to get drunk or stoned?
at
02:08
i've been over this before.
the thing that makes me depressed is people. so long as i'm alone, i'm broadly happy. it's when i have to interact with other people that i got depressed, and seek some kind of escape - music, alcohol, nicotine, marijuana...
if you force me to go to work, i'll probably start smoking again, too. i quit almost three years ago. what kind of victory is that? who benefits?
it's a stupid policy.
and, i don't know if you can fix me or not - but i know it will cost a lot of money to try.
the thing that makes me depressed is people. so long as i'm alone, i'm broadly happy. it's when i have to interact with other people that i got depressed, and seek some kind of escape - music, alcohol, nicotine, marijuana...
if you force me to go to work, i'll probably start smoking again, too. i quit almost three years ago. what kind of victory is that? who benefits?
it's a stupid policy.
and, i don't know if you can fix me or not - but i know it will cost a lot of money to try.
at
01:48
for the night, i'm going to pick up where i left off this morning.
the government in ontario is going to release a report on social services tomorrow, and the leaks seem to be suggesting that they're trying to find ways to get disabled people to work. the previous government toyed with this idea, but stepped back from it repeatedly. the government before that focused on workfare, but it was struck down as unconstitutional.
i don't think that actual disability rights activists should be advocating for labour rights for disabled people. it's an orwellianism, a contradiction in terms. being disabled means you can't work. that's why you're disabled. and, if you can work, then you're not very disabled, are you? they may present it with egalitarian language, and accuse detractors of being "ableist", but it's an algorithm to unravel assistance, and that will leave most people that rely on it in a horrible situation. the newspaper article will want to make you think that the average person in a wheelchair can get a $100,000/year job in the government and doesn't need any more help than anybody else, so long as the facility is accessible. it's a delusional lie. actual advocates need to push back against this and reassert the dis in disability.
my problem is that i can't go to work. it's not the labour i can't deal with, it's the social interaction. it's the people. i don't like being around people, and they don't like being around me, either. so, what i would need would be one of the following options:
1) very substantive counselling to help me deal with people face-to-face, which is very expensive, and not likely to get a return, given i have no greater aspirations in the work force than a part time job at minimum wage. they're going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on counselling for me, and in the end i won't even pay taxes. i'm never going to want to work in an office.
2) if you were going to force me to go to work tomorrow, i would show up drunk, because that's the only way i'm able to deal with people. it's the same reason i get drunk at concerts. i just don't know how to exist, socially. so, you could give me a job where it's ok to be drunk all of the time. but, i'd just end up horribly depressed by it.
3) i could theoretically work from home, if forced to at gun point. i still wouldn't want a time consuming job. so, i could do online tech support part time or something.
4) just accept that the most cost-effective option is leaving me alone to do what i want.
the worse it is, the stronger my incentive to sue the police is going to be.
the government in ontario is going to release a report on social services tomorrow, and the leaks seem to be suggesting that they're trying to find ways to get disabled people to work. the previous government toyed with this idea, but stepped back from it repeatedly. the government before that focused on workfare, but it was struck down as unconstitutional.
i don't think that actual disability rights activists should be advocating for labour rights for disabled people. it's an orwellianism, a contradiction in terms. being disabled means you can't work. that's why you're disabled. and, if you can work, then you're not very disabled, are you? they may present it with egalitarian language, and accuse detractors of being "ableist", but it's an algorithm to unravel assistance, and that will leave most people that rely on it in a horrible situation. the newspaper article will want to make you think that the average person in a wheelchair can get a $100,000/year job in the government and doesn't need any more help than anybody else, so long as the facility is accessible. it's a delusional lie. actual advocates need to push back against this and reassert the dis in disability.
my problem is that i can't go to work. it's not the labour i can't deal with, it's the social interaction. it's the people. i don't like being around people, and they don't like being around me, either. so, what i would need would be one of the following options:
1) very substantive counselling to help me deal with people face-to-face, which is very expensive, and not likely to get a return, given i have no greater aspirations in the work force than a part time job at minimum wage. they're going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on counselling for me, and in the end i won't even pay taxes. i'm never going to want to work in an office.
2) if you were going to force me to go to work tomorrow, i would show up drunk, because that's the only way i'm able to deal with people. it's the same reason i get drunk at concerts. i just don't know how to exist, socially. so, you could give me a job where it's ok to be drunk all of the time. but, i'd just end up horribly depressed by it.
3) i could theoretically work from home, if forced to at gun point. i still wouldn't want a time consuming job. so, i could do online tech support part time or something.
4) just accept that the most cost-effective option is leaving me alone to do what i want.
the worse it is, the stronger my incentive to sue the police is going to be.
at
01:16
they mailed me a transcript, but it's wrong, so i'm going to have to order the audio. there are things that i remember happening that are not listed, so i'll have to listen to the audio to figure out if the transcriptionist is useless or the audio is doctored. if it's the transcriptionist, and it probably is, then i'm going to have to file a complaint with her professional organization, and she could lose her license...
i gave her a second chance to make sure she didn't miss anything. but, i'm going to order the audio, regardless. they charge a lot of money - i have no patience for this, and will be ruthless.
and, if it is the audio that's been altered, i'm going to have to press criminal charges, somehow. it should be stored in a wave file, and that file should be date stamped. so, determining that the file has been altered should actually be easy - the hard part is getting legal access to it.
that slows me down a little. i have lots of time. i probably want to get a response on the investigation of the cop first, anyways.
i'll get the print destruction request mailed friday morning, regardless.
i gave her a second chance to make sure she didn't miss anything. but, i'm going to order the audio, regardless. they charge a lot of money - i have no patience for this, and will be ruthless.
and, if it is the audio that's been altered, i'm going to have to press criminal charges, somehow. it should be stored in a wave file, and that file should be date stamped. so, determining that the file has been altered should actually be easy - the hard part is getting legal access to it.
that slows me down a little. i have lots of time. i probably want to get a response on the investigation of the cop first, anyways.
i'll get the print destruction request mailed friday morning, regardless.
at
00:58
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)