![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Something a little different
Jan. 30th, 2020 06:05 pmThis weekly post will be a bit different in content from the others, and contain two parts. The first one will be a mini rant, though I hope to still keep it civil, and the second part will be a solicitation for problem solving ideas.
Part 1: Disability benefits
So, I was having a discussion with my dad the other day, who happens to be on disability due to an accident, and it reminded me how f***ed up the system is. He's fortunate enough to only have minor problems, but he still wouldn't be able to work a full time job, so he would need supplemental income, plus disability gives him drug coverage for vital anti-rejection drugs (the cost of which is a rant all it's own). In Canada, or at least in my particular city, he can't make any extra income or it gets deducted from what they give him, and he is living off of less than a full-time job at minimum wage. At $15.00/hr, that works out to roughly $25,000/yr after tax and he gets significantly less than that. If someone is able to work but needs extra help, they should be allowed to do that without losing the other benefits OR you should damn well give them enough to live off of. My dad isn't reckless or impulsive and he does decently well with his money and he STILL has a hard time making it through the month after property taxes, bills and gas are factored in. Come on Canada, we should be able to better than this. (Any suggestions for fixing the system or exorbitant medical costs are welcome).
Part 2: Creative Solutions
On Tuesdays, I watch NCIS with my family, as we all enjoy the show. It is a crime drama that deals with navy personnel and has characters I enjoy. However, all the fiction I read here on DW, and the thought provoking discussions that often crop up, had me wondering if there was a better solution than the one presented in this weeks show.
The gist of the episode is a young Russian man with sovereign immunity is driving stupid fast through a residential zone and hits two of the NCIS agents. The female (Bishop) is largely ok, while the male (Torres) ends up in critical condition with some complications. The sovereign immunity means he's going to get away with it, which really pisses off Bishop. She tells another agent (McGee) in anger that she's going to kill the Russian, and the next morning he ends up shot in his mistress' bathtub, with Bishop claiming she didn't do it. The episode ends with McGee asking Bishop who killed the Russian, if it wasn't her or the mistress. They both look over to the elevator where their boss (Gibbs) is, with the implication that he killed the Russian himself.
Before I ask opinions, a few details about the characters that might be relevant. Agent Gibbs was a marine, is a gruff but generally good man who pursues justice at all costs and not always in a white hat way. He murdered the man that killed his wife and child and has made other similar calls in the name of justice and vengeance. During the episode, he has a conversation with Bishop telling her not to go down that road, because if she does what he's done, she'll end up where he is, with what he has; alone, with only his job and not really happy in the traditional sense.
The feeling I got from the ending scene, was that the writers and creators implied that Gibbs killed the Russian to spare Bishop the stain on her life doing it herself would bring; and as justice for his injured agent. My question for all of you is: Was he right? He's supposed to be one of the good guys, yet he murdered a man who committed a hit and run that severely injured one of his team rather than let him walk free. Is there another way he (or the team) could have handled it? Is he still a good guy? What would a black hat do in this situation? How about a white hat?
I'm hoping for a good ethical discussion here, because I am genuinely curious, and not entirely sure where my own opinion falls. Civility is much appreciated though; no shouting down or insulting anyone else (not that I think any of you regulars would do that).
Part 1: Disability benefits
So, I was having a discussion with my dad the other day, who happens to be on disability due to an accident, and it reminded me how f***ed up the system is. He's fortunate enough to only have minor problems, but he still wouldn't be able to work a full time job, so he would need supplemental income, plus disability gives him drug coverage for vital anti-rejection drugs (the cost of which is a rant all it's own). In Canada, or at least in my particular city, he can't make any extra income or it gets deducted from what they give him, and he is living off of less than a full-time job at minimum wage. At $15.00/hr, that works out to roughly $25,000/yr after tax and he gets significantly less than that. If someone is able to work but needs extra help, they should be allowed to do that without losing the other benefits OR you should damn well give them enough to live off of. My dad isn't reckless or impulsive and he does decently well with his money and he STILL has a hard time making it through the month after property taxes, bills and gas are factored in. Come on Canada, we should be able to better than this. (Any suggestions for fixing the system or exorbitant medical costs are welcome).
Part 2: Creative Solutions
On Tuesdays, I watch NCIS with my family, as we all enjoy the show. It is a crime drama that deals with navy personnel and has characters I enjoy. However, all the fiction I read here on DW, and the thought provoking discussions that often crop up, had me wondering if there was a better solution than the one presented in this weeks show.
The gist of the episode is a young Russian man with sovereign immunity is driving stupid fast through a residential zone and hits two of the NCIS agents. The female (Bishop) is largely ok, while the male (Torres) ends up in critical condition with some complications. The sovereign immunity means he's going to get away with it, which really pisses off Bishop. She tells another agent (McGee) in anger that she's going to kill the Russian, and the next morning he ends up shot in his mistress' bathtub, with Bishop claiming she didn't do it. The episode ends with McGee asking Bishop who killed the Russian, if it wasn't her or the mistress. They both look over to the elevator where their boss (Gibbs) is, with the implication that he killed the Russian himself.
Before I ask opinions, a few details about the characters that might be relevant. Agent Gibbs was a marine, is a gruff but generally good man who pursues justice at all costs and not always in a white hat way. He murdered the man that killed his wife and child and has made other similar calls in the name of justice and vengeance. During the episode, he has a conversation with Bishop telling her not to go down that road, because if she does what he's done, she'll end up where he is, with what he has; alone, with only his job and not really happy in the traditional sense.
The feeling I got from the ending scene, was that the writers and creators implied that Gibbs killed the Russian to spare Bishop the stain on her life doing it herself would bring; and as justice for his injured agent. My question for all of you is: Was he right? He's supposed to be one of the good guys, yet he murdered a man who committed a hit and run that severely injured one of his team rather than let him walk free. Is there another way he (or the team) could have handled it? Is he still a good guy? What would a black hat do in this situation? How about a white hat?
I'm hoping for a good ethical discussion here, because I am genuinely curious, and not entirely sure where my own opinion falls. Civility is much appreciated though; no shouting down or insulting anyone else (not that I think any of you regulars would do that).
