Something a little different
Jan. 30th, 2020 06:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fuzzyredThis 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).
no subject
Date: 2020-01-31 01:31 am (UTC)technically the worst you've done is kidnap him.. Heck, you could drug him, dump him on plane and let him walk free.. in the wrong country.
White hat solution, crack down on his fellow russians, pull them for every tiny little infraction, misdemeanor and so on.. and make sure they know it's because of their fellow's actions. Watch everything they do, intently, let them know you are watching them and aren't about to let them get away with anything, not even a broken taillight. Let his bosses know that the entirely legal harassment will continue until they do something about the a-hole.
Watch him get posted to Siberia.
no subject
Date: 2020-01-31 02:05 am (UTC)This does have me wondering more about Gibbs though. He's arguably THE main character in the show, and definitely has a complex history. In my opinion, he still counts as a "good guy", though definitely more grey than white. However, I'm trying to figure out if he does in fact fall on the right side of the moral scale, or if he would be more of a "should be a good guy but lost his way is actually not a good guy".
Although I suppose characters don't have to be distinctly one thing or another; I just keep flashing back to a comment ysabetwordsmith made about not liking stories where she can't tell the good side from the bad side. In this case, I think he does still fall on the side of good, just not with a hat of pure white.
no subject
Date: 2020-01-31 02:21 am (UTC)There is a fan theory that Gibbs in fact died at some point. There's some argument as to when because there's plenty to choose from when he should have, but the gist of the theory is that he died, and was recruited as an angel. However he has to earn his wings by returning to life and atoning for his misdeeds by doing good.
And Gibbs is gaming the system, doing enough good he doesn't get kicked downstairs, but doing objectively bad things just enough, he doesn't get 'promoted' either.. so he stays where he is, immortal and unkillable. Doing the job he loves.
no subject
Date: 2020-01-31 02:58 am (UTC)😆😆😆😆 That is an awesome theory. It fits so well, and I think it was that unexpected accuracy that made me laugh.
Also, epxanding on Gibbs trying to be a good guy. I think he has a strong moral compass and a clear idea of what he sees as right and wrong, even if that doesn't align perfectly with the mainstream ideas of right and wrong. Then, he does what is necessary to enforce his code, and he's not to fussy about the methods. So, ethical grey hat, as opposed to white hat or a whack job/asshole?
no subject
Date: 2020-01-31 03:01 am (UTC)Which still fits the angel theory. Because an angel of justice would be like that!
no subject
Date: 2020-01-31 03:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-01-31 03:10 am (UTC)Also, how he gets his boats out of the basement, and why he always seems to be building them. [hint, they're for crossing over].
no subject
Date: 2020-01-31 03:13 am (UTC)And now I'm picturing Gibbs as an avenging Angel, in the style of a "Lucifer" type show...
no subject
Date: 2020-01-31 03:23 am (UTC)Either way, he just keeps doing what he does best. I can see Lucifer and Micheal both exasperated at him.
no subject
Date: 2020-01-31 03:30 am (UTC)*LAUGH* I can just about imagine a conversation between Lucifer and Gibbs, Lucifer trying to entice him and Gibbs not afraid to speak his mind.
no subject
Date: 2020-01-31 03:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-01-31 01:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-01-31 01:07 pm (UTC)Although Gibb's angelic boss, Micheal doesn't approve but then he's more into the separation of Powers thing, which is part of the treaty about not interfering in the mortal realm, so we never see him on camera. Gibbs isn't subject to the treaty since he's not, technically, an angel so he can interfere all he likes. [Lucifer cheats, of course.]
no subject
Date: 2020-01-31 03:04 am (UTC)Buy him a drink, make him look away, make a toast, and then tell him you've just fed him the latest nanotracker from whatever Yanks call Q section. Tell him he can run, but he can never, ever hide. Just to be sure? Put an obvious tail on his ass until he cuts and runs. He'll BEG for Sibera just to be sure...
no subject
Date: 2020-01-31 03:11 am (UTC)Oh! That would WORK! Gibbs is particularly good at the intimidating, terrifying, you just got on my bad side and are gonna regret it-vibe. I'm not sure the scare tactics would have worked on this particular yahoo (untouchable spoiled rich brat), but adding an actual tail may just have done it.
no subject
Date: 2020-01-31 02:58 am (UTC)Oh, shit, given Russians? No. Do the grey hat solution. It's quick, it's permanent, and it is a loud and clear signal to the nekulturniy degeneraty that hey, two can play at this game, and that bullshit will not be tolerated. Playing it the first way gives him *time* to take revenge... and this time he might get away with murder. Yeah, he'll be PNG'ed and sent to Siberia anyway, but at the loss of one of your people.
Yeah. Slip him a mickey, tie him up, drop him at the Afghani Embassy or the like... end of problem.
no subject
Date: 2020-01-31 03:07 am (UTC)Making him someone else's problem does seem to take care of things nicely.