Richards

being useless at ones job is not the same as doing nothing. It is much worse. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Being paid to do nothing A tax break means that of the dollars you work for the government takes a bit less away. Does not meet the definition I posted above. Loans are not welfare as you pay it back an pay interest on the loan. No. That is an uncollectable account. The persons credit rating will be affaected accordingly. You can sue but in most cases it is deemed to not be worth their while You would have to define the perk. If you refer to an old age pension, well then it is expected that the person is not going to be looking for work. If they use drugs they will die sooner and we can stop paying benefits I agree with that to an extent. I sometimes feel that the distinction between welfare bume (not everyone on welfare) and UI bums is ambiguous at best. That said, UI is temporary and you at least have to report in. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Maybe some misundestanding. While I feel that extra effort should be put into monitoring those who show no progress the possibility of being hit with a random test should be there for all. It's not about judging all recipients or kicking people when they are down. While you may or may not beleive me, I have personally seen a great deal of abuse and resent it. Furthermore it takes funds away from those that need it. I agree with your position on measures to get people up and self reliant. I also have issues with the fact that wekfare provides a better life than mimimum wage since there is obviously an incentive conflict there. Part of my desire (and I suspect tat of some other proponents) is out of interest for those on welfare. It is not just about catching bad guys, it is about making people get on with their lives. As I stated I have some relatives who have now made welfare the family business. An aunt (actually second cousin) has been on welfare her whole life. She parties, hangs out with freinds (in her subsidized housing condo complex) and whatnot. This was the example here children saw their whole lives. Trust me she would not take any opportunity to get back into the work force unless she was kicked in the ass to do so. Anyway, fast forward many years, her daughter (about my age) drops out of high school has a baby and moves out into subsidised housing and goes on welfare (as does the son). They stay up late, drink and smoke pot with their freinds while playing cards until 2 or 3 in the morning, sleep in until about 11:00 AM to 1:00PM. By now the daughers son is about work/welfare age and undoubtedly is following in the family tradition. I have seen multiple cases like this. My problem is that the young kid has no chance because that is all he knows. If it was someone close to me that I cared about I would want the government to be on their case kicking their ass to get up and moving. If some get thrown off welfare several others will be scared into staying off the dope (and I am just fine with alcohol testing) and may actually become something. It is actually a tough love approach. In the long run this sort of testing will not only save dollars but based n what I have seen it may give some zero ambition types the kick in the ass they need to get a life. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I'm a peacefull drunk with all booze My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

So you suspect I am making up the welfare queen relatives I have? I have known many who abuse the system and it bugged the hell out of me. Unless I happen to have come across a highly mis-representative sample it stands to reason that this is a problem. When we are allowed to conduct tests we will get some stats. I will send them to you with a smile You are misinformed Actually no we don't. We did not go into Iraq when many did. We also have wrestled back and forth about NAFTA issues and the arctic. If anything Canada's history has been more one of snubbing washington (which I felt was wrong to do) Our largest trading partner? Thanks but I do not wish to have to become a beaver hunter for lack of a real economy. Do most Canadians you meet express a desire to be more American? I have not seen that. Actually we aren't. We pay taxes here, have the Queen as a figurehead, and a few other subtle differences Yes. No. Correspondence works fine. Nah. Rent-a-crowd drives me nuts. It depends on how strongly I beleive in the issue Fine. You have that right. In light of your desire to be free from your government do you still feel "the man" has an obligation to carry you? Fine. Do not take government assistance No I did not. You are seeing what you want to see. DO police roadside DUI checks imply that the police beleive that all drivers are impaired. No. It would be ridiculous to say that as it was ridiculous for you to claim I was painting all welfare recipients with the same brush. You are the one using fear mongering techniques. It's the old "they're out to get us" routine. No Right? Are you absolutely sure you are not drinking? I can say whatever I like. I was under the impression that this was a discussion forum. Do we now have rules limiting discussion to matters that pertain to your own country? Better go ask the moderators to make it a bannable offense for a Canadian to discuss US policy, for Americans to discuss policies in contries other than their own. Let's ask for clarification; Hey Moderators.........am I allowed to discuss american policies here as a canadian? Will I be banned? Sued? Guess what. I do agree with that law and I wish we would bring it in here. I will continue to say so despite your protests You refered to "our kind". I asked for clarification and you said "look in the mirror" . What am I looking for? Is our kind blond with thinning hair? Is "our kind" identified by a complete lack of fashion sense (according to my wife). I was looking for an operational definition of "our kind" and I got an eighth grader response Wrong again. You cannot know that from this one thread. I look at the issues on a case by case basis and make my own decisions rather than letting either wing tell me what I think. You have to get off this "oh the big neo-con meany is trying to kick people when they are down" trip. I have argued both sides of the fence on this forum and have leaned towards supporive social programs in most cases. As I stated before when I spent time on workers compensation and had to go for follow up checks to prevent abuse i did not feel humiliated, degraded, violated, kicked-when-down, subjugated...and all the other buzz words the entitlement generation spew out when someone dares to suggest some accountability. I actually appreciated what they were trying to do. Practically it would not be feasible to test all recipients but it should be allowed. It should be randomized and they should be able to target certain individuals for frequent tests if there is reason to suspect. How in the hell does that qualify as kicking someone when they are down? That is the classic self pity guilt trip employed by the entitlement generation when someone says...."accountability". As for kicking some guy off of welfare I would not do that. If he tests positiv he would get one chance to enter into a treatment program (unless he is just a casual pot user) at which time he would have follow up checks and he would be advised that future use could lead to his benefits being denied. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Well then why did you ask why you should be tested if you take welfare? Do you take the SSDI investigations as an accusation that all SSDI recipients are abusing? Why take drug testing for welfare as an accusation that all welfare are druggies? It is a social security type program. Different beuracracy. Many welfare recipients paid into welfare with their taxes before going on it too. What if you earned $50,000 per year for one year before getting a disablility and then were on it for ten years? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

The government has provided their own statistics proving that the government is spending ur tax dollars wisely? It must be the truth then. As for my proof I have seen it with my own eyes. Did I imply that his comment did? I think not. I posted cites that showed a reverse trend from what Clinton did to what happened after Bush took office. Well then what did Bush vs Clinton have to do with this thread? Most of the social problems in the US are mirrored here in Canada. Many of the current issues in America are also current hot issues here. We have social services much like you (even more so) and we have a great deal of abuse. I happen to agree with the principle of the thread. I do not see how my being Canadian prevents me from having a perspective on the debate. Your use of terms such as "stick it to the man" and "freedom, baby" are typically associated with hippies. I merely deduced this to indicated you are speaking of hiipies. I was simply depicting the anti-establishment culture we have in our society today. No hippies were harmed in the creation of that statement. Oh what garbage. You are seeing what you want to see in my comments so you have an excuse to get hurt, offended and outraged, which will allow you to go on an indignant self rightious "I'm so offended" rampage. I have repeated ad-nauseum that I do not beleive all welfare recipients are drug users and have already challenged you in this thread to point out where I have once said/implied that all welfare users (or even the large majotity of them) are drug users and you have yet to clarify that accusation. Where have I said that? Got a mirror? Oh.....here we go again. Are you capable of having a debate about a matter such as this without pouting and name calling? I just tried to point out in my last post that it was not personal yet you are going menstrual on me. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

As with all social services there are legitimate users (yourself) and there are abusers. Guy I knew was on workers comp (long term disability) and they were paying his way through school because his back was too injured to work. His back wasn't to hurt to chop wood regularly for his fire-stove or to spend much of his time riding a snowmobile. At the time I didn't report him because I bought into the "don't be a rat" theory. I wish I had been a rat. He was stealing from all of us who work and pay taxes. It is an insurance policy is it not? Don't most insurance policies have investigations when they get claims? You pay into those too. Many who go on these programs take out far more than they put in. We have a right as the ones who pay the difference to prevent fraud or abuse. I am sorry you take this as a personal attack upon you because it is not. The fact that we wish to have safegaurds in place to prevent abuse and fraud is not tantamount to saying all welfare recipients are drugged up hippies who should die. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

THey are the ones who get angry and start yelling and accusing you of all sorts of things when you threaten thier way of life by questioning the way the system is run. They are the ones who get angry because "welfare is a constitutional birthright that evil nazis (aka welfare reformists) are trying to take away". Actually there is. I have seen and met more of them than I care to remember. As a matter of fact a few distant (very distant) relatives of mine are career welfare queens. And I have seen in person many times the entitlement culture in all their self rightious indignantcy. So in fact there is such a thing. What is "our kind"? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

At this stage I am still undecided. My default position is that he should not be allowed to bring it in, but ultimately the courts will have to decide that. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Where did his comment compare Clinton vs Bush? Where do you come up with this stuff?? What did I say that implied that the vast majority of recipients are dirty hippies?? Where on earth did I say anything about hippies at all? Are you sure you don't drink? I only ask because the way you tend to put these spins on my comments is beyond comprehension. I think you have a very defensive nature (no offense) and put the worst possible spin on every thing anyone says about an issue that hits close to home with you. My comment was about the overall generation of people today (and not just young people) where people have developed a sense of entitlement which in itself is wrong but even more laughable when these same "baby wants bottle" types rant about how the government should let adults make their own decisions. It is reflected in everything from students, many union thumpers, to seasonal workers who think nothing of working half the year and living on the taxpayers dollar the other half year. The gyst of the comment was aimed at the whole culture. Obviously it was meant to have bearing on the topic at hand but I never said members of the welfare industry were all dirty hippies. Please.....please read posts thoroughly before you respond. That and constantly monitoring for abuse and behaviour that will conflict with attempts to become self reliant. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I suspect that participants in court rooms present more of a threat than staff or lawyers. But that said, nobody should carry them into the court room. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Well in that case we can ban shoelaces (can be used as a garrote), paperwork (paper cut a guy) and other items. I think the deciding factor should come down to a few key questions; 1: Is it designed as a weapon? 2: If not designed as a weapon is it's presence here grossly innapropriate and likely for the purpose of using as a weapon (baseball bat is after all merely sports equipment, not a weapon). 3: Is there any reason a rational person might think it is probable that this person could conceivably either plan to or in the heat of the moment spontaneously use this as an effective weapon. Unless you are examining real close you will not likely see how sharp the edges of a crucifix are. If however he uses it as a weapon, the sharpenning in advance might indicate that it was a planned assault rather than a completely spontaneous loss of control. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

That would have created a huge backlash. Screams of intolerance, racism....etc. People make concessions on their religious beleifs every day in accordance with the reality of the society we live in. This guy is an adult, he should have had the maturity and character to see the intent behind it and hand over the kirpan to testify and then he could have got it back right after. Instead he decided to make a statement. Tp make matters worse the civil liberties guy blew it up into an "intolerance" case. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Sounds like an excellent idea Precisely. Since you have to get up early in the morning every day (which requires getting some sleep the night before and staying reasonably sober), you have an incentive now to seek work that pays better and is more to your liking. Brilliant. Why the hell don't we have that? That's precisely the problem. The entitlement generation want all the freedoms of adulthood with the utter lack of personal responsibility which we attribute to childhood. They rant about "freedom baby" and "sticking it to the man" and how "the man" has no right to interfere with the way they live their lives, yet the indignantly expect "the man" to bottle feed them. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I would really like to get the input of some law enforcement types and lawyers to resolve this. I am about 80% leaning towards supporting the ban but not yet confident enough in my opinion to say without a doubt that it should be enforced. Any lawyers? Cops? Court officers? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

On one hand I see what you are saying yet if he felt that strongly about his civil right/duty to testify he could have removed it. Perhaps they can compromise and make one where the dagger is welded into the scabbard and thus cannot be removed. It is not unheard of for appearingly harmless items to be banned from courtrooms. In the past they have banned belt buckles over a certain size. It may sound like a stretch but in a courtroom you need to feel safe to testify. Outburts, even violent ones have happened in courtrooms. I can see why in an environment that can be emotionally charged I might wish to keep out items that could be used to harm or even intimidate. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

OK, but the point was that they were not placing an unreasonable constraint on him. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2008/01/15/sidhu-kirpan.html?ref=rss Not sure what to say about this. I don't want to turn it into a bash PC/special interest commentary but I feel the guy over-reacted. Most of us have had to make concessions on our religious beleifs where there was some demonstrable reason why it might be neccessary to do so. I am sure this man could have removed the Kirpan for the duration of the hearing without grossly violating his religion. It is not as though he was asked to remove his turban. Calling it intolerance is a bit much. I highly doubt that a bunch of racist lawyers got together and said "how can we really stick it to those sikhs? ....I know! Lets ban kirpans!!". Even if the rule is innappropriate under the circumstances (I don't think it is) it is not intolerance. Occasionally these conlflicts occur without such insidious underlying intent. I also disagree with his statement that it is like banning a crucifix because a crucifix is not used as a means of inflicting harm (unless of course they are afraid you will nail someone to it in a court room). He is needlesly making inflamatory comments that serve only to wind up the sikh community. I realize that in perspective these kirpans are small but these rules usually come in for a reason. Ceremonial or not I think it would be a mistake to allow any kind of weapon into a courtroom. Am I wrong? Is there something I am not considering here? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I somewhat agree and disagree. I do wish to monitor but cutting someone off cold will eliminate the possibility of them being able to get a job. I would prefer some kind of workfare scheme where the person has to get out of bed in the morning and do something to earn his keep. That way since he has to get up anyway he will have an incentive to try to find something that pays better than welfare. Cutt-offs should usually only apply in the case of those who do not do their work-fare. The problem with welfare is not the welfare itself but the culture surrounding it. We in the west have become decadent and have lost the sense of responsibility for ones-self (particularly up here in Canada). I know this sounds like a cliche rant but we need to back up the language of entitlement spouted by anti-poverty activists and start conveying to people that they have to work to have a good life even if it offends some people. Get people used to the idea that it is not unfair to be minitored when you are on the public dollar, and it is not a violation of your rights/privacy.Start in the school system. I honestly beleive we can maintain a charitable social system while simultaneously developing a culture of pride in self reliance. The two are not mutually exclusive . My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

There must be a rate of disipation of it in your blood stream is there not? There is no way whatsoever top distinguish between someone who just got high and someobe who got high yesterday? There must be some chemical difference in your bloodsteam that they can measure otherwise you would stay high for weeks Met functionals and non-functionals for both. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Apparently mouthwash can cause you to fail a breathalyzer (or so I have heard). I am sure there can be flaws in any system and that is why you get a court hearing. As for passive inhalation, can medical science make no distinction between a guy who was near a few potheads at a concert and a huy who was smoking up. Surely much like alcohol where the test the levels they could determine a benchmark measure whereby they can reasonable say you were directly inhaling it. Now we are going on a bit of a tangent. My concerns as stated dealt with people already on welfare using a substance that has been linked with "motivation" issues. I do not care to start testing for every possible thing that could someday potentially with some remote possibility cause a person to be unemployed due to illness. I have known several of the chronic drinkers and tokers. A couple of them were related to me. There is at least inferential evidence that people on welfare who smoke pot (with some regularity) and who drink regularly have a wee tendency to sleep in until about 1 oclock in the afternoon rather frequently. This can be a problem when one is apparently being helped to "climb back up the ladder". I am sure cookies can lead to obesity which 10 years from now could cause the person to be unemployed but in the short term I think it is more productive to deal with more immediate barriers. Has there even been implied evidence that people who smoke a pack a day (but don't drink or use drugs) tend to be unreliable when it comes to getting out of bed in the morning and/or showing up for work? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Why? If they are not hurting you then what is the problem? Fair. If people have their breath tested for alcohol at roadside checks they should also get drug tested. Now you are the one that is generalizing. I know many heavy drinkers who are passive and quiet when they drink. Has tobacco use been linked with chronic unemployment or failure to show up for work? It would be nice and I would support that but let us not forget that such a program would be a priviledge not a right. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

We might wish to be selective who we apply it to. Someone with an impeccable employment record who simply had a bad year may be given a miss (but tested if he shows no progress). It should be the default position that we can and we then do not have to justify it to those we test. Good idea. Also require applicants who don't have a high school diploma to attend adult education. On a macro scale that's not much different than the cold indiference you criticise. Foreign aid is a decent thing to do and I do not have a problem with it. That said, the US should take a closer look at it's home grown despair. You need to realize that people in some countries die in massive numbers just due to lack of clean drinking water (and certainly lack of food). The US poverty issue is no-where near that disastrous Yes stricter guidelines are critical and we do need to stop passing kids through the system without them having to meet a standard. As for banning summer vacation I have some nephews who would have your head on a platter if you took their summer break so don't go there! Not to mention summer recreation allows for some degree of social development. I am not familiar with those programs but on the whole I agree entirely with programs that promote self reliance and I have frequently advocated more attainable education for people of lower socie-economic backgrounds. I see it as an investment in our human capital. When we retire we want to make sure that the young people runing the country are educated. What the fuck kind of skydiver are you? I have been on workers comp before (for about 6 weeks) and I recall I had to have follow up doctor appointments to be forwarded to workers comp. I did not feel hurt or violated or that I was being lumped in with abusers. In effect I was sitting at home and being paid via tax dollars. They had a right to ensure that I was not milking it. I realized that they had to make sure I was not abusing the system and appreciated that since by keeping abusers off of it they were able to provide better services to the ones who needed it. Supervison is not the same as kicking someone who is down. My answer differs depending on whether or not there are kids involved. If someone is caught using drugs then they can be given a choice. Be cut off or take mandatory drug rehab. If the kids have a drug abusing parent who is not working then they would be better off in a foster home. No one is saying all welfare users are drug abusers. There is correllation between the two and it is fair to have a provision whereby we can supervise to minimize abuse. If I needed welfare (and I realize it can happen to anyone) I would not feel offended by being asked to provide a urine test. I don't agree that it would hurt more than it would help. The only concern anyone could really have is that now they have to stay clean. There is no real reason to complain. This argument that we are lumping all welfare recipients together does not hold water and is deliberately used by anti-poverty activists to stir up feelings of miscontent between the poor and those who's job it is to allocate charitable resources in a responsible manner. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.