Uncategorized

Survivor: Abbotsford

Leave a comment

For me the weeks around Christmas have always been a period of desolation and darkness, my focus to simply survive. This past week has been a struggle to overcome the urge to close the blinds, turn up the music and retreat under the covers. It has been an act of self-discipline to merely get out of bed and out the door into the world.

Since I am probably mentally healthier than I have ever been in my life, having the riptide caused by the season drag me down into a mental funk is remarkably disconcerting. I had hoped for an easier time this Season but … sigh. Fortunately one of the programs I have recently attended dealt with the concept of recognizing triggers (the Season) and a wellness toolbox holding “tools” to employ when things are not going well.

One of the “tools” I now have is being more involved with people and the community. I have “places to be and people to see”, providing motivation to get out the door instead of cranking up the music and dwelling in woe. Still with two weeks or so to go until the doldrums of the Season are behind me it behooves me to pay attention to good things.

It was in this “see the positive” mind-set that I read another letter in the Post (of December 22) from a friend upset by comments that had been made about me in an earlier letter to the Post. Looking at this new letter from a positive perspective provided a real positive boost as the hours wound down to Doomsday aka Christmas Day.

There was a time when reading B’s original letter would have started up the squirrel wheel in my mind, wounded me and had me carrying around a resentment – looking for “pay back”.

I had a new and very different reaction when I read it. I laughed out loud, thought of the inaccuracies and fallacies contained within B’s comments, entertained thoughts of verbally slicing and dicing B and then – I just let the matter go. At the time I was opposing Plan A, OK I still oppose Plan A – but that is another article, and when I asked myself “how important is it?” – it wasn’t.

Laugh. What would have been a grievous wound to my ego, weighing me down and eating at me until I had to strike out spitefully, meant nothing to my newly hard-won self-esteem. You do all this work, take uncounted small steps and it is only when something like B’s letter happens that you see the progress you are making. Evolving, not only in improving my mental health but in becoming the person I want to be.

My friends were more upset at B’s venom than I was, at least two of them to the point of writing to the Post in defense of me as a person. Good friends: a bonus from the hard work on mental health and the accompanying improvements in me, that learning about myself and how to make positive changes has given rise to. I am unable to change other people, but I can certainly change myself and how I react to the actions of others.

Reality is that if you choose to stand up and be counted, to question the establishment and to advocate for change in the way things are done you have to accept that members of the old boys network or beneficiaries of the status quo are not going to be happy with you.

When you see the need for change and are passionate about bringing it about, whether in you own mental health/self, Abbotsford’s damaging policies, behaviours and business practices or the province’s or country’s social and financial policies it is very easy to attract critics. Making friends who will stand up and defend you is a whole different kettle of fish and is most informing to those who do not know you.

So when bleakness threatens to become overwhelming this Season I will choose to focus on: the progress I have made on myself, my mental health and on continuing to make personal progress; reveling in the challenges presented by the positive changes I plan to make in the city, province, country and even the world itself; and on treasuring the gifts of friendship I have been given.

Consider

Raccons and the Anti-Christ

Leave a comment

This is in reply to an article in the Something Cool News (to who I owe that most interesting title), www.somethingcool.ca, aticle found at the link below.

Fred, Fred, Fred…

An old apocalyptican like yourself does not recognize the appearance of Psycho Killer Racoons and that story being reported loudly on the ABC website as a sign of the approaching apocalypse?

Alternatively I suppose that you could take it as a genetic consequence of years of mistreating the environment. No – not the racoons, who are only acting naturally, but human beings. What else besides genetic and brain damage as a result of environmental excesses could explain this taking place. Yes I know we are speaking of Americans, but not even Americans can be that stupid without factoring in genetic and mental damages inflicted by environmental poisonning.

I suppose it does not really matter. Approaching Apocalypse or brain damage the result will be the same since, in a Universe set in motion to evolve intelligent live, even if it is only genetics and brain damage the Universe would have no other option but extinction of the humans to permit evolution to take another shot at evolving an intelligent species. In either case the effect, and thus from the view of humanity, is the same.

Municipal

We ALL pay…

Leave a comment

The appalling ignorance of basic economic reality demonstrated by recent letters and comments based upon the erroneous assumption that only those wealthy enough to own property pay into city tax-coffers does help explain the poor decision making by voters for municipal, provincial and federal representatives.

Everybody pays. Those well off enough to own property merely see the direct costs of the tax on their property in a much more in your face manner. It would appear that most fail to appreciate the hidden city taxes everyone pays. The most easily visible of the non-property owner’s property tax payments is the portion of rent that pays the landlords rental property taxes. One can be sure that landlords who can will pass any tax increases to their tenants.

Only the most gullible would believe that business and commercial taxes are not passed on to the consumer – whether they own property of not. It is unfortunate that all non-property owners could not take all their business to other jurisdictions and demonstrate to the property owners just how much they contribute to city coffers – without the benefits of property ownership to offset the city’s constantly increasing appetite for tax revenue.

One can build a solid case for the fact that the homeless and poor are unfairly burdened in being required to contribute a much higher proportion of their income to city coffers than the much better-off property owners. The basic deductions and differing tax rates at the federal and provincial levels is intended to address the unfair effect taxation has on the poor and those living in poverty. There are provincial and city property tax rebate programs for the poorest of the property owners, but none for the effects city taxes have on those to poor to afford property.

Of course this ignorance is particularly appalling in those who call themselves business people, especially leaders of various business organizations within the city. Although I suppose in the case of the Downtown Businesses the special treatment this area receives, at the expense of other taxpayers, warps their view of who pays into the city coffers and thus into their pockets.

It is just unfortunate for so many of the taxpayers who fund this largess that it failed to cause them to consider the effect driving the poor and homeless out of downtown and into other parts of the city would have on the lives of residents of these areas.

Or perhaps it was just another example of the growing practice of failing to actually think before forming conclusions. Even a situation that appears as simple as who pays into the city’s coffers is more complex than a superficial glance would suggest. Whether financial, social or some other aspect of the decisions, challenges, issues and problems we as a City, Province or Country face they all have a complexity that demands thoughtful consideration. We as a community, as a society, can no longer afford the luxury of not paying attention to what reality IS – as opposed to making decisions based on what we want to believe are the facts.

Time after time people complain about politicians lying, then vote for the politicians who tell them the lies they want to hear or believe. Citizens need to become questers who consider carefully and are willing to vote for those who, while one may not like everything they say and would prefer to believe something else, when examined with careful thought and consideration are found to be not only truthful but aware of the reality of our streets and country.

It is time we begin to stop, examine, learn and think before deciding. Otherwise financial, social and the multitude of other complex problems such as homelessness will simply continue to grow into overwhelming crises. Or we will continue to burden ourselves blindly and unheedingly with politicians mirages such as Plan A.

Homeless, Other Writers, Poverty

How to tackle the economic paradox

Leave a comment

We have persistent poverty within a booming economy; here’s what B.C. can ­ and should ­ do — Seth Klein — Vancouver Sun (p A11), December 12, 2006

It’s the time of year when we find ourselves particularly conscious of poverty and homelessness, but especially this year.

British Columbians seem acutely aware of a paradox that marks our economy: We are simultaneously experiencing solid economic growth and decades-low unemployment on the one hand, and record homelessness, persistent poverty, and a stubborn sense of economic insecurity on the other.

We all tend to be more generous during the holiday season, but these problems cannot be fixed through charity alone ­ they require public policy action.

So what can ­ and should ­ the provincial government do to improve the lot of low-income people, both those who rely on social assistance and those who struggle in the low-wage workforce? A lot.

1) Increase welfare rates. Premier Gordon Campbell’s October announcement that he will increase the shelter allowance for people receiving social assistance was welcome news. But this long overdue change shouldn’t wait until February’s budget. And overall rates must be increased, not just the shelter allowance.A single person without a recognized disability currently gets $510 a month for everything ­ housing, food, clothing, transportation, heat and electricity, toiletries, etc. A single parent with one child receives $968, and a person with a disability gets $856. People without a disability receive less today, in real (inflation adjusted) dollars, than they did 12 years ago. After inflation, rates are 20–26 per cent lower (and 12 per cent lower for people with disabilities.

2) Depoliticize the process of setting welfare rates. Rates should be grounded in a transparent and objective rationale, and tied to a realistic estimate of the basic cost of living. The Dieticians of B.C. report that people cannot eat a nutritious diet on welfare. Calculations by both the Social Planning and Research Council of B.C. and Human Resources and Social Development Canada show that welfare rates need to double if they are to meet minimum living costs.A good starting point would be to immediately increase welfare rates by 50 per cent, a measure that would cost about $500 million.

3) Let all welfare recipients keep some earned income. Currently, only those recipients with a recognized disability or barrier to employment are allowed to earn and keep some extra money. B.C. is the only province in Canada that penalizes other welfare recipients by one dollar for every dollar that they earn. Everyone should be able to earn and keep at least $500 per month tax-free.

4) Raise the minimum wage. As with welfare rates, the minimum wage should be depoliticized, and grounded in a clear rationale. An individual working full-time, yearround should not have an income below the poverty line. For this to be so, the minimum wage would need to be $10 per hour.

5) Index both welfare rates and the minimum wage to inflation, and adjust them annually. The Conservative government of Newfoundland recently indexed welfare to inflation, the first government in Canada to do so. B.C. should follow its lead.

6) Make welfare more accessible to those in need. The process of seeking social assistance has become so complicated to navigate, and the eligibility rules so restrictive, that many of those in need are systematically discouraged and denied, and some of these people end up on the streets. The entire application process should be the subject of an independent review, and redesigned so it is appropriate for the majority of people who seek assistance.

7) Increase the stock of affordable housing. The province’s recent move to expand rental subsidies is of some value, particularly for those living in communities with high vacancy rates. But truly addressing the housing crisis and escalating rents requires a significant boost in the quantity of lowincome housing. The province should aim to create 2,000 new units of social housing per year.

8) Enhance access to post-secondary education and training. Meaningful training and education is key to accessing stable, well-paying jobs. The province should rescind the rule that prevents people on welfare from being post-secondary students, and re-introduce tuition-free adult basic education and other upgrading programs at the post-secondary level.

9) Bring in a universal, publicly funded child care program. High quality child care brings important benefits to children in terms of brain development and school readiness, and is essential to women’s equal access to the paid labour market. Quebec has shown that, if the will exists, a province can act alone.

10) Enforce and enhance employment standards. People working in the low-wage workforce rely on provincial employment standards for their basic workplace rights: Minimum wages, statutory holidays, minimum and maximum shift times, overtime pay, etc.

But these standards aren’t being pro-actively enforced, and have been significantly weakened. Vulnerable workers need to know that their workplace rights will be honoured. And if the laws made unionization less challenging, such workers would likely see significant improvements in their income and security.

Combined, these measures would cost the provincial treasury just over $2 billion next year. That may sound like a lot, but consider that last year’s budget surplus was $3 billion, the current year’s surplus is on track to be a similar size, and next year’s surplus will be larger still.The money is there to make a dramatic difference, and the public wants to see action. The cost of inaction is high.

Seth Klein is the B.C. director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Consider

Re: Government shouldn’t pay for criminal’s tatoos.

Leave a comment

Like so may people, on many social issues, Ms Bjarnason demonstrates a failure to see beyond the headlines and make the effort to understand the underlying facts and issues.

The “safe ink in jail” program was about “other issues that needed addressing”. I would like to suggest that Ms Bjarnason, and any others who agreed with her statements, acquaint themselves with the reasons behind this pilot program.

While I may like the idea of “safe ink” and tattooing in prison, the success of this approach in addressing the problems caused by unsafe ink in prisons, means that I do support keeping and expanding this program. No doubt part of this support is because I have no false expectations that unsafe ink and tattooing are preventable, except at prohibitive costs to the taxpayer and society.

To make decisions on issues and actions based on thoughtless reactions to superficial headlines or catch phrases, paying no heed to the actual facts, leads not only to bad policy but so often to significantly increased hidden costs – in terms of dollars and (common) sense.

This public preference for making decisions, forming opinions or voting on the basis of this sounds terrible (good), this agrees with what I believe and/or don’t confuse me with the facts approach “is ridiculous”.