I have witnessed enough to confidently say, the entire system is broken and 
corrupt to the core. The implications are enormous and in the end our 
*continuation as a species* is in jeopardy.

In a previous post I aimed to show that people who have likely attended 
university or college and are gainfully employed have made a blatant error 
akin to a child's knowledge level, but that they indeed are employed while I 
will soon face a stay in prison for failure to, or more accurately 
*prevented from* paying child support.

I will add, my counterpart who legally stole my child and was encouraged to 
do so earns a comfortable $40K+ per year from her work as a nurse to special 
needs children after cheating on an exam to obtain her certificate (I have 
substantive and convincing evidence not that it matters) . Her live-in 
boyfriend earns at least that much but his income is not considered part of 
the household income by family court, or the Family Responsibility Office as 
it is when they do their yearly taxes for Revenue Canada. Further, when I 
applied for social assistance, my application didn't even make it past 
intake screening because I EARN slightly less than $200 per month! I was not 
even given the opportunity to make an appeal since the application was never 
submitted despite the fact that I too am a single parent with a dependant 
child, which by the way, I am not allowed to claim on my yearly tax return. 
If that isn't enough, my counterpart and everyone else in her position, is 
considered a single parent and as such receive tax benefits and special 
privileges.

Is this simple incompetence by accident or blatant corruption by design?

Well, Meldon.  Follow the money, as they say.


You will find that, as you say, it is:  blatant corruption, by
design.  It's capitalism.  The cheapest jobs go to the cheapest, most
replaceable workers in whatever way best perpetuates itself.  This is,
both, helped along, and, implemented by marketing to the culture of
that worker group.  By supplying it with its favorite goods and
services (and tools) it creates a self-sustaining circle of supply and
demand.  This is security for the capitalist, along with his/her
market.

The reason Men aren't getting the same shake as women within this post-
industrial system is because they are still single-dimensioning
themselves into roles outside of the house, while putting the ok on
women who not only haven't graduated from that world, into today's,
but who play in both.  Specializing in either, is redundant, but women
perpetuate their own victim approach and so court the "protection" of
the capitalist.


Men, as a group, have to become as organized and vociferous as
possible and to articulate their issues in distinction to women's -
more often than not - to the point of being diametrical.

As much as possible, we have to drop our shit and problems onto
women's fucking heads.  And, those who can't, or won't, meet both
criteria......don't even bother fucking whining.



On Dec 22, 2:13 pm, "Meldon"  wrote:
> I have witnessed enough to confidently say, the entire system is broken and
> corrupt to the core. The implications are enormous and in the end our
> *continuation as a species* is in jeopardy.
>
> In a previous post I aimed to show that people who have likely attended
> university or college and are gainfully employed have made a blatant error
> akin to a child's knowledge level, but that they indeed are employed while I
> will soon face a stay in prison for failure to, or more accurately
> *prevented from* paying child support.
>
> I will add, my counterpart who legally stole my child and was encouraged to
> do so earns a comfortable $40K+ per year from her work as a nurse to special
> needs children after cheating on an exam to obtain her certificate (I have
> substantive and convincing evidence not that it matters) . Her live-in
> boyfriend earns at least that much but his income is not considered part of
> the household income by family court, or the Family Responsibility Office as
> it is when they do their yearly taxes for Revenue Canada. Further, when I
> applied for social assistance, my application didn't even make it past
> intake screening because I EARN slightly less than $200 per month! I was not
> even given the opportunity to make an appeal since the application was never
> submitted despite the fact that I too am a single parent with a dependant
> child, which by the way, I am not allowed to claim on my yearly tax return.
> If that isn't enough, my counterpart and everyone else in her position, is
> considered a single parent and as such receive tax benefits and special
> privileges.
>
> Is this simple incompetence by accident or blatant corruption by design?


- - -

One of millions of Angry Men:

Turin


I have such sites to show you...
------------------------

http://www.myspace.com/turin_turambar
http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First/ ♂
http://turinturambar.fortunecity.com/blog/

------------------------

"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."

-----

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:13:52 -0500, "Meldon" 
wrote:

>I have witnessed enough to confidently say, the entire system is broken and 
>corrupt to the core. The implications are enormous and in the end our 
>*continuation as a species* is in jeopardy.
>
>In a previous post I aimed to show that people who have likely attended 
>university or college and are gainfully employed have made a blatant error 
>akin to a child's knowledge level, but that they indeed are employed while I 
>will soon face a stay in prison for failure to, or more accurately 
>*prevented from* paying child support.

If you have never gone there before do yourself a favour and quit any
addictions you have before being put in custody. 
>
>I will add, my counterpart who legally stole my child and was encouraged to 
>do so earns a comfortable $40K+ per year from her work as a nurse to special 
>needs children after cheating on an exam to obtain her certificate (I have 
>substantive and convincing evidence not that it matters) . 

Post it and her real name.

>Her live-in 
>boyfriend earns at least that much but his income is not considered part of 
>the household income by family court, or the Family Responsibility Office as 
>it is when they do their yearly taxes for Revenue Canada. 

Nonsense. How would you know how they file?

>Further, when I 
>applied for social assistance, my application didn't even make it past 
>intake screening because I EARN slightly less than $200 per month!

This makes no sense at all. Why aren't you employed? I work with a guy
who is OCD and he makes $9.50/hr through a temp agency. Another OCD
guy I worked with who had the name, "Fruitloops" also was getting the
same pay through a temp agency. I see a lot of ads in the paper and on
store windows and the firm I'm employed with has had a help wanted
sign for 2 months outside. One guy just quit because the CIA was after
him and he though there were two Al'Kadda operatives working with us
in the shift. At least that what he said i think the LSD his Mom might
have consumed while he was in the womb might be causing him to go
insane. The point being that it should be fairly easy to find work in
this economy since if these ppl can who can't. He started at $11.41/hr
and was homeless when he was hired so I hope he doesn't end up on the
street again.

> I was not 
>even given the opportunity to make an appeal since the application was never 
>submitted despite the fact that I too am a single parent with a dependant 
>child,

You can't support yourself and a child on $200 a month. This makes no
sense.

> which by the way, I am not allowed to claim on my yearly tax return. 

Huh? Why can't you claim a dependant? I'm starting to feel sorry for
the welfare workers that have to deal with you.

>If that isn't enough, my counterpart and everyone else in her position, is 
>considered a single parent and as such receive tax benefits and special 
>privileges.
>
>Is this simple incompetence by accident or blatant corruption by design? 

The only incompetence I see is this post.
>

We are awaiting the return of our JHVH in the flesh or his Son. His Son Yu'shua died on the cross for our sins, was resurrected and walked the earth for awhile then ascended unto Heaven. We await the Third Coming not the Second.

Scottish Quaker Robert Barclay-"The weighty Truths of God were neglected, and, as it were, went into Desuetude. ...

Who will be the last Coalition soldier to be maimed in Iraq?

Canadian troops out of Afghanistan and into Darfur.http://www.amnesty.ca/instantkarma/petition.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI-xlbDzVbQ I Like Big Bibles

"Greg Carr"  wrote in message 
news:g4dsm3hko44r0e4qk4ll1in3gqqgov0jea@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:13:52 -0500, "Meldon" 
> wrote:
>
>>I have witnessed enough to confidently say, the entire system is broken 
>>and
>>corrupt to the core. The implications are enormous and in the end our
>>*continuation as a species* is in jeopardy.
>>
>>In a previous post I aimed to show that people who have likely attended
>>university or college and are gainfully employed have made a blatant error
>>akin to a child's knowledge level, but that they indeed are employed while 
>>I
>>will soon face a stay in prison for failure to, or more accurately
>>*prevented from* paying child support.
>
> If you have never gone there before do yourself a favour and quit any
> addictions you have before being put in custody.


I'm not sure how a continued addiction to tea and cigarettes will jeopardize 
my freedom. By comparison, being prevented from paying my child support 
certainly will.

I attended a year of college and I was old enough to understand it was a 
commercial for profit operation. When I was offered a position at a bank I 
took it without much hesitation since obtaining employment was the reason I 
was there in the first place. I'm glad I did despite the future hardships I 
was to face. I was able to retain personal integrity and the ability to 
think unlike many graduates.




>>
>>I will add, my counterpart who legally stole my child and was encouraged 
>>to
>>do so earns a comfortable $40K+ per year from her work as a nurse to 
>>special
>>needs children after cheating on an exam to obtain her certificate (I have
>>substantive and convincing evidence not that it matters) .
>
> Post it and her real name.

I'd love to but I don't wish to end up in prison for alleged slander nor do 
I wish her lawyers to be forewarned. Do you publish details of your defense 
plans or let your enemy know your tactical strategy?



>
>>Her live-in
>>boyfriend earns at least that much but his income is not considered part 
>>of
>>the household income by family court, or the Family Responsibility Office 
>>as
>>it is when they do their yearly taxes for Revenue Canada.
>
> Nonsense. How would you know how they file?

I don't have to know how they file. There is very little difference if they 
file separate or combined. Revenue Canada considers their combined incomes 
filed separately or not, as household income. Do I have to post the rules to 
prove what you already know?



>
>>Further, when I
>>applied for social assistance, my application didn't even make it past
>>intake screening because I EARN slightly less than $200 per month!
>
> This makes no sense at all.

You've got that right. I'm simply pointing out the reality I face. I did not 
create that reality, I'm simply reporting it. The reality doesn't make sense 
to me either unless you account for a broken and corrupt system which 
primarily serves the people who work for it.


>Why aren't you employed?

It's an important question I'd like to get to the bottom of. It has a great 
deal to do with combinations of legislation that marginalizes my 
opportunity.

>I work with a guy
> who is OCD and he makes $9.50/hr through a temp agency.

Therefore he is gainfully employed, can afford living expenses and can add 
to his skills through training? How long has he been there and how long do 
you think he can last as a temporary employee? Typically, employers hiring 
temps have an exceedingly long probationary period. Three to six months is 
not unusual these days. Once completed, the temp may or may not be offered 
an open contract which in essence is no different than extending the 
probationary period for a temp. If he has any chance at becoming permanent 
at all, he will have to be a perfect worker throughout his entire temporary 
and contract period and even then there is no legislation that states, for 
example, after five years under contract, the employer must close it and 
offer the employee a permanent position. Employees go along with it because 
they don't have any choice in the matter.

The people they expected to be looking out for them, sold them out as an 
example, in Canada the Employment Equity Act 1986 was agreed to by a 
coalition of no less than fourteen trade unions.




>Another OCD
> guy I worked with who had the name, "Fruitloops" also was getting the
> same pay through a temp agency. I see a lot of ads in the paper and on
> store windows and the firm I'm employed with has had a help wanted
> sign for 2 months outside.

I see those also. I applied to a local manufacturer who had "a help wanted 
sign" outside the plant. I have faxed and emailed them several months apart 
and received no response. I guess some of your questions need to be directed 
to the people who ignore my applications.

I would like to know why I'm refused also but there is little or no 
legislated accountability from any company to the people who apply. For 
example, if I was refused employment because I have blue eyes, I would never 
know about it. I can however locate the quota publications of that company 
to verify if they are hiring within "diversity guidelines". It has very 
limited accountability if one is a white male such as in my case. I can 
verify if they've hired enough individuals representing the groups covered 
under Employment Equity but I can not verify if the individual who was hired 
and who belongs to the one of the identified groups under the act, has 
better qualifications than I. The current wording of the act is meant to 
apply when applicants have relatively equal experience or ability. I 
suspect, though can not prove, that Employment Equity is forcing employers 
to hire based on the identified groups alone. It boils down to, white male 
need not apply.


>One guy just quit because the CIA was after
> him and he though there were two Al'Kadda operatives working with us
> in the shift. At least that what he said i think the LSD his Mom might
> have consumed while he was in the womb might be causing him to go
> insane. The point being that it should be fairly easy to find work in
> this economy since if these ppl can who can't.

Your logic is tragically flawed which I'm sure you are aware but I'll point 
it out anyway. Your premise suggests they can't but yet they are. That's 
point one but I think I understand what you're getting at. Those people have 
legislated protections where I do not. Its that simple.

Other flaws in your statement also come to mind such as my ability to 
perform the work. You do not take into account my age or physical ability 
both of which add to the limitations of me obtaining employment but which 
are not included in the Employment Equity Act or the Human Rights Code. If I 
were officially disabled, I would stand a better chance of employment. Even 
then, obtaining official disabled status can be difficult for people who 
have milder less obvious limitations but who are limited in their employment 
choices.


>He started at $11.41/hr
> and was homeless when he was hired so I hope he doesn't end up on the
> street again.

I hope so also, but the truth is, he very likely will.



>
>> I was not
>>even given the opportunity to make an appeal since the application was 
>>never
>>submitted despite the fact that I too am a single parent with a dependant
>>child,
>
> You can't support yourself and a child on $200 a month. This makes no
> sense.

You proved my point about the hypocrisy I'm presented with. I am required to 
pay child support without anyone's help. I'm required to pay it regularly 
and without fail. Three months behind results in enforcement action. When I 
applied for assistance and asked if the child is considered my dependant, 
the answer was YES. It made no difference. They did however, have many 
pamphlets for additional services for single mothers despite the fact many 
of them have a live-in boyfriend. My point is, I'm not considered a single 
parent even though I have a dependant child. You're absolutely correct - it 
makes no sense.





>
>> which by the way, I am not allowed to claim on my yearly tax return.
>
> Huh? Why can't you claim a dependant? I'm starting to feel sorry for
> the welfare workers that have to deal with you.


Under tax law, the child is not a dependant unless they live with me 
permanently such as in the case of a custodial parent. If my situation is 
defined by tax law, I have no dependant child despite the fact I'm required 
to support the child. If the situation is defined by Social Services, I have 
a dependant child but I'm not a single parent. This points to incompetence 
by design.


>
>>If that isn't enough, my counterpart and everyone else in her position, is
>>considered a single parent and as such receive tax benefits and special
>>privileges.
>>
>>Is this simple incompetence by accident or blatant corruption by design?
>
> The only incompetence I see is this post.


It would be nice to have a better ability to articulate and prove the nature 
of the complex systems and their interplay from which I'm suffering. If 
you're suggesting I should be able to irrefutably prove and articulate 
beyond debate, then I agree I'm quite incompetent. I'll remind you that I'm 
an average, working-class individual without the advantage of financial 
resources or advocacy groups to defend me against, or bring change to a 
corrupt system.

You've not answered the question I presented nor have you offered a 
reasonable alternative to the possibilities I posed. Frankly your defense of 
a broken and corrupt system appears to be quite lacking in substance.