Sly Says: Food Insecurity in America: What Can Employers Do?

Click to Enlarge

The United States needs to change a lot of things before we can have an overall healthy and happy population. Let's start with the absolute basics: food and shelter.

In this piece I'm going to focus on food, so I will address shelter in a cursory way. I work delivering food, which is ironic because I don't have enough money for adequate food. I drive past groups of homeless people, some of them in wheel chairs huddled together for warmth. This is so wrong. There's no excuse for it. I will address this problem in detail in another post.

Both lack of shelter and lack of adequate food lead to costly health problems that could be avoided. It would be less expensive in the long run to provide basic shelter, food, and health care to the public than it is to pay for medical crises and chronic health problems resulting from inadequate access to the necessities of life.

A while ago, a Facebook acquaintance who perpetually shares about her perpetual diets shared a picture of a fully stocked freezer. Granted, this freezer contained a lot of prepared foods, i.e. frozen dinners. Said acquaintance and her perpetually dieting cronies proceeded with the inevitable food shaming that happens when you live in a society which believes in size normativity rather than health at every size and which refuses to acknowledge that not everyone has access to the same resources. There were comments like "OMG, inflammation!" "OMG, diabetes!" and "OMG, teh OBEEEESITEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111!!!!!!!!!!" 

I stated that as a person who is food insecure, this refrigerator looked like the larder of Heaven to me, and that I did not believe in food policing.

Granted, it is ideal to eat fewer processed foods. However, time and money play a huge part in determining what people can and will eat. For instance, when I was making $40,000 per year and cooking for just two people (my son and me) I would order meal kits from services like Home Chef and Chef'd. The ingredients were fresh and minimally processed, and I enjoyed preparing them. When I lost my job due to health problems, all that went out the window.

I have diabetes and should eat at regular intervals to avoid blood sugar dips and spikes. This, however, does not happen. Because I'm rationing food (or simply don't have food) I tend to wait until I am close to passing out before I eat. Believe me, I am not thinking very much about carbohydrate content when I finally get my hands on food. I am thinking about getting some chow down the hatch so I don't end up doing a face-plant.

In spite of being a large person, which people have been conditioned to think means that I must eat 60 buckets of Kentucky Fried Chicken every day, I actually don't have much of an appetite. I eat to ameliorate symptoms such as brain fog and dizziness. Sometimes I feel hunger, but I know the sensation will pass. My hunger cues have been messed up for years and will probably never be normal again. This is thanks to developing an eating disorder at twelve years old because society taught me that the worst thing a person could possibly be was fat.

You know, I wish I had the money to afford 60 buckets of Kentucky Fried Chicken on a daily basis. I wouldn't eat Kentucky Fried Chicken. I don't like it. The amount of MSG in it would make me wheeze for a week. However, if I had the money to buy 60 buckets of Kentucky Fried Chicken every day, I'd be doing okay. That stuff ain't cheap!

Regarding the obesity and poverty connection, it isn't so much that poor people gorge themselves whenever they get their grubby mitts on food. The fact is, dieting destroys a person's metabolism and promotes weight gain. For all but a very small percentage of dieters, the weight temporarily lost through dieting returns with friends. People living in poverty are forced to be on a perpetual diet. The body goes into starvation mode and does what it was made to do: store fat for times of scarcity.

Instead of focusing on making everyone look like svelte supermodels, we as a society should be focusing on insuring that everyone has access to adequate food. Not because doing so will make everyone become a certain arbitrary kind of pretty, but because people who have access to adequate food, whatever size they may be, are healthier and happier.

I will now jump off my anti diet culture soapbox and onto my Everyday Socialism soapbox. 

You can call it "charity" if the word socialism is bothersome to you.

Since the GOP Clown Car will oppose doing the right thing for anyone but the one percent and corporations at every turn, it is up to We The People to do right by our neighbors. So, until we can vote the current mess out of office, what can we do?

When it comes to donating to non-profit organizations, you do better giving a monetary donation to a charity such as a homeless shelter rather than a non-perishable food donation. This is due to the fact that the people who work at shelters can order supplies in bulk. They are attempting to provide for multiple people. One can of corn isn't going to make that much difference.

However, in a smaller setting, individual items can make a difference.

I propose that employers set up donation boxes where people can leave food items for their co-workers to take, no questions asked. People can then give according to their means and take according to their needs. That can of corned beef hash could be a lifesaver for someone who wasn't able to afford to bring lunch. 

Employers could provide basic food items for their employees, i.e. bread, cheese, peanut butter, canned soup, crackers. They could leave a donation jar in the break room. Thus, if an employee had a little spare change, they could drop it into the donation jar to offset the cost of providing basic food items for the staff.

Restaurants and cafeterias could provide a low-cost food item free for employees who needed such, i.e. soup or a grilled cheese sandwich. 

Knowing they had access to food at work could reduce employee absences.

A person who is starving is not motivated to get up and go, particularly when they know that the more energy they expend, the hungrier they will get. Hunger doesn't inspire people to work hard. It inspires depression and demotivation. Food deprivation inspires obsession with food. People who can't think about anything but food are not going to be able to focus on other tasks.

Adequate food, adequate shelter, and adequate health care are three non-negotiables in a successful society. We need to demand these things and keep demanding them until we get them. 

Until our government stops failing us, We the People need to find ways to take care of one another as best we can.

~Sly Has Spoken~

Image copyright juliahenze @123rf.com

The Cheese Grates It Long And Hard: Self-Analysis: Why Did I Apply For A Job I Don't Want?

:

I created this post on my blog for discussion of mental health related issues yesterday, which is why it is a "The Cheese Grates It" post rather than a "Sly Fawkes" post. I am reposting it here because it contains an honest assessment of being a contract worker/self-employed and of being a disabled worker in the United States. 

I hope that if anyone reading this is having difficulty making a decision regarding employment, it will encourage you to assess your situation honestly and do what is right for you. I spent a lot of years working in a profession and a way that wasn't really suited to me. However, it paid a lot better than what I am doing now pays. 

When assessing your own choices, put all the cards on the table and don't hold back. If you take nothing else away from this post, let that be the thing you take away. However, I hope you will also be encouraged to start or keep fighting for the rights of all citizens to a living wage and quality health care. These things are rights for everyone, not just the one percent elite.

~Sly~

Dean Winchester is right as rain. 

My definition of crazy is repeatedly doing the same thing that never worked before and hoping it will work this time.

So, considering that I do not want to work in healthcare again, that I hate being a slave to the time clock, and that I have multiple health issues which mean that not losing Medicaid is critical, what the fuck did I go and apply for a job as an overnight caregiver for the elderly for?

I'm not sure what order to do this analysis in, so I guess I'll start by reviewing the pros and cons of my current job.

Pros: I never HAVE to go to work. 

I am solely responsible for whether or not I work. 

I will not be penalized by a boss or company for not working. I don't have a set hour when I need to show up. I sign in when I get there. Nobody will be shaking their finger at me and telling me I should have been there at X time or that I need to work X number of days and hours. 

Sometimes the payout is really good. 

It's easy to monitor when I'm reaching the cutoff limit to be able to keep Medicaid.

I don't have to request time off. If I want to go to an event, I just go. If I'm sick, I don't have to call in. I just don't go to work that day.

I can easily change my schedule.

Other than not driving like a shithead and getting in an accident or hitting a pedestrian, I am not responsible for anyone's well-being. I am responsible for dropping the customer's order off in a timely manner and being polite. That's all. 

Cons: I never HAVE to go to work. 

I am solely responsible for whether or not I work. I don't have a set time when I need to show up. 

I work for a fee of $4.50 per delivery plus tips. So if the customer is a cheap-ass and business is slow, I might be making less than minimum wage.

I don't get benefits or paid time off.

Wear and tear on my car is significant.

My job is not socially significant. I am not "giving back to the community" when I do this job. It is not a "helping" profession. It is not a credentialed position. Other than a driver's license and basic common sense, one does not need to possess a specific skill set to do this job. It does not take "a special kind of person" to do this job.

Now, let's look a little deeper into some of this.

I worked as a caregiver of one variety or another for a cumulative of approximately 25 years between 1988 and 2017.

I suffered major health reversals in 2017. Where I used to be able to work long hours at very physically demanding jobs, I am no longer able to do so. 

I lost my job as a homecare nurse for pediatric patients in mid-March of 2017. I fell into a deep sleep while working an overnight shift and woke up to see the patient's father sitting on the bed glaring at me. Judging by the last time I had looked at the clock, I had been very soundly asleep for about 20 minutes. I did not recall falling asleep. I came to from a deep, dark, dreamless state. 

In analyzing some of the symptoms I have presented with following this moment, I believe I had a small stroke (CVA) as opposed to a TIA. A TIA, or transient ischemic attack, does not leave lasting symptoms. A TIA is an indicator that a patient is at higher risk for a future stroke than a person who has never had a TIA. However, in and of itself, a TIA does not leave lasting damage.

I do not have memory problems and even people close to me would not see anything different in my presentation. However, my cognition was altered after this event in subtle ways. I have more trouble multitasking. The way I write has changed to a degree. Not stylistically, but in the method I use to approach writing. I used to pride myself on being able to take multiple writing prompts and use them to create flash fiction. It is more difficult for me to do that at this point.

This issue became markedly apparent when I tried to go back to work in a long-term care setting last summer and was compounded by the problems created by my diabetes. Although I understood each of the factors in the patient care equation, I could not put these factors into action. 

This is the equation:

Patient X needs medication Y at Hour Z, while Patient B needs medication C at Hour Z. Multiply the number of patients by 30. They all need medications at around the same time.

This sort of thing was not a problem for me in the past. However, I stood there staring at the screen, knowing who the patient was, what the drug was, what the drug was used for, which patient should be tended to first, given the particulars of their medications. I knew all these things, and I was unable to act. It was a subtle but critical problem.

The confusion was compounded by the fact that it was impossible to take a break, and my blood sugar tanked.

I could no longer do the kind of work that I had always been so proud of being able to do: hard work with long hours helping extremely impaired people. No time for breaks: you're on the go from the time you hit the floor and often have to stay after the shift has ended to finish charting. The demands on nurses and aides in a long-term care setting are completely unrealistic if I'm to be honest. The profession has a high rate of burnout and injury.

The job I'm applying for would involve working one-on-one with a single patient.

I will examine the pros and cons of this job.

Pros:

Steady paycheck

Overnight shift. I know that most people think this would be a con, but I don't do well working day shifts, so, for me, it's a pro.

Benefits including PTO.

Being able to feel "good" about myself for working in a "helper" profession.

I am experienced in doing this sort of work.

Not feeling like I need to lie to my relatives about what I do.

My mother and brother think I work as a medical courier. If they knew I delivered food, they'd be browbeating me to look for another job.

I wouldn't have to quit my current job.

Cons:

Slave to the damn time clock

Having to beg for time off

I don't know if I can physically do this kind of work at this point with the reversals I've suffered in my own health.

I really don't want to be responsible for someone else's well-being.

Now, a look at what's going on inside my skull.

I used to be able to work a lot. I used to work 60 hour weeks. I used to work two jobs. I was proud of my ability to do those things. I was making $40,000 a year.

I was working in a helper profession. My family could be proud of me. I was doing good for society.

Truth be told, I was miserable a lot of the time. 

I am the kind of person who prefers soft deadlines. I like being able to be someplace at "around three o' clock" as opposed to having to be there at three, but, really, you'd better be there 15 minutes early, and if you aren't, you're a horrible person who is inconveniencing others.

It's stressful being responsible for someone else's well-being. Yes, there's a sense of satisfaction with doing jobs where one is responsible for others' well-being. I experienced that satisfaction many times. However, if I'm honest, I also often experienced the feeling that I really wished I never had to do it again.

I am the sort of person who tends to put other people's needs before mine. There are situations where I don't mind this. If it comes down to my son or me, my son will always come first. However, this tendency can become pathological, particularly if you are someone who has difficulty saying "no."

At the point when I was fired from my homecare nursing job in 2017, I was working between 48-60 hours per week. I had two patients through my main job and one that I worked with every other week through a second job. 

I was extremely physically ill as well as having my usual health problems at the point when the sleeping incident occurred. My coordinator reasoned that since I had contracted the illness from the patient I worked with three nights a week, I could continue working with him since I couldn't re-infect him as he was already infected. This illness was respiratory in nature, either flu or bronchitis. 

I had been having more and more trouble staying awake for a full twelve hours prior to the incident that cost me my job. 

I didn't feel that I could be honest about my health problems with my coordinator. He would often talk about how they were going to get rid of the nurse who worked the four-day week with my main patient and have me take over her shifts. This woman had lupus and so tended to have to take time off. I would often end up covering some of her shifts. Given the way the coordinator talked about replacing her, I didn't feel like I could be honest about my own health problems.

My coordinator had a very demanding personality and working for that company came to feel like I was in an abusive marriage. When I applied for work with a company where I would be doing a different kind of nursing, my coordinator called me outside of business hours while I was with a patient to cuss me out and tell me that I needed to commit to the company because they only gave regular cases to nurses they could "depend on."

I pointed out that I wasn't looking to change jobs, just to diversify and to have a fallback for the down-times that are inevitable with homecare. He reiterated that they needed to be able to rely on me to be faithful to the company or they couldn't offer me full-time work. 

I said "fine, put me on PRN then."

He didn't expect that answer. 

I ended up with three different coordinators begging me to commit to the company. They offered me a raise. I ended up doing what they wanted, but part of me knew that it was a mistake. I don't like controlling partners, and this company had become a controlling partner.

I'm monogamous in romantic partnerships. An employment situation is an open marriage, as far as I'm concerned. I have no shame in admitting that I'm going to go with the employer that offers me the best deal and that I'm always on the lookout for a better deal. If employers want to keep employees, they need to treat them right. 

Now, I want to examine a factor which comes to me courtesy of the absolutely corrupt, massively fucked up, batshit insane healthcare system in the United States.

When I only had hypothyroidism to deal with, I could roll with whatever crap-ass insurance an employer offered. I only had to get lab draws once a year. I now have a myriad of other health problems, including diabetes and glaucoma. I have to get labs done quarterly. I have to have two specialized eye exams every year.

There are a lot of (shitty) insurance plans out there. Most employers offer full-time employees some sort of shitty insurance.

Most doctors take one variety of shitty insurance but not others.

I don't know what sort of insurance this employer offers. I will ask them today and see if it's a plan that my current provider takes.

If not, I either can't work full time so as not to lose Medicaid, or I have to work full time and then buy shitty insurance from the healthcare marketplace. If I suffer further reversals in my health and have to apply for Medicaid again, there will be a waiting period. Anything not covered by the shitty, high-cost insurance will have to be paid for out of pocket. 

The cutoff I can earn on a monthly basis and keep Medicaid is $1000 a month.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Thing is, once I get through paying the $250 per month on the low-end premium for the shitty health insurance, plus paying for doctor visits and medications, I might be just as well off continuing to work part-time so I can keep Medicaid. 

So, tell me again how we don't need universal healthcare and how everyone who receives Medicaid and/or SNAP is "lazy." Everything costs so fucking much that sometimes people don't have a choice.

I don't qualify for SNAP because I refuse to liquidate my 401K from the job that I had for close to 11 years. If I don't touch it until retirement age, it will be worth $50,000. I want to leave that to my son when I go tits up. If I liquidate it now, I lose about $18,000 of it. That doesn't sound like a very good deal to me. Consequently, I'm hungry a lot.

So, yeah, we folks who have to make use of the welfare programs are really riding high on the hog. 

The welfare queen is a myth.

It is unconscionable to punish people for being sick or disabled. In fact, I think it's downright evil.

You know what's hard to do when you're hungry?

Think.

Be motivated.

Be hopeful.

Work hard.

You know what else is shitty?

Looking down on people who choose to work in service professions such as non-high-end food-related jobs, i.e. bartenders, waitstaff, counter help, and delivery personnel. Believing that people in such jobs don't deserve to make a living wage. Thinking it's okay to insist that people in service jobs and other humble professions should work their asses off and come away with nothing. 

Thinking that it's fine to have a servitor class that gets treated like shit is a hallmark of a failed society.

Which gets back to my problem.

I don't really want to go back into caregiving.

I really don't want to go back into caregiving.

Really, I don't want to go back into caregiving.

There may be some benefits from doing so. The question is, do the negative factors outweigh the positive ones?

I kind of think they do.

I like the freedoms that my current job provides.

You know what I would be cool with doing overnight?

House-sitting. Pet sitting. Like, for cats. Or cute little dogs. Or friendly big dogs.

I might be interested in doing pediatric homecare again, but with the black mark on my license following the incident which led to my firing, I don't think I'll ever get another job in that area.

I honestly don't want to do elder care anymore. I did it for more than twenty years. I kind of think that should buy me some kind of reprieve. 

I'm going to go ahead and interview for this job today. It may offer me something that I feel is a worthwhile tradeoff.

I may not get hired at all. 

Part of me would be relieved if that were the case because I think I'm doing this for reasons that aren't exactly pure. 

I'm interested in a steady paycheck.

It isn't that I don't care about the elderly or about helping people. 

It's simply that my own health has deteriorated to the point where I have to look out for Number One, regardless of how ignoble society may perceive doing so to be.

Ain't like I ever got anything but punished for putting everyone else first anyway.

~The Cheese Hath Grated The Living Fuck Out Of It~

Sly Says: Don't Give Attention-Seeking Gremlins Martyr Status

Having a drink thrown in her face: like it was Christmas and her birthday all rolled up into one, 'cause now she gets to be a martyr

For the hothead who threw a drink at Ann Coulter Jr. (Tomi Lahren):
Nice work, Smartass. You went and made her into a martyr.
I'd like to dump a truck of manure on that malevolent Barbie doll. But you know why I don't, other than the fact that I don't have access to a truck of manure?
I don't want to give her the attention.
Creatures like Tomi Lahren aren't honorable like Andre Linoge, who was a homicidal supernatural entity and child stealer. With Andre Linoge, if you gave him what he wanted, he went away.
Malevolent entities like Tomi Lahren don't go away when you give them what they want. They become more powerful and demand even more attention.
Perhaps the person who threw a drink thought that Ann Coulter Junior would melt like the witch in the Wizard of Oz.
Sadly, no.
If she had, I might have thought about praising the drink thrower rather than rolling my eyes and saying "great, now Miss Big-Mouth Blonde Plastic Face Faux News Pundit has people feeling sorry for her. Thanks a lot, Genius."

~Sly Has Spoken~

Copyright juliahenze @123rf

A diabolical Stephen King villain who kidnaps children and murders old ladies:

Still a more pleasant party guest than Tomi Lahren

In real life, actor Colm Feore is a nice guy

New Blow For Reproductive Rights

"Trump to deny funds for clinics that refer for abortion."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-to-deny-funds-to-clinics-that-refer-for-abortion/ar-AAxrYOo?OCID=ansmsnnews11&ffid=gz
Because we all know what President Pussy Grabber thinks women's lives are worth.
There are more reasons for abortion than unwanted pregnancy.
There are more types of unwanted pregnancy than "promiscuous hussy getting busy with every dude in town," which is what the anti-choice lot tries to convince everyone that abortion is all about across the board.
The anti-choice lot always depicts abortion as being the straight-up murder of a fully formed, adorable, healthy white baby.
Let's just say for a minute that the anti-choicers are right. There are no other reasons for abortion than Promiscuous Hussies wanting to get down but not wanting to pay the piper for their Promiscuous Hussying.
The simple answer would seem to be providing birth control to reduce the number of abortions.
Nope! Providing birth control is giving a de facto thumbs up to Promiscuous Hussying.
So, let's take away all reproductive rights, like the GOP wants to do.
Are the anti-choicers going to adopt all the unwanted babies?
Yeah--we saw how that worked out in Romania under the rule of Nicolae Ceaușescu.
Speaking of Nicolae Ceaușescu, here is a passage from Wikipedia to ruminate on.
"His secret police, the Securitate, was responsible for mass surveillance as well as severe repression and human rights abuses within the country, and he suppressed and controlled the media and press, implementing methods that were among the harshest, most restrictive and brutal in the world. Economic mismanagement due to failed oil ventures during the 1970s led to skyrocketing foreign debts for Romania; in 1982, he exported much of the country's agricultural and industrial production in an effort to repay them. The shortages that followed drastically lowered living standards, leading to heavy rationing of food, water, oil, heat, electricity, medicine, and other necessities. His cult of personality experienced unprecedented elevation, followed by extensive nepotism and the intense deterioration of foreign relations, even with the Soviet Union."
A despot is a despot is a despot.
The truth is, I honestly don't think that Lord Dampnut gives a rip about abortion one way or another. I think he is kissing the asses of those who elected him and is doing what his puppet masters command. He hasn't got two working brain cells to rub together. His masters let him have his Twitter. He makes an ass of himself, which distracts people from what the evil slimeballs behind the scenes are actually up to.
Now this:
Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America said, "Abortion is not health care or birth control and many women want natural health care choices, rather than hormone-induced changes."
I've read over this several times. I'm not sure what the hell it even means.
That abortion should not be used as a primary form of birth control is accurate. Whether done as a surgical procedure or via a medication which promotes miscarriage, it is hard on the body. Saying that it is not a form of health care is, however, inaccurate. Once again, the anti-choice lot depicts all abortions as being the same kind and for the same reason. Abortions performed after the first trimester tend to be done because of severe defects in the fetus. According to these people, removal of an ectopic pregnancy would be an abortion. To allow an ectopic pregnancy to continue would kill the mother. So, tell me how removing an ectopic pregnancy or ending an unviable pregnancy isn't health care.
"Many women want natural health care choices rather than hormone-induced changes."
WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS EVEN MEAN????
I was never able to take birth control pills because the "hormone-induced changes" put me right out of my head. Is she speaking against birth control pills or abortion here? Yes, there is an abortion method which involves taking a pill that temporarily alters the body's hormonal balance, but there are other methods of abortion as well. A D&C does not involve "hormone-induced changes." Does this mean it is a natural health care choice? I'm really not sure what the hell this woman is talking about.
I am a post-menopausal woman who is making the choice to have my reproductive organs removed because of endometrial hyperplasia. I don't want to take hormones because of the risks inherent in doing so. However, I honestly don't think that having my reproductive organs removed is a "natural health care choice." It is simply the form of treatment that makes the most sense to me because I don't want to take hormones for the rest of my life, I don't want to have to have a D&C every year, and I don't think it's wise to keep an organ which is in a pre-cancerous state. So, I'm opting to have the organ removed, but I don't think that's a particularly natural choice.
I could scratch a hole in my head trying to figure this woman's inane statement out.
In any case, one does not need to be "pro-abortion" to realize that the stripping away of reproductive rights leads to disaster. I have always been opposed to abortion on a personal level, but on a political level I realize that unhindered reproductive rights are a necessity.
I also realize that abortion is a complicated issue and it is not for me to decide what is right for another person.
Even in my own case, what was right for me in the past wouldn't be right now.
If, by some heinous twist of fate I were to be sexually assaulted and somehow conceive a child, at this point in my life it would be disastrous for me to carry that pregnancy to term. I am over 50 and have multiple health problems. I do not have the financial means to care for a child at this point. I do not even have the financial means to care for the cats that I took in years ago when I did have the means to care for them. 

There are so many things wrong with curtailing reproductive rights to this degree.
This isn't about the well-being of the adorable, healthy, full-term, white babies that the anti-choice faction think are being murdered by abortion-having hussies.
It is about controlling women.
It is odious.
I would expect nothing less from the party that would just as soon take away a woman's right to work and would like to see the world return to a time when a woman was either her father's or her husband's property.

~Sly Has Spoken~

Image copyright juliahenze @123rf

Why the Punch a Nazi Mentality is Erroneous

Image copyright Weatbix on Deviantart

Sly Says:

I have no love for Nazis, Neo-Nazis, the “alt right”, or racists of any sort.

However, in a civilized setting as opposed to a war zone, the “punch a Nazi” mentality only leads to those assholes becoming martyrs when they are physically attacked.

Nobody would know who the hell Richard Spencer was if he hadn’t been “the Nazi who got punched.” Now he’s the alt-right’s little rock star.

That is why I’m against the “punch a Nazi” mentality.

Fight their ignorant rhetoric by educating, not by stooping to their level.

Pointing out the fallacies in their inane arguments can be incredibly satisfying, not to mention a lot of fun.

This is not to say that a person should not defend themselves if attacked. If you or someone you care about is being attacked, by all means, defend yourself.

The "punch a Nazi" mentality, however, does not show strength. It shows a loss of control. 

Be better than they are.

~Sly Has Spoken~

 Image copyright juliahenze

Purchased from 123rf.com

Note:

I read the following book, "Hate or Be Hated," by J.G. Daniel. 

It is a well-written biography detailing the author's upbringing by a racist father who was a member of the John Birch society. I personally recommend it.

When Setbacks Sideline Your Ambitions

Copyright Ayelet Keshet

This is a blog that I generally endeavor to keep my personal problems away from. I have a blog which addresses my ongoing struggle with mental illness, and, for the most part, I do not see the need to discuss my personal problems here. However, on occasion, I feel that disclosure of my own issues may be helpful to someone else who feels that there is no way a person with certain handicaps can achieve success.

There is an unfortunate tendency in modern society to postulate that only those who are hale and hardy and possessed of a certain type of beauty can excel in the world. While I am not yet the picture of success, I would like to work to disprove this, if I may be so bold as to say, ugly and bigoted assertion.

Those of us who are born with physical and/or psychological challenges tend to experience setbacks that people without these challenges find difficult to imagine. These setbacks go beyond the condition itself.

The vast majority of people who are homeless or living in poverty are not "lazy". 

They are people with (often invisible) conditions which render them unable to conform to society's rigid and Draconian standards.

It can be difficult if not impossible to maintain a positive approach to life when one feels as if one is being attacked at every turn, including when seeking help.

Those who are unable to pay for the help they need are decried as shiftless.

Those who fear seeking help because of previous bad experiences are decried as unmotivated to change.

Those who do not wish to take dangerous medications for their conditions are admonished as being uncooperative and deserving of whatever misfortune befalls them.

Those who feel hopeless are admonished to "think positive" and "try harder."

Let us focus for the moment on mental illness.

I am not the sort of person who believes that mental illness can be "cured." In fact, I cringe when people make such assertions.

As someone who has lived with mental illness my entire life, I believe that, while there is no "cure" for conditions such as mine, that useful coping skills can be taught to those living with psychiatric illness, and, such coping skills are more effective when learned at a young age.

Mental illness is not "one size fits all." Most people who have never dealt with mental illness, either in themselves or a person close to them, believe that there are pat answers, mostly involving medications. Some people do not respond well to medications. Such people tend to be admonished as "uncooperative."

Physical illnesses do not always respond well to medications either.

With both mental and physical conditions, the sufferer tends to be seen as broken, damaged, and having failed. People see them as deserving of their misery.

I will turn the focus to my own physical conditions, mostly endocrine issues.

I have always been admonished as being "lazy" and not "trying harder." My diabetes and thyroid issues are severe enough that I struggle with activity intolerance. I have to take frequent breaks or I start to become dizzy and confused. This is not conducive to the type of work I did for many years, caring for elderly and infirm patients. 

Rather than seeing that I had a problem of my own, I was admonished as being lazy, uncooperative, and stupid. I was fired rather than laid off, which would have allowed me to maintain a modicum of dignity.

I can no longer work "normal" jobs. I went from making $40,000 a year to making $12,000 a year. What little savings I had was quickly decimated.

I have two cats, both of whom need veterinary care that I can't afford. I live in a place which, evidently, contains toxins. Most of my cats have died prematurely, either due to cancers or organ failure. I realized this pattern only this year. I myself currently am awaiting screening for suspected endometrial cancer. Whatever is in this place may have contributed to the worsening of my own endocrine problems. I don't know, and I may never know.

"Just move" is not an option.

I'm not going to blow sunshine up anyone's ass. I'm not going to tell you that by having a "positive attitude" or by praying to (fill in the name of chosen deity) you will succeed and find happiness. I don't know if you will or not. I hope you do.

I'd like to tell you that it gets better, but in all honesty, I don't know if that's true.

I can only wish you luck, and I hope that something I share may help you along the way.

Peace,

Sly

Blog Revival and A Few Ground Rules for Commenting: No Name-Calling

I'm going to attempt to breathe some life back into this blog.

Should comments appear, there need to be a few rules.

The first is basic courtesy.

No name-calling. Focus on the behavior, not the person.

I've been guilty of this infraction. Recently, in fact.

Not on this blog, which has lain dormant for a while.

Not even on a political blog.

It was a fandom blog. Trust me, Tumblr fandoms are rife with inane accusations.

If you don't ship what certain fans ship, or if you ship something they don't like, they will call you a pedophile.

This person had been on for a while about a certain ship that she didn't like. She went on to try and prove her point by comparing this ship, which involved adult biologically related characters, to a hypothetical "what if someone was shipping a forty-year-old character with a nine-year-old character?"

By that point I'd had enough of her sea-lioning and general bullshit and responded with a terse "It's apples and oranges, you twat."

My comment would not be acceptable here.

What would be acceptable?

I could have said: "your given scenarios are not comparable. They are apples and oranges."

I could even have further said: "I feel that you are being deliberately obtuse, as your comments pushing people to agree that Ship X is a bad ship are becoming more and more unreasonable. Since it is clear that no-one here is going to agree with you, it would probably be more productive for you to write on your own blog about why you feel that Ship X is such a bad ship, and, this time, tag your post properly so as not to start another flame war."

Note: tagging isn't as much of an issue on platforms like Blogger as it is on Tumblr. Tags tend to be a bit more internal for the blog itself, and it's accepted by most people that a post tagged "Donald Trump" could either be positive or negative. I still try at this point to prefix tags for derogatory posts with "anti" on Blogger as well.

It should go without saying, but along with no name-calling, hate speech is unacceptable. This includes terms like "TERF."

The reason why TERF is a problem is because it targets women whom the person using the slur believe to be transphobic. There is no comparable term for men whom people deem transphobic. TERF is a term which incites violence against women, i.e. "punch a TERF." It is a problematic term at best, and is not acceptable here. If you feel someone is being transphobic, say that. Don't gender your derision.

There will be no inciting of violence against any group, including those most of us identifying as progressive deem odious. In other words, no "punch a Nazi" rhetoric will be allowed in the comments. This is not because I like Nazis. I find them disgusting, and, if every last one of them were fired off in a rocket bound for the center of the sun, I would not shed even a single tear. Yes, they are bad people who would like to see awful things done to those they deem inferior. We need to not stoop to their level. Violence should always be the last resort, never the go-to.

Further, Richard Spencer would still be a nobody if he hadn't been made a martyr when he was punched. Now he's the poster boy for the "Alt Right." I would rather he were still a nobody.

The policy on commenting is, generally, a "three strikes" policy. If a comment is bad enough from the start, it will never be published in the first place. (This applies to Blogger. On Tumblr, the commenter will be blocked.) If the comment breaks a cardinal rule but has redeeming value otherwise, the commenter will be advised of the infraction and asked to be more careful in the future. If the commenter continues to break the rules, their comments will cease to be published.

I do not wish to prevent debate in good faith, nor to demand that all comments be passionless and completely politically correct, i.e. quibbling over whether "disabled" or "handicapped" is the more correct term. Such micromanagement shuts down conversation. I do wish to prevent the poisonous atmosphere that pervades so many spaces currently.

To simplify, let basic common courtesy be your guide. Debate the idea. Don't make personal attacks.

~Sly Has Spoken~

 Purchased image created by juliahenze on 123rf.com