Wednesday, July 4, 2018

When the High School Bully and the Fashion Club Chick are In Charge



Seriously, is Melania Trump sixteen and trying to defy her parents by refusing to wear those stuffy outfits that they put out for her? I kind of hope so, because it would really be embarrassing if a nearly fifty-year-old, high-profile representative of the United States Government were wearing a trashy coat that looks like she got it off the clearance rack at Hot Topic.




As for Lord Dampnut, never before has there been a President who had Twitter tantrums and launched into personal attacks every time someone said something potentially negative about him. He needs detention. For real, if this fake president ever ends up in jail where he belongs, I will celebrate big time.


The United States looks a little bit something like this to the rest of the world these days.

~Sly Has Spoken~

Copyright juliahenze @123rf.com


Happy Fourth of July anyway.
Stay strong, try to keep the faith.

Thursday, June 21, 2018

Class vs. Ass: First Lady Edition















These first ladies have something in common.

None of them ever would have worn this classless and deliberately inflammatory article of clothing.
Melania Trump could have chosen to present herself with dignity and grace.

Instead she chose to look like a petulant teenager trying to defy authority.

The boorish tRump family: truly a shame on our nation.

~Sly Has Spoken~

image copyright juliahenze @123rf.com





Saturday, June 16, 2018

Evangelicals: Vindictive and Scary


When I was in junior high, I had a friend whose family was part of the Cult of Christ (Church of Christ). I went with her a few times and couldn't do it anymore. I was a devout Catholic at that point in my life, but I thought these people were extremists. It ruined the friendship when I said I didn't want to come to her church's events anymore. She started spreading nasty rumors about me as revenge. 
I've found in my life that these kinds of people are very vindictive and often two-faced. If you aren't with them, you're against them. It's impossible to agree to disagree.

~Sly~

Thursday, June 7, 2018

TERF is a Slur and a Call to Violence





Click to enlarge
Screen caps taken from terfisaslur.com
One of these talks about how women bleeding is "gross." That certainly isn't misogynistic and doesn't sound like all the chauvinist male assholes of the past who made similar anti-woman statements.

Did you know it is possible to disagree without resorting to physical violence?
You wouldn't know it if you asked today's radical "trans activists."
The term "terf" does nothing but endanger women. There is no equivalent term for men deemed transphobic.
As a person who has always felt a great deal of sympathy for transgender people and the obstacles they face, I still get branded a "terf" because I have stated that there is a difference in the way one is treated when one is born a female (otherwise known as assigned female at birth or AFAB) and when one has transitioned from the sex they were assigned at birth. I have never said that one situation is superior or inferior to the other, just that it is different. There is a great deal of intersection between feminism and transgender rights, and I think it is erroneous to be at war with each other.
I would never claim that I know what it is to feel like I was born into the wrong body. I was always okay with being female. What I wasn't okay with was the rigid gender roles which place me in a position of second class citizenship.
People can be labeled a "terf" for anything from using slurs such as "he-she" against trans people to simply not agreeing with 100% of the objectives of the extreme trans rights movement.

Shame on the San Francisco Public Library for praising and encouraging violence

This person is Char the Butcher, a white nationalist trans activist
Somehow, the "white nationalist" part is overlooked and her violent rhetoric (Die Cis Scum) is praised

Labeling someone a "terf" is a call to violence against that person. 
There are those who claim that using words such as "vagina," "clitoris", and "mother" are "violence against trans women."
These words are not violent, they are just words to describe certain parts of the anatomy. I also find it interesting that these same people are not decrying the use of the words "penis", "scrotum," or "father" with the same vehemence. Why are they hell-bent on calling for violence against women with whom they disagree while ignoring potentially transphobic men?
Further, offense is not the same as actual violence.
The majority of people who menstruate are XX chromosome women.
The majority of people who gestate and give birth are XX chromosome women.
The majority of women's health services are directed towards women in their child-bearing years.
Some people may find terminology aimed towards XX chromosome women in their child-bearing years "exclusionary" and may be offended by such. Personally, I am offended by depersonalizing terminology such as "menstruators." I feel such terms are erasure of women. However, I acknowledge that there is a difference between a statement I find offensive and a statement calling for violence. 
"Punch a TERF" is a statement calling for violence.
Referring to women as "menstruators" is offensive. 
I am not going to call for violence against those using this dreadful term. I am, however, going to say why I don't like it and to try and educate people as to why such a term is problematic.
Then there are the disturbing statements by radical trans activists encouraging sexually violent behavior towards women.
Telling women who disagree with you to "choke on my ladycock" may just be gross, puffed-up hyperbole. However, it sounds a lot like the anti-feminist men of yore who made such statements as "these feminists just need a man to slam them up against the wall and give them a good fucking."
I saw a statement which said that "TERF is just Feminazi covered in glitter. Meet the new boss. It's the same as the old boss."
How are these people any different than the so-called "Incels" who praise attacks on women by individuals like Elliot Rodger and who feel that women should be forced to have sex with any man who wants to have sex with them?
Even if you vehemently disagree with someone, violence is not the way.
I don't agree with people making ridiculous claims such as using the word "vagina" is violence and coining depersonalizing terms like "menstruator." However, I am not calling for them to be violently attacked.
If I violently attacked every person I ever disagreed with, I'd rightfully be in jail.
I couldn't stand Phyllis Schlafly and her ilk. Dear Phyllis had this sweet Southern Belle voice, bless her heart. Buttah wouldn't melt in her mouth, yet the most vile, awful words fell from her mouth, spoken in very honeyed tones. I still don't think calling for violence against her would have been right. I advised people to ignore her and denounce the bullshit she was spouting.
I didn't feel too bad when a protester threw a pie in the face of homophobic Anita Bryant. However, that was a pie, not a fist or an object meant to cause injury. I still didn't fully approve of the action although I understood it and didn't feel sorry for Anita. It was a violent action even if not an ultimately harmful one. The best way to fight people like Anita and Phyllis is to educate people as to why what they're saying is prejudiced and wrong. The more people understand that their agenda is bogus, the less of a following they'll have.
As to the modern, violence-promoting "trans activist" movement, I also disagree with their disturbing assertion that someone identifying as a lesbian has to be DTF with a person who has a penis. Nobody has to be DTF anybody. To insist that they must be is pretty damn rapey. How is this any different than "give me a chance, Baby, I'm a nice guy. If you won't do it willingly, I'll make you do it and show you what you've been missing."
Some dudebros love to claim that fat women (like me) want to force men to have sex with us. Like, no. I don't want to have sex with you assholes. I appreciate the fact that you wear your shitty personality on your sleeve so even if I was looking for a sexual partner, I wouldn't waste my time with you.
I don't like these jackasses, and I wouldn't be sad if they somehow ended up in a tar pit or on a rocket ship bound for the center of the sun. However, I am still not calling for direct violence against them. I feel that the best way to counteract their shitty behavior is a) educating people about why their attitudes are shitty and wrong and b) giving no fucks that they find me unattractive. The problem is theirs, not mine.
Having hangups about having sex with a person who has transitioned does not mean that the person with the hangup hates trans people or that they won't fight for trans people's rights to be treated equally and to not have to face scorn and violence. Sometimes people have hangups, and they are aware that the problem is theirs and they need to work on it. Sometimes people do just have awful beliefs and say awful things. Either way, nobody is ever required to have sex with anybody and a call to violence is never the first line of defense.
Other problems I've come to have with the radical "trans activist" agenda:
The Women's March should be about everyone except for AFAB women.

Women have all their rights intact? In what Universe is that happening? I'd like to go there.


I went to the Women's March in Denver. A man near me started chanting "her body her choice," and the women responded "my body my choice." Nobody was going around carding anyone or examining their genitals to see if they were an AFAB or trans woman when they responded "my body my choice." I hardly see how this was a "terfy" action. As to the man who started the chant, thank you for being an ally.


Wrong. Rigid gender roles are a social construct. Biological sex is biology.
As for the "transmedicalist" claim, I can tell you as a former nurse that there are actual reasons that your medical care team need to know your biological makeup. Sure, there are some awful people who become medical professionals who will be shitty to you because they think being transgender is a sin or some other such crap. Those people need to check themselves. However, from a purely neutral standpoint, the reason medical professionals need to know whether your chromosome patterns are XX, XY, or something else is because certain medications that are helpful to people with an XY chromosome pattern might be very unhelpful for a person with an XX chromosome pattern and vice-versa. Also, do you want doctors giving you something that might mess with your HRT or otherwise promote the very secondary sex characteristics that you've been trying to suppress?
In a social setting, it doesn't matter to me what gender you identify as other than wanting to be polite and not misgender you. (Yes, the TERF doesn't want to misgender you, oddly enough.) I'm not going to check your trousers to see what you're sporting in the groin area. There is at least a 99.999999999 percent chance that I don't want to have sex with you, because I have the sex drive of roadkill. I'm going to be approaching you from an above-the-waist perspective. I don't care what you have going on below the belt.
In a medical setting, I do need to know your biological makeup, not because I feel you should be treated poorly because of it, but because certain medications can do bad things to people with certain chromosome patterns. It's as simple as that. If this makes me a "transmedicalist," then I guess I'm a transmedicalist. What the hell, I guess I ought to go ahead and be a "transmedicalist," seeing as I'm already a "terf."
Labeling everyone who doesn't agree with 100% of your agenda a "terf" and then calling for violence against "terfs" does not make the world a better place for anybody.
Violence is not the answer.
This shit needs to stop before someone gets killed.
We should be trying to understand each other, not kill each other.

~Sly Has Spoken~

copyright juliahenze @123rf.com


Saturday, May 26, 2018

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








Friday, May 25, 2018

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~






Wednesday, May 23, 2018

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