What The....????

 Five months ago, I donated blood.  It's something I did regularly for the last several years (I'd have to check my account to see if they note when I began donating where I do).  That last donation was whole blood, because my iron levels were down too low to donate as I usually do...which is what they call "double red cells".  Donating double red cells can only be done ever four months.  But as I donated whole blood that five months ago, I expected I could schedule another donation...regardless of which form...the following month.  

Turns out that wasn't the case.  I couldn't schedule an appointment.  The site insisted I was not eligible.  I called and the location I used could not schedule me, either.  They gave me a phone number.  I called but could not speak with anyone.  I left contact info and got no response.  I did that several times.  I kept at it and the other day, I was given a similar number in my state.  I called, left a message and didn't so much wait as expect I'd simply get no response again.

Today I got a call.  I was told I received an explanation by mail last March.  Don't recall that ever happening, but my wife has a habit of deciding what is or isn't junk mail on my behalf, so who knows?  In any case, the nice lady told me I tested positive for Hepatitis C.  Here's the thing...they re-scanned and found it was a false positive and I don't have Hepatitis C.  So what's the problem?  Why can't I donate?  Because the FDA says so.  Any positive test denies, and apparently that includes false positives.  Apparently it doesn't matter how badly they need blood...and I'm told they especially need Type 0+ double red cells...ANY positive test prohibits donation.  One would think they'd take a sample to test a third time to make sure and then make a determination regarding the accuracy of the original test, which already has one affirmation of a false positive.  But no.  They just leave it as one positive and one negative and pretend it's more likely the subject is positive.  And they wonder why folks don't trust the government.  

I was always pleased and happy to donate.  I had to sit for an hour or more for the entire appointment, but I considered it somewhat of an honor to participate and serve my fellow man in this simply, low effort manner.  I thought it was something everyone should do given how easy it is to be helpful in this way.  And of course, there are lives being saved as a result and for that consequence to result from such low effort is a no-brainer.  Yet now I'm denied the privilege because of a well intended but poorly executed safeguard.  

Government.  What an egregious pain in the ass.

UPDATE:

Got a call from Vitalant.  The nice lady tells me there's some reorganization within the outfit tying together all their loose ends, which would somehow lead to my possible reinstatement as a donor.  I'm told to contact them if I don't get a letter outlining the process by February.  Fingers crossed.

These Times Which Try This Man's Soul

 We just went through a re-bid at work.  This means our schedule was altered severely and we who serve are called to, according to seniority, choose which schedule of horror with which we'd be content to punish ourselves.  

Stop right there.  Yeah.  I'm fortunate to be working.  Not the point and hardly consolation.

I work for a contractor hauling mail for the United States Postal Service.  That right there should be taken as a bad indicator.  The facility where I work is a 24/7/365 operation.  Since I signed on a little over seven years ago, I've been working nights.  I've had the same schedule the whole time in terms of which days I work and which days I don't.  It was a great schedule, as I only worked three days one week, alternating with four days the next.  Needless to say, I enjoyed either a three or four day weekend.  I loved it, despite the fact that my week begins on Sunday night.  I must sleep all during the day to prepare for the job.  Church going has been sporadic ever since, given Saturdays is when everything happens.  

When I started, I worked from 7PM-7AM, and that eventually was changed to 6PM-6AM.  It was always the case where if one completed one's tasks, one can scoot and still get paid for the whole shift.  More recently, my hours had been cut to the extent I averaged about 30 hrs. per week.  I was in heaven.  The money was still sufficient and as I've been getting older (how is this happening!!!!??), my wife was cool with me working less almost as much as I was. 

But now, this type of schedule was eliminated.  Those choices which were four days per week included horrible off days.  My wife works a normal Monday-Friday job like most people.  Saturdays off is essential in order to do things a husband and wife does.  I could not take a day shift which would either have me coming home at 6AM and sleeping half the day away, or worse, having to hit the rack at 7 or 8PM in order to get up Sunday morning for work.  (Yeah.  There's never any Saturday, Sunday weekends available here.)

So I had two criteria in my choosing:

1.  I must have ALL of Saturday off.

2.  I want no more hours than I was putting in. 

I only got #1.  I'm doing five days per week (I'd jump at my original schedule rather than work that many days in a week...if I could, which I couldn't) and doing around 44 hours per.  I have four different schedules in that time.  

I'm old enough to retire.  In fact, I just signed up to begin drawing Social Security benefits.  I'm working until we move in the early spring of 2022.  I did NOT want to work more, especially as we're beginning to effect our plan of attack regarding the move.  Having those long weekends would have been ideal as well as just personally pleasing.  The bigger paychecks from this new schedule will be nice, but I'm still looking at the company job postings for a better deal.  For example, I drive about a half hour to get to work (if I'm doing the speed limit).  But I live close enough to another facility I could almost spit and hit it.  The problem is that's not a 24/7 operation, and most all of their full-time schedules are six days per week.  Even their part time offerings are, but every now and then there's a Monday through Friday option, though it's only around 20-25 hours per week.  With SS, it's absolutely doable.  (Again, the job pays well).  So wish me luck.

The worst aspect of this five day thing is that we're just a few months from the start of PEAK SEASON!!!! ...a time when the PO really shows its grit (*gack*).  They have no grit.  The volume goes up but no one works harder, everything gets clogged up and one can sit waiting with a trailer full of mail for a dock door to open up well beyond one's going home time.  Hey, I can sit in line for hours so long as it's not going home time!  

The facility where I work is possibly the worst Postal processing center in the country.  Those who drive in from far away all hate the place.  I have occasion to deliver and pick up at two other locations which, while having their own issues, do not seem to be anywhere near as much a cluster...you know...as the one at which I work.  It doesn't have to be and shouldn't be, which is easy to see and makes it all the more frustrating.  A lot of  "I ain't bustin' my ass" and "why should I" all over the place.  A lot of attitude.  A lot of stupid people in positions of authority acting as if they're perfect for the job while they do so little, and what they do they do poorly.  I see nothing which seems to be a tough job, yet so many need to be told what to do, regardless of how obvious it is.  If the Postal Service went private, I wouldn't doubt 90% of the people at this place would be out.  

So all in all, it's a really frustrating place to work.  It's like God testing me daily.  And now it's more daily than before.  Can I last?  I just need six more months before I call it quits here to concentrate on moving our worldly goods to warmer, more conservative climes.  This bid could not have come at a worse time.  God give me strength and patience.  (A Lotto win wouldn't hurt, but I never pray for that)

CRT-Criminal Racist Tyranny

 I've been wanting to get to this since Brain-Dead Dan <a href="https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2021/07/learn-about-crt-through-what-is.html">posted this fiction at his blog.</a>  Now that I have a few, I'm going to dive in.  I posted a bit of his drivel in an earlier post, but what I'm going to do now is to address four point he thinks are profound and compelling examples of "the real" CRT.  Before doing so, here's what immediately precedes it:

"While recognizing the evolving and malleable nature of CRT, scholar Khiara Bridges outlines a few key tenets of CRT, including:"

 First, it seems clear that this "scholar" admits the fiction of this "theory".  "Evolving and malleable"?  Yeah...I'm gonna put my money on something "evolving and malleable".  Pardon me for saying so, but I've always been partial to that which is solid and provably true...something for which evidence supports as a reality, or at least more likely reality than not.  Nothing "evolving or malleable" is worth the time of day when it comes to pushing policy or altering existing systems.  But hey...to the leftist, it's whatever emanates from their asses at any given moment.  It's how they roll.  

 

So point number one:

"Recognition that race is not biologically real but is socially constructed and socially significant. It recognizes that science (as demonstrated in the Human Genome Project) refutes the idea of biological racial differences. According to scholars Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, race is the product of social thought and is not connected to biological reality."

Dan gets right to the stupid first thing!  Kudos, Dan, for not wasting time!  I've read at least half a dozen different articles promoting this in my research for this post.  They all have one thing in common:  They don't admit what their own arguments compel the honest reader to acknowledge.  That is, that race is indeed biological.  Indeed, one only need imagine the skeletal remains of any human being and wonder if the race of the subject can be determined by DNA and such.  The answer is, YES!  It can!  Indeed, contrary to the "scholars" above, "Analysis of genomes from around the world establishes that there is a biological basis for race, despite the official statements to the contrary of leading social science organizations." (a quote from one of the <i>other</i> articles I read...I'll produce it if need be in the comments section)  

Then of course there are diseases which are unique to certain races/ethnicities:

"Tay-Sachs disease favors Ashkenazim Jews (of European descent), while cystic fibrosis haunts White people. Latin Americans and African rooted people are particularly vulnerable to type 2 diabetes, 90% and 60 % more than White people. Hypertension plagues Afro-Caribbean descent at a higher rate than other populations."  (from <i>another</i> article I read, which can also be presented if need be)  These are all biological "markers", as it were.  

The reality, and perhaps the point of the race-hustlers pushing CRT, is that racism is the construct.  We conservatives, for example, do not think in terms of race or ethnicity with regard to American citizens.  We strive to treat all people like people and not pretend there's something incredibly special regarding the race or ethnicity of people.  The left, like Brain-Dead Dan and other race-hustlers and enablers of sexual perversion, are totally about "identity politics", and that's all CRT really is.

 

Moving on to point two:

"Acknowledgement that racism is a normal feature of society and is embedded within systems and institutions, like the legal system, that replicate racial inequality. This dismisses the idea that racist incidents are aberrations but instead are manifestations of structural and systemic racism."

This is plain wishful thinking.  If this is true, then it allows the race-hustlers to more easily push their self-serving marxist plans.  But it's something they can't truly prove.  They can't seem to pick out a true example of this fiction.  Which system replicates racial inequality?  They can't say.  They can't draw a line between any outcome and the racist institution which allegedly is at fault.  It's just asserted that "victims" are made so by some unidentified "system" or institution.  Brain-Dead Dan certainly provides no examples.

 

Point three:

" Rejection of popular understandings about racism, such as arguments that confine racism to a few “bad apples.” CRT recognizes that racism is codified in law, embedded in structures, and woven into public policy. CRT rejects claims of meritocracy or “colorblindness.” CRT recognizes that it is the systemic nature of racism that bears primary responsibility for reproducing racial inequality."

This really is no different than point two, except that it suggests it is more widespread than honest people, like Thomas Sowell, would argue.  It defends the lie by asserting racism is systemic, again without offering any example that might prove the point.  

As a side note, it further goes to a point made that proponents of this crap-sandwich regard all whites as racist.  Since this country was founded by white people, their institutions then built by white people and those institutions somehow have racism codified, embedded and woven into public policy, how can anyone not believe they accuse all whites of being racist?  

As to popular understanding, I really don't know what that is these days.  Racism has always been defined as, basically, the notion that those of a given race are inferior simply because of their race.  Now, it's morphed into whatever the race-hustlers need it to be in order to accuse as racist anyone who does not agree with black people or anytime a black person fails to advance in life.  This point three provides the all-purpose excuse for black failure or suffering.  It's evil.  

Point four...a doozy!:

"Recognition of the relevance of people’s everyday lives to scholarship. This includes embracing the lived experiences of people of color, including those preserved through storytelling, and rejecting deficit-informed research that excludes the epistemologies of people of color."

 This might be the most problematic.  While anyone can have a sad story to tell, not everyone is honest about the details of that sad story.  This point echoes Brain-Dead Dan's admonition to "listen to black  people" (unless their brilliant and honest like Thomas Sowell).  The not so subtle implication is that "lived experiences" must be believed as rock-solid truth/fact.  Don't you dare question anything about it.  Yet, the telling will almost certainly provoke questions of all kinds, and in many cases, those questions will be about the validity of the story told.  But we're to simply shut up and take it as truth on the face of it.  No thanks.  I want proof or evidence to back up that story.  

I think the sad truth is that too many black people have negative opinions about many things because of hearing about those "lived experiences".  Almost every story (I'm being generous here with the "almost") we hear of racist, brutal cops killing innocent black dudes are actually cases of assholes resisting arrest.  There are no shortage of videos of blacks recording how they mouthed off to cops, as if the cop was doing anything wrong.  This will be listed among "lived experiences" but clearly, the cop has a different tale to tell.  Other videos are from the cop perspective showing how they acted professionally while being berated and insulted by the person being stopped, and sometimes resulting in the cop being shot.  

"Lived experience" is for story books.  To improve life for all, we need facts and evidence.  If one is a victim of corrupt law enforcement, prove it.  If one is truly innocent of wrongdoing, allow the situation to proceed along a legal path.  Even truly racist cops aren't likely to force an innocent person into criminal response.  

Now, I am willing to concede the extremely unlikely possibility that I've totally misunderstood any of the four "principles" of CRT Brain-Dead Dan listed from his reliable sources.  But that would only mean that Ducky Dan failed to provide clarifying explanation, which he is free to provide in the comments section if has the desire to do so like a man instead of a...I have no confidence he's capable but plenty that he's so racist he'll try to do so in a manner he believes will disparage those of us who see CRT for what it is (see the title of this post).  

There's more I could say about B-D Dan's blog post hailing this detriment to the black community and America in general.  But I'll leave it there and cite more in the comments if need be. This kinda crap bores me to no end.  Too many need racism to exist in order to profit.  None of them do anything truly beneficial for the people about whom they claim to care so deeply.  But the result is that it is now so much more difficult to become one America because of them, and I don't know what it will take to rid ourselves of these con-artists and their stench so that we can.