Why your job sucks: Sub shop employees fired two days before Christmas.

The company claims it wasn’t retaliation. Yeah, right. Most of the Snarf’s Subs employees who got s***-canned were among those who were out advocating for an increased minimum wage a few weeks ago. And in response, they got fired by email, right before Christmas Eve.

Here’s a bit of the email:

1. Due to increased competition and losses, ownership has decided to consider remodeling and reconcepting the store at 600 West Chicago Ave.

2. The store is closing, effective tomorrow, December 23, 2013 for an unknown period of time for this remodeling and reconcepting.

3. All staff is terminated, effective Monday, December 23, 2013.

Notice the words “consider remodeling and reconcepting”. They aren’t even sure they will do anything , or what they would do if they did. Nobody in business axes an entire location with less than 24 hours’ notice and no plan for the future. This is not a normal part of a long-term business plan; this is a bitch-slap to the workers who asked for a raise, and a warning to anyone else who is thinking about making a similar request.

And that is why your job sucks, fellow Americans. Because your employer can do whatever they want to you, whenever they want, and for any reason they dream up. We have no protection, very few rights, and no one to stand up for us.

And even if you don’t get fired, you get to pay via your tax dollars for the few remaining social safety-net items for the workers who DID get fired. The employer pays almost nothing. We pay almost everything.

All of our jobs suck. We have let them suck, by electing politicians who enable the increased suck. We have turned our backs on the unions and other agents who helped to decrease the suck.

And we now must re-fight the battles of old, to decrease the suck once again. Unless we all want our jobs to be Snarfed up.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

Phil Robertson’s Glass House (Those who live by Leviticus…)

As we all know by now, Duck Daddy Phil Robertson loves him some Leviticus 18:22 (that is the bit about gays being icky). Of course, the book says a lot about other horrible sins, but he doesn’t often mention them. And for good reason.

This writer has seen a bit of Duck Dynasty, and knows that the Robertsons love to eat squirrel. That is forbidden per Lev. 11:4-8, as are pork, rabbit, and pretty much any animal without divided hooves and a cud-chewing habit. Crawdads are also sinful to eat, along with shellfish, lobster, shrimp and crab, per Lev. 11:10-12.

Don’t get the Cranky started about how they dress on that show: dreadfully decadent mixing of fabrics. Forbidden in 19:19. And that unkempt hair? Oh, my-check out 10:6. Not to mention eating fat-that is stealing from the Lord’s sacrificial portion, as per 3:17.

And of course, there is the big one: lying. Forbidden by a commandant, and quite a few places in Leviticus, to boot. And the whole show is a lie, Clan Robertson is not the family they pretend to be: click the link and watch to see. They were a normal load of rich yuppies before the show, and grew the beards and such for it. So the show is bearing false witness, deceiving a purchaser, and a host of other truly gnarly sins.

The truth, Gentle Reader, is that we are all horrible sinners according to the standards set in Leviticus, and Hoo Boy, that includes your Cranky Correspondent. That is why we no longer live by those standards. And if someone wants to pick and choose which bit o’ Levit he wants to foist upon the rest of us, then he is leaving himself open for the rest of us to do unto him.

For now, the score of the Sin Bowl is: Homosexual males, 1 ; Phil Robertson, 12+.
Not hard to see which is the bigger sinner.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

Accused Child-Molester Cites Her Racism as a Defense

Just when you think you have heard it all, just when you think you can’t be shocked; just when you think you have a grasp on just how crazy people can be…the world gives you an even crazier person. So it is with the accused child-molesting teacher Esther Irene Stokes.

Ms. Stokes’ defense is truly novel: she claims that she could not have molested the girl because of her racism. Yes, that is what she says: since she hates black children, according to her “logic”, she could not have touched the child. Truly, an epic bit of “reasoning” on the part of the accused.

Of course, sexual assault is a crime of violence, not romance: so hating the person you’re accused of attacking actually makes you look even more likely to have committed the crime in question. This person would appear to be as stupid as she is predatory.

The charter school has since canned the accused, which is appropriate. But you kind of have to wonder why they’d hire a teacher who had “little or no interaction” with her black students. But that could just be ordinary incompetence: the teacher is clearly barking mad, which is worse.

Ladies and gentlemen, we present the craziest, dumbest and most brain-dead sex offender in history. And the scariest part is, the world has probably already got someone who is even crazier in the on-deck circle.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky