For anyone getting up in the morning can be a challenge, and for more many it is a challenge to get out of bed. Be it because of physical or mental challenges.
Since I was a young girl I have always worked in one form or another, to help support my family. At 11 I was delivering catalogues with my mother because she didn't have any work. At 14 when I could I got my first job and even then I was helping the family, I was paying rent at 14 but it was based on how much I earned each week. It was $50 at first but when I got older and earned more it was raised more. $75 then to $100 by the time I was 22 and finally when mum couldnt work once again I was paying the food bill every fortnight which was about $300 for 4 people. (Made it difficult to save) But I am doing okay now.
For a long time I have wanted a life that does not affect my mental or physical health to much. Now I am doing that after issues with my work regarding my health diagnosis, I resigned because I was not looked at the same way. I left my family home because I could no longer stand the toxic environment. Now I am safe, happy and doing okay. =)
Now I wake still with the challenge of getting out of bed, but every morning it is getting easier. My body doesnt hurt as much, I feel that my energy bar is being refilled. Even if it is only a quarter full.
I've wanted a lifestyle that is easier for me, less stress (less anxiety, panic and chest pain attacks) but also easier on my body. When I was younger I was generally healthy, but overtime something was changing in me and my health deteriorated. Till it affected my ability to work. Now I need to rebuild myself and my health, before I let it go too far and never get better. body. When I was younger I was generally healthy, but overtime something was changing in me and my health deteriorated. Till it affected my ability to work. Now I need to rebuild myself and my health, before I let it go too far and never get better.
With the help of a partner, friends and loved ones, I am moving towards a more confident, disciplined and true version of myself. While still being productive and working on my physical and mental health to help me return to some version of work that I once had.
I am living a productive yet relaxing life.
Every morning is different, there are somedays that I cannot get out of bed without some assistance. Or my motivation or mental state refuse to get out of bed. They're my liability, and motivation is my key.
Motivation is motivation, if I do not have it I will turn into a couch potato and my physical and mental health will never recover and my life expectancy will be reduced. I will never be the person that I want to be happy and healthy.
Now that I am away from a 9-5 job, I can focus on myself, a new life and my university work giving myself a better chance for better grades. Also giving more time to reconnect with my creativity and write stories and write novels about inclusion of people with disabilities in one form or another.
Change is difficult.
I have a few weeks before I have to return to university. Now is the time to care about myself, put me first for the first time in my life. My life will include more yoga, healthier eating, speaking my mind and doing what I believe in. (All the while slowly turn myself in to a plant lady, haha)
One step at a time.
<3
About the Creator
Kim Murray
Professional daydreamer, and full-time wordsmith, I write stories where fantasy quietly slips into reality. Nostalgia fuels my imagination, cozy games keep me grounded, and my cat provides moral support (and silent judgment).
Keep reading
More stories from Kim Murray and writers in Longevity and other communities.
Revisiting the Iconic Kids’ TV Shows of the 90s
Ah, the 90s — a decade where television flourished and became the focal point of pop culture, giving us some of the most iconic shows that have left an indelible mark on viewers and the television landscape. As a fan of nostalgia and retro content, I have decided to be nostalgic and revisit the shows that made the 90s truly magical.
By Kim MurrayExclusive • 8 months ago
Day 4 of Quitting
If this is how sobriety feels, maybe it’s better to go through life a little buzzed… this, along with other hits like, I want to kill myself, I wish I was dead, and I’m going to throw myself off a bridge have been the only thoughts on rotation these past few days. I promise myself that if, in a month, I still feel like this (‘this’ meaning despondent, full of rage, and simultaneously numb) I can go back to smoking. Until mid-February though? Nicotine is off the table.
By sleepy drafts7 days ago in Longevity
The Return of the Aircraft Carrier Truman Is Being Seen as a Snub to the Navy in the War of the Future
The return of the U.S. aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman to active deployment has sparked debate far beyond naval circles. While some see it as a show of enduring American naval power, others interpret the move as a symbolic snub—particularly in the context of how modern warfare is rapidly evolving. In an era dominated by drones, cyber warfare, hypersonic missiles, and artificial intelligence, the decision to once again lean heavily on a traditional aircraft carrier has raised uncomfortable questions about whether the Navy is preparing for the wars of tomorrow or clinging to the strategies of yesterday. A Floating Symbol of 20th-Century Power For decades, aircraft carriers have been the ultimate symbol of U.S. military dominance. These massive floating airbases project power thousands of miles from American shores and allow the U.S. to strike almost anywhere in the world. The Truman, like other Nimitz-class carriers, represents this legacy—housing nearly 5,000 sailors, dozens of fighter jets, and unmatched logistical capability. However, critics argue that what once made carriers indispensable now makes them vulnerable. Their sheer size, cost, and visibility turn them into high-value targets in a battlefield increasingly defined by precision strikes and long-range weapons. The “War of the Future” Looks Very Different Modern conflict is no longer limited to sea, land, and air. Cyber attacks can cripple infrastructure without a single shot fired. Drones can swarm targets at a fraction of the cost of traditional aircraft. Hypersonic missiles can reach targets faster than current defenses can respond. In this context, sending a massive carrier strike group into contested waters can appear less like a strategic necessity and more like a risky gamble. Critics argue that the return of the Truman reflects an outdated mindset—one that prioritizes visible force projection over adaptability and technological evolution. A Snub to Naval Innovation? Many analysts and serving officers believe the Navy’s future lies in distributed lethality—smaller, more agile platforms networked together, harder to detect and cheaper to replace. Unmanned surface vessels, autonomous submarines, and land-based missile systems are increasingly viewed as the backbone of next-generation naval warfare. Against this backdrop, recommitting to a traditional carrier is seen by some as sidelining innovation. It sends a message that, despite years of discussion about transformation, the Navy still defaults to familiar tools when tensions rise. This perception has led to frustration among those advocating for faster modernization. They argue that resources devoted to maintaining and protecting carriers like the Truman could instead accelerate investment in emerging technologies that are more relevant to future conflicts. The Strategic Signal to Allies and Rivals Supporters of the decision counter that the Truman’s return is not about nostalgia—it’s about deterrence. Aircraft carriers remain powerful political tools. Their presence reassures allies, signals commitment, and demonstrates readiness in a way few other assets can. Yet even here, the message is mixed. To technologically advanced rivals, the deployment may signal predictability rather than strength. Adversaries have spent years developing strategies specifically designed to neutralize carriers, including anti-ship ballistic missiles and advanced surveillance systems. Cost Versus Capability The financial reality cannot be ignored. A single carrier strike group costs billions of dollars to build, maintain, and operate. In contrast, drone fleets and missile systems can be produced and deployed at a much lower cost, often with greater strategic flexibility. Critics argue that continuing to rely on carriers drains resources from areas where the Navy needs to grow most urgently. In a future conflict defined by speed, dispersion, and digital dominance, the cost-benefit equation of aircraft carriers looks increasingly questionable. Why the Carrier Still Matters—For Now Despite the criticism, aircraft carriers are not obsolete—yet. They remain unmatched in their ability to sustain prolonged air operations without relying on foreign bases. In regions where access is limited or politically sensitive, carriers still provide options no other platform can. The real issue, many experts say, is not the existence of carriers like the Truman, but over-reliance on them. Using them as one component of a broader, more flexible strategy may still make sense. Treating them as the centerpiece of future war planning may not. A Turning Point for Naval Strategy The return of the USS Harry S. Truman highlights a deeper tension within modern military thinking. It represents a crossroads between tradition and transformation, between proven power and emerging threats. Whether history views this moment as a wise assertion of strength or a missed opportunity for innovation will depend on what comes next. If the Navy pairs legacy platforms with bold technological change, the carrier’s return may be justified. If not, it risks becoming a powerful symbol—not of dominance, but of reluctance to adapt in a rapidly changing world.
By Fiazahmedbrohi 2 days ago in Longevity
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.