All In Me Head

So much of my life is lived inside my head …

Welcome Inside ...

I've spent much of the past 41 years "inside my head" -- working alone, playing alone. While my thoughts are often heavy, the name of this site actually comes from the movie Chicken Run -- specifically the character "Mr. Tweedy", who lightens life's odder, heavier moments by reminding himself that "it's all in me 'ead. It's all in me 'ead." There's much to be said for that approach.

  • .: Key Site Stats :.

    Visits today: 0
    Total Visits: 2648
    Users Online: 0
  • Welcome Back … Maybe

    Posted By admin on October 6, 2009

    The Huffington Post Complete Guide to Blogging has a lot of good advice.

    One bit I disagree with though: their admonition that the blogger never try to explain or explain away an absence.

    Fine.  I won’t.

    I’ve been gone. Now I’m back.

    Maybe.

    Don’t expect regularity – that’s why some wonderful bodger invented RSS.

    I have had a lot of life changes since I stopped writing in March of this year due to an affair.

    Those changes have, in their turn, prompted me to realize that I’ve had a lot MORE major life-events over the past six to eight years.  I’ve been doing a lot of reflection.  I have sued for, and for the first time, I have achieved what amounts to a snarling yet grave-like peace with a lot of issues, including what some would consider a handicap.

    Discussing those things, when I care to, does not lend itself to the media-type I’d been seduced into pouring myself into over the past seven months.

    Yes, like many others, I’d allowed myself to be seduced by Twitter.  She was fun.

    Hell, she was educational. Bracing. Even confidence-building.

    Not bad for a cheap thrill I allowed to suck seven months of life out of me.

    Affair’s over(Although I certainly don’t plan to avoid her on the street – she’s got a hell of a body, and we still make great conversation over the *occasional* cup-a-joe.)

    But frankly, I’m tired of the almost Newspeakian way I’ve begun speaking — and worse THINKING (can it be called that?) — in sentence fragments.

    And I’m tired of trying to write for an audience I can’t seem to reward for their patience, an oddly splintered, self-limiting audience half of whom seems to get jealous when I spend too much time on the other half.
    Then again, I’m continually reminded that for 42 years, I’ve NEVER had the pleasure – until the advent of social media – of realizing how many people really do like me.  In person, I am simply unable to tell. Online’s not much easier, and I place a lot of weight on numbers.

    So, after questioning my motives, realizing that popularity was beginning to overtake content originality, I’m back.

    *I* am back.  Though YOU, dear reader, may not always see me.

    Why?

    Because I’m transitioning from the sublime to the ridiculous, from the frenetic world of the 140-word fragment to the leisurely pace of the 140,000 word leviathon.
    (Leisurely pace, me arse. Four notebooks in four weeks of writing, not counting the character tracking grid that occupies another notebook, plus the 24″ x 36″ gross-grain chrono. Where the flip is that Dell Mini 9 I ordered two weeks ago? Dell? You’re not THAT busy.)

    OK, we’re probably looking at 280,000 or 420,000 words because the second novel — actually the first-conceived — keeps trying to push its way past the first, because I always write in threes and because there’s definitely a third novel back there because I’m too damn chicken to kill more than a billion people in any given one of them.

    On the advice of a friend (you know who you are – and thanks for the workload <smirk>) and my own autistic ability to basically create an entire novel in my head before writing it down, I’ve restarted a project begun exactly eight years ago this evening, when I began to write out the first of three novels that materialized in my head back then following the loss of friends in the WTC on 11 September 2001.

    Those novels sucked.  Or, rather, their characters sucked.

    But then again, only four (to perhaps a dozen) autistic authors (in English language literature) have ever managed to create believable characters.

    I sure as hell didn’t.

    But like I said – a few other things have happened in the six years since I quit writing:

    A diagnosis of severe “High-functioning Autism”,
    I came within a few breaths of losing my life (and remained in that near-breathless conversation with Death for about two and half days in May of 2007),
    I completely rethought and rebuilt my religious views – the result of which may make me damn unpopular with a lot of people who thought I was a friend (think Frank Schaeffer)
    a dramatically re-ignited (some have dared use the word impassioned) relationship with my wife of 16 years (Is it possible to be more desperate for her after that many years? That’s rhetorical by the way.)
    a political campaign filled with writing exercises (thanks again to the same individual mentioned above for the wake-up compliment) and a following that made me believe that there were at least a few others out there who felt like I did,
    and, in an odd twist, the resolution of bloody near every other personal battle I’ve fought for 5 to 35 years — in my favour.

    I no longer feel like I have the luxury of keeping what’s in my head private.

    Not to mention I’ve got a wealth of incredible material.

    So I may not be “over here” on the blog much – and since I’m not keen on using my real name on the manuscript when published – I likely won’t talk much about it.

    But at least you know where the hell I am.  Assuming you can tolerate me writing the way I actually feel.

    Bookmark and Share

    Manslaughter vs Murder

    Posted By admin on August 12, 2009

    Replying to this article:

    I wrote the following on Digg this evening …

    … especially since they’ve already missed the (proverbial) boat on actually caring for the sick themselves they way their G-d commands them to.

    Failure to provide could be labeled negligence, which is criminal enough.
    Active denial of care, however, is the difference between manslaughter and outright murder.

    Bookmark and Share

    Response To (In Support of) Jimmy Carter on SBC and Women

    Posted By admin on July 18, 2009

    In response to this article and this Digg posting, I posted the following comment:

    From Mr Carter’s position paper:
    “At their most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.”

    Mr Carter also speaks to the abuse of the Scriptures by the Church – abuse whose sole reason for being is to cement the POWER of those committing the abuse.

    I have given up speaking of it much – although those who watched me during Mr Obama’s campaign will recall that certain stories evoked infuriating (for me) memories of my work with abuse shelters during college.

    I had given up speaking of it much, because where I live, joking about women being barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen is as much part of normal conversation as asking about the next Promise Keepers or Men Following Christ meeting.  The old urge to grab a speaker by the scruff of a neck and drag their face along the pavement is occasionally overpowering.

    I had walked away from the church (per se) on the basis of the abuse of power – especially as it manifests in the Right-wing’s attempt to use Southern Baptist-style Christianity as a means of misguided control.

    Perhaps there remains reason to hope.

    I will watch Mr Carter for clues as to how he handles himself, and how he chooses to “do” religion from this point forward. But at the very least, hope exists in that Mr Carter has removed one last reason for restraint in the sort of cleanse of NeoCon / Social Conservative religion that remains needed for society to move forward.

    Bookmark and Share

    Earmarks

    Posted By admin on March 4, 2009

    OK, it looks like I’m on a word hunt this week.

    And tonight, I’d like to bag a major word that’s been slipping by all of us for a while here — or at least the word-games being played with it have been slipping by us unchallenged.

    Can we agree on a definition for earmarks already?  Granted, it never was a truly positive word.  But the Newspeak-ian games being played with it now — the dumbing down of the English language by setting the meaning of the word completely equal to the meaning assigned to “pork” is unacceptable.

    Earmark, singular or plural, has become as contentious, as partisan as any word to come out of the mouths of John McCain, Sarah Palin, or any other Jabba-following sycophant these days.  Having used the tumult of the 2008 campaign to change the definition of the word while we were busy doing other things, they’re now all set to take advantage of the changed “frames” they’ve created.

    It has come to mean — especially for John McCain evidently, and probably Ron Paul as well, it appears — something more than just “projects a given representative wants to meet specific needs in his or her district.”  It has come to allow — just as the word “pork” — to mean “any project, no matter how valid, that my ideology (or Rush) orders me to disagree with.” (more…)

    Bookmark and Share

    Lions and Tigers and Socialists, Oh My!

    Posted By admin on March 2, 2009

    I saw a piece (”Socialism, Boo, Hiss, Repeat“) in the March 1st New York Times that I want to both highlight and say a few words about.

    Mark Leibovitch, writing from Washington, seeks to highlight the Right’s increasing focus on one word — socialism — as their brickbat of choice.  The first of several comments I found useful put things in historical context:

    “The right would use ‘socialist’ against Franklin Roosevelt all the time in the 1930s,” said Charles Geisst, a financial historian at Manhattan College in the Bronx. “To hear him referred to as Comrade Roosevelt during that period was not unusual.” But while socialism is being invoked repeatedly now, Mr. Geisst said, it is a less potent slam than it once was.

    Hmmm.  Didn’t do a whole lot of good to repeat the phrase then, either.  Did it Repubs?  That must be why the Republican Party didn’t recover until the 1950’s — and only then by fielding a relatively CENTRIST, public-works-oriented candidate for president. (more…)

    Bookmark and Share

    Take Away Lines

    Posted By admin on February 25, 2009

    Just sitting here, trying to come up with some pithy, witty thing to say in my Facebook status line about Barack’s State of the Union Address this evening.  Rather than post there (or out-twitter John Dickerson or George Stephanopoulos on the issue), I decided to throw together maybe the “Top Five Take-away lines”– in no particular order.

    1.  “To overcome extremism, we must also be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend – because there is no force in the world more powerful than the example of America.”

    I love this for so many reasons – not least of which because it is 180 degrees from where we’ve been.

    2.  “… dropping out of high school is no longer an option.  It’s not just quitting on yourself, it’s quitting on your country!”

    If we have to redefine patriotism, let’s redefine it this way! No longer will we be labeled unpatriotic for OPENING OUR MOUTHS — but instead, we’ll be labeled unpatriotic FOR CLOSING OUR MINDS! (more…)

    Bookmark and Share

    Post-Pourri 2

    Posted By admin on February 22, 2009

    Haven’t done one of these in a while, but I’ve had a lot of little thoughts running around in my brain that I haven’t had time to parlay into anything bigger.

    COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE COST OF THE STIMULUS PLAN:

    I still haven’t heard anyone explain to me — to my satisfaction — how spending $789 billion on 99% of the population of the United States is any more egregious than spending $700 billion on less than 1% of the population (bankers and rich investors) which we were forced — bloody near at gunpoint — to do last September.

    Frankly, we already have proof that the $700 billion not only didn’t work, but didn’t work because it was largely misappropriated and because the cause of the problem (de-regulation) was not admitted and thus the issue was not understood.  At least we understand the issues behind the distribution of (and function of) the $789 billion Stimulus money.  And we certainly didn’t ask for the $789 billion to be spent without any oversight whatsoever, despite the crisis being FAR greater than it was when Paulson started yapping.

    Maybe we SHOULD have simply done an end-run around the banks and distributed the $700 billion directly to the people.  I could certainly use my $3180.00 share of that. (And my partner could use hers!)  No matter what, if the Stimulus fails, then we simply call it even.

    THE TRUE SOURCE OF THE CREDIT CRISIS:

    Folks, I’ve seen two different pieces lately on the credit crisis, and NEITHER of them gives credit where it is TRULY due.  The first is a (rather good) video bit making the rounds of Vimeo and Twitter (and now found HERE).  The second is in the March 2009 issue of WIRED, starting on page 074.  [Not yet available online, but should be HERE within by the end of March] The video piece does a great job of explaining WHAT happened.  WIRED even roots out a fall guy — David X Li — whose formula for risk supposedly made this whole crisis possible.

    HOWEVER:  both pieces, IMHO, have a fatal flaw.  They fail to remind the American people that what happened WAS NOT POSSIBLE until the repeal of significant bits of legislation (the names of which fail me at the moment, although Glass-Steagall comes to mind) occurred.  Those pieces of legislation were ALL of them put into place AFTER THE LAST GREAT DEPRESSION — with a view toward preventing this sort of thing happening ever again. [Perhaps someone could remind me of them in a comment.]

    The credit crisis happened because of deregulation. While explaining MECHANISMS is great and necessary, let’s make sure the WHOLE STORY is told.  What we’re doing now is rather like telling about the dramatic growth of the automobile, without detailing the phenomenal growth of the highway system.

    Fellow progressives, we need to pound that point home in our comments and our daily conversations with the opposition.

    Bookmark and Share