Why I write the way I do--oh, look something shiny!

I have been aware of my ADD for about 18 years now. No, scratch that, I've been diagnosed as having ADD/ADHD for about 18 years now. I knew something was keeping me from doing a lot of shit for a much longer period of time.

Fighting ADD is not possible. Giving into its manisfest symptoms and letting my brain run riot 24/7 is not desirable. I struggle with the disorder. One of its more prominent symptoms for me is what I refer to as the "Magpie reflex". I can be cruising along doing some work that needs to be done--or having a conversation about anything and without warning something, anything, occurs that deflects my interest from the task at hand to a more "interesting" path of inquiry. This sort of thing is not viewed as a "charming" quirk or harmless eccentricity by many folks. Living alone and not working makes it less likely that I will be fired or told to pack up my shit and hit the road; it does make it exceedingly difficult to start and finish projects or even conversations.

I'm trying a new prescription (I'm into my third month of medication) and, at least so far, it seems not to be making all that much difference to the way I flounder about when not hyperfocused (which is about 3% of my day). Another two months to go at a new dosage level and we will see what we will see. The VA does not like writing the prescription for Adderall (which I KNOW works) and I can't afford the $1-2K/annum for meds and seeing a private mental health provider once every couple of months. I will do this trial for as long as I can and if it's still not working, or having adverse side affects I will either get the Adderall prescribed or simply stop taking any meds for the condition.

So, okay, I got that out of the way, as a preamble to telling my faithful readers that I've started a new editorial policy. Instead of trying to write separate posts I am simply going to start cutting and pasting my own comments from other blogs--and adding contextual content where I feel it's necessary. By doing this I will be able to post more stuff. To wit, three comments from another blog are going to be posted below. They will be labelled as 1 through 3. They may not make a lot of sense to you, but they do to me--that is part of my struggle with the ADD.


Cheers.

1.)  "I think Fumento pointing out that the shrillness of the likes of Limbaugh, Coulter, and Malkin is being driven by money is an important statement coming from someone on the right."

The enemy of my enemy is not automatically my friend. Fumento is an asshole. That he dislikes other assholes is not surprising; nor is it surprising that he says that THEIR shrillness is being driven by money. He was a benefactor of plenty of the poisoned lucre that was being spread around by the ReiKKKwingers over the years. He just ain't gettin' so much these days.

David Brock is a former KKKonservative hatchetman who made his bones with the ReiKKKwing by attacking Anita Hill for telling the truth about Clarabelle Thomas during his SCotUS nomination hearings. Brock has since apologized to Anita Hill and written a book detailing his "mistakes".

This:

"July 2, 2001 -- Journalist David Brock, whose 1993 book attacked the credibility of law professor Anita Hill, now says he printed lies about Hill following her testimony against then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. In an exclusive interview, NPR Legal Affairs Correspondent Nina Totenberg talks to Brock about the confession, detailed in a forthcoming book."

from here (http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2001/jul/010702.brock.html)

is almost 11 years old. The "apology" was made, oddly enough, when Brock had another book coming out--about his perfidy. In the intervening 11 years Brock's original crapola, piece of shit hatchet job on Anita Hill has remained in print--afaia, without a retraction of its contents inserted between its covers. He was a piece of shit, then; he's a piece of shit, now.

Being critical of lying, unprincipled assholes like Brooks and Fumento without calling them lying, unprincipled assholes is not only less fun, it's exactly what the ReiKKKwing likes for the rest of the world to do.

People like Brock, Brooks and Fumento can rehabilitate their images by writing complete retractions of their KNOWN lies (plus any that they haven't yet been caught in but do know about). A bonus would be if they reveal the sources of both the lies and the funding that they received to do their unprincipled lying.

Calling the three of them (and the rest of the ReiKKKwing dysilluminati) lying, unprincipled assholes has, btw, jack shit to do with "ideological purity".

2.)  This comment was made in reply to other comments made about the RCC’s recent announcement that they were putting out “guidelines” so that the faithful might be more easily able to identify “genuine” apparitions—as opposed to News of the World nonsense.

"So you mean it’s not a vision, but it is really the caretaker of the shut down amusement park, old man Cranston, wearing a rubber Virgin Mary mask?"

That's a disturbing image; not as disturbing as Pope Panzerfaust in a full gimp suit, but close.

"wasting a great deal of verbiage with little actual meaning."

That could be their sub-header.

"with special regard to the fecundity of spiritual fruit generated from this new devotion."

I think that one of the monk/scribes was doing some "one handed illuminating" when he wrote that.

"habitual docility towards Ecclesiastical Authority."

It ain't just for altar boys anymore.

"What? No mention of the importance of the type of cheese in the grilled sandwich –"

I was at a McDonalds recently and had a McDouble. When I was putting an extra pint of Ketchcornsyrup on it I noticed that it had the likeness of the Immaculate Conceptionist in Velveetaish gooey goodness. I was gonna document it and put it on e-bay; then I realized that JESUS' mom--fine upstanding jewish girl of her times that she was--wouldn't be caught dead with or IN a cheeseburger.

3.) This comment was made in reference to a discussion about christians and their lack of logic and critical thinking when they talk about being GAY as an abomination in the eyes of GOD.

3.) This comment was made in reference to idiot christians that want to have their bible and STILL burn those that they disagree with at the stake.

 1. “If you actually look at what is in that kludgy mess of the bible and the history of xianity, it all looks like something made up by humans.” 

Something made up by humans before fact checking AND before modern psychiatry with its DSM and GargantuPharma with its nostrums and potions made it easier to identify and treat mental illness.

heddle:

The real problem lies not in OUR lack of understanding of an ancient, cobbled, revised and, often enough, flat out wrong text*; it lies in the duplicity, hypocrisy and indignorance manifested by those who claim to have a comprehensive understanding of that text–which does include the majority of christian ministers and priests (rabbis, too) and a shitton of their sheeple.

This:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lutheran_denominations

is from Wiki. It purports to be a list of Lutheran denominations. IIRC, you’re a Lutheran, yes? Also, I think that you have said in the past that you are a Calvinist and believe in the notion of pre-destination and the “Elect” being the true “Chosen” people of GOD? Are all of the other self-professed christians therefore “wrong”? Are they apostates, heretics, merely misinformed (but doomed nonetheless)?

I have no doubt that you could win a debate with a number of commenters here, and I also have no doubt that a number of really bright and educated folks would simply refuse to engage due to your past history in this regard. Then, of course, there are folks like me, bright like Sirius and woefully undereducated who have no desire to debate anyone over a matter that we hold to be the result of serially fictive authorship.

To paraphrase Warren Zevon, I’ll BELIEVE when I’m dead–or I’ll simply be disassembled by the same rules of physics and chemistry that allow my existence.

OT: Is there something about NASCAR and wrecks that needs investigating? I mean, WOW, they be goin’ through some rides!

* This is not to say that there are NOT portions of the Bible, both OT and NT, that are morally correct.