24 October, 2016
A friend is someone who knows all about you and still loves you. ~Len Wein #QOTD #quote #friends #truefriends #friendship #truth #forreals #instaquote #instafriends #quoteoftheday #instaquoteoftheday #realfriends #onthereals
via Instagram http://bit.ly/2f2lvkB
22 October, 2016
21 October, 2016
My typical response is, "I'll be celebrating my 29th birthday." And it's a factual statement. One can celebrate anything one chooses, and I happen to choose to celebrate my 29th birthday. But it's not for the reason most people would think.
Many may deem such a response to be a sign of vanity. There is, after all, an increasing amount of anxiety surrounding the entrance to one's fourth decade of life (or in layman's terms, turning 30).
There also is the common myth among many gay men—especially those young adults and 20-somethings—that crossing the boundary into one's thirties is the death knell of gay life. Worst of all, thirty becomes that age when one no longer can get laid and instantly transforms one into an old troll or, worse, a chicken hawk.
thirtysomething. Unlike the hit 90s sitcom Friends of a group of 20-something New Yorkers, the 30-something gang of suburban Philadelphians failed to attract a mainstream audience, ending without much ado after only four seasons.
The thirties are when society expects one to have one's life together. Thirty-somethings are supposed to be set in their careers, starting families, and buying homes in the suburbs, not living in cramped studio apartments struggling to make ends meet eating ramen and taking the bus. They're supposed to have sizeable retirement accounts, family sedans, and take holidays in the Poconos, not South Beach. Perhaps this more mundane thirtysomething lifestyle is a reason the show failed to gain traction? But I digress...
Most people don't find life in their thirties to be terribly interesting. From the time one enters this "seriously senior" stage of desultory adulthood until one's retirement, life pretty much is the daily grind that is the butt of few, if any jokes. SSDD (and we're not talking the antiquated acronym we learned in the 1980s defining the storage capacity of certain removable, magnetic media here, folks) becomes the acronym de l'époque as untoward machinations comport the free spirits of hopeful twentysomethings.
The outlook is even worse if one is queer/LGBTQ, especially if one doesn't yet have a partner. There is little hope for the single gay to find that special someone as dating past one's twenties morphs into this unwieldy hot mess of nightmarish complications involving way too much time requiring Getting to Know You (getting to know all about your issues, too!). The thirtysomething gay must deal not only with their own issues but also those of their date and all of their date's friends' issues, in addition to their friends' and family's issues, as well. And there simply aren't enough drugs and alcohol on the planet to get us through that!
But for me, celebrating my 29th birthday isn't about any of that.
I've written about), when life put me through a meat grinder and spat me out into the maelstrom of Jupiter's Great Red Spot, was when I was 28. Most people who know me know it as the year of my automobile accident, the year of my grandmother's death, my mother's first bout with breast cancer, friend's suicide, father's remarriage, death of my last, true love, and a few other sordid events that turned my Shiny Happy People life into a scene from Dante's Inferno.
While I've written (briefly) about my hospitalization, I've usually left it that I spent most of that year in hospital. What I haven't stated (often) was that from January through May, I was in the physical hospital. Some time between May and June, without getting into the nitty gritty of it, I wound up in the behavioral health hospital, instead of being moved into inpatient rehab. I thus spent the physical rehab portion of my recovery locked up in an inpatient psychiatric unit.
My car accident was in January, and I was 28 years old at the time.
On my 29th birthday later that year on October 21st, I was still in the (mental health) hospital being treated for severe depression, suicidal ideation, PTSD, and anxiety, among other things (I was still receiving inpatient physical rehabilitation services, as well, thrice weekly). During my daily appointment with the treating psychiatrist, I broke down into uncontrolled fits of sobbing simply because he wished me a happy birthday.
I was so broken—not just physically but financially, mentally, spiritually and just about every other aspect—that I couldn't let anyone even say, "happy birthday" to me without turning into a blubbering mess. I quite literally could not celebrate my 29th birthday. My session began with my shrink giving me a birthday greeting and me spending the remainder of the session sobbing uncontrollably, unable to even explain why I sounded more like a banshee than a birthday celebrant.
For the next five years, I invariably spent my birthday locked up in an inpatient psychiatric unit of one mental health hospital or another, primarily to treat depression and suicidal ideation (or otherwise). I've never really been able to celebrate my birthday, at least in anything forming a semblance to what one normally would consider a celebration, birthday or otherwise.
I still can't explain why I broke down so badly in front of the first (or any) person to wish me a happy 29th birthday. But ever since then, I haven't been able to celebrate a birthday. I can celebrate life, and the fact that I'm alive, and a few other things, but not my birthday.
I am grateful that I'm alive, and I'm filled with gratitude for all of the wonderful, amazing, loving, and caring individuals who are a part of my life. I can do gratitude. Got that covered. But when it comes to celebrating, I can't...
Even to this day, my birthday still remains an elusive something I am unable to celebrate. I feel numb, empty, and devoid. There is nothing inside—no joy, no hope, not even sadness. I am a vacuum of emotion. While I can at least now go through the motions of celebrating, what I feel on the inside is anything but feeling. How can one feel celebratory when one simply can't feel?
I've previously written that I spent a good number of years existing in a "living coma" after my accident. This "half-vegetative state" existed until I returned to the scene in Montauk, NY a number of years later, where I spent a good deal of time taking in some of the ocean's healing energies.
The feeling—or lack thereof, more specifically—I have on my birthday is quite different from that, though. I spend the days, and sometimes weeks, leading up to my birthday gripped in the throes of paralyzing fear, anxious of ... I don't know what. It's similar to the anxiety I feel when I know I should do something but can't quite bring myself to do it.
So when people ask me my age, I tell them that I'll be celebrating my 29th birthday not because I'm vain or care how old I am but rather because I have not been able to celebrate my 29th (or any other) birthday to this very day. As such, I will continue to celebrate my 29th birthday until that changes and I'm actually able to celebrate my 29th birthday.
To me, it's not a matter of vanity, it's a matter of living life and continuing to grapple with the mental health issues of depression and anxiety I battle on a daily basis.
For the record, I'm at the age now where I can't quite remember how old I am, which also happens to be the age where one no longer can be arsed to do the math.
Or to put this in terms that millennials may better relate to:
Q: Why do you celebrate your 29th birthday when you're not 29?
A: Because, I can't even.
15 October, 2016
12 October, 2016
Journalist Can't Fathom How Information Spreads in
Today's Social Media-Fixated Society
A "senior writer" at Newsweek published this "news" story earlier today, describing the situation as "terrifying.". The story accuses Donald Trump, the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin, and Russian media of being in collusion with each other to interfere in our election by undermining Hillary Clinton's coronation campaign.
Kurt Eichenwald, is a 55-year old so-called "journalist" of the mainstream media. He offers only one explanation for the following series of events:
The Russians engage in a sloppy disinformation effort and, before the day is out, the Republican nominee for president is standing on a stage reciting the manufactured story as truth.
Apparently, Eichenwald can't fathom how information, in today's age of social media, the Internet, and related technologies, could possibly have wound up in the hands of a candidate hours—HOURS—after it was released by a media outlet he labels (with no proof) as being a propagandist machine. This is, after all, the 21st century, where information moves at the speed of The Pony Express, is it not? Perhaps this failure of runaway imaginations is the result of the story not having originated from America's own propagandist machine—oops, I mean mainstream media?
Or more likely, it is yet one more peg in the machinations designed to deflect attention away from Hillary Clinton and her seemingly unending stream of gaffes, misstatements, and "mistakes" that otherwise would have doomed such lesser candidates as Richard Nixon not less than half a century ago. Everyone from MSNBC to even sardonically tongue-in-cheek satire site The Onion has gotten into the artful production of illusory deception concerning the most important facts (you know, the things we should actually be concerned about instead of the irrelevant things we're being told we should be concerned about, such as who or where the facts come from).
And I'm not the only one who holds this view. Glenn Greenwald (of Intercept fame) stated in a July 30, 2016 "conversation" with Isaac Chotiner (of Slate fame):
Now, obviously, there are separate newsworthy questions about who did the [DNC] hack, and the reasons for it, and what the implications are that also ought to be journalistically examined. But in terms of the content of the material itself, whether it has been stolen by a whistleblower, or hacked by an adversarial government for nefarious ends, or for fun by some hacker, I ask one question: Is it in the public interest? And if the answer is yes, that’s the end of the inquiry.
But I digress, lest I be led down that conspiracy-theory road that American mainstream media worked overtime so as to enable Clinton to steal the Democratic primary election from US Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Alleging Russian conspiracies to undermine Hillary Clinton's coronation is, as they say, all the rage in Paris these days. Anti-Russian sentiment has been the en vogue narrative and trend du jour of the mainstream media in its collusion with Hillary Clinton this past year, and now the Democratically-controlled branches of our federal government (which I'll analyze in the future).
There is no proof offered by Eichenwald (or the US government, for that matter) for any of his claims, that this was orchestrated by the Russians, or that Trump was even involved. It is, at best, conjecture and innuendo and, at worst, libellous and defamatory accusations.
Moreover, Clinton herself confirmed the authenticity of the Wikileaks data when she responded to a question during the second presidential debate on maintaining both public and private views, not by dismissing the question as fraudulent but rather defending the statements contained in the emails released by Wikileaks. If the emails—and the statements they contain—are anything other than authentic, why defend them?
What is perhaps most telling is that Eichenwald calls the Sputnik story "manufactured." What is it they say about guilty minds or guilty consciences? I believe Lady Macbeth knows a thing or two about that ... but I digress. (See how easy it was to insert baseless innuendo into an argument?)
It's no wonder his Wiki page describes him as a writer and former investigative journalist. Perhaps he should go back to writing best-selling novels that can be turned into major motion pictures—that's something he appears to actually be good at.
Perhaps this is why he lists himself as a "Senior Writer" instead of using "reporter" or some other moniker for a salaried journalist at an organization dedicated to reporting the news. Then again, given the media's collusion with Clinton, one must wonder whether there are any journalistic organizations left dedicated to the pure reporting of real news.
Eichenwald might do better to leave the reporting to true journalistic organizations, like Wikileaks, which has an untarnished reputation for veracity with a sterling record—one of the many reasons more than one hundred major international news outlets rely on Wikileaks as a primary source. At the very least, he should stick strictly to the facts, leaving the conjecture to others who can be quoted. As a seasoned, former investigative journalist from The New York Times, Eichenwald should know better.
UPDATE: Eichenwald's "news" article elicited a response from The Intercept's Greenwald, who dismantled Eichenwald's entire article piece by piece in a lengthy dissection of the facts. It is well worth the read.
You may also be interested in:HRC Paid Speeches Flags - 74 page file
The full text of the file attached to the Wikileaks email dump of John Podesta, from Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential primary campaign. This email is from Tony Carrk to the campaign team, containing selected extracts from the transcripts of some of the paid speeches that Hillary Clinton gave to Wall Street, among others, which she has refused to release.