Looking ahead to 2011: my to-do list of writing

2010's almost done. At the end of the year, I'm thinking ahead to my next year of writing projects. There weren't too many milestones with which to measure the past year, since I didn't complete anything major since summer, when I wrapped up a string of essays on civilization, culture, and—especially—education.

However, I did contribute a lot of work toward several big projects. Much of what I accomplished will only become evident next year—presuming those projects go ahead as planned. 2011 should look amazing on paper, thanks to years of preparation.

I'm looking forward to finishing these:
  • My epic dystopian novel, Pyramid of Babel, could have been considered finished months ago if I wanted, but not by a perfectionist like me. I'm still tinkering with it and musing about whether I want to update my goals any further before the next phase: marketing it to agents and publishers. Having invested so much time on a risky proposition, at this point I want to be entirely satisfied with the product I send off, not 90%.
  • My "definitive" (temporarily, I'm sure) synthesis of Promethean philosophy in two parts (roughly, personal and social).
  • My highly-researched documentary script on human nature and origins of war. Had to stop that research back in autumn when my eyes suddenly gave me lots of trouble.
  • My collection of short-form writing on challenging preconceptions of human nature.
  • My non-fiction "self-help" theory of mind, psychology and personality utilizing complexity sciences and evolutionary theory. My quest to improve on existing personality theory began with Jung in 1996? and picked up steam reading Robert Anton Wilson and others later. Completing this one is *probably* doable next year.
There's more as well, but I'm not too sure how likely they are for next year if I focus on the above. As happened in 2010, the more I become creatively inspired to add projects to my plate, the less time I have to finish the ones I'm already working on.

2010 Poems

 I find it interesting that I have written more poems in 2010 than I have in all the years since taking a poetry/poetics class at the University of Chicago (about 12 years ago). I knew I wrote more than usual this year, but I just realized the extent of it. Apparently this was a year for working on poetry.

I put up two of them earlier in the year.

Free Julian Assange

Free Assange

Free Julian Assange!


Julian Assange is now a political prisoner, and the world knows it. His offense was exposing the truth.

 The True Face of Power, and Power's Mask Made Ridiculous

The true face of the State is that of thousands of petty tyrants who threaten and censor anyone who exposes their incompetence, corruption, and narcissism, their scandals and genuine contempt for life and freedom for all those outside of the privileged and political class... Julian Assange has risked himself so you will see that true face. Never forget.

Legal procedure and business ethics aren’t too much to expect from Amazon

Legal procedure and business ethics aren’t too much to expect from Amazon

"This boycott is really not about asking Amazon to go to the mat to defend free speech—and it’s true that this cause is not their purpose as a for-profit organization. This boycott is about their customers expecting them to adhere to the legal procedure for adjudicating free speech in America. Responsibility to shareholders did not require Amazon to depart from the first Amendment and due process; if anything, that responsibility should induce them to adhere to the proper legal procedure of courts, and to adhere to contractual responsibility to their hosted customer.
The people at Amazon’s corporate headquarters are responsible for their actions and attitudes, and making sure those comply to ethical standards that customers and human beings who care about free speech and/or rule of law wish them to have. If they throw those expectations aside, their customers are perfectly justified in shopping elsewhere, and telling Amazon why."

Why you must support WikiLeaks’ rights, even if you disagree with WikiLeaks

Why you must support WikiLeaks’ rights, even if you disagree with WikiLeaks

There is no functional difference between politically sensitive speech being removed because a giant, legalized government bureaucracy regulates the internet, or because officials abuse power to ask web hosting providers to remove it, and they all comply instead of citing legal protections.

Free speech only survives if you insist on it.

Boycott Amazon, and send a message to web hosts and anti-speech fascists

I have been blogging about  WikiLeaks and Amazon here.

I gave Amazon their chance, and waited for their response to the whole fiasco. Now, I've let Amazon know exactly why I will no longer be a customer or a partner. Anyone is welcome to borrow my language for their own closure message to Amazon, if they wish.

To quote my post:

Don’t like the word “boycott”? Some don’t. Just view it as a personal decision to encourage honesty and discourage dishonesty, and to encourage US web hosts to uphold legal protections to freedom of speech, and discourage adoption of the fascist line as an official company position. These are your purchases, and you have a choice; if you think freedom of speech on the internet is important (even if you don’t favor WikiLeaks), express yourself—and please, think about a world in which you can’t.

PS. There have been many important revelations so far, and Cablegate is just getting started—that's why Joe Lieberman, Obama, Sarah Palin, the MSM and many more politicians and enablers want the most important whistleblower and journalism site in the world silenced. But here's just one example of a hilarious, delicious moment already brought to you by WikiLeaks, the opener of governments:

Clinton ‘Regrets’ Trying to Steal UN Chief’s Credit Card
Admission Likely to Damage White House Denials

PPS. Keep up with WikiLeaks news here, at WL Central.

Yes, insanity is real. So are drugs.

I've noticed that pretty much every time psychiatric malpractice of any kind is mentioned anywhere online (such as psychiatric diagnosis or hospitalization being used to control a troublemaking dissident) someone shows up to say that ALL mental medication is unnecessary quackery, for money or for mind control.

Every time I read it, I have to hold back some degree of rage. Why? Because I personally know people who depend on drugs for their sanity, and according to the insistent anti-medication nitwits, medicated conditions like severe depression are all made up. I know people who would be dead by their own hand if they were not medicated. Denial of psychopharmacology is not a position you want to take around me.

Feeling sad is NOT the same thing as chemical depression. Feeling excited is NOT the same as mania. The same goes for severe anxiety, paranoia, schizophrenia, etc. If medications can help, they should be used. These are genuinely abnormal mental conditions. And you know what? Millions of people get positive results from drugs despite their imperfections, and despite misinformation on the part of both anti-scientific mental idealists, and the big drug companies. Anyone trying to stand in the way of this already-difficult process may be ruining someone's life with their brilliant advice.

Your brain—everyone's brain—depends in part on chemistry. Fact. Mediating neural activity can change mental state. Sometimes not well, true. Sometimes people overmedicate, or rely on medication too much. But psychopharmacology is a real science, not a trick. Your brain is made of cells that interact. The mind has a basis in matter (and energy), not some phantom will to feel one way or another. It's complicated, no one understands it fully, but chemistry is really, truly involved.

If that threatens your philosophical worldview, too bad. Suck it up. The year is 2010, not 1850. Some ideas were simply bunk. Move on. This is all embarrassing, and insulting.