Whining about writing - my monkey

Months into an assignment and as usual I find that I can't sit down and write like a sensible person. The kind of person that writes summaries of papers as she reads them, for example. As usual I am stuck with a bloated brain full of convoluted unpaved roads, too many cul-de-sacs and nothing on paper. It would be nice to be able to, just once, read a paper and write 100 words or so on what the author wanted to say, in other words, be capable of churning out a literature review. Reading, understanding, then writing – how hard can it be? Instead, as I read my brain is a cacophony of implications and disagreements, none of them hanging around long enough to be scribbled onto a notepad, let alone make it into the lofty realms of the text editor. Maybe the problem is that I read actively, and I need to find a way of getting my analytic side to butt out on occasion. Maybe the problem is that I find the activity of reading with summarising in mind dead boring. Well, to be fair, it is. What's the point of reading with nought but reiteration in mind?

Well, none for you Emma dear, let's face it, criticising and lampooning is more your thing; but it does help the newbies jack into your thought process doesn't it? Gives them a bit of background, lets them know what it is you know, solidifies your context, outlines the sources of your premises.

See? I know why summaries are useful, I just-can't-do-them.

I blame my monkey.

I go to all this trouble to acheive quiet, to make the area nice, to excercise and tire him out, to caffeinate him into oblivion yet he insists on cracking jokes in my head at every opportunity! Goading me into playing games, twittering, checking my stocks… I hate him. I want him dead.

Now I'm officially procrastinating by having a jab at middle class whiners.

Someone tell me to stop with the politics and get back to work...

What Jason from Melbourne said. And also, though people who earn 150K a year may be supposed to pay 44K in tax, most of them don't because they pay expensive tax agents to exploit loopholes in our ludicrously complex tax system. I know because I've been there. We were bewildered by all the "middle-class welfare" coming our way. We took it because, hey, we're human and by no means asset wealthy. But in our Lefty Greeny heart of hearts we knew we didn't _need_ it. We also don't need the 30% tax rebate (but we take it). We have also experienced first-hand the benefits of being privately insured when we had a child with a condition that threatened his sight. He was treated that night instead of six weeks later (his fate under the public system). The middle-class only feel poor because we mortgage ourselves to the hilt and buy things we don't need. The middle-class on 100-150k, particularly folk with no carer responsibilities are doing better than fine, and I think some of us need to spend some time in a soup kitchen to remind ourselves of the things we're missing out on.

Commenting on SMH re Abortion Decriminalisation.

... or rather, having fun with the anti-choicers again. What can I say? It's a hobby.

This is my latest post just in case the SMH don't let it through (it would be comment 31). It does have a tiny ad hominem element... teeny weeny...

Wow, only 16 comments before the Nazi's were mentioned by an anti-choice advocate. It's not a record but it's impressive nonetheless. I'd respond in full, Adam, but I think a) you have me confused with Amy and b) your comparisons re democracy and majority rule are invalid anyways. This is because your examples refer to harm to conscious, sentient beings and also to the status of scientific knowledge. It is unlikely that we would find common ground as I do not believe that life begins at fertilisation (see daniel's response above for some of the excellent reasons why) due to research in the areas of embryology and fertility a lot of which I have read - we have come a long way since the majority believed the earth was flat. Your references to an objective morality betray a religious viewpoint. You might remember that it was the Church who forced Galileo to recant before finally subscribing to the heliocentric hypothesis. It is my hope I will live to see the demise of all Churches still clinging to the belief that a conceptus is a life form worthy of rights that trump those of a fully grown human. These people (most of them blokes) are gravely mistaken, and women the world over still suffer for this error.

How can a mother trying to find the father of her child be offensive?

I found this utube video on Jon Faine's blog this morning, with a warning that some viewers might find the content offensive. Having seen it, I can't imagine WHAT he thought would be offensive. Even if it is a ridiculous hoax, what was bad about it? The idea that a girl might have sex with a boy she just met and likes a lot? The idea that, horror of horrors, she decided not to hide the evidence and have an abortion? Gah.