Sometimes We Need to Exceed Ourselves

Sometimes We Need to Exceed Ourselves
by
the writer


Article

The above link refers to the article that follows. Internet links often get broken. I claim nothing in this other than I am copying the entire article as I found it. I DO hope you just read it when questions of science vs. religion show up.

I also hope the authors will forgive me for including it on my blog. Again, I did not initiate any of their copyrighted material and only want to pass it along because it begins, in part, to explain my annoyance with religion.

The authors did this on their own of course.

The article explains how the religious perpetrate themselves and if you read between the lines, why. If you extend this, well things COULD LIKELY get better, but due to the religious, they are probably not going to in our lifetime.

Again, the authors are not even likely to have even done what I think they did, just that I read the article and it seemed to fit things in my mind.



" Home About Edge Features Edge Editions Press Edge Search


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The developmental data suggest that resistance to science will arise in children when scientific claims clash with early emerging, intuitive expectations. This resistance will persist through adulthood if the scientific claims are contested within a society, and will be especially strong if there is a non-scientific alternative that is rooted in common sense and championed by people who are taken as reliable and trustworthy. This is the current situation in the United States with regard to the central tenets of neuroscience and of evolutionary biology. These clash with intuitive beliefs about the immaterial nature of the soul and the purposeful design of humans and other animals — and, in the United States, these intuitive beliefs are particularly likely to be endorsed and transmitted by trusted religious and political authorities. Hence these are among the domains where Americans' resistance to science is the strongest.


WHY DO SOME PEOPLE RESIST SCIENCE?
By Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg




PAUL BLOOM is a psychologist at Yale University and the author of Descartes' Baby. DEENA SKOLNICK WEISBERG is a doctoral candidate in psychology at Yale University.

Paul Bloom's Edge Bio Page
Deena Skolnick Weisberg's Edge Bio Page



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY DO SOME PEOPLE RESIST SCIENCE?

It is no secret that many American adults reject some scientific ideas. In a 2005 Pew Trust poll, for instance, 42% of respondents said that they believed that humans and other animals have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. A substantial minority of Americans, then, deny that evolution has even taken place, making them more radical than "Intelligent Design" theorists, who deny only that natural selection can explain complex design. But evolution is not the only domain in which people reject science: Many believe in the efficacy of unproven medical interventions, the mystical nature of out-of-body experiences, the existence of supernatural entities such as ghosts and fairies, and the legitimacy of astrology, ESP, and divination.

There are two common assumptions about the nature of this resistance. First, it is often assumed to be a particularly American problem, explained in terms of the strong religious beliefs of many American citizens and the anti-science leanings of the dominant political party. Second, the problem is often characterized as the result of insufficient exposure to the relevant scientific facts, and hence is best addressed with improved science education.

We believe that these assumptions, while not completely false, reflect a misunderstanding of the nature of this phenomenon. While cultural factors are plainly relevant, American adults' resistance to scientific ideas reflects universal facts about what children know and how children learn. If this is right, then resistance to science cannot be simply addressed through more education; something different is needed.

What children know

The main source of resistance to scientific ideas concerns what children know prior to their exposure to science. The last several decades of developmental psychology has made it abundantly clear that humans do not start off as "blank slates." Rather, even one year-olds possess a rich understanding of both the physical world (a "naïve physics") and the social world (a "naïve psychology"). Babies know that objects are solid, that they persist over time even when they are out of sight, that they fall to the ground if unsupported, and that they do not move unless acted upon. They also understand that people move autonomously in response to social and physical events, that they act and react in accord with their goals, and that they respond with appropriate emotions to different situations.

These intuitions give children a head start when it comes to understanding and learning about objects and people. But these intuitions also sometimes clash with scientific discoveries about the nature of the world, making certain scientific facts difficult to learn. As Susan Carey once put it, the problem with teaching science to children is "not what the student lacks, but what the student has, namely alternative conceptual frameworks for understanding the phenomena covered by the theories we are trying to teach."

Children's belief that unsupported objects fall downwards, for instance, makes it difficult for them to see the world as a sphere — if it were a sphere, the people and things on the other side should fall off. It is not until about eight or nine years of age that children demonstrate a coherent understanding of a spherical Earth, and younger children often distort the scientific understanding in systematic ways. Some deny that people can live all over the Earth's surface, and, when asked to draw the Earth or model it with clay, some children depict it as a sphere with a flattened top or as a hollow sphere that people live inside.

In some cases, there is such resistance to science education that it never entirely sticks, and foundational biases persist into adulthood. A classic study by Michael McCloskey and his colleagues tested college undergraduates' intuitions about basic physical motions, such as the path that a ball will take when released from a curved tube. Many of the undergraduates retained a common-sense Aristotelian theory of object motion; they predicted that the ball would continue to move in a curved motion, choosing B over A below.

An interesting addendum is that while education does not shake this bias, real-world experience can suffice. In another study, undergraduates were asked about the path that water would take out of a curved hose. This corresponds to an event that most people have seen, and few believed that the water would take a curved path.

Our intuitive psychology also contributes to resistance to science. One significant bias is that children naturally see the world in terms of design and purpose. For instance, four year-olds insist that everything has a purpose, including lions ("to go in the zoo") and clouds ("for raining"), a propensity that Deborah Kelemen has dubbed "promiscuous teleology." Additionally, when asked about the origin of animals and people, children spontaneously tend to provide and to prefer creationist explanations.

Just as children's intuitions about the physical world make it difficult for them to accept that the Earth is a sphere, their psychological intuitions about agency and design make it difficult for them to accept the processes of evolution.

One of the most interesting aspects of our common-sense psychology is dualism, the belief that minds are fundamentally different from brains. This belief comes naturally to children. Preschool children will claim that the brain is responsible for some aspects of mental life, typically those involving deliberative mental work, such as solving math problems. But preschoolers will also claim that the brain isn't involved in a host of other activities, such as pretending to be a kangaroo, loving one's brother, or brushing one's teeth. Similarly, when told about a brain transplant from a boy to a pig, they believe that you get a very smart pig, but one with pig beliefs and pig desires. For young children, then, much of mental life is not linked to the brain.

The strong intuitive pull of dualism makes it difficult for people to accept what Francis Crick called "the astonishing hypothesis." Dualism is mistaken — mental life emerges from physical processes. People resist the astonishing hypothesis in ways that can have considerable social implications. For one thing, debates about the moral status of embryos, fetuses, stem cells, and non-human animals are sometimes framed in terms of whether or not these entities possess immaterial souls. For instance, in their 2003 report (Being Human: Readings from the President's Council on Bioethics), the President's Council described people as follows: "We have both corporeal and noncorporeal aspects. We are embodied spirits and inspirited bodies (or, if you will, embodied minds and minded bodies)."

In addition, certain proposals about the role of imaging data in criminal trials assume a strong form of Cartesian dualism. Some have argued that if one could show that a person's brain is involved in an act, then the person himself or herself is not responsible, an excuse that Michael Gazzaniga dubbed "My brain made me do it." This belief that some of our decisions have nothing to do with our brains reflects a profound resistance to findings from psychology and neuroscience.

One reason why people resist certain scientific findings, then, is that many of these findings are unnatural and unintuitive. But there is more to the story than this. After all, some unintuitive scientific facts come to be broadly accepted. Even though children may initially find it hard to understand that objects are made of tiny particles or that the Earth isn't flat, most everyone comes to accept that these things are true. How does this happen?

Also, there are cultural factors that need to be explained. Americans are not more resistant to science in general. For instance, 1 in 5 American adults believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, which is somewhat shocking—but the same proportion holds for Germany and Great Britain. But Americans really are special when it comes to certain scientific ideas—and, in particular, with regard to evolutionary theory. The relevant data are shown below, from a 2006 survey published in Science. What explains this culture-specific resistance to evolution?

How children learn

Part of the explanation for resistance to science lies in how children and adults process different sorts of information.

Some culture-specific information is not associated with any particular source. It is "common knowledge." As such, learning of this type of information generally bypasses critical analysis. A prototypical example is that of word meanings. Everyone uses the word "dog" to refer to dogs, so children easily learn that this is what they are called. Other examples include belief in germs and electricity. Their existence is generally assumed in day-to-day conversation and is not marked as uncertain; nobody says that they "believe in electricity." Hence even children and adults with little scientific background believe that these invisible entities really exist, a topic explored in detail by Paul Harris and his colleagues.

Science is not special here. Geographic information and historical information is also typically assumed, which is how an American child comes to believe that there is a faraway place called Africa and that there was a man who lived long ago named Abraham Lincoln. And, in some cultures, certain religious beliefs can be assumed as well. For instance, if the existence of supernatural entities like gods, karma, and ancestor spirits is never questioned by adults in the community, the existence of such entities will be unquestioningly accepted by children.

Other information, however, is explicitly asserted. Such information is associated with certain sources. A child might note that science teachers make surprising claims about the origin of human beings, for instance, while their parents do not. Furthermore, the tentative status of this information is sometimes explicitly marked; people will assert that they "believe in evolution."

When faced with this kind of asserted information, one can occasionally evaluate its truth directly. But in some domains, including much of science, direct evaluation is difficult or impossible. Few of us are qualified to assess claims about the merits of string theory, the role in mercury in the etiology of autism, or the existence of repressed memories. So rather than evaluating the asserted claim itself, we instead evaluate the claim's source. If the source is deemed trustworthy, people will believe the claim, often without really understanding it. As our colleague Frank Keil has discussed, this sort of division of cognitive labor is essential in any complex society, where any single individuals will lack the resources to evaluate all the claims that he or she hears.

This is the case for most scientific beliefs. Consider, for example, that most adults who claim to believe that natural selection can explain the evolution of species are confused about what natural selection actually is—when pressed, they often describe it as a Lamarckian process in which animals somehow give birth to offspring that are better adapted to their environments. Their belief in natural selection, then, is not rooted in an appreciation of the evidence and arguments. Rather, this scientifically credulous sub-population are deferring to the people who say that this is how evolution works. They trust the scientists.

This deference to authority isn't limited to science; the same process holds for certain religious, moral, and political beliefs as well. In an illustrative recent study, subjects were asked their opinion about a social welfare policy, which was described as being endorsed either by Democrats or by Republicans. Although the subjects sincerely believed that their responses were based on the objective merits of the policy, the major determinant of what they thought of the policy was in fact whether or not their favored political party was said to endorse it. More generally, many of the specific moral intuitions held by members of a society appear to be the consequence, not of personal moral contemplation, but of deference to the views of the community.

Adults thus rely on the trustworthiness of the source when deciding which asserted claims to believe. Do children do the same? Recent studies suggest that they do; children, like adults, have at least some capacity to assess the trustworthiness of their information sources. Four- and five-year-olds, for instance, know that adults know things that other children do not (like the meaning of the word "hypochondriac"), and when given conflicting information about a word's meaning from a child and from an adult, they prefer to learn from the adult. They know that adults have different areas of expertise, that doctors know about fixing broken arms and mechanics know about fixing flat tires. They prefer to learn from a knowledgeable speaker than from an ignorant one, and they prefer a confident source to a tentative one. Finally, when five year-olds hear about a competition whose outcome was unclear, they are more likely to believe a character who claimed that he had lost the race (a statement that goes against his self-interest) than a character who claimed that he had won the race (a statement that goes with his self-interest). In a limited sense, then, they are capable of cynicism.

Implications

In sum, the developmental data suggest that resistance to science will arise in children when scientific claims clash with early emerging, intuitive expectations. This resistance will persist through adulthood if the scientific claims are contested within a society, and will be especially strong if there is a non-scientific alternative that is rooted in common sense and championed by people who are taken as reliable and trustworthy. This is the current situation in the United States with regard to the central tenets of neuroscience and of evolutionary biology. These clash with intuitive beliefs about the immaterial nature of the soul and the purposeful design of humans and other animals — and, in the United States, these intuitive beliefs are particularly likely to be endorsed and transmitted by trusted religious and political authorities. Hence these are among the domains where Americans' resistance to science is the strongest.

We should stress that this failure to defer to scientists in these domains does not necessarily reflect stupidity, ignorance, or malice. In fact, some skepticism toward scientific authority is clearly rational. Scientists have personal biases due to ego or ambition—no reasonable person should ever believe all the claims made in a grant proposal. There are also political and moral biases, particularly in social science research dealing with contentious issues such as the long-term effects of being raised by gay parents or the explanation for gender differences in SAT scores. It would be naïve to ignore all this, and someone who accepted all "scientific" information would be a patsy. The problem is exaggerated when scientists or scientific organizations try to use their authority to make proclamations about controversial social issues. People who disagree with what scientists have to say about these issues might reasonably infer that it is not safe to defer to them more generally.

But this rejection of science would be mistaken in the end. The community of scientists has a legitimate claim to trustworthiness that other social institutions, such as religions and political movements, lack. The structure of scientific inquiry involves procedures, such as experiments and open debate, that are strikingly successful at revealing truths about the world. All other things being equal, a rational person is wise to defer to a geologist about the age of the earth rather than to a priest or to a politician.

Given the role of trust in social learning, it is particularly worrying that national surveys reflect a general decline in the extent to which people trust scientists. To end on a practical note, then, one way to combat resistance to science is to persuade children and adults that the institute of science is, for the most part, worthy of trust.

[This is a modified version of P. Bloom & D. S. Weisberg, "Childhood origins of adult resistance to science", published in Science, May 18, 2007. This article contains citations of the experimental studies discussed here.]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Brockman, Editor and Publisher
Russell Weinberger, Associate Publisher
contact: editor@edge.org
Copyright © 2007 By Edge Foundation, Inc
All Rights Reserved.

Top "

Morning Smile

Morning Smile
by
Robin Hall with a little help from my friend


You know what I mean here, a morning smile. Each of us wants this. We often go to the ends of the earth to find it, preserve it. We hope we deserve it, a morning smile.

You know the sort I am talking about. Only you ever get to see it. Unfettered love backs up the smile. Its just for you and yours. You smile back and you would give your life for that person, your very life.

Morning laugh.

Morning sex.

Look within. Isn't that how you really want to start your day and end it? A simple morning or evening smile.

Black Snake Moan, My View

Black Snake Moan, My View
by
Robin Hall


I have watched over 3000 movies and rated each of them with Xs. Yesterday, 13 had earned my top xxxxx level. Today there are 14.

Black Snake Moan is like a paradigm shift in film making. A simple story with writing, acting, directing and shooting that goes beyond

I am still in tears

Without even a hint of button pushing this film enveloped me in a mist that unlocked my soul for a while and refreshed my mind

Samuel L. Jackson, Christina Ricci, John Cothran Jr., S. Epatha Merkerson and director Craig Brewer plus the editor, shooter and writers Sometimes a film does something so powerful its beyond words.

Just Say No to Food

Just Say No to Food
by
Robin Hall


Earlier I was having a bit of acid reflux / heartburn etc. The causes were many. I read up on it and my entire stock of food is attacking my stomach.

Taming of the acid is a bit tricky. I SERIOUSLY suggest you check with more than one doctor if this remains problematic and don't listen to anything I say. I am not a doctor, don't play one on TV and don't even have one to play with.

We can seriously over react and head for the H2 receptor antagonists or proton pump inhibitors right off or save them for later. That is my choice.

In the meanwhile we can use various antacids like baking soda, calcium carbonate or magnesium hydroxide. Each of these have problems if used at all or to excess. One problem is throwing our electrolytes out of whack. I hate it when that happens but these are cheap and fast.

We can search the Internet.

Well, isn't this special? One site recommends unsalted almonds. Scrolling down, white vinegar is also a cure. I am skeptical about each of these so-called cures and the site itself.

GERD is an acronym that shows up. Its scary.

I googled " heartburn " , " heartburn remedies " , " acid reflux. " I also googled " heartburn milk " and " heartburn tomatoes " which I eat a lot of. Also " heartburn cheese, " " heartburn salt " and " heartburn beer. " I have a limited diet.

In MANY resource sites we are told to avoid most food, certainly most good food:

Citrus fruits, yet each of them have wonderful antioxidant properties and taste good.

Chocolate is on most lists. Who in their right minds would delete this for more than a few days? Drat, this is really upsetting me. I have very little left after the following items.

Drinks with caffeine, alcohol and beer are especially said to produce acid. Beer is really the culprit and it just tastes so good, so fucking what?

Drink it, take an antacid. Down the coffee, tea, chocolate and do what you can. Other items to follow.

An insert here. I read a study just now and 7 cups of coffee a day cut acid reflux. I am wondering if the coffee industry funded this study? And there would be many trips to the loo.

Insert 2. The above mentioned study suggested that spirits did not increase stomach acid or acid reflux. WTF?

I KNOW I am not like many folks but when the food journalists and researchers can change their views in the same week, isn't something basically wrong?

Back to the foods. Fatty and fried foods? WTF? This leaves out all fast food, most Chinese food and so many other country's basic foods, especially Southern USA foods, well we are all in trouble. Just watch the Food Channel's Paula's Home Cooking show which would include about two total recipes that are NOT fatty or fried.

BUTTER RULES, tastes good and should be completely excluded from food lists that exclude foods.

Garlic and onions? I eat most everything with garlic and onions. There is no tasty cuisine I know of that leaves out garlic and onions. These bad food lists are annoying.

Mint flavorings. Oy. I cannot even use my toothpaste without risking heartburn. I cannot gargle, brush or tune up my enamel.
: ^ (

Spicy foods. By this time just what is left? Its the spice of life is just so in our culture.

Hmm. No spice. Do you really want to dine on the Russian delicacy pelmeni for the rest of your life? Its worse. Pelmeni is a bit of beef and pork surrounded by dough and boiled. No spice. Ok, the recipe can involve spice but the ones I had while there did not.

Dull fucking food without spice or salt. We are just about left with eating bananas, apples and broiled chicken or fish.

Tomato based foods, like spaghetti sauce, salsa, chili, tomato juice, V8 juice, bloody Marys and pizza. Now this really pisses me off since even moderately heated tomato sauce is rich in lycopene another fine antioxidant.

Well, you can see MY problem here. There isn't anything left to eat.

I don't think sushi is on any of the DON'T FUCKING EAT THIS lists but really. Estimates for a true and safe sushi master's meal ranges upwards from $500.

I was watching Tony Bourdain's excellent No Reservations. He was IN Japan at a small mom and pop sushi restaurant. He trusted the fare. A single raw mollusk was $50. So sushi is off my menu.

Well prepared venison would be OK. WalMart has no venison here in SE TN.

Low fat beef on occasion is OK. Most meats are OK, sometimes, but only the lean bits. This leaves out all pork, all the tasty beef parts, all of everything.

We are told that sea creatures contain heavy metal. I wish my bank had plenty of gold in my account, but no.

Nickle and lead are in tuna, salmon, mackerel, shrimp etc. Drat. They are out too. No lobster either.

Most grains can cause allergies. Most legumes: peas, peanuts, some beans; nuts of all sorts.

Now see here. If I can't fucking eat a fucking peanut butter sandwich, someone is going to pay.

I just looked in my pantry. I have navy beans that MAY be OK. I have LOTS of chocolate. Not good. Peppermints galore. Not good. Pickles with too much salt, vinegar, ketchup, pasta sauce, mustard. All contain too much salt and spices.

My freezer has tomato juice, pasta sauce, grains, breads, seven different nuts, all that chocolate I am not supposed to have, coffee. There is ice cream, Breyers Lactose free, the good stuff with all that fat.

There IS powdered fat free milk, slightly less of a problem. I have some frozen vegetables in the OK list, a few frozen fruits. Some of the juices are OK but not orange or grapefruit, which itself can interfere with many medications.

There is one logical thing at this point. Have a bloody Mary, go down the street for a pepperoni pizza, toss back a few beers and hope I don't need to sleep for another 25 hours.

Another problem for quelling heartburn, one is not supposed to eat within 4 hours of sleep. For me its closer to 12 hours. Isn't this getting out of hand?

Food should be refreshing, nourishing and fun if taken in a congenial atmosphere but what am I supposed to eat even IF I had friends and a nice place to eat in?

This rant ends soon. Please be patient.

Questions still abound. What IS fat free sour cream? What is fat free ice cream? What do these things even mean?

Are such products the literal deconstruction [google that word for fun] of the English language or just big business realizing how much we love fat and that there is a niche market for many others who want to cut down on fat?

Really.

One other item. This is just wishful thinking on my part. I suppose its an attempt to find some meaning in life but what if none of this mattered if meals were taken with loving friends and family in a calm atmosphere? Would any food actually harm us?

Real Memories 1

Real Memories 1: Early drinking problem and psyc wards.
by
Robin Hall


The day I graduated from college I put wine and Rice Crispies in the blender for breakfast. I don't recall the rest of that glorious day. I got my degree, my diploma. I woke up another day. That was Dec. 1974 or maybe it was August.

I was married. We drove to FL to work with John Costaine McCamy in Human Life styling. That lasted a month.

I got a teaching assistant ship to a school in Omaha. I went. Three months after arriving I tried to electrocute myself and spent 2 months at Nebraska Psychiatric Institute. It was pretty good except they gave me anti psychotics instead of anti depressants.

One day they gave me prolixin. The next day I was literally walking in circles. It seemed my left foot was nailed to the floor. They gave me something to relieve this.

My wife left me for another woman just before I went into the hospital. She stole my car, my records. She did not give the cats away, tend to them. I got back to the house a month later, I had two one-month admittances, the poor cats were roaming around the house hungry, thirsty etc. They had peed everywhere.

I got my MA from Florida State University, August 1982. I had spent the week previous to finals in the local mental hospital. Florida had some deal where you got out in a week, no there was a 4 day hold. Maybe that was it. Maybe it was two weeks.

The day after I got my MA I drove up to Atlanta and headed immediately back to FL. I lived with my grandma for several years, taught 24 sections of speech in the local Community College, worked at Florida State Prison for a month.

I took 1800 Mg. of lithium a day for 2 years, some tricyclics in addition, for half that time. I slept a LOT. I only missed two classes in 3 years at PBJC. I don't recall a single student's name. I recall one face.

Real memories, for me, are often that I didn't recall any memories from some time or other. Long fugue states seem to have happened. Most of my life is a fugue.

Borked

Borked
by
Robin Hall and Others


Borked is not a word, nor is doh. Yet, when I updated / pinged my blogs at Technorati both were used to tell me their site was down.

I actually understood each word at a different level which essentially was: "Oops our site is fucked," or with yet other words, "We are sorry for the inconvenience, our site is not working right now."

I liked their version but can you feature any English speaking person ANYWHERE in the world, however fluent but without the Internet to check current word usage, understanding this slang? Still its fun.

Wouldn't it be neat to have a comedy show, say Get Your Freak On, International, where top comics from anywhere who were totally fluent in English, vie for the ca$h as TOP Freakin' International Comic? I would watch it.

Imagine Scots, Americans, Irish, English, South Africans, New Zealanders, Canadians, Australians, real Indians and whoever the fuck else was fluent / had nailed our HUGE language, with whatever accent, ALL competing and what fun we could have checking out who would be the top freaking English speaking comic in the whole world?

There could local tryouts in virtually any country in the world for half hour shows. Regionals etc. There could be videos sold for the top comics in each venue.

In the end ONE person would actually BE the funniest person ANY English speaking human in the world. This person would have simply shattered the funny bones of more humans than anyone in HISTORY, other than some of the politicians...

6 to 9

6 to 9
by
Robin Hall


Every da is dayja vu,
Every night's a nightmare 2.
Sittin' here doing 6 to 9,
All I got is lots of time.

Others here they doing life,
Outta the cell, lotsa strife.
Stayin inside, goin outta my mind
Go outside, you in the grind.

You got no friends when you inside.
Everyone wants to have a ride.
Read all day, cry all night
Guys and gals, you best learn how to fight.

What to Watch on TV

What to Watch on TV
by
Robin Hall


Ultimate Fighter OR Giada in Paradise were my choices on the last VCR tape. I rarely choose, just watch.

UF was silly. I wrote SpikeTV and suggested they take the gloves off, open the fights to everyone and see if their ratings improved. No answer.

Giada is a Food Network cook with 4 star "C" cup cleavage. I opted for her show.

DRAT. I cannot even watch the show for the cleavage. Its like a cobra and the waving of the pipe by a snake charmer. OK, for me, more like a small grass snake and a snack, but still.

I have 148 more tapes to choose from.

Confusion reigns. I am drenched. Its 4:15 AM. Drunk as usual.

Blood, Water and Truth

Blood, Water and Truth
by
Robin Hall


This one is short.

Blood ties: paternity, maternity, sorority, fraternity. Its my experience that all these so-called blood-ties are simply bull shit, per se, and NOT thicker than water. NO ONE chooses family AND family often UN-chooses its own members.

Sometimes we find our true family, or begin one. I am guessing mostly we are neither born into our ONE true family nor do we find our own. I am guessing we spend much of our lives TRYING to find our family, trying to find our own true family or some ONE/S.

Ask yourself this current question. How is that going for you? Answer. Look into the fucking mirror of your life and ANSWER, for once in your life ANSWER, truthfully.

Are you with who you want to be with or are you not?

Waging Beauty & Wonder

Waging Beauty & Wonder
by
Robin Hall, and a friend


Maybe we make up even this notion, a transcendental experience. What if children were allowed to develop completely apart from gods, religions and Jung? Would this sort of experience not then fall to them as well BUT they would have knowledge to integrate it?

As they are growing they are introduced to all the best the world offers from, say, 4 languages to be fluent in, to maths, musics, all the arts and not just in viewing, but participating, creating.

Then as time passes, the children are introduced to the past and to the present.

They are introduced to the range of human behaviors and emotions, shown that what they are learning is completely unique and they will be forever unable to discuss their background with OTHERS but they will be introduced to the skills needed to interact with virtually any others.

They learn many games of chance, sports, a serious martial art like tai chi from early youth. Acting as well so they can hide what they know from anyone.

They learn to survive on their own in any situation over time.

Then what would they be? New humans with a different chance in the world at large. Maybe they would have a chance to change the world, maybe to make it through any disaster we might face.

Stories might be written about them or they might go un-noticed ever and just wage BEAUTY and WONDER within society.

Maybe its already happening in ways that don't seem like beauty and wonder. Maybe the carpenter down the street, working 10 hour days to feed his family AND make nice houses is part of the beauty. Maybe the janitor working for his or her family is the wonder.

Plain folks doing the right thing, taking care of business. There may be hope for us yet.

Bestiality, Its Not New

Bestiality, Its Not New
by
Robin Hall


For the most part, I think bestiality is wrong. This is not some silly religionist view or moral issue.

Humans need some standards and this should be one. Don't fuck animals. Its almost always rape. Period. Especially when its a man and animal.

Sometimes an animal might have fun with a woman, sometimes but NO human could ever know, EVER.

Now the Internet lets us view humans communing with animals. I checked out pictures at one point in my life.

One was actually funny. It was a woman being fucked by a VERY large dog from behind.

Dog and woman were going at it, seemed to be having fun AND both were looking to their right into the camera's lens. Neither were embarrassed. We all need to ponder such behavior.

I hesitate to mention this but there was another instance that seemed OK. A VERY sick looking woman was having it off with a dog. Likely her illness was terminal AND contagious.

I am sure there is little research here but IF she was a decent person, had determined the dog would not be harmed by the human / dog illness, well, why not? This congress would be better than infecting a human and IF each had fun, again, why not?

Is this more than we should be chatting about?

Incest 4 U

Incest 4 U
by
Robin Hall


Incest is another human problem.

This never seemed troubling to me until I realized most of it was forced rather than explored naturally or even more, simply part of the life of any family where sex was there from an early age and ones participation was chosen by each person on their own terms in their own time and ONLY IF it is interesting. In many families it would not be.

I read an interesting sci-fi story that explored this and it seemed very natural.

I expect a fatwah at any moment.

Hey, blogging is hard work and honesty is needed.

I recall my younger days. I lived in a small town. Two blocks away was a family and even 50 years ago, there were suggestions of brother and sister being intimate. It seemed shocking but why? If you cannot love your family, who CAN you love?

Cannibalism and Suicide 101

Cannibalism and Suicide 101
by
Robin Hall


Read the blurb for this flick, Delicatessen (1991) . Just google the movie and click the link with IMDB, the Internet Movie Data Base.

Oh so many years ago there was an Alfred Hitchcock offering on TV about the same subject. There was a REALLY exclusive dining club and the entrée could be a you...

Now this is not a suitable topic but for some reason its come to mind recently. A Modest Proposal http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html is my earliest recollection of Cannibalism and schools did not ban this reading.

Cannibalism has many benefits like lowering the population AND feeding the rest of us. Nicely prepared muscle cuts could be served to most anyone. I would refuse brain dishes. Human chittlins / chitterlings is not going to happen for me but many problems could be solved: Suicide by butcher knives would help many a person leave their own intolerable life for instance and I suspect many people would opt for this.

Dr. Kevorkian actually improved the quality of life in my view. When our quality of life is lower than what we want, suicide seems logical.

Suicide by dining experience is one way to make our lives count.

Another great suicide value is a full medical harvest of everything that is us. Lots benefit and isn't that a fine way to leave the world?

Even for folks who felt their life was worthless, going out as a full harvest or suicide by feeding others, well you finally have a fully useful life.

Of course the men who designed some religion or other have these as some of their main strictures but folks need to think for themselves in this and all things. Removing religionists from office on all levels will go far in helping USA citizens to really live the free life they are promised.

Religionists have always made this sort of promise and never delivered. They never tried to UNLESS one believed in their particular higher being / god etc.

Its a false promise they give and is based on MEN making the rules so SOME people could advance at the cost of others NOT advancing. ALL religious promises are based on this. We need a change or these religionists will finally have their way.

The problem here is that each brand of religion has a view to promote and these views are very often at odds. NO current grouping of religionists, getting their way, would allow the world to survive.

Think about this.

Still, religionists should be counting their days and are not. I want to live long enough to see them in fast retreat due to the pain they cause the world with these ridiculous MALE-made fantasies of some brand of god or other who is all seeing, all knowing BUT go across the street to another brand of religion and the goals could be to kill others who believe differently and aren't we all at risk FROM religions?

Remember Soylent Green? This is not an original thought, dining on ourselves.

Humans DO have problem areas and eating cousin Sam or the like is one of them. Maybe its time for a change.

End of rant.

Progress? Corporate Greed 1

Progress? Corporate Greed 1
by
Robin Hall


Take NiMH batteries for instance, please. Daily I use rechargeables, have for two decades, in flashlights, timers and mostly remotes.

I have used the same remotes through the change from NiCad to NiMH and my view is the newer NiMH last about 1/4th as long as the older technology. Imagine. Progress at its best, for BIG business.

Surprise. Consumers get fucked when big business MANDATES a paradigm change and guess what, the product is worse than what it replaces.

Its even worse than this. I have two devices that simply won't take the newer NiMHs. No, the newer, better batteries are slightly too large. I wonder if this is a mistake?

Duh. NO. Another chance to fuck the consumer. Not only do the newer batteries NOT last as long per charge, they don't even fit some older primary products, making the buying of a new primary device a must.

Isn't big business just too much fun? Wouldn't you like to be bigger than big business and TRASH them when they do this sort of thing?

I am guessing the cost of that good a lawyer would be more than simply going along when big businesses REQUIRE us to, but wouldn't it be nice to be able to afford that good a lawyer and sue the fuck out of big businesses aimed at greed, not at helping us live better lives?

Dragonfly Ballet

Dragonfly Ballet
by
Robin Hall

Butterfly Ballet sounded like a nice title too but what I saw was dragonflies. I was taking my daily walk and was on the way home, when I saw this marvel. I saw it before I imagine but missed it completely.

There is a small park downtown with running water pools. The dragonflies were in the grassy area near the pools but not in the next grassy section. They stayed within the boundaries of the sidewalks, an area not 400 square feet.

I don't see quickly enough perhaps and a high speed camera would help but it certainly looked like a ballet to me. A group of 6 seemed to stay together much of the time while others soared out towards the boundaries, the sidewalks, only sometimes actually going over them. The outriders would then fly back to the group and sail round and round.

I was "in a hurry", on my walk, taking my exercise and didn't stay for this aerial ballet but I knew I should have stayed. Why are we so busy that we miss what we are really looking for, beauty?

You could pay lots of money, dress up, sit in a fine theatre and not see anything so wonderful, yet I passed up my chance for observing natural splendor just to finish my exercise. I knew I would write about it, try to remember all the moves I did see but that is not the same is it?

When is the "right time" for beauty? When do we slow ourselves and have what we want rather than feeling lonely and left out? I think I let myself down today, lost an opportunity.

Yet, there are other beautiful things out there. Beauty on beauty awaits us if we take time to notice. Will I stop and watch the ballet next time? Will you join me? We shall see...

Culture, Counterculture, Society

Culture, Counterculture, Society
by
Robin Hall


This note is mostly a set of questions. So many questions, so small a brain. : ^(

I looked the words up and there are problems so the following will definitely reflect some of these problems. I use several fine dictionaries OFTEN. Yet, the interactions of words is not as simple as many think.

Most just don't think and serious problems happen in the name of righteousness, self sanctification, familiarity or fear of the future and the real world, of others.

The main question is this: what sort of stresses, per se, does trying to live in more than one culture at a time produce? Each culture and or society [ Please look these words up no matter how smart you are. Use 1-Click Answers , google, a dictionary or the like but do look up the words, they are trickier than I thought to pin down. ] has its own stresses for most folks IN the culture.

Few cultures are simple and uniform.

Historical cultures were not as simple as we thought.

Most cultures today have external cultures coming into their culture and upsetting or challenging the culture and at such a fast pace that conflict is inevitable.

Change today is rapid often rabid.

People in rapid flux often depend on previous cultural influences that fail the standards of today. Tragedy is inevitable.

Religions of the past clash with their own present day version/s AND the values of present day society.

Essentially or an example. Say you live in a muslim society / culture. Some of the world despises the way your women are "treated." Most of the world won't tolerate your extremists mandating, "Convert or we will kill you."

You live in a time of so many different cultural influences that confusion reigns and rains and reins.

What to do? Some will embrace the new. Many of these will suffer or have to migrate and start over.

Some will not embrace the new and will break off. Some of these will become very radical, some moderate.

All are confused but is the best way to deal with other cultures to kill them? Pervert your children into believing the very oldest parts of YOUR culture is the ONLY way to live in the modern world? Build so called schools, madrassas that teach NOTHING but your koran, your bible, holy book AS INTERPRETED BY SCARED MEN, oops, should the letters be interchanged? for you; and also teach a level of hate toward others unheard of in the world today?

I think not.

Getting back to the main question. Well, that is what I tried to do.

The stresses of modern changing cultures, the intense pressures of integrating into a real world that you don't care for, well a proper response is not to kill folks who don't embrace the older versions of your culture or modern versions either.

Simply not falling for YOUR version of the world should not place anyone at risk. Sure, do as you wish but when you wish to kill me in this. If I don't believe YOU, hey, lock and load motherfucker. I NEVER did anything to you. YOU did this. Lock and load and understand that in America, WE can own arms. Drat. I just spoke out for the NRA. Well, I could have been wrong but Charlton Heston was never MY president and you NRA members should check your bumper stickers for this.

Our Constitution did not state the NRA's president was the country's president and you are under the microscope for this ridiculous bumper sticker and NO one of your cohorts will admit to being wrong or criticizing any NRA member and something stinks and your rhetoric is HURTING the USA in this.

Some folks today just ignore culture and try to live like previous generations did, but peacefully. No one suffers in this social experiment.

Some adapt to the new influences and their past is diluted or forgotten.

Some flourish in the changes, BUT, many cultural / human aspects of life get set aside or worse.

Life IS changing and always has. The range of reality is broader than we, personally, might wish, but its going on. We cannot kill others who don't believe as we do.

The range of what makes us human is greater than we might wish to understand and includes more than these items:

-Culture

-Society

-Biology

-Emotion

-Intelligence and intellection / thinking. Hmm. Thinking does not require much intelligence and many forget this.

-Spiritual leanings. Well this is troubling since many have NO such leanings and are often criticized, killed or worse by those who do. Another problem is others with different spiritual leanings. They, too, are often criticized, killed or worse by those who have one belief.

-Greed. How many wars, bombings, murders and the myriad of human tragedies haven't have been caused, at least in great part, by greed of the wealthy and those wishing for more than they earned?

-The ability to completely misunderstand others due to language, social and cultural differences and hasn't this been a problem over the eons?

Yeow.

Now with all these problems. Is there anything that can be done to lessen the problems of cultural and social differences, the changing times, etc.?

I have no answers. I have suggestions. Maybe you do. That's too easy isn't it? We all think about the future and try to do better.

Now add all of society's or culture's "others." People in their own country, culture, society who don't fit average society in one way or other:

-gays / lesbians are in all societies. They don't call for the destruction of society yet they "challenge" some status quo or other AND are still in danger in most parts of the world. Wouldn't love and acceptance help here when some societies, cultures say NO to their own members?

-people who are damaged. What to do with them? Love and respect them or try to ignore or hurt them? Look within. You might be next.

-people who are different, and this includes artists, recluses and more varieties of humans than anyone wants to feature and what to do with them? Love and respect them or try to ignore or hurt them?

Well, more than a few questions. No answers or solutions here other than embrace differences, add love and advance into the facts of the future the best you can without killing others.

No fatwas required.

The Basis of Religion: Magic, Control, Ritual and Comfort

The Basis of Religion: Magic, Control, Ritual and Comfort
by
Robin Hall


I was just thinking I really want to see magic. Not illusion. Magic.

My brain wrangled with that a bit and I came up with this note.

Its my view that religion is completely fabricated, usually by men, not women, and that it is based on these 4 things: Magic, Control, Ritual and Comfort. We want these four things to explain life and help us live it.

1. Magic. Two simple examples: the popularity of magic shows throughout the ages and today, Transcendental Meditation, TM. In the mid to late 1970s Maharishi began to promote the siddhis, the eight occult yogic powers, though he seemed to focus on levitation but google siddhis and you can read all you want.

He might have been coerced into this. Osho®, aka Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, had his Sheela, so who really knows? Getting laid is a powerful form of almost magic and maybe its the closest we ever get.

Anyway, I think we want magic for some reason and many people exploit this, especially the religious.

The Prestige film has a good explanation of the three parts of illusions or "magic." The setup, the turn in which an ordinary object does something extraordinary, such as disappear and the prestige when the ordinary object is restored through extraordinary means.

What does this mean for us? We WANT the prestige to be real to be magic. We really want there to be things we cannot explain at our level of development and magic fills the bill but its mostly illusion so don't take the bait.

And how many of you EVER saw one of the siddhis? There was supposed to be one, walking through walls. Yes, that one.

One TM instructor STATED that their center at Lake Lucerne had skylights that opened so the Siddhas could levitate over Lake Lucerne. Hmm. Show me that one too.

2. Control. Many want to control others AND many others want give up some parts of themselves to others, like a vacation from responsibility, hence the popularity of in the catholic church for confession, forgiveness and the like, so control is important in these manmade religions.

Don't forget sadism and masochism either. Some want to control, some want to give up control but in doing so, actually control others. YIKES, isn't that complicated?

3. Ritual. I have written about this before. Just read that, but more importantly, think for yourself about all of this.

There is a very powerful longing to be connected to others in an ongoing way. Rituals become important, then twisted and "sanctified", then perverted and we are left today with football, churches and The Survivor.

4. Comfort. We like to be comfortable. Its often comforting to visit a church, sing songs, listen to someone else tell us how to live, eat ice cream with other believers, have picnics with them and get revived from time to time in a tent.

I would rather have a nice reclining chair, turn up the AC in summer and have beer. That is comfort too. There is karaoke for the singing part even in a small town. I can watch the news, shopping or travel channels to find someone to tell me how to live. I don't own a tent but I can visit them at WalMart.

Picnics and icecream? In the South, these are no-brainers.

I think a religious experience is just around the corner.

Isn't this fun?

And another part of this religious bull shit. Ask yourself one question. There are many TO ask but just this one should do.

IF there is such a thing as an over being, a god, many gods etc., and forget ALL your counters to this question for once in your life, that is free will and whatever else comes to mind. Just ask this one question of YOURSELF. How can you pray for forgiveness, justice etc. from some over being which allows child abuse?

The range of this abuse is immense. Children in madrassas grow up and become suicide bombers. Children molested sexually who grow up and molest.

Just this one question. How can some all powerful being allow child abuse? How do you expect YOUR prayers to be answered?

Accept and Love Your Friends and Family

Accept and Love Your Friends and Family
by
Robin Hall


Many of us have IT; and here that means any illness, mine is the entire depression syndrome and alcoholism. Yours could be ___.

Many of us have other things going on or are different from society's average, norm.

We might be addicted to ??? alcohol, various drugs, various...

Maybe we are creative and this gets in the way of acceptance. We are different, we are the same people even so.

Maybe we are gay or lesbian. Hardly personal preferences, just us as we really are. We are the same person BEFORE you knew and we are the same AFTER you found out. We are different and who gets to pick who they love? We are the same.

Maybe we are tall.

Maybe we are short, really short, a little person. Different, but the same. Do we not think as others, behave, love?

A muslim? A christian? A jew?

Shakespeare was telling us about acceptance when he wrote, in The Merchant of Venice, "I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?"

Just put your family member's or friend's OTHERNESS in place of jew. ARE we that different? Doesn't acceptance and love of our favorite people begin the way we define OUR core self?

If you accept and love us us do you not gain? If you do not accept and love your own family, your own friends for some "reason," who is to blame but YOU?

Seek within. Look in the mirror of life that you know this is about and judge yourself. Then realize we ARE you and if that mirror cracks, its not US that cracked it.

The RAGE

The RAGE
by
Robin Hall, aka Fucked

When the RAGE comes, what do YOU do?

Now I don't care about what you do anymore than you care what I do of course.

The RAGE is more than care, beyond words, "sharing," love, choice, wishes, intent.

Its more than we are capable of handling. Its more than anyone can tolerate, "deal with" or other horse shit.

The RAGE consumes us, friends, family, others.

It knows no bounds.

It has no end.

It is us, and not us.

We are burned by its fires from within.

Burned but not cleansed. Nothing is accomplished, no one gains, no one wins. It burns all, produces nothing, is spent and we are scarred by its coming and going just like the others are, but we are still here while the others usually are not.

They were burned too and left.

Relationships, the good ones, suffer from it. Family and friends suffer. Sometimes the law is involved and we are drowned in a system that cannot help stop it. This system is the cause for some, the end for others.

The RAGE is seemingly demonic. It will eat you, your loved ones, society.

Terrorists living in perpetual RAGE, cause untold pain to decent societies.

Many criminals live in fluctuating RAGE that consumes much of their lives but is not theirs by choice or design.

Insane folks like me live in the same fluctuating RAGE that we barely keep in check when it hits IF, IF, IF we are lucky and live alone, separated from others specifically TO give the others freedom from the RAGE.

We break things in the RAGE. We break others, damage most, piss on what is good in our lives and WHILE IN THE RAGE, don't give a shit.

None of us want it.

No one deserves it.

Its part of many of us; we try to ignore it and it EATS US ALIVE.

We turn to a wide variety of drugs for relief. NONE help or stop the RAGE. None CAN stop the rage.

Alcohol, one of the scourges of mankind, is a two way sword. For some, it stops everything, even the RAGE, but at the cost of our livers, kidneys, lives, "souls". For some, booze makes the RAGE worse, is part of the cause. Its dangerous to palliate with this legal liquid, yet none of the prescriptions do more.

HEY, FUCK YOU IF YOU ARE SO STUPID TO IGNORE THIS, BELIEVE DIFFERENTLY, CALL IT A CHOICE. YOU are the ones who are going to get hurt IF you encounter someone in the middle of the RAGE and you better the fuck well HOPE they have found a way TO palliate whether its fucking crack, alcohol, heroin, pot etc.

Further, the fucking morons who KEEP drugs illegal, you are the ones I am chatting with in this. Legalize all of the drugs, monitor the results like which of them calm the RAGE, then change your inane laws.

Start with pot. Does a single one of you religious fanatics who keep the laws so restrictive KNOW a pot user who has committed a violent crime while in the RAGE?

OK, enough said? Add your own notes if you like.

Don't Throw Your Family Away if they are Damaged, Different or Drugged

Don't Throw Your Family Away if they are Damaged, Different or Drugged
by
Robin Hall, with IT and an Addiction


To refresh, IT as I use the word, is some health/biological or physical problem, YOURS. If you read my blog, just substitute your IT for my IT which is the depression syndrome: major depression, OCD and physiological anxiety.

So many families find it more convenient to ignore their own members than to deal with them. For those of us with IT, how many family members really even try?

Sure, some throw a few buck$ at the problem then, satisfied THEY did all they could, continue to ignore. Isn't that cute behavior? Smug rat fuckers need a smack down.

This is not to say anyone SHOULD try to be damaged or addicted etc. to understand, but rather that love, sympathy and empathy can be invoked and in some way the family stays together.

And for the others in the family, DO NOT "tolerate" your damaged or different family member. WTF is that, tolerating?

IF the phrase, Blood is thicker than water, has value NEVER "tolerate" a damaged, different or addicted family member. This is your family and part of being in a family IS or should be love, empathy and sympathy and isn't that a part of what a family needs and so rarely has?

No one wants to be tolerated. We want and deserve love, otherwise the notion of a family is a sham, a lie.

Maybe one day you will be damaged or old or different. Do you really want the family to treat you as you so willingly treated them when you were so haughty? Wouldn't that be a pretty picture? I see it developing even now.

This sounds like, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. A golden rule in fact.

Add love. Do lovingly unto others as you would have them lovingly do unto you as families are supposed to if they are first conceived, well you have a gold and platinum rule for families.

Now think about YOUR family. Any so-called black sheep? Damaged, ill or different members?

Maybe they are only outsiders because they were forgotten or ignored by YOU. Maybe you need to look a little deeper into the mirror of life and collect the family regularly, help it heal and remember what it means to BE a group worthy to call itself a decent family.

Don't "Test" Yourself If You Are An Addict

Don't "Test" Yourself If You Are An Addict
by
Robin Hall, an alcohol addict


Most of us addicts probably do this sort of thing, try this bullshit. We are in remission / recovering / going to meetings etc. Smokers; alcoholics; heroin addicts; food addicts; pill addicts etc. The meetings are SA; AA; NA; FA or whateverthefuck12stepprogram.

We lie to ourselves or are just dumber than we ever thought was possible. "Well, I am over this shit and to PROVE it, I will have a hit or two," and a week later we know we lied to ourselves. We are hanging over the toilet with mucus dripping out of our nose and mouth almost choking to death. Maybe we peed on ourselves or worse. HEY we tried but now we are fucking alcoholics again and that simple experiment was certainly worth it, eh?

Duh, NOFUCKINGWAY.

Don't test yourself if you are an addict. Tests lie and you are not a good judge of character are you?

Go to the meetings if they help.

Stay away from YOUR drug of choice for the rest of your life.

Believe this particular addict, me, in this one thing: Don't test yourself if you are an addict. I have done the testing. Shit, I have an MA in Community College Teaching so I SHOULD know a bit about testing and I do.

Guess what? I have failed several testings of two drugs. Tobacco has kicked my ass 3 times. I am walking the line for it just now.

Alcohol has continued to kick my ass and the Dean of the Department of Alcohol FUCKING FAILS ME regularly if I take that particular test.

I take it, the Dean kicks my ass, fails me and I am gone till I have been in some hospital or other and am stupid enough to take the test again. And I am that stupid.

Take a fucking hint, NEVER ever do this sort of test. NEVER. NEVER. Trust me once in your life, NEVER test yourself in this.

Later, maybe some other things I suggest might seem useful or interesting but in this one thing, NEVER test yourself.

Three Strikes and Everyone Loses, Plus the Death Penalty

Three Strikes and Everyone Loses, Plus the Death Penalty
by
Robin Hall


Now before this moronic legal maneuver got popular, was there a SINGLE test to see IF it worked? Lots of studies suggest states with the death penalty don't have lower crime rates for instance.

How about the 3 strikes and you are fucked rule? Do states with this pathetic excuse to lock people up with not enough proof for the extended sentences actually have lower crime rates?

Worse, what about the stats on that DEADLY third strike? Are there stats that PROVE the third strike crime is of lower magnitude or is it of greater magnitude, all things considered?

Say you are robbing a liquor store, your third strike if you are caught. What's worse, killing everyone involved so no ID is possible or trying to run away and hope no one recognized you? DUH.

Well, this should be enough for three strikes to end AND it should be food for thought for that stupid death penalty. NO FUCKING PERSON GAINS when there is a death penalty.

The taxpayer is going to lose, check the stats. The cost of PROVING a crime to the level of the death penalty is more than anyone wants to discuss. THEN keeping someone on death row is a tax burden very few know about and the number of years this goes on and on and on... Do the fucking math.

States with the death penalty don't have less crime, check the stats. No one gains. Everyone loses. How is this good for business or the taxpayer. Yes, George and Georgette, that is you and me.

Lets drop stupid MANDATORY laws in at least one state, revamp the system, make it tax efficient and let that serve us for a while. Keep statistics. See what happens. If someone wins, do it in the rest of the states.

Where IS Up and Where Does Smoke Go?

Where IS Up and Where Does Smoke Go?
by
Robin Hall


Isn't this a silly topic? NOT silly? So, just where IS up? If one looks up, its there unless one is upside down then one knows up IS down or one misses the point and up is still up. Oooh. Tricky. Worse, what if one is upside down and the real up is still down? That sort of thing.

Things change all the time. I have spent the last week not smoking. I am not sure of the benefits. Its confusing. I like smoking but not the coughing in the middle of my sleep period which wakes me nightly.

Hmm. Time will tell about this addiction. I stopped smoking for 30+ years. I started again with one companion who smoked and I wanted in, if you catch my drift and her panties IS the right answer.

I quit after entering and leaving and but she had very nice panties if you catch the drift.

So those years passed and depression hit and I smoked four months while I was sober and this is what happened, I am trying to quit again.

Anyway.

Smoking is a very hard addiction to delete and I may start again. Its not quite as bad for me as alcohol but close and there are no panties in this version of being drunk. Well, likely there won't be more panties in my future, I am old.