Not exactly nightmares, but still very unpleasant. I am tired of having these bad dreams.
I dream that my husband is gone for some reason, and I have had to move back to East Texas and live in a crappy little apartment, and work in a filthy factory with no safety equipment.
It's a relief to wake up, and realize it was a dream, and I am in my nice bed, in our house in New Mexico. But the sadness hangs on.
I don't know why I am having these dreams again. Maybe because sales are bad this month, and I am behind on the studio bills. Having to return to my former life would be about the worst thing I can think of. Rationally, I know it can't happen. I have too many friends here, and more skills. I have been clean and sober for 15 years. I have so many more resources than just my husband.
Maybe the dreams must mean that my life would be crap without him.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Creationism vs. Evolution
I am amused by people who "don't believe in evolution" who own breed dogs.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Hunger Studies 1
People speak of "World Hunger", and don't realize how vague they are being.
There are three different kinds of hunger, quite different from each other.
Simple Hunger: This is what we feel when our stomach is empty. Most of us are familiar with this one, and know that it is pretty easy to ignore for a while. It is known worldwide, but can hardly be considered a problem.
Systemic Hunger: This is what we feel when our blood sugar is low. It is felt in the body in general, rather than in the stomach. This is not easy to ignore, but is not always recognized as a need for food. Systemic hunger is a problem in parts of the world where people cannot lead a regular lifestyle, and eat erratically. It can cause anxiety and hysteria.
In parts of Africa, rashes of young women being struck down with screaming fits were found to be easily cured by an injection of glucose. Widespread systemic hunger may be behind many unstable cultural situations, an unrecognized disruptive influence.
Survival Hunger: This is felt when the body's fat reserves are depleted. It is as imperative a need for food as the need for air. This hunger can NOT be ignored*. Our bodies need at least a little internal fat to get through a night's sleep without having to get up and take in more calories. Very few people in a stable culture have felt this.
People who deliberately keep their body fat low have felt it briefly. Ballerinas and fashion models report having sudden binges of eating everything they can get their hands on. Body builders sometimes find themselves skipping the protein shake, and gorging on something deep-fried.
This starvation is usually what people mean when they say "World Hunger". However, it is not something that can be solved by throwing food at it. Since the industrial era, all famines are caused by politics, not nature. The demands of survival would drive these people toward food, unless they were stopped by another deadly threat, such as the point of a gun.
*Anorexia is an emotional disorder in which the sufferer seems to ignore survival hunger. They are not ignoring it. They are feeling it as a sense of accomplishment, or in some other distorted way that allows them to continue refusing food.
There are three different kinds of hunger, quite different from each other.
Simple Hunger: This is what we feel when our stomach is empty. Most of us are familiar with this one, and know that it is pretty easy to ignore for a while. It is known worldwide, but can hardly be considered a problem.
Systemic Hunger: This is what we feel when our blood sugar is low. It is felt in the body in general, rather than in the stomach. This is not easy to ignore, but is not always recognized as a need for food. Systemic hunger is a problem in parts of the world where people cannot lead a regular lifestyle, and eat erratically. It can cause anxiety and hysteria.
In parts of Africa, rashes of young women being struck down with screaming fits were found to be easily cured by an injection of glucose. Widespread systemic hunger may be behind many unstable cultural situations, an unrecognized disruptive influence.
Survival Hunger: This is felt when the body's fat reserves are depleted. It is as imperative a need for food as the need for air. This hunger can NOT be ignored*. Our bodies need at least a little internal fat to get through a night's sleep without having to get up and take in more calories. Very few people in a stable culture have felt this.
People who deliberately keep their body fat low have felt it briefly. Ballerinas and fashion models report having sudden binges of eating everything they can get their hands on. Body builders sometimes find themselves skipping the protein shake, and gorging on something deep-fried.
This starvation is usually what people mean when they say "World Hunger". However, it is not something that can be solved by throwing food at it. Since the industrial era, all famines are caused by politics, not nature. The demands of survival would drive these people toward food, unless they were stopped by another deadly threat, such as the point of a gun.
*Anorexia is an emotional disorder in which the sufferer seems to ignore survival hunger. They are not ignoring it. They are feeling it as a sense of accomplishment, or in some other distorted way that allows them to continue refusing food.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Thoughts on the Abortion Issue
Pro-life and Pro-choice are two views that will NEVER be reconciled. The debate centers around whether or not a fetus has a soul. This is something that can never be determined by science, or by faith.
Even legislation will never be able settle the issue. No matter what laws are made, there will be protests, and efforts to change it.
However, I would think both sides of the issue could agree on one thing. Abortion is a tragedy.
The fact that an abortion takes place means that a pregnancy, which should be a cause for celebration and anticipation, has become a cause for fear and doubt.
From that viewpoint, wouldn't the solution to the abortion debate be to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Then, whether or not a fetus has a soul is moot.
But no, they disagree on how to do that. One side wants to teach birth control, and intelligent sex, the other wants people to wait until they are married to have sex at all.
Again, it is the battle between moral stricture, and personal choice.
Personally, I can't see why anyone who wants to see an end to abortion would want to deny people access to birth control.
"Abstinence only" ignores the well documented fact of the "weakness of the flesh". Fercrissake, it's described in their own holy book.
Why can't the approach be, "Wait until you are married, but if you DO fall to the weakness of the flesh, here is how to limit the damage."
(I have never liked the idea of keeping information from people for their own good. Separate rant on that later.)
A "good girl" doesn't carry a condom in her purse, because she does not intend to have sex. So, if does have sex, she can say, "It just happened... I didn't mean to." What a set up.
How about this concept: The good girl DOES carry a condom in her purse, as a tool to keep herself a virgin. Really! A guy who does not respect her is not going to want to use the condom. Demanding use of the condom can slow down a seduction, and give the girl a chance to regain control of the situation. Then, if the weakness of the flesh is too much, even for this, at least there is less chance of unwanted pregnancy and disease.
Sex education should include use of contraceptives, and why using them is a sign of self-respect.
Besides, to my point of view, the idea of two virgins marrying, and vowing to only have sex with each other for the rest of their lives is sort of..... kinky!
Even legislation will never be able settle the issue. No matter what laws are made, there will be protests, and efforts to change it.
However, I would think both sides of the issue could agree on one thing. Abortion is a tragedy.
The fact that an abortion takes place means that a pregnancy, which should be a cause for celebration and anticipation, has become a cause for fear and doubt.
From that viewpoint, wouldn't the solution to the abortion debate be to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Then, whether or not a fetus has a soul is moot.
But no, they disagree on how to do that. One side wants to teach birth control, and intelligent sex, the other wants people to wait until they are married to have sex at all.
Again, it is the battle between moral stricture, and personal choice.
Personally, I can't see why anyone who wants to see an end to abortion would want to deny people access to birth control.
"Abstinence only" ignores the well documented fact of the "weakness of the flesh". Fercrissake, it's described in their own holy book.
Why can't the approach be, "Wait until you are married, but if you DO fall to the weakness of the flesh, here is how to limit the damage."
(I have never liked the idea of keeping information from people for their own good. Separate rant on that later.)
A "good girl" doesn't carry a condom in her purse, because she does not intend to have sex. So, if does have sex, she can say, "It just happened... I didn't mean to." What a set up.
How about this concept: The good girl DOES carry a condom in her purse, as a tool to keep herself a virgin. Really! A guy who does not respect her is not going to want to use the condom. Demanding use of the condom can slow down a seduction, and give the girl a chance to regain control of the situation. Then, if the weakness of the flesh is too much, even for this, at least there is less chance of unwanted pregnancy and disease.
Sex education should include use of contraceptives, and why using them is a sign of self-respect.
Besides, to my point of view, the idea of two virgins marrying, and vowing to only have sex with each other for the rest of their lives is sort of..... kinky!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
