des

Yes, it has occured to me as well, though I do not believe in heaven or hell as a physical location. It has also occurred to me that hell and the Devil are "in" right now and heaven and angels are "out" (not too long ago, angels were in-- says something I guess). I think one problem is that heaven has such boring stock images of angels sitting on clouds playing harps (I'm sorry but I do find this kind of dull :-)). OTOH, heaven as portrayed in literature and art (whatever pictures we do have of it) is pretty limited and not particularly graphic. OTOH, hell as portrayed in literature and art (from the Bible to Dantes to Bosh) have been very graphic. I particularly recall being fascinated and revolted by the startling images of Bosh (or is it Bosch or....) at an art museum in Vienna where several of his more imaginative works are displayed. I think that Islam (or as I understand some sect or thread of Islam) at least has the multiple virgins in heaven. In short, maybe heaven just lacks a good PR director? :-) BTW, if you really think about sitting on a real cloud, as opposed to some of your more Hollywood clouds, i think it would be amazing. I suppose a nice heaven would be to glide over the mountains of NM (Ariz., etc or other places on earth) and just look down. Ahhhh! --des

Aw, Aletheia, not one teensy weensy mini-me joke?? :-) --des

IMO, it always comes back to the woman carrying the embryo or fetus. You know that the pope can say what he will but he has never, nor can he ever have this experience. I don't think it neatly is close to any other kind of experience. An abortion can never be like any other murder, even if you believe it is morally wrong. The woman's whole body is matched for this pregnancy-- the body changes, the hormones change, the mood changes, etc. And the longer in the pregnancy the more the body and mind change to accommodate the pregnancy. It is the main reason, I guess, that I wouldn't consider it casual or frivolous in some way. But it is also the main reason, I don't see anyone coming around and saying it is murder. If you require every woman to carry every pregnancy to term, you also have to understand just exactly what kind of thign you are subjecting a woman to, as well as what you are going to do once the birth occurs. Do you decrease food stamps for the poor mother as the President's budget would like? It's a really good reason that there is so much intense emotion around the topic. But I think it is a good reason to start thinking "middle way". The middle way would be decreasing the number by increasing birth control, improving health of babies and women, etc. --des

Yes, I believe in the co-creation aspect to our being, so that we have control (or could if we could claim it) in things like our histories, civilization, etc. But the parts that pre-dated, pre-existed us, then I dont' think that is the case. We didn't/ don't/ ever will have any part of the plate teconics that created the earth the way it is. OTOH, we would have a part in, say whether we would recreate, renew, revive the wetlands in Louisana to prevent the destruction of future hurricanes. Or whether we continue to rape the earth or rebuild/renew her. And those decisions will have an impact on how destructive the earth's activities will be. It's an example at least. --des >Hi des, Well said...we don't get to choose which part of the creative energy we get. But...IF we are co-creators with God,and I truly believe we are,maybe we can help God choose. What do you think? Blessings, jerryb

Food addictions? I'm guessing things like salt, sugar, or simple carbs, chocolate, etc. I think none of these (well maybe chocolate, as it does have caffeine and some other "drugs" in it) is a true addiction. I think some people seem to want more of these than needed for life, and sometimes to excess. But I don't think they are medically considered to be addictions or even dependencies. OTOH, we know people are eating way more than they need to. Some of the reasons seem to be more emotional and complex than just "I felt like eating it, so I did.) --des

Funny thing re: Campolo. While I don't consider him very liberal (not a criticism, more an observation-- guess I would consider him a moderate), my sister (evangelical-- fundie leaning) was most concerned about one aspect of Campolo. The fact that he ministered to Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal. Jesus minstered the prostitutes-- that's ok? I brought that up and she had no comment. --des

Wow! thanks! --des

"Living Buddha, Living Christ" --des

To go along with what Aletheia was saying (I think), I like to think of it this way: that creation is a violent thing. We know that from studying cosmology. Stars explode, even galaxies explode. But without creation you don't have life, the universe, or anything else. Same happens on a smaller level-- without tectonic plates you don't have a living earth, you woulld not have seas, etc.-- but without them you wouldn't have earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes. But you dont' get to chose which part of the creative energy you get. You couldn't chose creation without the energy necessary to make it destructive. --des

I wanted to answer the question on expensive hobbies. I had/have a hobby of saltwater fish. I don't guess they are quite pets as I dont' really have a relationship with them. But I don't feel they are things either. I used to spend hours and hours and very much money buying gizmos and critters for the tank, cleaning it, and keeping it running. It was a very cool hobby in some ways as you create (if you have a reef tank like I did) kind of mini-world which eventually becomes stable but not quite self-contained (needs food, periodic cleaning). I rarely thought of it in the same way I think of a regular hobby (I don't think I would have used the word "hobby"). I might have described it as a passion, or some other such term. Funny thing though, I couldn't make ends with my tutoring and at some point I just could not afford it any more. I stopped all but the most minimal of maintance and stopped buying all but the minimum (no water changes, etc), and the thing is so damn stable it just refuses to die. It looks pretty awful with a type of nuisance critter growing everywhere, but the fish are very healthy. The shrimp, snails, etc. are healthy. I have no idea what to do with it. It seems more trouble to take down, but it is an eyesore (I could sell all the stuff back to the store so nothing would need to die. Ok, question for you'all: Anyone else with a passion sort of hobby? If so, what is it? --des

You might be right, OA. There are also things like Diethel Stilbestrol. True nasty side effects are possible (the real big bad side effect is cancer for girls whose moms took it, but it doesn't allow the embryo to attach (or maybe some earlier effect, like reducing the lining or somesuch). It certainly doesn't have the safety record for RU (?). I don't really get the controversy on this. Yes, I *know* that some consider this murder-- and the Catholic church (who are the only ones with any legitimacy in this, imo, as some other birth control does prevent implantation as well , I think the diaphraphm for one. And gels or foam "murder" ###### cells. There's also a "late birth control" (I wouldn't exactly call it abortion) called menstrual extraction. A person can theoretically perform it on themselves. There might be a guerilla type group doing these. They aren't completely foolproof. I think if you changed these products like Ru (?) to something like post-coetal birth control a whole lot of controversy would go away tomorrow. I think the Catholic church would keep it up, but I think a lot of pro life people would not be upset by them. It really is pretty insane to call them "abortion" when they are so early that in some cases you dont' even know if you are pregnant or not. But if they'd allow these there would be so many fewer abortions. I think most abortions are unthought out birth control. If you make it easier for people to have another few days to think "do I really want to have a baby?" we would have fewer abortions and a lot fewer unwanted children. The other thing you take it out of the public square where it doesn't belong anyway, you take the "abortion doctors" and put them back in private practice or in birth control, and you could lower the whole tone on the thing. There would be a small no. of abortions for the safety of the woman, and they'd be done in hospitals where they belong. Frontline is doing a documentary on the de facto prohibition of abortion in some states. You might legally be able to get one but that abortion clinics can be shut down. Just means, of course, that poor women don't get one. If you are rich enough, you could get one pre- Roe v Wade. Just tell some kindly doc that you were minorly inconvenienced and he would do a D and C, and that would be that. But I don't think Frontline is going to get into that. Yes, I agree about decreasing abortions like that. I think you could really reduce them. Jim Wallis who is really anti-abortion (and really pro-life in the true sense, imo) talks about that. Jim Wallis doesn't mention RU (?) or any other post coetal birth control methods. --des

>>Piaget pioneered the whole notion of "cognitive development." If you liked Piaget, you might enjoy James Fowler's Stages of Faith -- kind of a Piaget-ish approach to faith development, how people view God, meaning, etc. at various levels of understanding. I read it in college, back before I actually got it. Prob. would like it. I really got into that cognitive development stuff back, you know 25 years ago (yikes that sounds awful). >So that's what I wrote the paper on-- how we as adults retain some animistic thinking at some level. And it is more "poetic" isn't it? Which is truth on a very deep level. Well, that's the $1,000,000 question, isn't it! Why, you buying? ;-P >Is the "poetic" sense of somehow belonging to God and to the universe in some way, really "truth on a very deep level," or just a comforting lie that happens to have evolutionary survival value? At last, the question that logic can't answer. You know the answer, but not in your mind. Yes for sure. --des

>That's a helpful way of looking at it. Even the shaman is intuiting something correct, even though he would explain it in a superstitious way. To these views, I would of course add the metaphysical view -- I should say, one metaphysical view -- the world as we experience it exists in a state of ignorance and separation from its true Source, which manifests itself in the limitations, frustrations, and lacks inherent in all the different views of the situation. (It's the metaview of all the other views!) I wish I knew where that little thing came from, oh well. Yes. In grad school in a language class we had to tape kids and look at what they said from a Piagetian standpoint. You know this was a Swiss psychologist who analyzed what kids said and saw and how it was different from adults. Anyway, I noticed as I was doing this that there were ranges to animistic thinking, that is that objects have feelings and act in response to things. I clearly knew that the light bulb did not give light "for us", as one of the kids said. But the idea of the sun or moon giving "us" light, though it doesn't jive with my scientific ideas did jive with me on some more emotional/ sensual level. So that's what I wrote the paper on-- how we as adults retain some animistic thinking at some level. And it is more "poetic" isn't it? Which is truth on a very deep level. >>Fred, I do find some of this a little heavy for me. Gee, this is humbling. Always thought I was smart. ;-) >I don't think it's a matter of schmartz, so much as of what you've immersed yourself in. I just happen to have a bizarre obsession with this stuff, so I inflict it on everyone else. Well true, I do have to split my time a bit to teach (or attempt). :-) --des

Damn it Jim, I'm a doctor not a metaphysician. :-) I read a neat thing once, have little idea where, but it talked about how various people would view a broken leg. From a physical view, the fall caused the leg to break. The nutritional view: lack of calcium caused the leg to weaken and that's why it broke. The sociological: The man had an argument with his wife went on the ladder and felt the pressures of work and marriage and lacking concentration fell and broke his leg. The psychological: The man was ambivalent about his various tasks and ended up not watching out what he was doing. The shaman's view: The man was bewitched with evil spirits who caused him to fall off the ladder. etc. Anyway, they all could be right or one or some of them. Fred, I do find some of this a little heavy for me. Gee, this is humbling. Always thought I was smart. ;-) --des

Carl, I would agree with you on James' choice of words, but I think that the Catholic church and esp. conservative Catholics really do think abortion is murder-- follows since even birth control (except for rhythm) is immoral. I don't *agree* with James' choice of words (or the ramifications thereof-- ie that any pregnant woman who has an abortion regardless of situation is a murderer-- perhaps excepting the life of the mother though see below), but I would defend to the death (ok not death :-)) his right to say them. OTOH, I do personally know of a very devout Catholic (her mom is a friend of mine) who was told her pregnancy had very serious complications and that the best thing to do would be to terminate it, asap. THe woman didn't do that due to her beliefs. She actually ended up having the baby and losing it almost immediately, but worse she almost died. She started peeing black urine that I didn't think was even possible to do-- but I think that is close to renal shutdown. AFAIK, she is ok. There are also those families having multiple births. They don't show all the really bad complications that can happen for the most part, but the chances of havign a profoundly handicapped (or dead) child are very high. (BTW, by profoundly handicapped, I mean something like a child who is unable to sit, speak, eat without assistance. Of course, I recognize most abortions aren't done for such serious reasons. And I think that one should use birth control not abortion. However, our administration is even stopping money for birth control if the center that does birth control has anything to do with abortion, even if the actual dollars are not spent on abortion. (Same policy, btw, used for AIDs funding-- if the money goes to an organization that passes out condoms, no deal. Even if the money isn't actually going for condoms.) This might be the reason that the abortion rate is actually higher under GWB than it was for Clinton. --des

This is EXACTLY why I have this opinion. You see my feelings are not based on some theoretical argument that I might want to carry on. I could argue all I wanted for multidimensioned existence-- sort of find it appealing, gosh darn. But I have epilepsy. Fortunately it is totally controlled by medication. But at one time it was not. I do not have grand mal type seizures but the ignorance and superstition of the populace is pretty amazing. There is also prejudice against people with seizures and various mental illnesses. People are really terrified by all this. It does not help the already terrified populace to get too far beyond scientific theories. With science we have treatment, medications that actually control/stop these things; treatment that is enlightened and maybe in some cases progressive. Without, you have fear and prejudice. So what gets better "results"? Either approach (or both all, don't say one domaine or the other, whatever), may be true. Maybe they all are. But what actually gets you the most humane best results? I was also dxed as having a mental disorder. It was (not) treated by Christian Science. Doesn't work. My sister nicely suggested they were demonic possession. Doesn't work. At some point I went to the most biochemically oriented doctor is Chicago. That was the most effective. He never asked me about my mother or got into any kind of discussion of anything. He figured out that my seizures were fairly untreated. Bang, one day sick, in about a month well. Just like that. I BELIEVE!!! :-) --des

Well I think you made some very good points here, Fred. Wished I understood them enough to debate one way or another. :-) One comment I'd make on spiritual malevolence (or whatever) and mental illness-- yes I agree that mental illness (or physical for that matter) is more complex than just some neurons and biochemical processes going on. For one thing we have a human being with all the things that have happened in his/her life, family dynamics, genetics, diet, sleep and exercise, and spiritual experiences. BUT then again I would not want throw mental illness back into the religious domain. I think bad things really do happen to good people. The experiences of some exorcists not withstanding. You might see some sort of conflicts on a Jungian plane being played out, I don't know. But I think most of what you see isn't some demonic realm or alteruniverse or somesuch but plays on the suggestibility of the subject. The subject must believe that there is such a thing and the subject must believe that the exorcist is doing something or this would never "work". If it does "work"--don't think that there is any evidence that you aren't just getting a sideshow. That still doesn't mean there aren't some spiritual forces at work, but I think my experience with Christian Science has made me most skeptical. --des

r: >>Except that it does matter that certain groups don't want gays to marry. It's a civil rights issue where a set of people are being denied their civil rights. Religion should not enter into it. >So would it be fair to say you favour a dictatorship of relativism where a person with a religious faith that guides their moral choices is automatically disqualified? As a sidenote, atheism is also a religious affiliation (not necessarily religious practice) but involves at least as much faith as any religion proper (ie: with set worship and God(s)) "dicatatorship" of relativism, wow what a turn of phrase, James. :-) I actually think there should be "religious marriage" and a legal "civil union". Civil unions could be gay or straight or... as long as they were entered into in a legally binding way. That way religion would be totally out of the civil union thing. Marriages would be sacred bondings within churches, synagogues, etc. and not be legally binding at all. No more with the power vested in me by the state of ___. It is totally opposed to the separation of church and state for churches to have powers that effect taxation, visiting rights in hospitals, compassionate leave at work, property rights, etc. etc. >>It matters if R v W is overturned. If abortion becomes illegal in some states then we will certainly see a return to back alley abortions for those girls and women who can't afford to go out of state, or worse who are afraid to because it is a crime to cross the state line for an abortion. >It is worse to give a baby up for adoption (for whatever reason, fear of jail being one possible one) than to have it murdered and put yourself at greater risk for many physical and psychological difficulties? Yikes, what a strange world liberals live in. I don't think it is the strange world *liberals* live in. We didnt' create human nature that does go about these things. I don't think the vast majority of abortions are done on liberals. Before Roe v. Wade many many women had horrendous botched abortions done at illegal chop shops--- why didn't they opt for adoption? I think a better question would be why didn't they opt for taking the pregnancy to term--as that is basically the problem. If you could get a larger no. (all) of women who don't want a child to take the pregnancy to term, you would solve the problem. >>]And yes there are groups of Christians who are trying to get evolution out of public schools and I.D. in. Look at what is happening in Kansas even now. >I hate to say this, but science doesn't corner the market on truth. In fact, science is always changing and being challenged from within. Evolution is not fact, but a theory, ask any scientist how scientific theories work. A classic example is the shift from the Static State theory fo the universe, in which the universe has always existed the way it is now and always will, to the Big Bang theory (proposed by a priest) in which so many scientists got up in arms and complained that religion was trying to oppress science and other such nonsense. Now it is the prevailing theory in the origins of the universe. But there is a HUGE difference between Steady State, the Big bang, and ID (or creationism). True there are many theories that do not always pan out, and lots of strong opinions about them, no denying that. But every *scientific* theory can always be proven wrong, proof goes on one side and it may take years before another replaces it. But ID can never be proven wrong by it's essentially religious nature. You can not prove that a Creator is NOT involved, and that makes it not science. Now it is also true that some theories seem to pan out, like "relativity" but there will always be someone in the wings out there trying to prove it isn't true. And there might be ways to show how it wouldn't be true, even if they prove to be wrong. But with a Creator you can't show it is not so. This is a humungous difference. Yes I think you should teach kids how to evaluate any theory, but not to teach them a religious belief in science class. (BTW, I do believe a Creator was necessary, but I don't think this necessarily conflicts with evolutionary theory.) >The website I'm sure you meant to give was www.theocracywatch.ORG Yes. >>I am also worried about creeping theocracy. Perhaps they aren't a majority of the party, but the mind and soul fo the Republican party right now is the Christian right >>Can you deifne this any a way which isn't just that you don't agree with them? Or can you offer any sort of statistics which would show the number of self-identifying "conservative Christians" in the Republican party? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm sure many members fo the Republican party call themselves Christians, but I'm equally sure that a large number of members of the Democratic party would also call themslves Christians (the Clintons, Gores, Kerrys, etc. all calling themselves Christians) as do the members fo this board. I meant to write Christian Right. i can't offer any statistics. I think that the influence was quite obvious from the latest court appointment. But I am referring to a self-styled group of conservative Christians who seem to tie their Christianity to right wing Republican thinking. Specifically some things that are not Christian at all, like tax cuts for rich people and hawkish positions. Certainly there are many Christians that are not part of the Christian Right. Perhaps most of them, and I wasn't implying that most Christians were part of the Christian Right, including George Bush. I think George Bush is highly influenced by them, but not one himself. (Although he is conservative and possibly fundamentalist.) I am certainly not implying that all conservative Christians are part of the CR. >Essentially, the are they wrong type of Christians for your taste if I am understanding correctly, and that sort of puts you in the same boat as the people that Carl was complaining about. Well, it isn't a type of Christian it is a political ideology which uses Christianity, imo. >>They have actually quite radical views not just abortion (I would also like to see way fewer of them but not through court mandate), but a range of issues from education to "intelligent design" to war and peace (see Christian right on Israel, scary), etc. As far as abortion goes, would radical aulify as, they should be illegal? And if they are murder, as I and many others contend, and you seem to, if you are opposed to abortion, would you say that you would like to see fewer murders of those who have been born, but not through court mandate? No I don't think it is murder. At least before the first trimester. But it is not desirable for a variety of reasons. I think it would be a little long winded to go into that here. (BTW, I think this would be the only opinion you would share with the Christian Right which is not entirely friendly to Catholics.) > As far as Israel goes, you don't really define your terms. But if you are against support of Isreal, I think I can safely assume that you support "Palestine" and the "Palestinians", which of course was never a state in the first place (it was parts of Transjordanie, Egypt, Syria, et al. and was lost in wars where Isreal was the victim of Muslim aggresion.) Secondly, there are no "palestinians" as they are the descendants of the citizens of the above mentioned countries. Plus, the refugees who languish in camps in the above-mentioned countries have far fewer rights than those living under the "occupation". They also have viewed terrorism as the legitimate way to force the creation of a state. No, I didn't. a. I do support Isreal's right to exist. b. I do support the Palentian's right to exist. Pre- the establishment of the state of Isreal SOMEBODY was livign on that land! c. all murder and mayheim has not been done on the part of the Isrealis. Briefly some of the CR have expoused the position that we should not really attempt to help Isreal and the Palestinians should strive for a peaceful solution to their problems-- which most Americans including our president would agree with. But according to some of the CR should be rebuilt and after the temple is rebuilt Jesus will come back. Some people believe CR's may even be undermining the peace process-- say in giving to terriorist groups. And no I have no proof of that one. > They are goons, killers ang thugs. Strange company you keep. I don't think my views of things are out of hand with the vast majority of Americans. Nor would they be considered very extreme one way or the other. Please don't include highly sarcastic or nasty comments in your posts like that. It doesn't become you. --des

I think that perhaps the "lingonberry sauce" at IHOP might have a couple lingonberries in it. Chicago area had some Original House of Pancakes. Very good! One of them was in a scene in Ordinary People (well ordinary upper income people living in exclusive Chicago area suburbs). Anyway, it is an awesome place with good food, VERY long lines, good prices, and tiffany lamps and windows and rich wood everywhere. --des

Yes I have heard these languages. I am guessing that the click or whir sound substitutes for the vowel and makes them more pronouncible (to bushmen) if not us. Of course all humans are born able to say any and all sounds and lose that ability as they grow up. On the flip side, since I have a fellow linguist (at least by hobby :-)) around, there are languages that are low in consonants. I think Hawaiian would fit here but I haven't really heard it spoken except in a song which I am not sure is really Hawaiian. OTOH, I have heard Navajo. I wouldn't say it has no consonants but it is heavily vowel. Now I wonder what all that does for world view? Your word for God sounds maybe if we were to take the word God and switch it around like "awahgawwwdah". You could say it quite loud and it would be quite musical. It might bounce off the canyons in NM and Arizona. Just some thoughts.... don't know what (if anything) they have to do with Native religions. You can hear just about any language you want (at least a sample anyway). Google "Navajo (or whatever) language sample" and listen to a piece. I think !Kung is a commonly transcribed language. --des

I think the whole thing of unclean spirits or demons is a nice little bit of metaphor for some personally taking on or being part of evil. Jesus acted (and had to act) within practices understood at the time. At the time, epilepsy was considered to be demonic possession, now we know it to be electrical discharge from the brain. Several very well known cases of exorcism were cases of mental illness or even Tourette's syndrome. I read of the cases of possession that started the Salem witch trials, some of these are believed to be caused by a rye mold with characteristics similar to some hallucinagenics. Jesus also spat on the earth and used the mud to heal a man of blindness. Why not just heal him instead of making him walk around with that soggy mess on the eyes. My understanding of that behavior was that it was an act clearly understandable in the times and prob. had some folk healing aspects. The idea that there are those still believing in exorcism in 2005 is staggering. IMO, it tells more about the anti-scientific forces in society than about "evil spirits" (often treated in mental institutions by anti-psychotics). If you tell a suggestible person to behave in a certain way they often will. And suggestible people will believe it helps them. Yes, I believe there are parts of reality that we can't/ don't understand and that there are still mysteries in the universe, but I also believe that there are powers of suggestion and so on that explain many of these (but not all) and are not so darn convoluted. Occam's razor, essentially. --des

This was in another thread so I decided to pull it out. Bro Rog wondered who thought Roe vs Wade would be overturned. Something I heard yesterday re: the new justice to be and Roe vs Wade. He has made a few of what seem to be contradictory rulings. a.He ruled a husband must be informed of the wife's decision to have an abortion. b. He also ruled basically pro a so-called partial birth abortion because it did not exempt cases where the women's life was in danger. c.I think in another ruling he ruled pro in cases of incest and rape (??). d.In yet another case I think he ruled it wasn't constitutional to outlaw funds for poor women. (?) I think actually pre- Roe v Wade you could have an abortion if you had 3 doctors' signatures that you had a serious medical risk and problem. In cases where people had money you could have an abortion, and if you didn't you could never have one. Since money is the major factor in an abortion or no, then if he actually did rule as above, he might not rule against it entirely but would place increasing restrictions on it. Of course I might be wrong on the above. I am pretty sure that he ruled on a. and b. -- but totally not sure on c. and d. Of course d. is the most interesting and telling ruling. Some pundit commented, that everyone was saying there was no litmus test, but there is a litmus test and this is it. I sure hope we don't go back to pre- Roe vs Wade. I am old enough to remember women so desperate that they would go to any measures including coat hangers and swallowing Drano. --des

BTW, as a reading teacher I would like to make a way outta there comment on the pronouncation of g-d" or anythign else without vowels. It has nothing to do with anything. But gosh darn it sort of fit in! You can indeed *pronounce* a word without vowels. If you take the word Pat and take out the vowel. Without the vowel the "word" is not voiced (no vibrations in the vocal cords), so that you get "/p//t/". If you want to yell out your friend's name you wouldn't be able to, as pt doesn't carry without the vowel. It is also difficult to say. Perhaps the ancients were somehow aware that g-d or a consonant only word was more silent, so the experience of pronouncing it would be reverential and personal. Having it be very hard to say would mean that people would not "talk" Yahweh. Just a thought. Or maybe very far out there as I said. --des --des

I think that most likely Hillary is more referring to children who don't have that wonderful social structure that is so needed or in the areas where all children need assistance (outside of the family and church, etc.) for ex. in health care. I also think it is strange that conservatives feel that liberals are the ones that are attackign personal liberty in some way. As someone said, we aren't the ones making laws relating to personal liberties but more worried about the safety net, or lack thereof. If it weren't for the socially restrictive, scary system of social security thousands (perhaps many higher) of elderly people would be living in poverty. --des

Stop IT!!!!!!!! I think that the only way I can ever get these in NM is learn how to make them. (Not likely since I am trying to lower carbs.) OTOH, I'm surprised it was strawberries. I think lingonberries are the tradition. --des