Lately I’ve encountered a surprising number of people in public who seemed to be talking to themselves. Often when this happens, I assume these folks are talking to me, so I respond in some way as polite custom dictates, only to be ignored—or to receive a disapproving glance for having invaded someone’s privacy bubble. Usually by this point I would realize the person was talking on a cell phone or similar electronic device, and I would feel like a fool.
I first apprehended the potentially adverse social consequences of personal electronic devices in, appropriately, 1984. I was attending Humboldt State University, and I noticed a classmate wearing Walkman headphones day after day and commented in class that he seemed to be using them to tune the rest of us out. For me this was the beginning of what I now see as a deleterious trend that is getting so much worse than I initially anticipated.
In the 1990s I boarded a train in Taiwan and got a preview of the cell phone madness that would soon afflict the States. Bizarre sounds began to erupt all over the car—ringing, buzzing, beeping, Beethoven. These noises would happen, and there would be several people engaging in solo conversation, often in loud and sometimes angry voices. Acknowledging cultural relativity, I unsuccessfully resisted the feeling that imposing one’s personal conversation on others is a bit churlish.
I use kratom for inoperable back pain and have been successfully using it to reduce need for synthetic opiates like hydrocodone. I was hoping to quit Norco completely, but my problem is pain, not addiction. Kratom seemed to be a safe, reasonable alternative–finally! So this imperious pronouncement by DEA represents a real setback.
I thought the authorities wanted people to reduce their use of narcotics. It’s a laudable goal, but this prohibition of kratom would have an effect counter to the one they intend. Certain states that have banned kratom, for example, already have shown an uptick use of heroin and other opioids. Please consider!
This move is short-sighted, unethical, certainly undemocratic, and just plain mean, frankly. I hope this is a trial balloon by DEA, but we need to pop it. Haven’t we learned anything from blanket prohibitions? Kratom has a history thousands of years old. It does NOT get you “high” as usually understood and is not very addictive as far as I can tell. It is in no way of the class of drugs typified by “bath salts.” At least permit study of this wonderful plant.
Please, let’s pursue a rational course and allow room for study and ‘sober’ reflection before creating a new class of instant criminals.
By Shawn Hamilton Lately I’ve encountered a surprising number of people in public who seemed to be talking to themselves. Often when this happens, I assume these folks are talking to me, so I respond in some way as polite custom dictates, only to be ignored–or to receive a disapproving glance for having invaded […]
This roughly two-minute video is GRAPHIC but not gratuitous. The intent is to make people more aware of the dangers of phone fog. It might save one or someone you know. Kindly proceed with that understanding.
Here’s one that should make JREF* devotees froth at the mouth! We at The Swill Bucket generally keep comments closed to avoid cognitive infiltrators–and sesquipedalian misanthropes–but we thought it would be compassionate (even humorous) to give JREF advocates a chance to vent and hurl crude epithets at the authors –or people and ideas associated with them–in JREFrs’ distinct style of rabid verbal attack they somehow equate with intellectual discourse. However, I expect your typical JREF adherent won’t make it past the first paragraph anyway.
* (James Randi Educational Forum: http://web.randi.org/)
Study Suggests Conspiracy Theorists Are More Positive & Reasonable Compared To Conventional Thinkers
“A case study examining online commenting trends was performed by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent that revealed so called 「conspiracy theorists」 are actually more reasonable & sensible than those who are considered conventionalists.
Not that long ago, practically anyone who thought outside of the box, questioned the official stories, or did any type of investigation into certain subjects was labeled a ‘conspiracy theorist.’ In fact, many of these people, including the majority of the writers here at Collective Evolution, are still considered conspiracy theorists by many even though the goal is simply to examine or verify the truth of something.”
The terms “conspiracy theorist” and “conspiracy nut” are used frequently to discredit a perceived adversary using emotional rather than logical appeals. It’s important for the sake of true argument that we define the term “conspiracy” and use it appropriately, not as an ad hominem attack on someone whose point of view we don’t share.
According to my Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, the word “conspiracy” derives from the Latin “conspirare,” which means literally “to breathe together” in the sense of agreeing to commit a crime. The primary definition is “planning and acting together secretly, especially for a harmful or unlawful purpose, such as murder or treason.”
It was in this sense that Mark Twain astutely observed, “A conspiracy is nothing but a secret agreement of a number of men for the pursuance of policies which they dare not admit in public.”