LSD doesn't kill people. But Ergot fungus can

Ergot fungus, what LSD is made from, has killed people over the centuries. It grows on Rye and it prevalent in very wet, rainy seasons. If it gets into the food supply, typically through bread type food, it can cause hallucinations. It starts with heartburn, stomach cramps and fever chills, move into hallucinations and end in death or severe damage to the intestinal tract.

A few decades ago, I read a Life magazine article about a French town, Pont St. Esprit, that had allegedly and inadvertently eaten the Ergot fungus and had purportedly gotten into the towns bread supply.

Art by Marvin Hayes

It was an interesting tale. It told of one person who didn't feel well and tried to ride his bike home and didn't make it, of a little girl at home who saw blood dripping from the ceiling in her bedroom (not unusual, the blood motif), and others who had what was to them, horrible hallucinations. However, the Life article did not go into the detail I am hearing now. It was more like a lark in the spring, or a scary nightmare. But people died.

Recently however, it has been alleged that it may have been done by the CIA. The Life article said this happens there about once every 50 years, as I remember it. I suspect myself however that it actually was ergot fungus poisoning.

LSD is made from, among other things, Ergot fungus that grows on Rye wheat. It can also be found naturally in things like Morning Glory seeds, and Baby Hawaiian Woodrose seeds. Ergot has been used in migraine headache medicine now for decades.

I could not find the Life Magazine article that I had read in the 1970s and I do not know what year the magazine was from though it looked rather new. However, I did find information on it in a wikipedia article and the new show on Science channel, "Dark Matter: Twisted but True", with actor John Noble as its host. He plays "Walter" the spaced out Brilliant Scientist on "Fringe" who had been involved in every dark project ever done, it would seem, before he was put into an asylum [don't get me wrong, I love that show and I'm sure Anna Torv has nothing to do with it, or her alternate character from the other, "Earth"].

I did however, find an article from Time Magazine from Monday, September 10, 1951. The article said that it started with a few calls about intestinal and fever issues. It grew quickly, within hours the town's homes were being turned into virtual mini hospitals.

At that point, says the article:

"That night the first man died in convulsions. Later, two men who had seemed to be recovering dashed through the narrow streets shouting that enemies were after them. A small boy tried to throttle his mother. Gendarmes went from house to house, collecting pieces of the deadly bread to be sent to Marseille for analysis. Among the stricken, delirium rose: patients thrashed wildly on their beds, screaming that red flowers were blossoming from their bodies, that their heads had turned to molten lead. Pont-Saint-Esprit's hospital reported four attempts at suicide."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,815355,00.html#ixzz1ZZFVj1tn

That article ends with:

"In the Middle Ages, growing uncontrolled in wet summers, ergot was no such helpful friend. The disease was called "St. Anthony's Fire," and raged periodically through Europe. Monastic chroniclers wrote of agonizing burning sensations, of feet and hands blackened like charcoal, of vomiting, convulsions and death. Whole villages were driven mad. That, in effect, was what had happened to Pont-Saint-Esprit in 1951."

According to the Wikipedia article on it:

"In his 2009 book, A Terrible Mistake, journalist Hank P. Albarelli Jr alleges that the CIA tested the use of LSD on the population of Pont-Saint-Esprit as part of its MKULTRA biological weapons program and that Frank Olson's involvement in and knowledge of the operation is linked to his suspicious death. Albarelli says he has found a top secret report issued in 1949 by the research director of the Edgewood Arsenal, where many US government LSD experiments were carried out, which states that the army should do everything possible to launch "field experiments" using the drug.

"Using Freedom of Information legislation, he also got hold of another CIA report from 1954. In it a representative from a Swiss chemical company, Sandoz Chemicals, which was close to Pont-Saint-Esprit and produced LSD is reported to have said, "The Pont-Saint-Esprit 'secret' is that it was not the bread at all... It was not grain ergot." According to Albarelli's thesis, the Pont-Saint-Esprit incident was intended as a precursor to a similar experiment scheduled to take place in the New York City subway system. Albarelli states that Sandoz Laboratories was covertly producing LSD for the CIA at the time and that Sandoz scientists falsely pointed the finger at ergot or mercury.

"Steven Kaplan has dismissed Albarelli's claims as conspiracy theory. Kaplan criticized the theory as inconsistent with both the event's timeline and the clinical manifestations of the poisoning, calling media coverage of Albarelli's book ethically dubious. Kaplan claimed that the CIA's interest in the incident was neither a surprise nor a secret, and that Project MKULTRA would have had little interest in conducting uncontrolled experiments.

"Kaplan's critics counter that uncontrolled experiments were the norm under the CIA's MKULTRA program.

"On 23 August 2010, UK's BBC Radio 4 broadcast an investigation by journalist Mike Thompson in which residents of the town, Albarelli, and multiple academics, were all interviewed. Thompson's piece covered the victims' experiences, their treatment at the time, the similarities and differences between ergot and LSD, the feasibility of overseas CIA trials, documentary evidence that 'field trials' had been recommended and that Pont Saint Esprit operative Frank Olson had been mentioned in Whitehouse documents with instructions to "bury" the information. After becoming aware of Albarelli's investigation, an 87 year old resident volunteered information that she and a local doctor believed that ergot could not have been the cause. Their view was based upon the doctor's fingertip-only contact with the contaminant, which allegedly resulted in three days' difficulty in speaking. Since LSD is destroyed at baking temperatures, Albarelli posited that the LSD may have been added to the bread after baking."


When examining the published account of the symptoms in the British Medical Journal from September 15, 1951, it does not sound like LSD at all, but rather Ergot poisoning. Ergot is a kind of fungus, like a mushroom.

LSD does not cause extremities to turn black, does not give you intestinal damage, or kill you. As far as I know, the only recorded incidence of direct death from LSD ingestion was an elephant. As was once typical, they would give an elephant LSD to initiate its procreative tendencies. The individuals performing the procedure miscalculated the amount to give the subject and rather than weigh out an appropriate ratio for the elephant's brain weight, calculated instead its body weight and once it was administered, the subject rolled over and died, its brain effectively "fried".

LSD doesn't directly kill you. But Ergot, can.

I can speak from experience that LSD does not give the kids of effects indicated in the medical journals that these people experienced in that poor affected township in France. However, in ingesting hallucinagenic fungus, you certainly can get a range of those symptoms as described in the medical journals at the time and if it is the wrong kind of fungus (i.e., not a good digestible type), you very well could see intestinal damage, hemorrhaging in pregnant women, or death.

If the CIA did indeed give LSD to this village, then they would have had to include the Ergot fungus, perhaps as a cover. It's been reported that LSD, through the baking process, would destroy it. Then I'm not sure how the Ergot has affected people all these centuries, with other than the physical ailments described. Unless it is by the flour being around the breads that were cooked. Reportedly, in some instances not much bread was ingested for the affects to be seen. At this point, that is rather hard to know.

But in looking at the gross affect, we can deduce that Ergot was definitely involved. Whether the CIA was involved, no one can say. Although, Albarelli has claimed to have found CIA documents indicating as much, as well as an alleged plot to affect subways in New York City.

The CIA's project MKULTRA has been documented as having done some very strange things. But I have my doubts as to whether this incident was one of them. If it was, the experiment was so flawed and defective in its execution that its results would have been far less than useful in any productive way and border only on the criminal and deranged.

How much would you pay to talk to Spock, back in the day?

My cousin Sheryl turned me on to the JRR Tolkiin's, The Hobbit when I was in 10^th grade. She went to another school and was a year behind me, separated by three months in our ages. I read it, and not surprisingly, I loved it!

Then I read LOR, Lord of the Rings. I didn’t so much love it as I had expected Bilbo, not this jerk nephew of his, Frodo. Also, the writing was different. It was harsher, more grown up; it wasn’t a cute kids tale anymore. People died! Important people.

It was hard starting The Hobbit, too. I should admit that. It was too much like a little kids tale. But it grows on you. But by the end of the first book I was a fan of the trilogy. In fact, I because a Tolkien-phile. I read everything of his I could get my hands on. I looked him up. To this day I have a collector's edition of the Trilogy with a hand written page in them indicating all of Tolkein's awards and academic achievements.

But what does this have to do with Spock?

For years, I thought trilogy was pronounced triology. The only other mistake of that magnitued I made back then was that I thought Leonard Nimoy's name was Nimory. What a mental midget.

A few years before I read the Trilogy, my little brother by five years, Kim, and I got to talk to Nimoy when he and Shatner were in Seattle for the Jerry Lewis Telethon in the late 60s. We wanted to talk to Capt. Kirk. He was after all, "The Man" (or "The Captain" if you prefer). And so we waited on the phone for forty minutes! It was long distance and my brother and I, both breathless, and our mom, all waited on different phone extensions.

Finally the phone guy who answered the phone at the Telethon said, "You know, Mr. Shatner is just too much in demand. It's going to be hard to get him online. Everyone wants to talk to him. Would you like to talk to  Leonard Nimoy, Spock", instead?"

Our mom, knowing this was costing us maybe as much as the little she was going to pledge, convinced us to talk to Nimoy. We were a bit crushed. We said okay, but we were a bit disappointed. Then we realized, were going to get to talk to Spock!

So he gets on the phone and says, "Hello boys, how are you doing?"

I'll never forget it. That Nimoy/Spock voice. Amazing. We were on the phone with Spock! Hearing his voice locked up our own voice/brain/life and no one said a word. Finally our Mom said, "I think the boys are in shock. Say something boys. Mr. Nimoy is busy. Talk to him."

Nimoy just chuckled. I'm sure he was used to it by now. So he just stated talking, getting us finally to and tentatively speak to him. We talked to him for a few minutes and then he thanked us for our pledge and mom talked to him for a second; and then... it was over.

Later, when we got the phone bill, our mom almost had a heart attack. She said maybe there is a way around this. So she called the phone company and complained at there being a forty minute long-distance bill to the Telethon.

She called the phone company and reasoned with them, "Why in the world would we call and talk for forty minutes when all we were doing was to  call to make a quick pledge"

That sounded rational to the operator. So they removed the charge from the bill and we got a free forty minute phone call to Seattle to talk to Spock, for free. She thought that was cooler than our getting to talk to Leonard Nimoy and would mention it from time to time. She had gotten one over on "Ma Bell"!

Later we were pretty proud of ourselves too, as by the end of the series, Spock had somehow become the hero and we wanted to see him in every scene. Kirk was still cool too, though. But from what he has said, Spock becoming so popular annoyed him too. As he put it, he was hired to be the star, not Nimoy! But Kirk would always be my screen dad. I had a few of those back then. But where Kirk was a surrogate father figure, as he was for the entire crew of the Enterprise, Spock was my surrogate. I wanted to be Spock, to be like him. Emotionless, analytical.

It was some years later when my mom, annoyed with something I said, as I was being cool, detached and calculating, and probably accurate, she said: "You think like a machine. It's like talking to, to... Spock, or something."

I was so proud.

In later years however, after the military, while I was getting a degree in Psychology, I realized being emotionless wasn't all it was cracked up to be. "Bones", Dr. McCoy on Star Trek, had a point, as did Kirk in their arguments with Spock. And it was something that Spock noticed on screen, too. Human emotions, when handled properly, went a long way toward making good decisions, in addition to being strickly analytical.

And so I came up with my belief that I needed to follow my mind, but allow that to be governed by my heart. To follow only one, or the other, has landed me in problems time and time again. But a proper consideration by both, always seemed to give me the best answer to my problems.

Well, to wrap this all up, I will end this article with this, also from 1968, Leonard Nimoy doing:

"The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins".

"Live long, and prosper."

Update: $10,000 from Amazon Studios?

A while back I was considering submitting a screenplay or two, to Amazon Studios. But then I read some very negative things about them and decided not to submit anything to them. Not until they got their act together and became more screenwriter friendly. However as of April of this year, they seem to have made some changes that altered my view on them.

These two articles by Mark Violi helped to clarify things and I thought you might find them useful if you are considering AS. His Part One and Part Two articles on Amazon Studios, gleamed from his own experiences in submitting to them, has given us some insight to AS in both their old and knew format.

So now I am thinking about submitting something. Maybe a couple of somethings. They lock you up for forty-five days if you submit something. I have a couple of screenplays now with Inktip.com, on their site and in their catalog that goes out to studios, producers, etc. I'm not much of one for "pitching" a concept or film to anyone so I'm at a disadvantage to those other extroverts out there who are into it. The concept of having to "pitch" to someone, just annoys the crap out of me. I would much prefer to simply write.

But this has been an issue for some years now. If you want to be a writer, you can't just be a writer anymore. Now you have to become that extrovert. You have to meet the public, pitch to producers, becomes exactly what most writers aren't, public figures. We tend to write in quiet secluded environments where we feel most creative. But then when you have finished a project, you seem to need to be ripped from the womb to be put into the public domain and abuse arena. Yay! Lucky us.

Of course there will always be the exceptions to the rule, but you'd probably better be some kind of idiot savant, or literary genius for people to put up with that kind of reclusive behavior.

I've also over the years, submitted my works to other sites, Ben Afflack and Matt Damon's Project Greenlight, and Kevin Spacey's TriggerStreet.com, where you are being evaluated by your peers in a quid pro quo situation. You review others' screenplays and they do yours. But I spent an entire year rewriting my Ahriman screenplay nine times and finally quit because I realized that I had gotten so far beyond the original mark / concept that I was shooting for, that I needed to go back to the basics. It was such a shock of realization after so much work, that I didn't write much for two years after that. So be careful about peer reviews from peers who aren't already professionals and actively in the biz.

After that, I'm a bit careful about signing up to any of these things. Even though I monitor the free newsletter from InkTip.com it still took me years to publish on them, just to see what happens and not really expecting much more than the experience. For that so far, it's been entertaining.

I've been on Moviebytes.com for years and have gotten more from their free posting then from any other site. Because of my being listed on their free site, I have gotten two screenplay adaptation gigs (Dark of kNight and Sealed in Lies), and because of that connection I have gotten into two Horror anthologies in 2010 for charity (The Undead Nation Anthology for Cancer Research and Rhonny Reaper's Creature Features for Diabetes Research), ended up getting a few ebooks out (the popular and free on Smashwords, the popular and free ebook Simon's Beautiful Thought, Andrew, a novella that sets the stage for my first real book) and two books of my own published (Anthology of Evil a collection of my short Horror fiction, and my first real book and latest endeavor, Death of Heaven). The paperbacks are also available in ebook formats on Amazon and Smashwords.

So now I should consider submitting something to Amazon Studios. Right? The consideration of a $10,000 option extension payment that those on the Development side get, is worth at least considering. Of course getting that is a far cry from simply posting your screenplay on there. Still, if you are considering it, give Mark's blog a read through and then make up your own mind. But before you do....

[Update June 5, 2012] Before you run off to submit your screenplay to Amazon Studios, check out this blog piece by John August called, "Amazon Studios and the Free Option", that I just ran across from June 1, 2012. He's referring to Chip Street's article where he decides not to take the Amazon deal: "Amazon Studios and the Free Option".

So there we are, back in the morass of digital confusion and possibly obfuscation. If you do decide to submit, well, best of luck to you! For me now, I may find that my procrastination in putting things off may have been a lucky break. Or maybe not. How much do the issues that John and Chip really matter to a new screenwriter? If Amazon even mentions your name in connection with the videos J & C refer to, maybe that makes it worth it to you; if Amazon does, mention your name that is.

The point here isn't that you should submit or that you shouldn't submit. Rather it is that you do or don't with an informed decision, before you act (or don't act). All I can do is offer the information and wish you, the best of luck.[End update]

How much help, is enough?

How much help is enough? Just to make this easier to digest, let's consider the civilian side of this for now....

It has nothing to do with me, in speaking of another. We don’t charge our kids for raising them. But as children, we can feel we owe something. Maybe you see the word “owe” differently than I do. But I think we see things the same.

I see that I owe this planet, I owe my ancestors and my descendants, I owe my children and I owe my parents, my teachers. I owe them my thanks, my appreciation, my help when I can give it. It can go to a level of whatever I have if they need it, maybe even more, if they truly need it; but when it gets to where they aren’t just receiving but they begin to try and take, or they just take and expect; if they make me unhappy or miserable or worse for my helping them, then any owing to them that I had felt, begins to cheapen, fade and disappear.

The more aggressive they become, the faster it fades. It never really gets into anything negative on my side. It shouldn’t, there is no need and it’s a waste of energy. And when others are sucking you dry, you shouldn’t waste any more energy on them at all, once the decision is made, that’s it, you’re done. Move on. Otherwise you start playing a game with them, doing a dance; the negative ones thrives on that and they have to be cut off.

But there is no need for ill feelings really, they have a personality disorder, an incorrect way to view life, or a sociological disorder, whatever. They are needy and cannot take care of themselves. People can change (maybe) and we should give them a chance to, but we should also be intelligent about our observations and actions toward them and trust ourselves.

If they truly cannot help themselves and fight against help anyone other than you, well, that’s your personal decision to continue, but it is also your right to choose to get them help, or leave, or suffer helping them till they die and that may BE the best decision though it may not even seem like it at the time. But again, you have to trust yourself and make a decision. You then have to acclimate to it so that you can let it go in the future and simply not let it kill you. If you are getting depressed and would kill yourself, surely that is a reason to change things and there are degrees of that, surely; but at some point, you make must the judgment and then act upon it.

There are some things in life where there simply are no easy decisions to make. Yet just still, a decision. So, make it. Live with it. Be well.

Death of Heaven - JZ Murdock Big Horror now available in paper!

Finally! My book "Death of Heaven" is now on Amazon as a trade paperback! I'm very pleased to now have it available in this format.

Please feel free to visit DeathOfHeaven.com for more on this book as well as more interesting graphics by cover artist, Marvin Hayes! Thanks also to Cal Miller of Zilyon Publishing!

Death of Heaven is the story of two guys, Jimmy and James, who have been best buds since childhood. At one point they suffered a horrific event, destroying James' family. He moves in with Jimmy's family and they go through school together. After High School, they get a job together but then drift off from one another for some years. That, is when their lives get interesting. But not as interesting as it gets once they hook back up together.

Jimmy ends up going into the military and then special ops for the government. James just beats around through life until something extraordinary happens, leaving him a wreck. At that point they get together again by way of James' therapist. He is quite a wreck so Jimmy invites him to move in with him for a while, just until he can get things together again.

They hold up together in Jimmy's home while they piece together just what in the Hell is going on. Jimmy has a big decision to make. Is James insane? For that matter, is Jimmy? Eventually they come to find that Life, their World, in fact, all of History is not what Humankind has always believed it to be. God, Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Joseph Smith even, are who the are, or were, for reasons entirely different than what we have been lead to believe. Very possibly the end of the world as we know it, is about to break out across the world.

What these two friends then discover, aside from the true History of the Earth and its situation, is that something massive is about to happen. Something that will either maintain the status quo, or change the entire Universe forever!

Is this the Death of Heaven? Will the Earth survive?

Voting to legalize Gay marriage should be illegal

Of course we should not vote for Gay marriage!

But... why? Because it is a rule of law issue, not morality; a consideration of constitutionality. NOT Public Opinion. Either it is a right that people deserve to get, or it's not. But this country was founded on the principle of pursuit of happiness and the right of the minority being equal to the majority without prosecution of opinion by groups or church, against other church or groups.

Why is it that a country founded upon the principle of not persecuting people because of their religious choices has turned into a country using religion as a reason to persecute people?

So no, we should not vote on or be allowed to vote on, gay marriage. Either they can have it under the law and it should then be granted, or it is illegal under the law and it should not. But Sam and George, or Sally and Jane, should not marry because Joe Bob at First Christian thinks it's wrong. That is what should be illegal, not Gay marriage.

Otherwise, what are we doing here?

What happened to religious freedom anyway? And how come religious polygamy is illegal? I would argue because there has been too many men in a hierarchical religious setting who ruled the roost and pressed women into mental (and let's not forget, sexual) slavery. That's illegal because it's too easy for it to happen. So yes, that should be illegal. Hmmm sounds reminiscent of Islam too doesn't it?

But in a typically male dominated religious setting where God is the leader, it's pretty oppressive to women if they would rather be doing something else. They don't get a choice where the foundation of the principles are male dominated. And it can be insidious. So to protect women, it would seem, polygamy needs to be illegal; as an institutional consideration. But there is also probably tax reasons behind it, too. Would it somehow shelter too many from paying too little in taxes? Or is that negligible and to be no concern? But we have a lot of tax issues that are a big deal when in reality they will only supply a small deal in money.

But this type of thing has nothing to do with the situation of Gay marriage. Considering how badly "straight", religious types have screwed up in institution of marriage, don't you think they really have little or no leg to stand on in keeping marriage to themselves. When you look at people like Newt Gingrich and how badly he has abused marriage, what right does he have to be speaking out? Pompous idiocy, really is all I'm seeing from people wanting their thirty seconds of fame. All I see in this argument about marriage and sanctity are big egos by those in power and those who shout loud enough to be given a platform in the media from which to eschew total nonsense.

So no, we should have no voting for or against Gay marriage. It is NOT a religious matter. Give it up either way on rule of Law. And guess what? There is nothing saying that I can find that is saying no to it. Only, yes.

If you don't like it, move to Iran. Or some other country that enforces the rule of religion. Myself, I'm not a masochist. I like my freedoms, what little I still have left in the land of opportunity and "freedom".

As I said, if this truly is "America the Free", then Gay marriage is either legal or not under the Constitution. Joe Bob down the street at your local church should not have a say in an other's lifestyle if it is not harming anyone else and is simply who that person is, and they aren't breaking any laws. Any constitutionally supported laws that is. 

Remember "Jim Crow"? Remember religious persecution? How is it the reason the pilgrims moved to America, those who had oppressed them in their home country, any different than what Christians are now doing to others outside their realm of magical and superstitious beliefs? I mean, it really points out how bad religions are bad for America. 

Should we ban them? Do they have precedence and allowability just because they've always been allowed, and burdened by the public? My country really annoys me anymore. Too many ignorants have been given the bully pulpit to spew nonsense and separatism. 

America should be a melting pot (yes, yes or a mixed (tossed?) salad, whatever) but we've turned into country of pigeonholes for a vocal minority who don't even want to belong in the same pigeonhole cabinet. As "good Christians" they really should be ashamed of themselves. "Turn the other cheek". What a bunch of nonsense. If you're not going to practice your beliefs then shut up. 

Shouldn't we be more focused to helping those not of our lifestyles to adhere to the values and principles that your religions profess? Those of community, relationship, bonding, family, love and children? There are always going to be those who live differently than you do. Better to find a way to help them become more like the positive qualities in your beliefs, than force them outside into the wilderness to go whatever other direction you still haven't considered, so that in the end, things become far worse than your efforts have already spawned. Spawn love. Don't be a hater. It's actually Human nature to be promiscuous, that's why religion set standards in the first place.


Who would you rather have move in next door to you? A Gay couple who are promiscuous and single? Or a Gay couple who have publicly committed themselves to each other and at least practice to have a committed and monogamous relationship? After all, can they really do any worse than straight couples have for millinea.

Censorship?

Censorship is there to protect people. The question is, do people need protecting? Are people that morally or intellectually weak or uneducated that they need protecting? And who decides who the protectors are? Once decided, who decides what is too much censorship? The need for protection only comes in as necessary by the uneducated or the religious. I think the rating system in movies has been very handy in that people who care, can moderate their intake of concepts and orientations.

The comments about Casablanca are well taken. It is perhaps my favorite film. But you are delusional if you think that back when it came out, it wasn't as racy as bare-breasts and swearing is now. it's allusions to Bergman having had sex with Bogey are really less powerful than having shown it more as they would do now?

Yes, I think it was classier how they did it. But the meaning is still there. The intent and corruption is still there. But was she corrupt in having sex with Rick, in order to save her husband, someone needed by the resistance and the world? Or was it a sacrifice and a noble thing for her to please Rick to save her husband? Even if you don't read it that way, she was leaving with him. Was it only out of love for Rick, or a noble sacrifice of salvation? there is a lot of pseudo science on the claims of what the "f" word has done to society, conjecture and self belief in what you want to believe. Maybe it's true, maybe not. But certainly not something to base needing censorship upon.

Do you read a scene where there is coarse behavior and language (coarse to whom?) when it would be there in reality, or do you read a scene that is censored so that it is an unrealistic portrayal of such a scene? Does that cripple a society in thinking they are reading a accurate portrayal of a situation? Do we as a society and as individuals want to be informed in realty or delusional in our assumption that we have an accurate view of real life through the filter of censorship?

Censorship always takes the path of eventually overstepping necessary limits. The film industry in acquiescing voluntarily to the Hayes Office led to fear of the Hayes office and some ridiculous self censorship at times. Did they turn out good films regardless? Yes, there were some great films. Did it lead the country down a somewhat delusional path and did that lead to things like the 60s? No doubt it did. Is it better to fear (censor) media than not? Shouldn't censorship come from the individual, not an umbrella organization? Should you censor yourself as an author?

There are free citizens who do not want censorship. In a "free" society, do we take that freedom away from them because an entity or group thinks it should be? If we freely censor can we guide society down a path that can come back on us in a negative way? Do we want a society that is fundamentalist Christian? Or Muslim, a group who censor images of their Prophet, as well as women's faces and bodies, and behavior? Is that not enough censorship, not enough control and we need more?

Censorship has been warned about for decade after decade and still it raises its ugly serpentine neck from time to time. But always from the members of the same groups. What we need isn't censorship, but a way for those desiring freedom to maintain that which is guaranteed by the constitution; but also a way for those who are concerned about their mental, emotional, spiritual "garden" from being polluted with "weed" thoughts and conceptual blight. Or genre that only those concerned with such things can go to for their style of entertainment and enlightenment.

But we have to remember this is a country of diverse beliefs and they all have the right to be here if legal under the law of the land.

I swear a little, sometimes, but I attune it to my audience if any. Meaning most the time, I speak G rated, but my concepts are more sophisticated. The young, uneducated usually don't follow if I feel like swearing and think it's inappropriate. Besides a HS teacher of mine told us once that someone who swears every other word, or uses things like "ya know" are being lazy and wasting people's time taking up more words to speak. Never lying, never swearing, I think makes one more intelligent because you have to be more clever to have the same impact (if not more).

I do love General Audience, "G" rated material in comedy, in films, etc., if of good quality; they have to be well done after all. But there is also too much "G" rated pablum around. Still, I do prefer it. Of course, I love the other end of the spectrum, too. I like quality in all its senses. But to censor is to eliminate some of the things that need to use "questionable" words and situations in order to show them, to know about them, to experience them, to be aware of them. Sometimes you just have to take the good with the bad, however you define them.

Knowledge after all, is power and knowing about things is just another step toward making them better. I much prefer having my eyes open rather than shut, remaining ignorant. There is a reason why we have freedom of speech in this country. Once you start curtailing it, you begin that ride on the downward slope of losing that freedom. And so, the only step to take is to allow it.

Censorship simply is not the way to go.