Ruby's scrap blog

Poem from a woman to a porn-addicted man. After reading it, I wondered: What is porn-addiction? What is sex-addiction, in any form? Maybe I have that too?  Maybe porn itself ( at least in its current form ) is an addiction in se! It's so widespread and sex is used everywhere today. Mostly for selfish purposes. I resent it, but it's everywhere! I' don't think I'm influenced (much) by commercials -I even start to hate certain labels and companies because of the commercial- but I am influenced by sexy pictures and women! I don't want it (though something in me wants it obviously). At the same time it clashes with that theory, I believe(d) in, namely that (some kind of) porn makes some part of the unlucky male population less agressive and less otherwise unhappy.  I always believed that, and still do..kind of (Cfr. Japan) But even then, isn't it going too far? Anyone knows the movement " ' fight the new drug '" ? I didn't, until now. I

Moon, ...giant leap for mankind. Mankind, ...not even crescent for humanity.

If speech is silver and silence is gold ... Then listening must be diamond!

I can't help myself but thinking I wrote something nice.  Is this narcissistic or is sharing a good thing? You tell me. This was a reaction on this article about (Star Wars) the "Force" at CERN: "CERN researchers confirm existence of the Force" My reaction: They are playing with the dark side. One day it will cost us all! (Both joke and not joke.) Non joke explanation, sci-fi style (Ode to Asimov & Clarke): Triljards of years from now, the race that finally became enlightened dug back in the past. In the past before several Bing Bangs happened. In the past were several universes evolved, but never became enlightened. In the past were all universes were destroyed and banged again. After long debate and hundreds of years of research, they finally discovered that Big Bangs -except the first one maybe, before which they could never gain any information- was nothing more than experiments from scientists trying to dig and dig, by the same natura

In a Dutch program about useless jobs and money and new politics , there was a woman who said that the richest contribute the most in a country. I'm so sick of that argument and the fact that nobody seems to be able to give the counterargument to that, that I will give one here, in numbers no less! So, let's take a rich and a poor person. The rich person earns ten times as much as the poor person. And lets assume that the average tax income for that level of rich is 40% and that level of poor 5%. Rich person earns €12.000 per month. Tax: 40% Money to state:  € 4.800 Poor person earns € 1.200 per month. Tax 5% Money to state:  €60 So, clearly, the rich contribute much more than the poor!  Wrong!   Why? Let's take a look from the standpoint of the persons and let's not forget about how much is needed to survive or rather live a "minimal-normal" life. To have a normal life with not too much problems (food, shelter, cellular, etc..) I throw an