BETTER LATE THAN NEVER!

Several actors who portrayed the 'Marlboro Man' have died of smoking-related diseases: Wayne McLaren died of lung cancer in 1992 and David McLean died of emphysema in 1995. McLaren became an outspoken anti-smoking activist in the years preceding his death. According to his mother, his last words were, “Take care of the children. Tobacco will kill you, and I am living proof of it.”

Another in the series is Eric Lawson who died in his home in San Luis Obispo, California a couple of weeks ago (to be exact, on 10th January). He portrayed the iconic rugged Marlboro Man in cigarette ads during the late 70's. He died of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)- a disease that makes it  progressively harder to breathe over time- which is primarily caused by cigarette smoking.
I too smoked for more than 25 years- almost 50 a day but stopped about 10 years ago.
DON"T TOUCH TOBACCO MUST BE THE RULE: STILL, BETTER LATE THAN NEVER! 
Thanks.

Change

Monday was the 114th anniversary of John Ruskin's death (20th January). You would remember him as the leading English art critic of the Victorian era who famously said, "Our duty is to preserve what the past has had to say for itself, and to say for ourselves what shall be true for the future". On his wedding night, legend has it, the critic fainted on finding that- unlike the Elysian statues of his fantasies- women had body hair. Its time to change rotten ideas for innovation starts with a natural distrust of the status quo. When you’re prepared to start asking simple questions of everyday things- the world is suddenly full of possibilities.

Too Radical an Approach in the Indian Context?

In Bellevue, Washington, students at Eastside Catholic School responded to the dismissal of their beloved teacher and coach by pouring en masse into the street outside the school, where they chanted, “Change the church!” Students at other Catholic schools responded with tweets and solidarity sit-ins. Those students who stood in the cold chanting “Change the Church” can be seen as naïve idealists who don’t understand how religion works and why. Alternately, they can be seen as people whose eyes aren’t clouded by the veil of history, who are free to trust their own sense of compassion and fairness and draw hope from the future rather than from some idealized past.
But changing the Church is easier said than done. Religion, by its very nature, is change-averse. Each religion explains and sanctifies a specific set of cultural values; a worldview that is snapshot of human history. Most of today’s largest religions emerged during what is called the Axial Age- a time in which male superiority was taken for granted, the wheelbarrow was yet to be invented, nobody knew about the other side of the planet. But why do churches so often have to be forced to admit what has become obvious on the outside: that slavery is wrong, that no skin color or bloodline is spiritually superior, that women and children are people and not merchandise, that the pleasure and pain of other species matter and so on... Christians see themselves as a light shining on a hill, meaning a moral beacon to the world; and the faithful love to say that they have taken the lead in humanity’s moral growth: in the abolition of slavery, for example. Indeed many great abolitionists were inspired, in part, by their faith though reality is that Christian texts and teachings had been used for centuries to justify slavery and the Christian abolition movement emerged only in concert with broader cultural and economic changes. A perusal of history reveals that moral and spiritual changes occur independent of any religion to which religions later lend voice, organizational structure and moral authority while claiming for the entire credit. Thanks.

Hey, don't be too smart.

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free,”- Goethe.
One could say that intelligence is a combination of wisdom, good judgment, logical dexterity and factual knowledge and by definition a man can't have too much of it. I'd like to agree, though I'm an exception to the rule. And I fear it is already too late to reclaim the word 'intelligence' from this well-rounded cognitive amalgam as it now encompasses IQ, EQ and the more dubious spiritual and environmental varieties.

Our brains are incredible things, for sure, but without the motivations, desires and preferences generated by our animal instinct, they would have nothing to do. At this time of the year, for example, we celebrate good food, good drink, good friends, and family – good or otherwise. From a purely rational point of view, none of these things would have any value because reason alone can only distinguish true and false: not good and bad; better or worse.

Lack of intelligence is much more a common problem than having too much of it. But, even intelligence shall not be excessive: just because something is good, it does not mean 'the more, the merrier'.
Hey, don't be too smart!
Thanks.