The past is a great teacher. We can learn from our mistakes.

The past is also a demanding creditor. It can have power over our thoughts.

Look backwards only to learn, and savor fond memories. Look forward only to write new and better stories. Live in the moment, because now is the only time that we can effect change.

Or, in the words of the great Satchel Paige, "Don't look back, something might be gaining on you."

If you mean mind games... well, I don't. But I sense that most of those games come out of insecurity and a need to be in control. A few people display psychopathy of sociopathy.

Me... give me Dungeons and Dragons. I'd rather inflict pain and suffering on imaginary orcs and stone golems.

I'm not responsible for my thoughts I the first ten seconds of wakefulness because it isn't wakefulness.

First thought: boobs.
Second thought: gotta pee.

I've been the foreman on three different juries. The evidence is not held to be beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is only beyond any REASONABLE doubt. On two of those juries, I had to deal with a juror who was basing their vote oon their feelings, not on the evidence ans testimony presented.

In one of the cases, the accused was being tried for driving under the influence of alcohol AND for driving with a blood alcohol level in excess of .1 percent, which was the standard before 1990. He had failed the field sobriety test, couldn't walk a straight line. Plus his own testimony pics having his passenger looking back at each freeway entrance ramp for entering vehicles, and his admission of how much he had consumed ans the distancw he intended to drive indicated his intent to drive under the influence. The officer's testimony of the driver's impairment sealed the conviction inn that count.

Based on the testimony of the prosecution's expert witness on the administration of BAC tests ans the effects of alcohol consumption on BAC, plus the testimony of the accused about the quantity and time of consumption, I constructed a graph showing the probable maximum BAC from the time the accused began drinking until the BAC test was administered. It agreed perfectly with the test result showing that the accused had a BAC of .11 percent. We would have convicted on the second count...but there was one flaw in the case. The two evidentiary documents provided by the prosecution showed that the arrest was made at 1:35 a.m., but the BAC test was administered at 2:07 a.m. Again based on all the testimony, the graph I constructed showed that the accused wad highly unlikely to have had a BAC higher than .08 percent. That constituted reasonable doubt. We acquitted on the second count. When I read the verdicts to the court, both the prosecutor and the defense attorney turned and stated with their jaws agape. I met with them in the hallway afterward ans explained why we had returned one guilty verdict ans one not guilty verdict. Ana they both agreed that there were flaws in each of their cases.

SO...why does the criminal justice system sometimes seem to go awry, as it did a few days ago in the case of the murder of Kate Steinle? It can be difficult to say. The defendant will serve no time for the senseless death of a wonderful and innocent young woman in the prime of her life. But in that courtroom and jury room, the evidence must not have eliminated reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors that the defendant had taken any criminal action to kill miss Steinle. And I think that tragedies such as this are why we are exercising our opinions inn this forum.

That age difference might not man anything. In my case, I'm 65. I have adult daughters who are 29 and 31. Do you think I'm going to want a relationship with someone who is 25?

I spend a goodly amount of time and energy crafting a profile to attract the right women and repel the wrong ones. And guess what? Most women aren't reading even my location and age! Come on! You really think I'm going to want you if you don't meet my minimum qualifications?