Interesting Stuff About Movies

Interesting Stuff About Movies

No, despite what many believe, Thomas Edison did not invent the movie projector. He “bought” invention rights.

The first celluloid roll film came into being at the hand of Episcopalian minister Hannibal Goodwin, of Newark, New Jersey, USA. His great idea didn’t go far because he couldn’t figure out what to do with it.

Edison’s company developed the first movie camera, the Kinetograph, which had the ability to make use of Goodwin’s invention, in 1891. But the company and Edison himself still could not project images from the film so that a mass audience could see them. They tried to invent a machine to play back what had been recorded on film, but had no success.

Being the enterprising fellow he was, Edison bought the manufacturing rights to a machine called the Vitascope. An interesting clause to the deal gave Edison the right to claim that he had invented it. By the way, Edison didn’t invent the light bulb either, he just took someone else’s invention and developed a commercially viable bulb.

The Vitascope and its successors found a ready market at fairs and certain commercial establishments where customers lined up to pay to peer into a visor device where they could see the first early movies, still without sound. To make what customers saw more attractive, the movies often included what were known at the time as “cooch” dancers, creating what thereafter was known as a “peep show,” as peeping Toms watched scantily clad women strut their stuff.

Another film loop (the projectors didn’t need a projectionist–the films were short, from 30 seconds to three minutes) showed the reenactment of the execution by decapitation of Mary Queen of Scots, arguably the first horror film.

Peep shows on the Kinetoscopes in movie parlours ended in 1908 after complaints in New York City about indecency. Having developed a taste for seeing women without their bustles and long dresses, the Peeping Toms moved elsewhere, thus providing another example where politically correct advocates caused laws to pass which resulted in development of an industry of Blue Movies. We know them today as porn movies.

Sound came along later with a film short showing two men dancing as creator William Kennedy Laurie Dickson played a violin. Dickson synchronized the sound with the film, arguably creating the first sound movie. The first widely recognized “talkie” came three decades later with a full length feature, The Jazz Singer, starring Al Jolson in a 1925 Broadway musical released on film in 1927. George Jessel had signed to play the role until he learned he would have to sing on film. The “talkies” ended Jessel’s film career the way it ended other silent movie careers of such greats as Rudolf Valentino.

Sound movies required so many different sounds not required in live theatre that new techniques had to be devised to have some sounds simulate other sounds. Radio, the most popular entertainment of the day, benefited from sound effects as well for their dramas. Need the sound of crunchy snow? A boot pushed into ice layered with corn starch did the trick. Flapping leather gloves provided the sound of birds in flight.

Sound effects people had no end of tricks for creating the illusions they needed. A horror movie needing a human head being squished had the sound man squashing the frozen head of lettuce behind the scenes. Sometimes a sound effect worked simply because it went with the visual presentation and viewers believed what they wanted to believe. How many coconuts died in the cause of making the sound of galloping horses in cowboy films?

Some sounds need the real thing as no substitutes work. People talking in crowds, for example. “Walla” is the term for crowd murmur. A few people standing well back from a microphone, each saying “walla, walla, walla,” sounds like a crowd. So does repetition of “rhubarb.” However, this is not as simple as it sounds. People must say their own “walla, walla, walla” at a different rate than everyone else or it turns into a chant. People naturally synchronize their voices with those of others, given the chance, resulting in a choir-like chant of “walla, walla, walla.”

Of course black and white film came first, with the much more expensive colour film only becoming popular when movie budgets became much larger. One early attempt at colour simulation, Kinemacolor, had a black and white movie played through rotating green and red filters. As artificial as it sounds, remember that people’s brains will fill in the blanks or correct what they believe are errors in their own visual clues coming from their eyes.

Film creators have become masters of illusion. In The Ten Commandments, for example, movie makers filmed water pouring into a huge tank, then reversed the film to give the effect of the waters of the Red Sea parting for Moses. With digital effects, more illusion than ever is possible. In The American President, for example, the scene with the Michael Douglas character entering the House of Representatives to deliver the State of the Union address showed the president shaking hands with members of Congress. The scene was shot with extras in place, clapping with the arrival of their leader, then the faces of the extras were replaced digitally with the faces of real congressmen. Crowd scenes and battle scenes can be shot with a handful of real people.

Some things about modern movies can be a tad too real. When the movie Earthquake, with bone-rattling Sensurround, premiered the seats shook so much that one patron cracked a rib.

Shaking may not be the worst thing in a movie theatre. Pick yourself up a large popcorn with butter and you could pack in 1,600 calories in a single serving. Diet cola with its heavy dose of aspartame (its long term effects on disease risk and possible genetic impact are under study) may not be the best choice of beverage.

Action films often depend on fire scenes (cars loaded with gasoline exploded, buildings bombed) for effect. For stunt actors, fire protection can be a chilly job. They coat their skin first with a fire retardant gel–a chilling experience in itself–then add layers of Nomex underwear saturated with the same gel. The top layer consists of flammable rubber cement (they have to appear to burn, remember).

Fire scenes are usually shot in as few takes as possible. The risk of getting singed by flames all over their bodies aside, inhaling rubber cement fumes ranks right up there with the most unhealthy parts of their job.

Funny things happen in making movies. At least they’re funny after the problems are solved. In Jaws, for example, the mechanical shark did its own share of acting up. At one point its hydraulics had rusted so badly from the salt water that director Stephen Spielberg had to adapt quickly or waste a fortune on lost time. He chose to shoot the remaining shark scenes from the shark’s point of view.

Four enterprising young Canadians aspiring to be film moguls had great ideas for the IMAX concept, but insufficient cash. After inviting Japanese investors to a meeting in their “offices,” they quickly rented office space, furnished it in classy style with rented stuff, then entertained as if they had everything they needed. it worked. The Japanese wanted in. Fuji Bank bankrolled the whole venture.

Then the boys had to put their ideas to the test. They created a system with film ten times the size of 35 mm celluloid and camera(s) and projectors to boot, enough to fill a screen six stories high. With a screen that curves around the sides slightly, IMAX movie goers quite rightly have the feeling of being “in the movie.”

The IMAX projector weighs as much as a male hippo, costs about $5 million. It’s bulb is so bright that if pointed toward the sky it could be seen by astronauts and cosmonauts on the International Space Station.

Speaking of the ISS, what sorts of movies do they have for the viewing pleasure of the space dwellers and their $10 million a shot civilian visitors? As you might expect, Apollo 13 and Armageddon are available. Around the World in 80 Days as well.

And So I Married an Axe Murderer too. Do we really want to know who chose that one?

Bill Allin
Turning It Around: Causes and Cures for Today’s Epidemic Social Problems, a guidebook for parents and teachers who want to know what kids need to learn and when, not just what ivory tower curriculum writers think teachers should teach.
Learn more at

[Primary source: Discover, June 2009]


Censorship Drives Perversion

Censorship drives perversion. Always and everywhere. When we drive sex out of the mainstream we guarantee that all sex is, by definition, deviant.
– Chris, of Atomic Cinema,

While I don’t necessarily agree with the whole of the thinking of the author of this quote, I agree with the observation made in it.

The problem we have, aside from the stunted and psychologically backward thinking of those who want to bury anything to do with sex in a public sense, is the expression of sex in our public media.

In movies or television programs–ones rated for a general audience–sexual intercourse is portrayed in ways that may be titillating and provocative, but would be impractical and insulting in the real world of our personal lives. In a soap opera, for example, two people rip each other’s clothes off to engage in coitus as quickly as possible so that the act doesn’t take up too much time in a half hour of programming that amounts to 22 minutes of show.

Ripping each other’s clothes off amounts psychologically to mutually agreed upon rape. It’s a way to release accumulated hormones. It allows nothing for gentleness, for caress, for the buildup of interest by each person for the other, for the tenderness that makes sex the wonderful experience it is rather than a few moments of climax.

It certain says nothing about love, which is seldom portrayed in a genuine way. Television and movies teach sex, not love.

Our visual media show two people about to engage in sex as hunter and prey. Sometimes it’s hard to distinguish which is which because both want to be the hunter and the hunted.

I have not done a careful study, but my impression is that of all the people we could see engaging in sex on television over the period of one day, most are oversexed, sexually repressed and/or promiscuous. If that’s what narrow minded people want to drive into obscurity, I applaud them.

Sex sells, so the saying goes. So sex is used to sell TV drama, comedies, music shows, even sometimes the news as well as products in commercials.

I don’t have a problem with that, in principle. The problem I have is that adolescents growing into adults who want to take their place as sexually healthy members of society use movies and television as their main sources of information about sex. That is unhealthy.

In practice, we need to give our young adults information about sex in the form they most prefer it, visually. Porn doesn’t satisfy that need, but it’s used as a substitute for visual information about sex because better information is hard to find.

Nothing improves by driving a publicly popular habit into the position of being illegal. If the problem is lack of good visual information about sex, then those who complain about bad sex in the media should encourage film makers to produce something good. Until they receive encouragement to produce good stuff, they will continue to grind out crap that appeals to the lowest common denominator, which is why most television networks have lost audience and movies have become more extreme in the first place. Not enough people demand better of the producers.

When we produce television programs and movies that best suit perverts–in terms of matching wants with product produced–while not providing better material for the majority, we get visual products that deserve to be driven from the marketplace.

Censorship is not the answer. Except for the lazy people who want to do nothing more than to control the behaviour of others by harping and bitching.

Our visual media produce little that we can be proud of as a society. Let’s tell them we want to be proud, not embarrassed.

Bill Allin
Turning It Around: Causes and Cures for Today’s Epidemic Social Problems, a guidebook for teachers and parents who want to grow emotionally and sexually healthy children for tomorrow’s world.
Learn more at

Why Your Teachers Were Likely Wrong

Censorship drives perversion. Always and everywhere. When we drive sex out of the mainstream we guarantee that all sex is, by definition, deviant.
– Chris, of Atomic Cinema,

Moral issues, more than any other, bring out the mysterious and contradictory parts of human nature. The topic of sex ranks up with the top contenders as best example.

First of all, most of whatever morality each of us has was not born with us. What we were born with–what almost all of us humans have in common–is what we call ethics: what’s right, what’s wrong. Most ethics that travelled into us with our genetic heritage has to do with survival of our own species. Most of that dates back to prehistory.

We don’t allow murder because with such small numbers as our species had in its early years, with so many predators and so little natural protection, we needed as many of us around to defend each other from attack and other forms of danger as we could possibly find.

We don’t allow stealing from each other–though some cultures consider it sharing if it’s for food or protection–because our basic possessions were part of our ability to survive in a harsh world.

We don’t allow cheating each other because that breaks any possibilities for trust. Survival depended on trusting each other. Even today we enter into marriage, new jobs and mortgages believing that we can trust those we have agreed to associate our lives with.

We look after our young, our elderly and those who can’t fend for themselves because each plays a role in the ultimate story of survival of our species and has throughout our existence as a species.

We learn morality mostly from our parents but also from our other family members, our teachers, our community associations and our peers. For example, ethically we disapprove of cheating, but morally we have a paradox if the cheating is on a spouse or someone to whom we have pledged our family allegiance. Nature, through our hormones, tells us that we should spread our DNA as widely as possible, meaning that we should have sex with as many members of the opposite sex as we feel is advantageous to that cause. Nature also tells us that we should contribute to and take responsibility for raising any young that those sexual unions produce.

Morality tells us that if we have agreed to be responsible for any young resulting from a marriage, we should also be prepared to commit ourselves monogamously to one mate. Why do we believe that? Because we have been taught that since childhood. That, it seems, is sufficient for most of us to remain monogamous with our spouses and to ostracize or otherwise punish those who insist upon following only those two dictates of nature–spread your DNA and look after the young you produce. That morality was learned, it’s not natural.

While ethics tells us that we must not murder our own kind, morality dictates that we must pay a penalty for doing that wrong. Even those who believe that people who commit the sin of murder will pay the consequences after death–usually in hell–insist that the sinner must also pay as high a penalty as possible here on earth. Paradox or not, that is how morality works. Morality never pretends to make sense. It only insists that rules someone else made must be followed because they were to taught to us as children. “It’s the way it has always been,” whether that be true or not.

Morality says that sex and public displays of sexuality are deviant and sinful. Why? Because we have been taught that these are examples of debauchery, the beginning of the end of respectability. Respectability, of course, is also taught. It varies from one time period to another and between cultures.

Public examples of sex (such as in the cinema) and sexuality will destroy us, so the lessons that we are taught go. These lessons are taught most vociferously by religions whose leaders intend to control the behaviour of their followers. The easiest way to do that is to make some things that come to us naturally, sinful. No examples exist of history or studies showing that a culture was destroyed because it descended into chaos as a result of public sex and sexuality.

Moral forces insist that prostitution is wrong and that prostitutes and their clients should be punished. The best example that this teaching is wrong is in The Netherlands where prostitution was made legal and controlled for health factors, then cases of rape dropped dramatically. And permanently, as their records show.

Prostitution, sex movies, internet pornography and phone sex provide solutions for those whose natural sexual needs are not or cannot be met by whatever associations people have with their intimate partners (if any). Nature tells us through our hormones that sex is right and normal, only the forces of morality–bigots with white jackets and self designed haloes–say that sex is wrong, must be hidden, must be denied (even if sexual perversions take place in private among them).

Does this mean that we should allow our communities to become modern day Sodoms and Gomorrahs? No. We can avoid that happening by simply teaching our young people about sex instead of trying to hide it while they learn about sex from people who have something to gain from teaching them the wrong lessons. Wherever parents fail to teach their children in a timely fashion the lessons the young ones need, others will be there to help the kids into some real perversion, usually through lies and with selfish motives.

Sex is natural. Get over it. Moreover, if you believe that something relating to sex is wrong, teach it to your children. At the same time, teach them how to accommodate themselves around their natural desires and the community need to maintain certain levels of safety (such as by using condoms) and practicality (don’t have unprotected sex if you can’t take responsibility for children you conceive). Kids want to learn about life lessons. It’s what they know inherently they should do.

Masturbation may be a poor substitute for sexual intercourse with someone you love, but there is no valid reason to say it’s wrong. Is it any more right to tell kids that they might not be able to have children when they become full adults or that hair will grow on the palms of their hands if they masturbate–to lie–than to let them release their pentup hormone-based emotional confusion so they can get on with more socially acceptable activities?

We only have censorship because we don’t teach our children what is right and wrong and trust them to do what is right. Those forces that purvey activities and products that we believe are morally wrong only do so because we fail to teach our children what is right and wrong and why the wrong things are harmful to themselves and to society. The purveyors of anti-social products and activities satisfy the needs created by the failure of parents to do the most important job they were put on earth to do: teach their children life lessons.

Deviance happens not because so many bad people want to warp the minds and bodies of members of society. Deviance happens because the good people of that society fail to do what they should to ensure the safe continuance of our species into the next generations.

Teach the children. Preaching to the adults seldom works in the short term, never works over a long period of time.

Bill Allin
Turning It Around: Causes and Cures for Today’s Epidemic Social Problems, a guidebook for parents and teachers who want to teach their children what is both ethically and practically right and wrong before they turn to those with ulterior motives to find answers we don’t want them to receive.
Learn more at

The Night The Moon Will Appear Square

Those who understand only what can be explained understand very little.
Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach, Austrian writer of psychological novels (1830-1916)

We live in a world molded to a great extent by both science and economics. They don’t control our moment to moment existence, but they form the framework around which we tend to build our belief system.

For example, science creates a drug and physicians (some of whom derive a commission by prescribing that drug) prescribe it, while the patients accept that taking the prescribed drug must be necessary as the only way to heal because a respected professional recommended it. We believe because we trust the source, or think we must.

Almost every major newscast on radio and television includes a stock market report even though its content bears extremely little on everyone but a few who may be listening. However, many listeners will believe that the rise or fall of the share price for Microsoft or Exxon has some magical effect on something that influences their lives, somewhere.

Scientists and economists, indeed all people in the traditional professions, work with factors they can understand and manipulate (or could if they had the power). The scientific method (hypothesis, testing, conclusion) depends on the users having factors they understand and can work with (“massage” in the case of economists). What they don’t understand, they can’t manipulate, thus isn’t important.

That extends to what isn’t important to them–as they have so much influence on our lives–being considered as non-existent or unimportant to us. In fact, some people claim the inability to prove the existence of God using scientific method as evidence, even as proof, that God does not exist.

That thinking is an easy sell for people who believe that science has the answers (proofs) and for those who understand just how much fraud has been perpetrated on simple minded people over the past millennia of human history.

Just as the fact that because someone robbed a bank means that banks are unsafe places to save our money cannot be accepted as valid by most people, the perpetration of fraudulent “facts” and imagined history on people who will not take the trouble to investigate for themselves should not make anyone believe that God does not exist. Even if science searches for evidence of God, but in places where God has no interest, though people have made fantastic claims about God working in these ways, that does not prove that God does not exist.

The article is not about the existence of God, but about how easily people’s minds and belief sets can be influenced by convincing arguments made by determined people.

If I were to tell you that our moon will appear as a square rather than as its usual disk on August 1, a considerable number of people would make a point of checking out the sky on that date. Because they believe the moon will appear square? No, because they believe me as someone with authority on one subject, so I might have expertise in another. How many predictions of Armageddon go unfulfilled each year around the world, despite the fact that many people prepared for the Final Event in each case?

In the investment business there is a saying that “If it sounds too good to be true, it likely is.” That should apply to what we believe as well.

Asking followers to “just believe” or to “have faith” that something that sounds unbelievable is real or true should be a tipoff that a fraud is in progress. Or at least a distortion of reality. Though there are many examples of this in religions, more happen every day in television commercials, in unsolicited mail in our mail boxes and email inboxes, even in movie promos that precede the feature we went to watch.

Those who understand only what can be explained not only understand very little, as our Austrian writer stated, it’s more important for us to know that they may not be capable of understanding more than they can manipulate in their minds. They form beliefs based on what they can and cannot manipulate with their minds.

Let’s take a common example that has been foisted on us for decades. Science fiction movies have made us believe that if “aliens” came to earth from a distant planet, they would almost certainly want to harm us, to obliterate us. According to these movies, the only viable action we should take is to destroy them as soon and as completely as possible.

Other movies have humans travelling through space to other planets and approaching them in peace, with the objectives to make contact, to share and to help them if we can.

Apparently in the movie business only humans are civilized enough to travel with peaceful intentions. Peace, just like here on earth, right?

Those two possible scenarios have been repeated dozens of times in movies, even though together they are not just hypocritical, they are absurd. Yet one of our major forms of entertainment perpetrates this absurdity on us again and again. We go in peace, everyone else comes to destroy us. We find enemies not just on earth, but we invent them in space.

If Moses or Jesus of Nazareth or the great prophet of Islam were to return to earth today, how long would they last before they were killed in some manner or another? Half the people alive in the world today purport to believe in these people and to follow their ways and their words (which differ very little, except in ritual). You can be certain that one of the “believers” would be the murderer, not someone who doesn’t believe in that person in the first place.

Do we really believe that peace is possible in the world? Our media don’t present us that way. Should the real heroes not be those who can bring peace where none existed before, not those who can defeat one invented enemy after another? Which is the greater accomplishment, bringing peace or making war? Heroes should save lives, not destroy them.

If we will ever make sense of a world that is trying to twist our minds into knots, we need to teach children how to think critically and to not be bamboozled by frauds, charlatans and propagandists. We could never teach the older ones, the adults, because they already believe what they have been told to believe.

Beliefs are at the centre of the life of every human. Everyone accepts that we need to teach beliefs to children. I propose that we need to teach how to distinguish among that fraudulent claims made by many people and many sources about what we should believe. The only way that could succeed would be to teach children before their minds get tangled, twisted, molded.

That change would not be hard to enact. But we can’t expect schools to change themselves because teachers get paid to teach what is on the curriculum and teachers rarely have the final say about what goes on the curriculum.

Talk about it.

Bill Allin
Turning It Around: Causes and Cures for Today’s Epidemic Social Problems, a guidebook for parents and teachers who want to grow children who can avoid becoming automatons, products of corporate interests.
Learn more at

Do You Know Who’s Bending Your Mind?

By the age of six the average child will have completed the basic American
education. … From television, the child will have learned how to pick a
lock, commit a fairly elaborate bank holdup, prevent wetness all day long,
get the laundry twice as white, and kill people with a variety of
sophisticated armaments.
– Russell Baker, columnist and author (b.1925)

Could Baker possibly be right? Is it that easy? Surely making contact with people who could facilitate any of the illegal situations he mentioned would prevent most people from even considering the acts as possibilities.

Children six years old can find people who will sell them marijuana and other drugs, right outside of their schools in some cases.

Anyone who knows how to use the internet can contact someone who will provide them with anything. Of course you, who are reading this, would not likely search for a web site that offers plans to make a dirty bomb, or access to fissionable materials, or war weapons of any description. You don’t want those things, so you assume that no one else does either, other than very bad people.

You may even assume that web sites that offer free education within a warm brotherly group of people who will support the joiner every step of the way (perhaps until the person ignites the explosives strapped to his or her chest) are monitored by government agencies somewhere. And they are. Some. But new ones come into existence every day.

No law enforcement agency can act to indict until they gather enough evidence to prosecute the perpetrators and put them behind bars. How often do you hear of that happening? Rarely, if ever? Yet there are dozens of sites waiting to “help” people out there. (A majority of suicide bombers are rural young people who go to the city and find thsemselves lonely, without jobs or friends.)

Russell Baker was only partly right about television being the primary source for “basic American education.” What the television also purveys is propaganda (called advertising) designed to help people fall into a dependent lifestyle where they believe they need various kinds of products to make them beautiful or young, or at least to smell good all day long.

Television has nothing on the internet as a source for information and even products that most of us would call totally anti-social.

In general, what we call terrorists gather together into cults based on contacts they make over the internet. Criminals source whatever materials they need without having to see the supplier using the internet. Charitable organizations find people willing to contribute to worthy causes on the internet, though the organizations themselves may be bankers for terrorist organizations.

Organized crime gangs are the source for most of the spam we receive in our email inboxes. Yes, that same spam that takes so much of your time to delete. Yes, including the young girls who are bored and want to talk to lonely men by email: “Here’s my email address!” Write so I can learn that yours is a valid address. Yes, the same outfits that send heart wrenching messages with cutesy graphics that ask you to forward it to everyone you know (and, by the way, never remove the email addresses that came with them because those emails call home to the gangs with all those addresses).

Does that mean we should close down the internet entirely and return to a simpler time? It couldn’t happen. For one thing, the very organized crime gangs that send the spam and gather personal information have enough money to bribe enough politicians and bureaucrats to prevent the internet from being closed down.

Should we have a new version of the internet that is monitored by authorities to ensure that nothing bad is available to people? A new form of internet is coming, but it won’t have those safeguards. The bad guys will cry “invasion of privacy” and “loss of our constitutional freedoms” in the media and in advertising so no future internet will ever be safe. They will get good people they can dupe to do the crying job for them.

I get very little spam on my computer. I could count on my fingers the number of times it gets hit with viruses, spyware or malware. Why? Because I know what to expect from the internet and I avoid the kinds of activities that will cause me grief.

Can everyone’s computer be as free of viruses, malware, spam, trojans and disk-destroying codes as mine? Yes. That would require everyone to learn what I know and what others who operate their computers safely on the internet know.

Having everyone know that much requires our education systems to teach this information. It requires parents to encourage school boards to put it in their curriculum. Parents will never know enough and will never be able to keep up with advancements in technology (including rogue computer code) so it would have to be taught in classrooms.

That’s not likely to happen either. Our culture teaches us not to take responsibility for anyone but ourselves. And maybe our children, which some do obsessively, making the kids permanently paranoid. Look at the number of people who daily harm their own health with tobacco, drugs, alcohol, lack of exercise and self-adopted stress to see that many people don’t even look after their own best interests.

Don’t expect those people to help you change school curriculum. Or to change anything.

When was the last time someone consulted you about what should be placed on the curriculum of the schools in your area? Likely never. A few people make decisions like those with very little input from outside, even from politicians.

Find out who makes the major decisions within your local school system, your department or ministry of education. Propose these ideas at political meetings where politicians meet the people, such as before elections. Speak to the leaders of Home and School associations in your area. These people can all work behind the scenes to make changes happen.

Don’t go to the head of the local elected school board or the director of the local school system. These people effectively have no influence over curriculum decisions. They will listen to you, then ignore your requests.

Curriculum change is a political issue, not an education issue. If you want change, you must act in a political way. Acting in a reasonable way with well reasoned arguments with the wrong people (those who don’t matter) will gain you nothing but frustration.

It doesn’t require a revolution to change school curriculum. It requires people to talk about the subject they want changed, and talk and talk until enough people know about the need for change that the decision makers in the back rooms decide it’s a good idea.

Change is hard, which is why school curriculum changes very little over long periods of time (though its methods of presentation change). Talking is easy.

So talk. Tell others you talk to to spread the word around as well.

Bill Allin
Turning It Around: Causes and Cures for Today’s Epidemic Social Problems, a guidebook for parents and teachers who want to grow children who won’t be naive victims of bad guys who sound really good on the television or over the internet.
Learn more at