Beautiful Dreams
There is a crab that has been living inside its shell for its amusement, never daring to poke its head out to show people.
There is a crab that has been living inside its shell for its amusement, never daring to poke its head out to show people. Because it is afraid, afraid to come into contact with others, afraid to meet bad people, and afraid to be hurt. But it is also very eager to see what the outside world is like. One day, it just couldn't resist, and put its head, little by little, coyly poking out. "Wow! The world outside is so beautiful! It's so beautiful, this is the 'world', ah! So the 'world' is so colorful and beautiful." The crab said with emotion. It tried to stretch its neck longer, trying to see further. Just then, from the sky, a small stone fell and hit its head. "Holy crap! I'm scared to death, oooh ............" the crab cried as it quickly retracted its head inside its shell. "I said don't go outside! I say it's scary out there! I said only my shell is the safest, right!" It said to itself. From that day on, the crab never poked its head out again, but inside its shell, it drew beautiful dreams, weaving them with the small "world" it saw for a moment. Day by day, it went on like this.
"Dang! ...... dong! ...... dong! ........." "What is that sound? What's going on? What's going on?" The crab felt his shell being pounded by something. It seemed like it was about to crack. "What to do? What to do? Somebody help me. Oh! My shell, my hard shell. You must hold on! How can I live without you? Without you, where would I be sheltered from the wind and rain, without you my world would not exist. Without you ............" the crab is getting more and more scared and anxious. However, the knocking sound seems to be singing in counterpoint with it knocking more and more powerful. "The shell finally cracked, scattering pieces all over the floor. The thin little body was exposed, the sun on its body so that it is both warm and a sense of pain, the sun is so strong that it can not open its eyes. The sun was so strong that it could not open its eyes. It was also scarier, "How can I live without my shell?" The crab muttered helplessly. At the same time, there were many people around it, looking at it with joking eyes, but also with sympathetic and caring eyes. But in the eyes of the crab, everyone was laughing at it, and the more people stared at it, the more it bound itself up. The more people look at it, the more time passes. The only thing that remains the same is the motionless crab lying there. Maybe there is nothing new, the crowd slowly dispersed. Only the crab left itself Cuan in there.
One day, two days, three days ...... no one looks at the crab anymore, everyone has gotten used to its existence. The crab has slowly adapted to the outside world. It has adapted to the comfortable feeling of being nursed by the sun. It started to stretch itself and even started to stand up and walk. After some more time, it can look at people and talk to them. It could integrate into the real world. It became optimistic and upbeat. It was no longer afraid of this or that. And no longer use that distorted heart to guess the psychology of others. This time, the crab has shed its shell, completely and utterly. On the contrary, it was happy, free, and satisfied. This is something that you can never feel in the shell.
About the Creator
Keep reading
More stories from Mary C Fuentes and writers in Earth and other communities.
Crows and Foxes
People can not only focus on the beauty and ugliness of the exterior, but on your heart, if the person's beautiful heart is not beautiful, it is useless. Because some people are gold and jade outside, but not inside. These truths we can know from the fables. Do you want to come to understand it? The following is the first model to prepare a fable for you to read, for reference only!
By Mary C Fuentes3 years ago in Earth
Supreme Court to Review Monsanto’s Bid for Immunity in Roundup Lawsuits
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review Monsanto’s appeal seeking immunity from lawsuits related to its popular herbicide, Roundup. This decision marks a critical moment for both the company and individuals claiming health damages from the chemical, which contains glyphosate—a substance under scrutiny for potential links to cancer. The review could have wide-reaching implications for corporate accountability, public health, and the legal landscape surrounding chemical products. Background on Roundup and Legal Challenges Roundup, a herbicide produced by Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), has been a staple in agriculture and home gardening for decades. Glyphosate, its active ingredient, was introduced as a highly effective solution for weed control. However, in recent years, scientific studies and lawsuits have raised concerns about its potential carcinogenic effects. Thousands of plaintiffs have claimed that exposure to Roundup caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other health issues. Numerous state and federal courts have seen extensive litigation, with some plaintiffs receiving multimillion-dollar verdicts. Monsanto has consistently defended the product, emphasizing that regulatory agencies worldwide have deemed glyphosate safe when used as directed. Monsanto’s Bid for Immunity Monsanto is appealing for legal immunity, arguing that its use of Roundup was regulated and approved by federal agencies, and therefore the company should not be held liable in civil lawsuits. The company contends that federal oversight should preempt individual claims, a legal doctrine known as federal preemption. In essence, Monsanto is asserting that because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has evaluated and permitted glyphosate use, states or courts should not hold the company personally accountable for alleged harm. Why the Supreme Court’s Review Matters The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case is significant for several reasons: Corporate Accountability: A ruling in favor of Monsanto could strengthen corporate defenses in cases where products are federally regulated, potentially limiting lawsuits against companies producing similar chemicals or pharmaceuticals. Public Health: Plaintiffs and advocacy groups argue that a corporate victory could undermine accountability for harmful products and reduce incentives for companies to rigorously test safety. Legal Precedent: The case could set a nationwide precedent regarding federal preemption, influencing how courts balance regulatory approval with civil liability. The Supreme Court’s interpretation could reshape the legal landscape for product liability and consumer protection in the United States. Stakeholder Perspectives Plaintiffs and Advocacy Groups For those affected by Roundup, the Supreme Court review is a critical opportunity to hold a powerful corporation accountable. Many plaintiffs argue that Monsanto failed to adequately warn users of the potential risks associated with glyphosate exposure. “People shouldn’t have to choose between using a product as intended and risking their health,” says Laura Mitchell, an attorney representing multiple plaintiffs in Roundup lawsuits. “A ruling that shields Monsanto from liability could leave victims without recourse.” Advocacy groups, such as environmental and cancer prevention organizations, emphasize that transparency and accountability are essential, particularly for chemicals widely used in agriculture and landscaping. Monsanto and Bayer Monsanto, now part of Bayer, maintains that Roundup is safe when used according to label instructions. Bayer has publicly stated that legal challenges have cost billions but that the company continues to stand behind its products. The firm argues that courts must respect federal regulatory authority to avoid creating conflicting standards between federal law and state-level lawsuits. “If companies could be held liable despite following federal regulations, it would set a concerning precedent for innovation and regulatory compliance,” a Bayer spokesperson said. Broader Implications The Supreme Court review has implications far beyond Monsanto and Roundup: Agricultural Industry: Glyphosate and similar herbicides are widely used in crop production. Legal outcomes could influence labeling, usage guidelines, and liability risk for other companies in agriculture. Consumer Products: The ruling could affect cases involving pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and other regulated products, particularly when federal agencies approve them. Regulatory Authority vs. Civil Liability: The decision may clarify the balance between federal oversight and state-level tort claims, potentially shaping how courts interpret the limits of corporate immunity. Previous Court Decisions Lower courts have issued mixed rulings in Roundup lawsuits. Some courts awarded substantial damages to plaintiffs, while others limited awards or found in favor of Monsanto. These inconsistent outcomes underscore the complexity of balancing scientific evidence, regulatory approval, and legal responsibility. Federal appeals courts have previously sided with both sides in separate cases, making Supreme Court intervention necessary to establish uniform legal standards nationwide. Public and Media Reaction Media coverage of Monsanto’s legal challenges has been extensive, reflecting public concern over chemical safety and corporate responsibility. Many reports highlight the tension between regulatory approvals and individual health claims, questioning whether federal endorsements automatically protect companies from lawsuits. Public sentiment is divided. Supporters of corporate immunity argue that companies need protection to operate and innovate without fear of excessive litigation. Opponents worry that such immunity could prioritize corporate interests over public health. What to Expect The Supreme Court will now evaluate key questions: Does federal regulatory approval preempt state-level claims of harm? Can companies be held liable even if they followed federal guidelines? How should courts balance scientific uncertainty with civil justice? The decision, expected within the next year or two, will be closely watched by lawyers, plaintiffs, corporations, and advocacy groups alike. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s review of Monsanto’s bid for immunity in Roundup lawsuits represents a landmark moment in American legal history. The case has the potential to redefine corporate liability, influence public health policy, and set precedent for future disputes involving federally regulated products. For plaintiffs, the stakes are deeply personal—seeking justice for alleged health impacts caused by widespread chemical exposure. For Monsanto and other corporations, the outcome could determine the limits of accountability in a regulated marketplace. As the Supreme Court deliberates, the nation watches closely, recognizing that the ruling will resonate far beyond Monsanto, affecting consumers, companies, and the broader debate over safety, regulation, and responsibility in the United States.
By Muhammad Hassan3 days ago in Earth
Oil Well Abandonment Services: Responsible Closure for Long-Term Environmental Safety
Oil and gas production is only one chapter in the life of a well. When extraction ends, what happens next is just as important as the energy once produced. Oil well abandonment services ensure that inactive wells are closed in a safe, controlled, and permanent manner, preventing environmental damage and protecting surrounding land for future use. 🌍
By andersenintusabout 15 hours ago in Earth
My New Book is Finally Here
My poetry collection Beautiful and Brutal Things is done. It's actually done and finally published over 270 pages. Over a year of my life went into this book. More than a year, really. Long days at my computer, sometimes seven days a week because I couldn't stop even when I probably should have. Then two months of editing that felt harder than the writing itself. But it's finished, and I'm still standing, and the book is real.
By Tim Carmichael3 days ago in BookClub
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.