Guns, honesty, fairness, fear...oh my.

I am a person of reflection. When I discover or realize things about myself that I’m not sure I fully understand, as with most things in the world, I tend to investigate. In this case, I wished to find out why I have such a strong emotional reaction to the very notion of “gun control”.

I don’t own any guns. I don’t have any particular desire to own any. I am not a religious nut, I am atheist. I am not a conservatard, but more a libtard....though I try to avoid all herds. I am not a Republican or Libertarian...I am independent with a small ‘i’ and anarchist. I am not a hunter or sport shooter or collector or ‘gun enthusiast’, whatever that means. I think using the Second Amendment as a legal reason to own guns is just stupid. First, no legal reason to own guns for self defense is needed...it is an innate fundamental human right, not susceptible to any laws against it. Second, an honest reading of that Amendment and understanding the time and context in which it was written, tell me that the only reason for the existence of the Amendment was so that citizens (at least wealthy white men) could suppress or overthrow their government by force of arms. That ship sailed as soon as the government had canon and the citizens did not.

I think one reason is that I don’t see it as “gun control” at all but people control. Just as extremists on the right think they have, or should have, sayso in what other consenting adults do to and with each other, who they can marry, whether they can have an abortion, etc., most of the left seems to think they should have sayso about who and whether anyone can can have any guns, what kinds, etc., etc. People being able to buy and own guns harms absolutely no one, ever; any more so than people owning any other kinds of weapons or potential weapons or pressure cookers. Only if a person uses a gun to kill or wound other people without just cause is there a problem. Doing that is illegal in all places in the US, and anyone who does that, whether they had a “legal” gun or not, no matter what kind it may be, will almost certainly be arrested and tried. Unless...

It is pretty close to impossible to punish a dead man for crimes he has committed (as with Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook killer). In that case, it was not even possible to find some way to punish his mother, who had acquired the guns used in a completely legal manner. Lanza had seen to that by already killing his mother as well. I think a great many people come completely unhinged in frustration in such a state of affairs and, seeking “justice” they decide that ALL people who own guns or ever want to have guns should be punished...vicarious atonement.

It astounds me no end that otherwise intelligent people fall into a herdthink with this, and say “gun violence” a lot, as though that were something special. It isn’t. It hardly matters, unless you are very strange indeed, whether your loved one was killed by someone using a gun or by someone using a knife, or hammer, or rock, or pressure cooker. Some people who see the folly of “the banners”, might post tongue-in- cheek things about banning knives; Yes there have been real calls to ban knives or, as I have mentioned, pressure cookers.

I understand the urge to DO SOMETHING when something bad happens. People are simply going to have to learn that shit happens in life and often it is flatly impossible to DO SOMETHING in the way that they mean...to prevent any future thing of that sort from happening again. Life comes with an absolute guarantee that things much like that WILL happen again...you might think people may start to realize this after Columbine and several other school shootings, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Sandy Hook, etc, etc., but the notion never seems to stick somehow. Consider Virginia Tech; One guy comes onto a college campus, shoots and kills 32 people and wounds 17 others in not one but TWO separate attacks two hours apart. That was illegal. Bringing the guns on campus was illegal. Obviously that saved a lot of lives, right?

Even most of the people who would rail about changing gun laws, making it harder for law-abiding people to get guns, would have thought it great had there been an armed police officer in the building at the time this began. They would probably think that the cop would have taken this guy down soon and fewer people would have been killed. This is almost certainly true. But why does it have to be a police officer; if it were legal for those students and faculty WHO WISHED TO DO SO, and who were legally qualified, surely one of them would likewise have taken the shooter down, saving many lives. But so many people seem to think, for some inexplicable reason, that anyone who is not “official” who has a gun would be as bumbling, inept and stupid with the gun as they themselves would probably be.

It seems a huge number of people have a completely irrational fear of guns and of all people who own or carry guns. I remember a story about how in one Starbucks there were two men sitting at a table, both with guns visible on their hips. Some customers claimed they were terrified and left and vowed they would not return unless Starbucks said guns were not allowed in their stores. Did the fearful people know anything at all about the men? For all they knew the men may have been cops...not all cops wear uniforms. The men were doing nothing at all illegal or remotely threatening...to reasonable people. Suppose the men had gone with “concealed carry” instead...they would still have had the guns, they just would not have been readily visible to everyone. As far as I know Starbucks has not changed its policy allowing all persons who wish and are legally allowed to do so to carry guns in their stores. I have never been in a Starbucks and probably never will be (I’m not that rich) but I appreciate the company stance on this.

I find a huge irony in people belittling gun owners as cowardly terrified fools who cling to their guns, while they themselves so often exhibit extremely irrational fear of guns - inanimate objects - and the people who have them. It's bad in schools...little kids are being suspended from school for drawing a sketch of a gun, for having a water pistol, for forming their finger and thumb into the shape of a gun and...really people? Arresting an eighth grader for wearing a t-shirt with NRA and a picture of a gun on it? Should we review that thing about which side of this issue is irrationally paranoid and fearful?

Talk of “gun control” hurts me; my response vacillates between anger and tears. It is placing completely superfluous and unnecessary burdens on me (and every one else) who might want to legally buy a gun sometimes. It feels like a very personal assault on my personal liberty for no sensible reason whatever. It has a Minority Report feel about it, attempting to punish people for possible crimes that have not yet been committed. I vividly remember once in second grade Mrs. Johnson said we were not allowed to chew gum in class. She thought someone had because she found gum on her desk. She didn’t know who, but everyone in class had to sit still in our desks all through recess. I cried because it was not fair to be punished for something someone else did. I still feel that.

Many of my liberal friends tend toward a kind of paganistic outlook and some even quote some version of “An ye harm none, do as ye will”. Why does it seem so hard to apply this notion to people with guns who have never harmed anyone?

I do hope, though am pessimistic, that people can get a grip on reality in this issue and just stay out of the lives and personal affairs of people who own guns - if they have committed no crime - just as you would wish the political right to stay out of the lives and personal affairs of others regarding their sexual orientation, who they want to marry, etc. The urge to control others can become very strong in people sometimes and it is never a good thing and can become an extremely dangerous thing. Just try to chill, ok?

TRB

NOTHING!

I have not read Lawrence Krauss’ book A Universe From Nothing , but I have seen several videos in which he speaks about it and explains the idea. I think virtually all lay readers will not like the notion, nor understand it, and even many fellow professional scientists shake their heads about it. In my opinion, most of this confusion is because Lawrence did not lay out that the “nothing” he means is not truly Nothing at all.

I find it useful to separate Nothing from nothing. We know that Nothing never existed at all because if it did then it still would, and therefore the existence of Something would be utterly impossible. Since Something exists, obviously Nothing never did. But Nothing is not the nothing Lawrence means. Nothing would be absolute..it would contain, not only no matter or energy, but also no quantum fluctuations, no virtual particles popping into and out of existence, no potential of any sort whatever, no time, no boundaries or limitations of any sort.

In the following two hour debate, we see how other scientists, including Neil deGrasse Tyson, have a lot of trouble with Lawrence insisting that “nothing” nonetheless contains potentials, laws of nature, etc.

TRB

Why?

Why is Martin Luther King the ONLY person who has a Federal holiday named after him? The only other “person” in that category is Jesus, and he was probably fictional. We did have presidents, right? What, no one in all of American history is worthy of having his own holiday besides this one man? Why not a scientist? Why not Ben Franklin? Why not George Washington Carver? And by the way, this “nonviolence” preacher (MLK, not Carver) had his own guns for protection...see, neither MLK nor the Pope were/are quite as stupid as those people who really do have religious faith. MLK had his guns and this article says the latest Popemobile “is fitted with 3-inch-thick bulletproof glass and enough Kevlar to outfit a Navy Seals team.” Source. Religious faith...just warms yer cockles, eh?

Why did people think things would be so much better in the country if there were a black President? To be fair, I really can’t say yet, since we have not yet had a black President (the correct term for Mr. Obama is Mulatto). You’re not a racist? But you think things would be better with a black President? Why? I think you’re paying too much attention to the “black” and too little to the “President”. “As a black man who plans to eventually start a family with my white girlfriend, I'm going to tell them that Obama was the first man of color in the White House and that America’s 44th president was biracial.” Source. (Seeing as all Presidents before him were utterly transparent, with no color at all) But it will be oh so much better when we finally have a woman President. I think we should do this....disqualify all future presidential candidates, for at least one election cycle, who are not female, lesbian, Muslim/atheist, black (no Mulattos please), (or possibly Hispanic - whatever that means), who have had an abortion...she would surely fix things, right? Actor/actress, prince/princess, President/Presidentress...why not?

Why do we allow such things as private prisons in the USA? Why do we allow the Supreme Court to say corporations are people? Why do we allow this stuff? Because “we” don’t have a damn thing to say about it, that’s why. Like “we” don’t have anything to say about the fact that tobacco kills over 400,000 Americans every single year...plus costs billions a year in medical costs, lost work time, etc., whereas (lawyers say that sometimes) in more than 5,000 years of documented history no one can produce a single individual who has ever died from smoking marijuana, yet the USA will go to war with other countries to force them to allow tobacco in the “free trade” agreements, but will sentence ordinary Americans to life without parole in one of the private prisons, for marijuana. “When someone is convicted of an offense punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence, the judge must sentence the defendant to the mandatory minimum sentence or to a higher sentence. The judge has no power to sentence the defendant to less time than the mandatory minimum. A prisoner serving an MMS for a federal offense and for most state offenses will not be eligible for parole. Even peaceful marijuana smokers sentenced to "life MMS" must serve a life sentence with no chance of parole.” Source.

Protests? Of COURSE you can protest (as long as you remain inside a Free Speech Zone)...you can also scratch your balls (scratch ‘em if ya got ‘em), or use your dildo (unless you’re in a place where that’s illegal too), and juggle running chain saws, but it won’t change any of those laws. Does it occur to you that there’s a REASON why them folk in the various Congresses are called “lawmakers”....and you ain’t?

The Union 1:44 about marijuana and laws.

TRB

Guns, Freedom and Communication

I am not religious believer - a ‘nut’ or other wise. I am not a ‘right-winger’. I am not paranoid or full of fear. I do not hate any groups of people. I have no desire to hurt or kill anyone. I am not ‘pro-gun’. I am not a gun enthusiast, a ‘sportsman’, ‘outdoorsman’, collector, etc., nor am I a hunter or fisherman. I certainly do not ‘worship guns’. I am not a Limbaugh ‘ditto-head’, nor do I watch Fox News except once in a while....probably much less than I watch MSNBC, CNN, Current TV, and other outlets. I sometimes read right-wing or conservative material online, such as Town Hall and Human Events in the same way I read the left-wing Alternet and The Huffington Post. I do not support the Second Amendment as a reason for private gun ownership. I am not in favor of “states rights”, secession, and I am certain that no group of citizens, no matter how well-armed they may be, could ever have any successful (from their point of view) confrontation with the government. And, I do not own any guns. So... tell me please, just what horrible box will you put me in so that you can justify dismissing my opinions and arguments as merely the rantings of a....what? If this is your modus oprandi, I’m sure you’ll think of something.

If you are a more thoughtful, reflective person than that, perhaps we can talk.

I have friends on Facebook of many different ‘stripes’; conservative, libertarian, liberal-progressive, anarchist, Christian, agnostic, atheist, black, white, hispanic, male, female, gender-neutral, straight, gay, etc. I don’t know of a single one of these people with whom I can’t talk about something, even if we do best to avoid particular topics, since we know each other’s position and that they are not likely to change.

Regarding the so-called ‘gun debate’ in our country, if you care enough to read on, allow me to explain why I totally support the idea of people having the right to own guns. First, as I said, to me, the Second Amendment is totally irrelevant to the issue. I figure that life, all life, has innate within it, a natural right to attempt to defend itself from harm or death to the best of its ability. In the case of modern humans, this is best accomplished in most cases with guns. They are the tools which, in one sense, are the true equalizer; your physical size and strength has little to do with being able to defend yourself with a gun.

We might get into flinging statistics back and forth about how many people are killed with guns, or how often having a gun saved many lives, but these are, at best side issues, with little relevance to the main issue...which is the ability to defend yourself. There are MANY side issues which have little or nothing to do with the main issue...which is the ability to defend yourself. Why does he need a semi-automatic weapon, why does he need a 30-round clip, why does he need a hundred different guns, etc. The bottom line on all such questions is that A) “need" is not the issue and, B)it is simply not your business why he wants them. ‘Should everyone have nukes too’ is an argument ad absurdum, completely off the topic...which is the ability to defend yourself with PERSONAL weapons, not weapons of mass destruction.

There is much insulting vitriol thrown toward all gun owners that they are full of hate and fear; this seems especially ironic to me, since it seems to me most of the people who call for more gun laws have a good deal of hate, for lack of a better word, toward their stereotypes of gun owners, and a fundamentally irrational fear of guns themselves and all people who own them. I read a story sometime back about some customers getting bent out of shape because a couple of men who were also customers in a Starbucks, were openly carrying their weapons. The weapons and their method of carrying them were completely legal. If they had been concealed carry people, no one would have even known....just as they didn’t know how many of the customers had concealed completely illegal guns.

“Guns are made only to kill people”. First, that is only a bias....I can equally say guns are made to protect people; or it is simply incorrect because some guns are made for hunting or sport shooting or for collecting, etc. Also, even if taken at face value that guns are made for killing people, this is NOT a bad thing....some people very much need killing. Such as one who takes a gun into a public place and begins killing innocent people. It’s fine with me if some people have no desire to defend themselves. Pacifists exist (though not for long should an enemy attack them).

There is one question in particular to which I have not yet seen any answer: Why do you think more laws would prevent certain people from having guns? I am dismayed and astounded that so many of my liberal friends seem to think that passing a law against X puts an end to it and we don’t have to worry about it any more. This is just not very rational at all. There are ABUNDANT laws on the books about legal gun ownership, and don’t forget the ones about murder being illegal too, but none of these, so far, seem to have put an end to murder.

Many of the people on the right, certainly not all, think it is their business if gay people can legally get married or women can legally have an abortion. It isn’t. Unless some gay person is trying to force you to marry them, it is simply not your business whether gay people get married or not. Unless some woman is trying to abort YOUR baby against your will, then it is simply not your business whether she has an abortion or not. Likewise, unless someone is trying to force you to have guns in your house or on your person, or unless someone is assaulting you with one, it is simply not your business if someone else wants to own guns. That’s the long and short of it...bottom line. It’s simply not your business. On this, the right-wing sites are correct; it’s seldom ABOUT guns at all, but about control. Unfortunately, the same is true of them re the gay marriage and abortion issues. Could it be that, we might have just a little better national discourse if we all stopped screaming about what other people do, whether we like it or not, as long as they are hurting no one?

TRB

GUNS

This is one of my attempts to write a piece on the whole issue of “guns and gun control” based on reason rather than raw emotion, which seems to pervade most of the “debate”, in this case, especially from the “left” and sometimes from the “right”. This is just my personal reasoned opinion...I will not attempt to cite any statistics or “facts” to support my position, though I will give some links you might use if you have further interest in the subject.

Let’s start with the Second Amendment...for the record, here is the full text of that:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In MY opinion, this amendment has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the “gun debate”, either in favor or against. Here’s why: IF the amendment stated simply, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, it would be flatly and unequivocally a Constitutional right. But it doesn’t say that. It has those two modifying clauses in front. It seems abundantly clear to me, given the time and circumstances in which this was written, that the REASON the Founders had for legally guaranteeing the people the right to bear arms was so that, if necessary, ‘the people’ could rise up in armed revolt against their government and overthrow it. I think that was perfectly sensible at the time, although. even then, it was no cut and dried matter that such a revolt would be successful. After all, cannon had been around a long time by then, it seems obvious that the government, if it wanted, could and would have access to far more cannon than ‘the people’ either individually or in militias would have.

At the very least, by the time nuclear bombs were available, the ship had sailed as far as ‘the people’ being able to militarily resist their government, if the government was determined enough to put down any revolt. By NOW the notion of any successful armed revolt of ‘the people’ against the government is so far beyond absurd it is downright delusional. I very seriously doubt there is any other nation on this planet with ANY chance of defeating the US military machine. Rationally and realistically, there is zero chance of any 'citizens militia’ defeating even civilian law enforcement apparatus (local police, state police, FBI, etc.), never mind anything about the military.

I remember when I first encountered the word ‘freethinker” and found the definition of it given by the FFRF: free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. As a newly minted atheist/freethinker, I embraced this, though there was that niggling thing in the back of my mind that we should be able to remove the “about religion” part to make the whole idea of freely thinking much broader. Sadly, it didn’t take long to find out that many “freethinkers” had interest ONLY in the term as it applied to religion, but not in any other aspect of life. Though I am aware of several atheist and non-religious folk who have a more reasonable view of the “gun debate”, I find it a bit alarming that the majority seem as mired in mindless social dogma on that issue as the “religious nuts” they so excoriate about religious beliefs. One notable exception is Sam Harris.

I find it troubling that so many of the same people who rightly point out many of the ridiculous claims and arguments made in favor of God-belief and religion, cannot seem to see that many of THEIR claims and arguments in the “gun debate” are just as ridiculous and without merit. As Sam Harris puts it in his article The Riddle of the Gun, “I am surrounded by otherwise intelligent people who imagine that the ability to dial 911 is all the protection against violence a sane person ever needs.” I am not in lockstep agreement with Sam Harris, or anyone else, on atheism, guns, or anything else, but so far, I find his arguments on these issues in general remarkably cogent and reasoned.

The issues of guns and gun control are the only ones I know of which have so many of the arguments ad absurdum so often found in religions.

I encourage you to read Sam Harris’s The Riddle Of The Gun, a more eloquent treatment of the issue than mine, from a nationally known liberal atheist...not a “religious gun nut”.

TRB

Religious Beliefs ARE Mental Illness

“Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.” --Richard Dawkins

I have long been fascinated with things like psychology and sociology, learning about the things humans do and, to some extent, the reasons for their thoughts and actions. “Mental Illness” is, of course a vast subject, so much so, that most of us have had some direct personal experience with it in one way or another. Some ‘mental illness’ is very subtle and even the best experts might disagree on whether a particular person doing a particular thing is or isn’t ‘mental illness’. Other things are abundantly obvious to everyone, such as, when a couple allow their child to die from starvation and sickness when plenty of food and medical care were readily available; when some guy ‘snaps’ and cuts off his wife’s head because she has ‘dishonored’ him.

You might notice the examples above are likely to be associated with some kind of religious belief. It is this specific kind of illness that I want to point out in this blog.

Of course, most mental illnesses, whether they have any religious component or not, are not violent. But it is not necessary for delusions to be violent in order to do great harm. Yes, there are many kinds of delusions which have nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs at all. But many do.

I understand religion about as well as one can, I think. I don’t mean all the technical and academic details of theology, hermeneutics, etc., but religion. I was a devout Christian for over thirty years. I believed in God as much as anyone possibly can. I spoke in tongues (yeah, still can of course), felt the spirit of God move in me and around me. I considered it a great privilege to get on my knees and pray fervently to God, thanking Him for all His blessings, and sometimes asking for direction and guidance. I know what it means to “know God” and to talk with God and to listen to his voice. I was a very content Christian, happy with my life, until one night something happened. I stopped believing...almost. Just like that. I say ‘almost’ because I had to think about it for a little while; why was I suddenly terrified that I was going to Hell for turning my back on God, prayed more fervently than ever in my life to God to “help my unbelief”. It took a little thought to realize how goofy it was to be scared of and praying to a critter I didn’t believe existed in the first place. Then I started to grow.

Eventually, I concluded that religious belief is actually a clinical delusion. Not in some smart-ass insulting kind of way, but in the same way that other delusions are delusions. Most delusions are either somewhat or extremely rare. You can find a list of examples here. The DSM-IV is often called the “Bible” of psychiatry, as it is a listing of many various disorders, and illnesses. I cannot say that I was truly surprised, but was very disappointed when I learned that the APA (American Psychiatric Association), or whatever body is in control of the publishing of the DSM, had succumbed to the same greed and corruption as most other such groups. Why?

Because, according to the DSM, a delusion is: A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. ''The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture''.

This is very sad. They inserted a phrase in there that should have never been there: “despite what almost everybody else believes”. The honest definition of a delusion is the rest of the statement, minus that phrase. A delusion is a false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. Why is this sad? Because “what almost everybody else believes” is absolutely and utterly irrelevant to whether or not a given thing is a delusion. Truth is not determined by popularity. It is determined by whether a belief is based upon evidence about external reality.

Freud had it right on this when he said religion was “A system of wishful illusions together with a disavowal of reality, such as we find nowhere else...but in a state of blissful hallucinatory confusion.” Albert Ellis, PhD, said in an interview in 2001, “Spirit and soul is horseshit of the worst sort. Obviously there are no fairies, no Santa Clauses, no spirits. What there is, is human goals and purposes...But a lot of transcendentalists are utter screwballs.”

It should be obvious there are at least two main reasons for the inclusion of that ridiculous phrase about “what everybody believes”. One is that the body responsible for the DSM is not JUST a professional one, but also a political and social one. It would not be politically, socially, or especially financially, prudent to declare that most of the population of the world is deluded, never mind that this is the truth. The other main reason, I suppose, is that a huge percentage, perhaps most, of the “mental health professionals”, are themselves under such delusions. Maybe it’s just me, but I really don’t think a person with an ongoing mental delusion is qualified to be a mental health professional. In the same way that I don't think a believing Baptist minister is qualified to lead an atheist organization.

One of the things that most irks me about my fellow atheists is the idea that religious folk are just dumb and/or uneducated. I always point to Francis Collins who ran the Human Genome Project and is currently director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This is a genuine world class scientist...surely no one would assert that this man is just dumb or uneducated. He is also a Christian and wrote The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

People make mistakes all the time. I do, you do. We might make statements or hold opinions that are not correct. Most of us will modify our opinions if we are presented with actual evidence. This is what distinguishes a delusion from merely being wrong or mistaken about something. There is NO amount of logical reasoning, NO amount of evidence to the contrary, that will convince a delusional person that he is wrong. It is because his delusions are not arrived at through evidence or logical reasoning in the first place, but are based mostly upon emotion and ‘feeling’. This ALWAYS trumps reason in the human mind. Hence we have the world that we do, instead of one that could be vastly better. The Capgras Syndrome is basically when a person becomes convinced that his mother, for example, has been removed and has been replaced by an imposter that looks, sounds and behaves exactly like his mother. It has been discovered that the REASON for this delusion is due to a loss of any emotional connection to his mother within the brain.

Consider the website god is imaginary.com. There is a good deal of information there that most atheists would probably like, MAYBE some that might interest an “on the fence” person, but do you really think a serious Christian or Muslim would be persuaded by any of it? I don’t. It ain’t about reasoning. As Martin Luther correctly noted, “Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason”.

I spent most of my early life in religion of one flavor or another. I saw nothing odd or wrong or ‘out of place’ about it while I was in it. It was “...accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture”, so what could be wrong about it? Nonetheless, it was and is a “shared delusion”, as Richard Dawkins put it, rather than a ‘bizarre delusion’ (such as believing you are Napolean). I have done a great deal of research, especially reading fellow atheists and other skeptics who disagree with the label of ‘delusion’ for religious beliefs. I have yet to find one which disagrees based on the definition of delusion, or based on the content of religious beliefs. It is not good, most say, because religious beliefs provide so much comfort to so many people.

I find this especially troubling, coming from non-believers and skeptics. While I would not argue about the “comfort” question, it is beside the point. The question is whether the beliefs fit the clinical definition of delusion. They do. Period.

By 'religious beliefs’ I mean mostly beliefs in supernatural realms and beings; gods, devils, demons, angels, spirits, fairies, ghosts, heaven, hell, etc. Things like variations of “The Golden Rule”, or “Love your neighbor as yourself” are not religious beliefs, have nothing to do with religion.

I have seen religion destroy people...one example is a guy who is (apparently) a former friend on Facebook who goes all the way back to Myspace. I recently had to leave the ‘Article and Blog-sharing Group’, which Todd started and which I have enjoyed for a long time. Todd used to be an atheist. We’ve had many good discussions over the years, some disagreements, but when we disagreed it was good naturedly. Here is a recent comment from a thread: Wesman Todd Shaw “I find it offensive as a rule whenever someone says "this is rational," or "this is reasonable." I know such comments are nothing but shit, based on shit, and designed to do nothing but be shit.” Is this self-explanatory or what? Martin Luther would be proud. I am sad that I seem to have lost a friend.

TRB

Trust issues...

I'm having them. Hurts.