Bottom line on Sam Harris' objectionable comments on torture and killing people for their beliefs, it seems abundantly clear that Harris is on the wrong side in his thinking there. However, he's fully in line with many people who support such things in the U.S. (including the current US Pres and the previous one, both of which have supported "enhanced interrogation" techniques, rendition, etc., with much of this only increasing in recent years), none of which is justifiable in my view. That being said, I do separate his thinking in these areas from his thinking regarding the specifics of god-belief vs atheism or related philosophical concerns. On the latter I find him articulate and thoughtful. On the former I strongly disagree. I could say the same thing of Bill Maher and a number of public figures who speak out on issues. The important thing we should learn as exmos is to avoid putting anyone on a pedestal who we look to in some general or universal way for guidance; everyone's flawed and we need to be careful not to put people up as gurus/prophets/etc even in the secular realm.

American foreign policy is, and has been, largely a clusterfuck for decades. Fine. Having said that, there are bad people who do bad things in the world, Sam Harris wrote an angry book, he did not issue a fatwa saying all women should wear Burkas, he did not call for the death of a cartoonist who drew Allah, he did not demand the death of Salman Rushdie for a fiction book, he does not hang gay men in the streets of Tehran, he does not gang rape women in the name of Allah in the streets of Cairo during protests, he does not publicly execute people for sorcery in the park. I know, it has nothing to do with religion, right? "The End of Faith" is a far more insidious danger.

For me, Harris' philosophical views are far more problematic than his political views. Although at times I find him mildly interesting, his views are rarely if ever new, and often poorly reasoned and inarticulated.

As for his moral views, regardless of the literal criticism of some on the Board, my reading of Harris is that radical destructive beliefs held by individuals in isolation of being involved in an institutional movement, and which have not been manifested in violent behavior, should be tolerated.

However, when destructive ideologies become institutionalized, with an expressed agenda to kill those with opposing views, or those within a non-conforming culture, the dangers of such isolated beliefs exponentionally increase, such that preemptive measures must and should be taken, including, if necessary, killing those holding such beliefs who also have physically alligned themselves with a corresponding radical institution and its program--whether they have personally acted violently or not.

As a student of the Holocaust, I note that Germany in the 20s was entrenched with anti-Semitic attitudes. Notwithstanding, Jews enjoyed basic social rights. It was only when this anti-Semitism was institutionalized that the social groundwork for the Holocaust was established and flourished. In my view, at the point of institutionalization, and a corresponding ideological social commitment of intolerence and violence, even before any overt act of violence, it was justifiable to eliminate Nazism, and any individuals who physically associated themselves with that organization--whether they personally committed acts of violence or not.

Admittedly, lines are hard to draw on these issues. And maybe I have expressed my own view rather than Harris' view. But I doubt it is a fair interpretation of Harris to assume he meant that people solely with dangerous ideas should be plucked off the street and summarily executed, absent an ideological and social commitment to violence, and membership in a group that is committed to furthering that agenda.

Lastly, in my view, not only is putting anyone on a pedestal a bad idea, I also think it is a bad idea to merely "look to [anyone] in some general or universal way for guidance." People have ideas, and nothing more. It is only ideas that matter, not those that express them. If you think intuitively that someone has a good idea, it [the idea] should be immediately challenged and questioned, and in no case should the source of the idea be elevated to a position of mentor. In my experience, after reading hundreds of volumes, no one deserves such status and reverence.

Please don't read more into the following than as an exercise in...ummm..."literal criticism".

What is wrong with this recasting of your paragraph?

Your paragraph:

> As a student of the Holocaust, I note that Germany
> in the 20s was entrenched with anti-Semitic
> attitudes. Notwithstanding, Jews enjoyed basic
> social rights. It was only when this
> anti-Semitism was institutionalized that the
> social groundwork for the Holocaust was
> established and flourished. In my view, at the
> point of institutionalization, and a corresponding
> ideological social commitment of intolerence and
> violence, even before any overt act of violence,
> it was justifiable to eliminate Nazism, and any
> individuals who physically associated themselves
> with that organization--whether they personally
> committed acts of violence or not.

A recasting:

As a student of the Holocaust, I note that *America*
in the *2000s* was entrenched with *Islamophobic*
attitudes. Notwithstanding, *Muslims* enjoyed basic
social rights. It was only when this
*Islamophobia* was institutionalized that the
social groundwork for the Holocaust was
established and flourished. In my view, at the
point of institutionalization, and a corresponding
ideological social commitment of intolerence and
violence, even before any overt act of violence,
it was justifiable to eliminate *Neo-conism*, and any
individuals who physically associated themselves
with that organization--whether they personally
committed acts of violence or not.


In my opinion, the most important lesson of the Holocaust is that the seeds of Nazism were planted in the permissive, liberal social-political climate of the Weimer Republic.

Human

-->Just one example of institutionalized Islamophobia: http://www.wired.com/2011/09/fbi-muslims-radical/all/1

Your point is well taken, which is why I stated: "Admittedly, lines are hard to draw on these issues."

HUMAN: "As a student of the Holocaust, I note that *America*
in the *2000s* was entrenched with *Islamophobic*
attitudes. Notwithstanding, *Muslims* enjoyed basic
social rights. It was only when this
*Islamophobia* was institutionalized that the
social groundwork for the Holocaust was
established and flourished."

COMMENT: If Islamophobic attitudes became "entrenched" in the U.S. such as to become an institutionalized movement of violence against Muslims, then that instiution should be suppressed, and its members (even passive members) dealt with criminally.

I think the problem arises in part in how we define the fine points of "institutionalization," "entrenchment," and "physical association;" and, of course, the nature of the ideology and perceived threat. Moreover, how do we protect "legitimate" revolutionary movements that require harsh methodology.

However, I am inclined to stick to my position that if an individual physically aligns himself (or herself) and verbally supports an organized, institutionalized ideology dedicated to indiscriminate violence to obtain their ends; and that organization is legitimately perceived as a threat not just to a specific government, but to civil society generally, and human life, it is warranted to address that person criminally. Whether summary execution is justified would depend in part on the specifics of both their personal allegence, and the degree of the threat imposed. (So, I am willing to backtrack somewhat)

But the broad point is that there comes a time when the threat is such that persons aligning themselves with the organization is of itself enough for harsh premptive treatment, regardless of evidence of their active personal involvement.

HUMAN: "In my opinion, the most important lesson of the Holocaust is that the seeds of Nazism were planted in the permissive, liberal social-political climate of the Weimer Republic."

COMMENT: Well, this is very vague. More importantly, it suggests to me that a preemptive remedy is to tighten up on the "liberal social-political climate," which seems to call for a severe and unwarranted intrusion into personal freedom. On the contrary, I think that Nazism took root as an ideology because the Weimer Republic (and the rest of the world) refused to take its anti-Semitic threats and rhetoric seriously. (Not to mention its other extreme views.) Now, it is possible that this rhetoric did not rise to the "legitimate threat" level until power was actually taken, and the Republic was at that point undermined to the point where no action could be taken. However, in the present context we are talking not only about how Islamic states are reacting to extremism within their own culture, but the world in general, particularly the U.S. In hindsight, the world powers should have stepped in long before 1939 (or 1941), when Hitler had already amassed a huge military industrial complex and had long since made is position and active social policy with respect to the Jews very clear.

These are tough issues, but for me the message of the Holocaust is to not allow extremism to take political root, unless you are willing to pay a very high price for unmitigating tolerance.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> HUMAN: "In my opinion, the most important lesson
> of the Holocaust is that the seeds of Nazism were
> planted in the permissive, liberal
> social-political climate of the Weimer Republic."
>
> COMMENT: Well, this is very vague. More
> importantly, it suggests to me that a preemptive
> remedy is to tighten up on the "liberal
> social-political climate," which seems to call for
> a severe and unwarranted intrusion into personal
> freedom.

That is *precisely* what the Nazis did, and what all reactionary-conservative movements do.

The "preemptive remedy" is not to "tighten up" but to remain loose! 'Weimer' is good!! The remedy is to protect as best we can a "liberal social-political climate"! That's how we prevent fascism, and that's how we prevent another holocaust.

And if we find ourselves not in a liberal social-political climate, then we create it, no matter what forces say nay.

Human

HUMAN: The "preemptive remedy" is not to "tighten up" but to remain loose! 'Weimer' is good!! The remedy is to protect as best we can a "liberal social-political climate"! That's how we prevent fascism, and that's how we prevent another holocaust."

COMMENT: But they couldn't protect it. As soon as economic instablity arises, or any other problem, conservative ideology is there to step in. Here in the US the conservative movement is relentless in blaming every negative social problem on liberalism.

Moreover, isn't it a bit naive to say we prevent another holocaust by insisting upon a liberal social-political climate (I'm very liberal by the way). How do we inforce that? World history seems to support the view that conservatism and suppression is associated with power; and people and institutions want power!

HUMAN: "And if we find ourselves not in a liberal social-political climate, then we create it, no matter what forces say nay."

COMMENT: We create it by force? Obviously, persuasion does not work. (We know that here in the U.S. quite clearly)

Yes I am a bit naive, actually. Somehow even at my age in this day and age my optimism hasn't been squashed, at least not completely. And you're right about the problem: the centralization of power, and then the want to increase it, which is always at our expense.

All I've got on this is the proverbial story of Benjamin Franklin leaving the Constitutional Convention in 1787. A Mrs. Powell asked him, "what have you given us, Dr. Franklin?"

"A republic," he replied, "if we can keep it."

The American people were given the best structure for keeping power in check that this fair earth has ever seen. It's all but gone, alas, but the blueprint remains. There's hope in that.

Human

Wanted to let this go, but I couldn't:


Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> COMMENT: We create it by force? Obviously,
> persuasion does not work. (We know that here in
> the U.S. quite clearly)

Precisely the opposite is true. Persuasion works, and *quite clearly* works in the U.S.:

http://youtu.be/GZGY0wPAnus

(You know your Plato, Bemis: Sophists always win...except with Socrates...)

The Road Home
by Rumi

An ant hurries along a threshing floor with its wheat grain,
moving between huge stacks

of wheat, not knowing the abundance all around. It thinks its
one grain is all there is to

love. So we choose a tiny seed to be devoted to. This body,
one path or one teacher. Look

wider and farther. The essence of every human being can see,
and what that essence-eye takes

in, the being becomes. Saturn. Solomon! The ocean pours
through a jar, and you might say it

swims inside the fish! This mystery gives peace to your
longing and makes the road home home.
##
I don’t know if home will be my ashes returning to the forest around my house or if something of the 96 or 97% of what scientist say must exist, but have yet to detect, lives on after physical death but either way this poem leaves me feeling at home. (http://www.space.com/11642-dark-matter-dark-energy-4-percent-universe-panek.html)
Those determined folks, be it TBM or any other ism that feel compelled to defend their one grain of wheat over and over and over and over again seem stuck to me.

Thank you for this reminder. As we plod through consensus reality, apparently one body jostling with other bodies, remember that we carry "Home" in our own ground of being.

Henry - Contrary to your assertion, Harris does not specify that an "Islamist" regime must demonstrate intended aggression to warrant the United States atomically incinerating it. That is a huge point.

Following Harris's own words (and not our wishful projections), "it may be ethical" for the United States to incinerate "tens of millions of innocent people" in, say, Indonesia, if Indonesia got an "Islamist" government with long range missiles - even if that country showed no sign of intended aggression toward the United States. As though in daze, Harris concedes this would be "an unthinkable crime" even at the same time he describes it as a possibly legitimate option.

My question is:

How could genocide against "tens of millions of innocent people" ever be a legitimate option, if their government shows no hostile intent?

It is frankly shocking that people can read Harris's words, which plainly state what I have described here, and still deny - without any explanation whatsoever - that they mean the only thing they *can* mean.

And to the original poster, yes, I happily concede (and have never denied) that Harris has some valuable things to say on other topics.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2014 03:27PM by Tal Bachman.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2014 03:43PM by Tal Bachman.

Well, your points are well taken; here and elsewhere. And, I am not an expert on Harris' writings on this subject, or his attitudes generally. However, apparently he has backtracked a little. And I believe in giving people a little slack in re-examining their position, if indeed he has done so.

TB: "Following Harris's own words (and not our wishful projections), "it may be ethical" for the United States to incinerate "tens of millions of innocent people" in, say, Indonesia, if Indonesia got an "Islamist" government with long range missiles - even if that country showed no sign of intended aggression toward the United States. As though in daze, Harris concedes this would be "an unthinkable crime" even at the same time he describes it as a possibly legitimate option."

TB: "My question is: How could genocide against "tens of millions of innocent people" ever be a legitimate option, if their government shows no hostile intent?"

COMMENT: Well, obviously it can't. Ideology is not enough. So, if Harris remains committed to such a view, then indeed he is off base in my view too. But, having said that, I do think that a regime that preaches fundamental extremism and violence against another group of people should not be allowed to develop military capability to carry out their ideological program. That, of course, is different from nuking the whole country.

Moreover, it becomes a different hypothetical if large numbers of people identify themselves with an organized, institutional movement whose stated policy AND PRACTICE is indiscriminate violence to achieve their ends. At that point, the word "innocent" becomes problematic--even for someone that does not personally participate in the program of their leaders. There is a context where "innocent" requires more than simply the lack of participatory violence. Consider the case where someone encourages the murder and rape of a woman with himself not participating. I am not willing to call such a person "innocent."

TB: "It is frankly shocking that people can read Harris's words, which plainly state what I have described here, and still deny - without any explanation whatsoever - that they mean the only thing they *can* mean."

COMMENT: Well again, does that mean we cannot allow for a mistake, and reconsideration? Or further refinement and explanation? I often write things that I regret and am constantly changing and nuancing my views--about everything.

TB: "And to the original poster, yes, I happily concede (and have never denied) that Harris has some valuable things to say on other topics."

COMMENT: Now, that I can question!

I consider it constructive if we (and everyone else) talk about when ideas/beliefs are "dangerous," when they do or don't motivate harmful action, and what we can or should do about it. That kind of free and open discussion might just aid us in making some really tough decisions -- and by "aid us," I mean do what's best for both our local societies and all humans.

My biggest "objection" to the way Tal presented his discussion was simple: I felt he was condemning Harris for beliefs, because he was fearful Harris would act on those beliefs. And the beliefs he was condemning him for were that some beliefs are worthy of condemnation, and that we should be fearful that people will act on them. I'm still amazed he couldn't see the irony in that.

Kolob: I have never been afraid that "Sam Harris would act on his beliefs". I don't even know what that means - Harris has no political power, and no authority to initiate the nuclear first-strikes he contemplates in his book. The reason I mentioned it in the first place was not to express fear that his ideas would be acted upon (although of course they could be); it was to point out that bad ideas can come from the non-theist/science camp, just as they can come from the theist/religion camp.

Now, on your point about the possibility of those ideas being acted upon: that is possible, yes. Is it inevitable? No, not even close. But it is possible. The ideas are out there, and with so many millions of people dying to think of themselves as "critical thinkers" who "see through religion", and who therefore seem to read Sam Harris as uncritically as any trailer park Christian reads the Bible, I think it's perfectly legitimate to object to them publicly. Maybe it will jog some people.

Harris's ideas, after all, allow for genocidal "nuclear first-strikes" (his words) on grounds usually thought inadequate. Hell, even when a regime *does* show hostile intent, most people think there is a moral obligation to try to avoid killing non-combatants.

Harris, taking him at his word, is essentially unencumbered by those sorts of worries. Merely let a regime be Islamist, and acquire long range missiles, and Harris thinks it "may be ethical" to instantly incinerate "tens of millions of innocent people" within that country - even though there has been no sign of aggression from the regime.

And there is no "irony" here, Kolob, because where any Islamist leader argued for the possible ethicality of an unprovoked nuclear annihilation of millions of civilians, I would express the same objection. I am maintaining exactly the same standard.

Harris is the mirror image of the violent, and frankly irrational, clerics he targets. In between, thankfully, are people suggesting that genocide requires greater justification than Harris, and his cleric mirror-images, suggest.

"Harris is the mirror image of the violent, and frankly irrational, clerics he targets". That sentence is an example the absurd false equivilence demonstrated in these threads that keeps me coming back for more



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2014 04:11PM by ladell.

Also, since we are talking about world war II, and the unthinkable option of genocide during wartime, it has already been done, only Japan didn't have nukes.

Tal Bachman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kolob: I have never been afraid that "Sam Harris
> would act on his beliefs". I don't even know what
> that means - Harris has no political power, and no
> authority to initiate the nuclear first-strikes he
> contemplates in his book.

Then wrote:
"It is frankly shocking that people can read Harris's words, which plainly state what I have described here, and still deny - without any explanation whatsoever - that they mean the only thing they *can* mean."


So, if you have no concern his beliefs will be acted on, why do you care if he expresses them? And then tell us there's no way we can deny that what they "mean" -- which I take to be that he intends to do what he believes?

And you're *still* not accurately representing his "beliefs." For crying out loud.

> The reason I mentioned
> it in the first place was not to express fear that
> his ideas would be acted upon (although of course
> they could be); it was to point out that bad ideas
> can come from the non-theist/science camp, just as
> they can come from the theist/religion camp.

I don't know anyone here (or anywhere else) that ever claimed otherwise.

> Now, on your point about the possibility of those
> ideas being acted upon: that is possible, yes. Is
> it inevitable? No, not even close. But it is
> possible. The ideas are out there...

Gee, that's pretty much *exactly* was Harris was saying. How about that.


> and with so
> many millions of people dying to think of
> themselves as "critical thinkers" who "see through
> religion", and who therefore seem to read Sam
> Harris as uncritically as any trailer park
> Christian reads the Bible, I think it's perfectly
> legitimate to object to them publicly. Maybe it
> will jog some people.

As I've pointed out several times, we "critical thinkers" don't take ANYTHING "uncritically." None of us see Harris or Dawkins or anyone else as someone to "follow." We don't give their opinions any more weight than yours. Or mine. You seem to be giving Harris' ideas MUCH MORE WEIGHT than any of us do. I just can't figure out why.

> Harris's ideas, after all, allow for genocidal
> "nuclear first-strikes" (his words) on grounds
> usually thought inadequate. Hell, even when a
> regime *does* show hostile intent, most people
> think there is a moral obligation to try to avoid
> killing non-combatants.
>
> Harris, taking him at his word, is essentially
> unencumbered by those sorts of worries. Merely let
> a regime be Islamist, and acquire long range
> missiles, and Harris thinks it "may be ethical" to
> instantly incinerate "tens of millions of innocent
> people" within that country - even though there
> has been no sign of aggression from the regime.

So if he's not going to act on them, again, why worry? You're condemning him for his beliefs, which is *just what* you were complaining about -- condemning people for their beliefs. Not actions. Is your self-contradiction really so hard to see? Need a new mirror?
> And there is no "irony" here, Kolob, because where
> any Islamist leader argued for the possible
> ethicality of an unprovoked nuclear annihilation
> of millions of civilians, I would express the same
> objection. I am maintaining exactly the same
> standard.

So, it's only nuclear annihilation ideas that we should condemn people for...but other harmful, dangerous ideas we shouldn't condemn people for? Who decides which ideas without action are worthy of condemnation and which aren't -- you?

> Harris is the mirror image of the violent, and
> frankly irrational, clerics he targets. In
> between, thankfully, are people suggesting that
> genocide requires greater justification than
> Harris, and his cleric mirror-images, suggest.

Yeah, one of them is me. :)

"Harris is the mirror image of the violent, and frankly irrational, clerics he targets"

Wow. Your bipolar is presenting particularly strong with this one. Dude, take a break and write a couple of songs. You could get away with this in a place like exmormondotorg, but read some books, man. You're not winning any points in the thinking category.

Some of us used to appreciate your original thinking. You've sold out to all the sensationalist social-media junkies. You're way better than this.

Harris is being taken out of context constantly. I agree with most of his opinions. People are deliberately quote mining him to smear him. Those who would take either the bible or the Quran literally are thoroughly dangerous, and if they begin killing people they need to be killed, which is exactly what is being done in Iraq and Syria as we speak. Or should we appease them instead? I can't understand how some seem to hysterically defend Islam in it's entirety, and can't differentiate between moderates and radicals. Read his books to avoid the quote miners.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2014 05:56PM by rationalist01.

What is the matter with you guys? I've quoted entire paragraphs, given page numbers, and invited one and all to explain how *anything* in Harris's responses mitigates his position on when genocide "may be ethical".

*No one* is taking *anything* (that I've seen) "out of context", or is "quote-mining". And Rationalist, if you really think I, or anyone else, is taking Harris out of context, kindly then describe what you think his original positions statements (which I have quoted at length) really mean.

Kolob - You're misrepresenting what I've typed here. I've never said I have "no concern" that his beliefs will be acted upon. However, I'm not all that worried, because I think that most politicians would agree that nuking an entire population only because its regime is Islamist (without any evidence of impending hostility) would be - in Harris's words - "an unthinkable crime". The difference between Harris and most other people, though, is that most other people don't contemplate the possible ethicality of unwarranted genocide. (By the way, please feel free to explain to me how critical thinker Harris isn't engaging in Peterson-like doubletalk when he endorses two mutually exclusive propositions as though they weren't - specifically, the possible ethicality of what he also describes as "an unthinkable crime". Huh?)

I only pointed out that my primary purpose in raising this issue is to show how even a supposedly enlightened secular humanist can promote ideas which, if they had been proposed by the likes of Pat Robertson, would have seen this board erupt in indignation.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2014 06:05PM by Tal Bachman.

Tal said:
"I only pointed out that my primary purpose in raising this issue is to show how even a supposedly enlightened secular humanist can promote ideas which, if they had been proposed by the likes of Pat Robertson, would have seen this board erupt in indignation."

I've looked back at the discussions and have to say that Tal has cemented this viewpoint quite well. His approach resonates with me because it is BALANCED.

In Mormonism, those of us who were TBM, were so dogmatic because Mormon Doctrine is dogmatic. There was zero balance. And we were not allowed to 'speak ill of the Lord's anointed'. So, we would put the Q15 on a pedestal and cheer everything they said and criticize anyone who criticized the Q15 or their teachings.

I could take several quotes from Pat Robertson and extremist Christians, like him, and attach an atheist name to it and any extreme Christian would jump all over it. In turn, I could take quotes from Harris and other extreme atheists, like him, and attach an evangelical Christian name to them and the extreme atheists would jump all over it.

Vitriolic attacks on those with different views, along with any side claiming to have the upper hand on being the smartest, is straight from the Mormon playbook.

Thanks, Tal, for demonstrating how to be balanced and not Mormon-like.

Tal has cemented nothing, and so far has proven that he's great at talking to every point but the point at hand.

I'm only slightly connected to social media, and it strikes me in a strange way that Tal would simply recycle the thinking of a couple of known sensationalist weirdos seeking an opportunity for attention, just after they puke out their quote-mined nonsense. People, who by their own admission, haven't been speaking to the text.

Tal, you're not speaking to the text. You started off deliberately obfuscating the text, and then when the text is quoted, you jump to wild conclusions.

You ignored my questions.

You're not interested in actually debating the text, you're interested in talking your point to death.

It's boring, really.

It's hard to take you seriously as of late, because it's not typically your thing to shove recycled thinking from other people down our throats.

If you want a real discussion, you have to address the text as it appears. I was willing to go there with you, but you aren't interested. I lost interest.

I'm willing to forget names, politics, religion, and let the text stand for itself.

If it can't, let's throw it away. But you're not making the point that you think you're making.

Harris is nobody's hero. He has fans, sure. But this black-and-white Harris-is-the-devil-because-of-something-that-was-quote-mined mentality sounds like something we all graduated from when we left Mormonism behind.

I have to ask.

If you were in charge of a country, what would you do to prevent direct existential threat to it?

No matter how you answer, someone will find something objectionable in the answer. Sam Harris just had the balls to answer anyway.

MarkW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bottom line on Sam Harris' objectionable comments
> on torture and killing people for their beliefs,
> it seems abundantly clear that Harris is on the
> wrong side in his thinking there. However, he's
> fully in line with many people who support such
> things in the U.S. (including the current US Pres
> and the previous one, both of which have supported
> "enhanced interrogation" techniques, rendition,
> etc., with much of this only increasing in recent
> years), none of which is justifiable in my view.
> That being said, I do separate his thinking in
> these areas from his thinking regarding the
> specifics of god-belief vs atheism or related
> philosophical concerns. On the latter I find him
> articulate and thoughtful. On the former I
> strongly disagree. I could say the same thing of
> Bill Maher and a number of public figures who
> speak out on issues. The important thing we
> should learn as exmos is to avoid putting anyone
> on a pedestal who we look to in some general or
> universal way for guidance; everyone's flawed and
> we need to be careful not to put people up as
> gurus/prophets/etc even in the secular realm.


I couldn't have said it more kindly.

Kinda like you're my kind.

Kindly so mote it be.

since you brought it up

yeah, let's hold tal's feet to the fire

dost thee not speaketh from thine heart?

what sets you apart?

oh, guess I forgot....

all the thots, hopes, and aspirations

I heard him and his misses

speaking out at Exmo 06

now I remember

thanks Tal

Don't ever quit!