Yeah, that's right. By race. The Ladies at Addicted to Race have some analysis up on their site.

Update: I was telling some of my friends about this and one of them pointed out that if the show really wanted to portray accurate racial politics, the White team would show up the first day to find their shelter already made. A team of lawyers would be standing by with the deed and a list of all the other luxuries they inherited. Meanwhile, the other teams would be appropriately scrambling. Fucking Survivor, I hate this idea.

And apparently UC-Irvine, which is starting its own law school, thought so too.  Until they realized that some conservatives were going to complain.  (See also here).

And why were they going to complain?  Because he had radical views about the constitution?  No.  His views are pretty much the standard. 

But because he's had the temerity to point out that Bush's views about the constitution are radical.  For examples of this radical hippie beatnick's writings and public comments see here and here about wiretapping and here about habeus corpus. 

Robert Greenwald and Brave New Films produced a video which illustrates a point I was making in the comments of an earlier post. 

Here's what the reader Martin Sims wrote in part: 

Here we are once again considering the terrorist nation of Iran. A nation that controls Palestine through Hamas, Lebanon and Syria though Hezbollah, and Iraq through the Mahdi army, untold numbers of insurgency and militant organizations and even Al Qaeda. Iran is closing in quickly on the ability to mass produce nuclear weapons while our politicians are arguing over whether or not they are even a threat to the region, and our own nation. Israel, as I have said before, does not have the luxury of debating this issue until the day it is confirmed that the Iranian nuclear program has in fact produced it’s first reliable weapon. Israel has nuclear weapons but will they use them? It is a strongly held belief that only the United States can deliver a conventional strike devastating enough to impact the Iranian nuclear program, however, if the United States does not do that and soon, Israel will be forced to consider the nuclear option as it’s only reliable means of ensuring it’s continued existence.

...

If the United States is unable or unwilling to confront Iran militarily within the next 12 months, world war three is almost a certainty. Because if Iran is able to get all their pieces in place before they are directly attacked, this chess game is over and no country in the world will be safe from the terrorist army they have been building up arming and training for over 30 years. China, Russia, Venezuela and many other countries have already chosen their allies in this struggle by supporting, supplying and defending Iran in it’s quest for nuclear weapons and undying support of terrorism in all it’s horrific forms and manifestations.

Here's my response which, I feel, is buoyed by the excellent video embedded above. 

It is truly mind boggling how little you actually know about the way the Middle East works, the actual relationship between Iran and paramilitary elements in the Middle East, the foreign policy objectives of Iran, and the U.S. airstrike (and Israeli for that matter) capability.

Some people may “strongly” hold beliefs that the U.S. is the only nation capable of decimating the Iranian ability to build nuclear weapons but that doesn’t make it true. In fact, there is quite a bit of disagreement in the intel community over the efficacy of airstrikes at all. This isn’t the early 1980’s. Iran is conducting its programs mostly underground and there’s simply no good information on what would happen if we hit them even with our best weapons at those locations, or even if we know where all of the underground facilities are located.

And again, the talk about the airstrikes neatly sidesteps these issues by saying that the point of these attacks would be to put Iran in its place and make them pay for supposedly mucking up Iraq. Not to mention the fact that the intel over that assertion is in question. Much of the sourcing from that intel has come from a particular subversive Iranian group operating in Iraq and hoping to get the U.S. to weaken the Iranian government. Now where have we fallen for that sort of thing before?

But the claims of influence over the Mahdi Army has been wildly exaggerated. Sure, people in Iran are responsible for sending money and weapons. But we’re not talking about government officials giving aid and instructions to the Mahdi Army. The Shiites in Iraq are notoriously independent and leery of Iran. If anything, we have been driving some Shiite militias into the arms of Iran because of our inability to provide basic security and social services.

None of this stuff is difficult to understand or find in many, many open source materials. One should learn to read and evaluate the source of what one reads before swallowing it completely. In respect to Iran, it’s important to be more than a little skeptical of sources provided by and steming from the Bush Administration. It was only four to five years ago, after all, when we heard similar imminent danger arguments about Iraq.  And we all know how that turned out.

Or do we?

Found video via Rick Perlstein. 

You see, it's because bowls of free condoms are much like terrorists. You might think condoms in India to not affect the hymens of our daughters here at home, but let me assure you that bowls of free condoms anywhere in the world make the whole world that much less safe for wingnuttery.

You can click the link above, and read Adams' whole column. But I highly recommend just reading Kyso's fabulous take on it here.

Adams: If you are gay and engaging in anal sex, it is unlikely that you will ever see the words “anal sex” listed among the risk factors for contracting AIDS in any campus publication anywhere. Nor is it likely that you will ever hear these words mentioned by any professor discussing such risk factors in a relevant lecture."

Kyso: To be fair, you do actually have to open the publications and read what’s inside of them rather than just imagining what might be inside of them.

Before I answer in more detail, let me also draw everyone's attention to something else I posted earlier because a similar theme can be drawn from the Minutemen video which shows one of the Minutemen murdering an illegal immigrant crossing the border (the video has since been taken down from Youtube - if I find it again, I'll post the link in an update). 

First for those who cannot sit through Mr. Horowitz's "educational" video about jihadism, let me provide a short summary of what you will find there.  Basically, he highlights some of the major terrorist attacks from around the world in the last thirty years or so with dates and summaries and plotted points on a world map of where they occurred.  Interspersed throughout this data (which is perfectly accurate) are disturbing and graphic photos of dead bodies and the carnage from these attacks. 

Mr. Horowitz also provides quotes from various terrorists and muslims which either call other muslims to arms against Americans or simply state the speaker's wish to humble or kill Americans (again perfectly accurate and sourced). 

All the while dramatic and over the top music is being played and the film graphics are being used to create discomfort and tension to the listener.  It's extremely disturbing.  It is meant to be. 

Finally the video closes with pictures of muslims in Los Angeles and Chicago marching and demonstrating in support of Palestine or against the war.  The obvious message is that the jihadists responsible for terrorist attacks around the world are the same ones in Chicago, Los Angeles, Iran, and Palestine.  That they are all a part of a world-wide movement to destroy America. 

It's the kind of sick paranoid fantasy world which allows Mr. Horowitz to believe he's a soldier on the frontlines just by blogging and churning out newsletters and op-eds.  Because they're everywhere.  And they're trying to kill you and you and you and aren't I brave for standing up and sticking it in their eye and you better watch out and you better not vote for the lib-ruls because they're a bunch of fucking hippies and remember how they stabbed us in the back in 'Nam? 

Let me just say first, Mr. Horowitz, that I've served.  Let me just say that I support the war in Afghanistan and I support an effective response to 9/11, Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and anyone else responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 Americans on that awful September day. 

Let me also say that I knew who Bin Laden was before that day.  Did you?  See, I remember Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, Al Gore, Madeleine Albright, and William Cohen talking about him and talking about terrorism, trying to warn Congress about the dangers and trying to explain the need to allocate intel resources toward the terrorist target.  Do you remember that? 

Perhaps you remember the cruise missile attacks on Bin Laden camps during the Lewinsky scandal and how Clinton got ridiculed for them.  Except, unlike now, Clinton wasn't ridiculed for ordering too soft a military response.  He was ridiculed for exaggerating the threat.  He was accused of wagging the dog.  Remember that? 

So before you attempt to claim a conservative monopoly on "knowing the enemy," go back to that time and ask yourself if you knew who the enemy was then.  And if not, why not? 

I suppose there wasn't any money in it back then. 

But let's forget about the past, right?  9/11 changed everything.  Right?  So what are we doing today? 

Well it seems that you are trying to convince everyone that there's an Islamic invasion underway.  And apparently you feel you have the pictures to prove it.  But your vision of the Islamic invasion only works if you see no useful distinction to be made between American muslims marching and demonstrating against Israel and the war in Iraq, Palestinians muslims who rail against Israel, suicide bombers, Iranians who give political speeches against the "evils of America," Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Taliban, Shiites, and Sunnis. 

The problem is that these muslims are not a monolithic entity.  Even a cursory survey of Middle Eastern history would tell you that.  There is no "global jihad" in the sense that you mean.  You are painting with a Cold War Soviet Union style brush.  There is no danger of a domino effect here but that's precisely the assumption you're making. 

You paint the picture of an Islamic fundamentalist invasion.  In fact, you state quite clearly with the video that they're already here! 

But this is also the rhetorical tactic some conservatives have been using in the illegal immigration debate (see Newt Gingrich).  And when conservatives tell people that a poor illegal immigrant who crosses the border to look for work and a better standard of life is invading and threatening our security, it is not much of a logical leap for a Minuteman to think murdering him is patriotic (see link above). 

I agree with the many people (including conservatives) who say that illegal immigration and terrorism both require national and international efforts to resolve.  I also agree that we will never solve these issues unless we are truly mobilized as a country to do so.  But the roots to both problems are complicated and the solutions, likewise, are too. 

The fear you seek to engender in people to deal with the problem actually detracts from the effort.  Your pathological need to dehumanize and lump together all the right-wing muslim groups critical of our policies actually prevents us from making any progress.  It's us vs. them.  Good vs. Evil.  And there can be no saving grace, understanding, compromise, negotiation, understanding, reaching out, or co-existence with Evil.  Because it's fucking Evil, right? 

In  your world, there's no other option than to just kill them all.  You unilaterally take all other options off the table on the flip assumption that you have seen their souls and you can pass judgment on them.  And, ironically, that it's self-defense. 

And I already mentioned that I served.  Let me also say that one of my areas while in the service was counter-terrorism.  And let me say that I worked alongside a person who saw the world the way you do.  And let me also say that this person was constantly fucking shit up and making everyone else's job harder. 

He never bothered to analyze or think critically about things that came up, always made flip assessments, sent false reports up the chain of command, which we had to correct later, and wasted our time with overly dramatic reactions to rather innocuous or unreliable data. 

In short, he was a serious drag on the effectiveness of our mission. 

And let me just repeat what I said above.  I support anything that is an effective response to terrorism and the attacks on 9/11.  And your video, I'm afraid, is not.  And giving it to the California Highway Patrol is a recipe for hate crime.   

And as long as you peddle that brand of crap, you're a part of the problem.  Please get out of the way. 

Orcinus has a video up which shows a Minuteman actually shooting and (it seems) killing an illegal immigrant sneaking into the country.  The clip is shot with a night vision lens and depicts the Minuteman conversing with a buddy over the radio. 

After shooting the illegal immigrant, for a moment, you get sense of nervousness from the shooter.  He asks his buddy what they should do. 

The buddy replies, “Get the shovel, get some lime, and hey, grab me a 12-pack, too, while you’re up there.”

They giggle and laugh.  Then the shooter yells out, "We fucking nailed him, dude!" 

Disgusting.  Simply disgusting. 

I'm sure this sort of thing isn't an isolated incident.  How many other crazy conservative nutjobs camp out on the border like it's Tin Can Alley?  And why doesn't the albatross of murders like this one hang on the Minutemen every time they hit the news? 

I'd say they were a bigger threat to our security than anti-war Quakers in Florida, wouldn't you? 

Rick Perlstein notes that the California Highway Patrol, apparently, are interested in using it as a training video.  I'm not sure what the training would be for other than profiling muslims. 

*I put that in quotes because the name made me laugh. 

Here is the summary, from what I can gather: A woman named Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff, age 55, (who also goes by the name “Heart”) started a blog and forum called Women’s Space. Heart does seem a bit, uh, odd – she’s running for presidency on the “Free Soil” ticket, for one thing. And she’s that kind of old-school-hippie-feminist who kind of makes you cringe a bit because dear-god-no-wonder-people-get-such-misconceptions-about-feminism-when-you-have-people-like-her-running-around. Still, off-kilter or not, she seems intelligent, as well as harmless and well intentioned, and her Women’s Space community obviously fills a need for like-minded souls, and that’s fine. Great. Good for them.

Except ….

A woman named Biting Beaver – the kind of person that also makes me cringe because she refers to women as “womyn” and such -- wrote a post on one of Heart’s forums about how she was very upset to find her teenage son looking at porn on the Internet, and sometimes she wishes she would have aborted him. What we can see here is a woman who is clearly (if not a parody) somewhat mentally and emotionally disturbed. A few commenters make some disturbing comments as well.

And that’s that, right?

Well ... no. I don’t know where the attacks began, but somewhere in the dark nether-regions of those-people-who-give-Internet-geeks-a-bad-name, someone coordinated an “attack” on Heart’s Web site, presumably to teach her a lesson for having positions they don’t agree with and allowing other people to post in her forums with positions they don’t agree with (the horror!). They sent enough traffic to her site to shut it down, and they filled the comments section with frightening remarks such as this:

Heart, this is horrible. I’m sorry that this is happening to you. These people want nothing to do but to hurt you and your cause. I feel for you. In fact, I want to feel you now. I’d like to tie you down, take a knife, and slit your throat. I’d penetrate you over and over in all orifices, and create some of my own to stick myself in.

Begging the question of Um, really? Really? Who is more nuts in this situation????? One emotionally disturbed woman makes a post on a site run and frequented by a group of slightly kooky individuals, and they are met with a coordinated Internet attack and hundreds and hundreds of threats containing truly disturbing and graphic descriptions of violence? Who is more nuts, a woman who says she wishes she’d had an abortion or a person who says they’d like to slit someone’s throats and penetrate all their orifices?

Of course, people are chiming in now and trying to say that the words of Biting Beaver and a few of her supporters at that site constitute proof that ALL FEMINIST BLOGGERS ARE MURDEROUS MAN-HATING HARPIES. For instance, the comments at Riehl World View read mostly like this:

At any rate, the batshit behavior exhibited by Biting Beaver is considered nowadays to be normal and protected by the feminist groups who share similar conditions. Meanwhile, legions of young men held in the crossfire of these womyn's rage and anger will grow to be mentally and emotionally dysfunctional creatures who will either self-terminate themselves or be removed from society after fulfilling the very prophecies embedded into them by the very womyn who raised them.

And God help us all if they stumble upon Islam as a way to reclaim the manhood stripped of them by these womyn. If there is ever a growing trend for disaffected males to turn to the Religion of Peace in lieu of a patriarchal figure, the feminists will be responsible for condemning their fellow womynfolk to a religion which views them in the same regard that the womyn viewed the "evil rapist" men. Just notice how Islamic cultures don't have the "rabid feminist" problem. And there is a very good reason for that.

And again, I ask you, what is loonier? Some old-school-hippie-feminists still using the term “womyn” (which is something they harp on in a good majority of the comments there), or someone who believes that “rabid feminists” are going to lead to Islamic jihad committed by America’s own children?

[I love this, though. Riehl asks in the post’s title, “Are some radical feminists child abusers?” to which Jill replies “Uh, yeah, probably. Lots of different kinds of people are child abusers -- being an asshole certainly crosses ideological lines.”]

A Web site called Encyclopedia Dramatica has a round-up of the whole thing, although I warn you, this place is like the dark unkempt labyrinth of hatred, hysteria and lameness. It seems to be an entire wiki documenting Internet memes and flame wars while simultaneously spewing insults at women, gays and liberals, with links upon links that take you to more and more weird wiki entries, like the 7th Circle of Wingnut Internet Hell.

Update: According to Shakespeare's Sister, a lot of the original "quotes" from Biting Beaver that provoked such outrage and such weren't even real quotes, but from a parody site. (Edit 2 -- which, as someone in the comments points out, may or may not be true).

Proposed guidelines for a sex-education curriculum to be used in D.C. Public Schools recommend that middle-school students learn to define sexual orientation and be taught about homosexuality.

Interesting that this is the scare-mongering tidbit of choice, though, isn't it? More prominent than the 'they're-telling-our-9th-graders-where-and-how-to-get-abortions' quote later in the article. Do gays trump abortion in all wingnut hysteria? Or just Moonite-sanctioned wingnut hysteria?

It was bad enough when people knew we were all just degenerate liberals, dreaded atheists, or -- god forbid -- baby-hating feminists. But now the president of Human Life International has gone and outed us all for what we really are: SATANIC CULT MEMBERS WORSHIPPING AT THE ALTER OF THE DEAD FETUS, obviously.

Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, the world's largest pro-life organization, has stated that abortion is the same bloodthirsty and ritual sacrifice of babies to a demonic god that occurred throughout history and across cultures.

"And you thought abortion was just a surgical procedure, performed by doctors in a clinical setting, to end unwanted pregnancies," scoffs Trailer Park Feminist.

Because Euteneuer has years of experience as an exorcist(and thus is obviously completely sane), he knows better:

Approaching abortion from a spiritual perspective, he explained, "The spiritual dimension of this grisly 'business' is its systematizing of ritual blood sacrifice to the god of child murder, Moloch." He also noted that this "bloodthirsty" beast is well known not only through the Old Testament but in many different cultures throughout history as well. "This demon is not content with a single act of murder here and there," he said. "His insatiable appetite for the death of innocents seeks public endorsement to justify his gruesome deeds, and he needs a systematic expression of it to increase his worship."

"In short, the abortion industry is a perfect demonic system which offers a perverse form of worship to the devil."

And then things in the article got scary for a moment:

Referring to July as the traditional month of the Precious Blood, he exhorted people to "cover every abortionist, abortion mill and client of the abortion industry with Christ's Blood in order to conquer the blood sacrifice of the devil with the greatest force of good known to man."

I mean, that kind of sounded like a call to violence, no? But then I remembered -- duh! my 10 years of good Catholic schooling! -- that Christ's blood is really just wine. And, you know, I'm down with that. Bring on the wine dousing, please ....

Okay, but seriously, how very very creepy.

[Activist Mommy has more here.]

More fun with conservapedia from Kyso at Punk Ass Blog, complete with a hilarious conservapedia debate on cheesy potatoes (I'm for the Kellog's cornflakes on top, not potato chips, for the record).

Jill at Feministe has a long but really interesting post on this awful ordeal her and other female law students have been going through where their classmates and colleauges have been raiding their Flickr and Facebook photo caches in order to enter them in Hottest Female Law Students contests and comment on their tits; posting details about where they live and go to the gym and go to school, etc.; and then harassing them when they object.

Ilyka on why it's good for all of us to remember sometimes that things don't necessarily exist to make us feel good about ourselves.

Or, okay, three links. That's considerably less than 8.7 billion. But dammit, I must stop reading blogs now. Must. Stop. Must. Do. Schoolwork.

Apparently, some subdivisions consider the above image to be a "symbol of Satan."

One thing that's missing so far from the discussion I've read and heard is sadness. There's been anger. And shock. And even, as Laura points out, hypocritical snickering at hypocrisy. But there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of sadness and what I mean by that is this: our heterosexist, patriarchal culture has created an atmosphere in which homosexuality is so deviant that gay (or bisexual) men like Haggard dedicate their lives to a mission of self-hatred.

That's sad, not funny.

I'll admit to some vindictive giggles when I first found out, especially when he admitted buying crystal meth but not using it and getting a massage from a male prostitute but not sleeping with him. Now, however, I'm ashamed of myself for laughing at a man who is clearly struggling. And while yes, a lot of Haggard's past statements about the queer community anger me, I also recognize that we, as a society, need to take some collective responsibility.

Haggard's hypocrisy didn't grow out of nothing. It came from a culture of gay jokes, of narrow definitions of "real men," of a denial of basic rights to those who identify as gay or lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. It came from the same culture that claims it is trying to protect the sanctity of an institution that the ends in divorce over 50% of the time. It came from a culture where the physical expression of love between two men or two women was, for years, illegal.

No wonder Haggard hates himself. From the moment he and other gay Americans could talk, they've been silenced.

O'Really? 

Do you think Bush was talking about this Nancy when he said that?

Mrs. Reagan might of said, "I don't talk about political matters. That's not my department," but this Nancy ain't gonna sit pretty and decorate, George.

Proof that once a sexist frat boy always a sexist fratboy?

I've sort of jumped ship these past couple weeks, been so busy with my two jobs & all the campaign work. It's all over now though--the campaign, that is--and I am so, so please with the results.

After leaving the party at Democratic headquarters last night, a bunch of us headed down to Founding Fathers, a bar. We attempted to place our campaign stickers on the backs of unsuspecting Republicans--a fun game when your drunk on alcohol and exhaustion. Anyway, I'm ready for a two-day nap.

Follow all the news & updates here...

Lindsay Beyerstein photographing the faces of defeat in Virginia.

Buffalogeek has local analysis and some videos up from the after party.

South Dakota rejects the abortion ban.

BB has got a frank and honest post up about her feelings on the matter. Part of her rage is the continuous message she receives about the apparent worthiness of the fetus inside her compared to her own existence and the well-being of her three children.

How often can one person hear that a fetus is more important than their own life? Than the lives of their children? How many times can you be reminded that you are, to them at least, a sack of shit and not worthy of even living?

Am I cold hearted about this? You bet your ass I am. I'm angry that my life is apparently worth so little because I had sex. I'm angry that people would literally try to fucking murder me by sending me a list of fatal herbs via a 'helpful' email. And that is to say nothing about the picket lines I will most likely have to cross. That speaks nothing to the shame that this society will attempt to thrust upon me for this situation. It speaks nothing to the anger and rage I feel that the penis which was actually attached to the condom apparently becomes utterly invisible.

Read the whole thing here.

Was it rape? They wanted to know. Did she experience "trauma?"

"No. I have not been raped. The condom broke". I state, becoming very frustrated at this point and wondering what the hell is going on.

"Ok, well ummm....Are you married?" he mumbles the words so low I can barely hear them.

Suddenly I get this image of the poor nurse standing at the hospital reading from a cue card that was given to him by a doctor.

"No." I state plainly. "I am not married. I've been in a relationship for several years and I have three children, I don't want a fourth." I respond tersely.

"Oh, I see." He says and then he hurries on, "Well, see. *I* understand. I want you to know that I understand what you're saying. But see, the problem is that we have 4 doctors here right now but only one of them ever writes EC prescriptions. But see, the thing is that he'll interview you and see if you meet his criteria. Now, I called the pharmacy but I also talked to him and well....*clears throat*....you can come down and try to get it. You know, if you meet his criteria he'll give you a prescription, I mean, there's really no harm in trying." the nurse trails off, his voice falters as I realize what I'm being told.

The whole piece is up at Biting Beaver's blog. It's worth the read.

Via Feministing.

Was it rape? They wanted to know. Did she experience "trauma?"

"No. I have not been raped. The condom broke". I state, becoming very frustrated at this point and wondering what the hell is going on.

"Ok, well ummm....Are you married?" he mumbles the words so low I can barely hear them.

Suddenly I get this image of the poor nurse standing at the hospital reading from a cue card that was given to him by a doctor.

"No." I state plainly. "I am not married. I've been in a relationship for several years and I have three children, I don't want a fourth." I respond tersely.

"Oh, I see." He says and then he hurries on, "Well, see. *I* understand. I want you to know that I understand what you're saying. But see, the problem is that we have 4 doctors here right now but only one of them ever writes EC prescriptions. But see, the thing is that he'll interview you and see if you meet his criteria. Now, I called the pharmacy but I also talked to him and well....*clears throat*....you can come down and try to get it. You know, if you meet his criteria he'll give you a prescription, I mean, there's really no harm in trying." the nurse trails off, his voice falters as I realize what I'm being told.

The whole piece is up at Biting Beaver's blog. It's worth the read.

Via Feministing.

Laura's post also made me think about an oft-employed tactic mostly older, mostly male relatives have used on me during discussions in which they disagree with my stance. I've heard it employed by non-relatives too, across the gender lines. I usually call it the Talk to Me When You've Been a Teacher for 35 Years argument since this was the first version I heard as an Opinionated Young Person. The older person, and it really doesn't matter how much older, dismisses the younger person's thoughts and ideas with simple, "Yeah, well, talk to me when you [insert specific experience; ranging in detail, depth, and length of time to "complete" said experience] and then we'll see." Besides the "Talk to me when you've been a teacher for 35 years," response to a discussion about education reform, I've received the "Talk to me after you've been in the Korean War," and "Talk to me when you've got a mortgage." (My friend Stephen, with whom I am applying for a mortgage, and I are secretly excited to be fake-condescending to our friends and respond to anything they say with, "Well, [Friend's name] talk to me when you've got a mortgage.")

It's not so much that I think the experiences of teaching for 35 years, or being in a foreign war, or having a mortgage are insignificant. It's the assumption that there is only one right conclusion derived from such an experience that bothers me, as well as the admittance that then and only then will Older Person consider Younger Person's ideas. It's unfortunate because a potentially great teaching-moment is flushed down the toilet.

All that aside, I don't want to claim that I haven't dismissed someone's argument for a perceived lack of experience on their part. But what I always strive to do, and what I think we'd all benefit from, is to see those moments as an opportunity to share an experience. An opportunity to trace the evolution of related beliefs and, quite possibly, earn some respect.