Shame is a thing we keep private. Things we keep private run the field from things everyone knows we have (like breasts and testicles) to the record or memory of things that make us look less than golden . We therefore wish our friends would simply become complicit in our denial of our own shame (and theirs!). We advocate for people to say nothing as we spin as many lies as all the resources of artificial and hybrid intelligence can muster. There would never have been a nuclear attack on Japan if there were no nuclear bombs. Open season on children in their schools and people we are taught to despise is no cheering matter.

If people want to spend the next decade in litigation over what type of weapons should be banned, let them. If the only weapons of mass murder are in the hands of the 007s it is a good thing since the pool of suspects cannot hide. It is not too late to start a bombing campaign with food and freedom from bigots looking for revolutionary status. Look again if you thought that the right to bear arms and freedom of expression are lifesupport twins.

We need a ban on mindless speculation, on can-do and geewhiz cheerleading in public spaces.  That puts a lot of opining pundits and Bible quotes out of business, but we cannot survive the say-what-we-wish and call in the poopscoopers loop we are in.  It does no good to pretend that our clothes make us exemplary primates. Most animals do way better than the human race. Keeping the private private is still a choice; our neighbours deserve to know as long as they think of us as neighbours and not as competitors and a mystery.

What if your religious leader does not know that God is not a vending machine robot? What if the preacher is at exactly the same distance from God as the King James translation of the Bible and the people who honour God with their lips? I have seen leadership disgracefully bumbling through reading the Scriptures. What are the chances of such a level of literacy resulting in accurate interpretation of the sacred text, even when the crutch of English grammar is in the mix.

Teachers of the Bible are covered with shame when they fail to understand their obligation to get their students in touch with the unadulterated message of Christ as it was written not by the often unreliable and inadequate translations and biased commentaries. What possible reason can anyone have for refusing instruction or for cheering ignorance whether you are Caiaphas the high priest or blind Bartimaeus?