Sublime Depravity

If I were not an Atheist, I'd call it Kismet

2011-02-25T04:43:00.000-08:00

I have not posted here in over a year. Sorry to all you folks, but I think many of you follow me on Adventures in Nerdliness, so know I am not dead. I was thinking about something from my youth that may have kicked off my Atheism, and then get to work and see that the very excellent Darla Crane mentioned this blog. So, what the hell? Here goes.

Like most kids, I loved my grandparents. I was raised Catholic, partially, and all my grandparents (as far as I know) were Catholic. My paternal great grandfather went to church everyday, as did my maternal grandmother. In fact, up until my parents quit going to church (as it was too much of a chore) the only family member I knew did not go to church was my paternal grandfather, Tony.

Now, as an adult, I can see that Tony was a bit of a bastard. He was decent enough I guess, but a severe racist and the type to always have something to complain about. To be fair, he did have one of those American Dickensian upbringings; no father around, and he worked to support the family. I believe at one point he beat his father up to keep him away.

Since my Dad was in the Army we did not live near them, and when we would visit grandma would go to church, but grandpa did not. I only asked once why he did not go to church, as the answer was, "because he doesn't." We went to church until the three of us kids got to our first communion, then the parents felt they had done their Catholic duty and we quit going. Like I said, it was a chore. My parents, while obviously not religious, still seem to be believers, but I am pretty sure now that grandpa was an Atheist. I don't remember him praying before meals, or saying anything was a sin. He was not an overly educated man, but probably did well considering his upbringing. I like to think he was an Atheist like me; one who doesn't put a lot of thought into, but looks at religion and thinks "that is some crazy shit." He was self reliant and probably believed that praying for something wouldn't make it happen.

So, I give the old guy a hard time. He died years ago, and unfortunately his orneriness is his most memorable trait. I'll try to remember him more as someone who showed me the way; never proselytizing, just a guy I loved who didn't need some god to make him what he was.

Amen ;-)

Citizenship

2009-07-19T19:31:00.000-07:00

I want to start by saying I do not have all the facts here, but hope to express impressions related. Sound like a Republican, eh? ;-)

I am a member of the Cape Fear Atheists and Agnostics. We have some activist members, and some like me who enjoy hanging out with people where the thrice-buggered Nazarene will not raise his fanged head. Last night we had a meet-up at a bar & grill. Mostly talking. A new member is from Palestine, and here is the weird part.

He is roughly 35 years-old, gained his US citizenship nine years ago, but was never a citizen of Palestine. Apparently, no one is. Granting citizenship would imply sovereignty which Israel is not interested in offering.

Now, I do not wish to get into the who Israel/Palestine milieu. What struck me was how I am an Atheist mostly from common sense, and partly because of the evils of religion. His intelligence is likely the major factor in becoming an Atheist, but add to that the ridiculous fighting over some piece of shit ground that you could not give away, because of three religions with similar backgrounds and all too similar absurdity.

Ugh. I don't even know what I want to say...

Fuck religion. How's that?

No idea where this came from, but I agree!

2009-07-04T19:06:00.000-07:00

“A conservative Christian needn’t worry that she will accidentally disgrace herself by marrying a libertine, because the libertine has the decency to make his intentions known. In contrast, it’s hard to avoid close social relations with hypocritical traditionalists. Since they pretend to share socially conservative values, they worm their way into your life and your family. Then like the hypocrites they are, they shirk, lie, and adulterer, bringing shame to their spouses, children, and extended families.”

Pics and Thoughts

2009-06-15T18:55:00.000-07:00

Ever wonder why there were no dinosaurs on Noah's Ark? Easy. The devil tried destroying the ark with his dino army.

Typically uptight women protest dirty movies, but when you control the boobies you also control the pecker. Convenient sandwich boards hide turgidity caused while discussing this day's filth.

Last, my new hero, I always thought he was funny, but now that he is a chubby, jolly, non-threatening atheist I can barely hold back the love. It is official: Ricky Gervaise is on my list, IYKWIM.

Last bit of business; I am converting to judaism. I will still be an atheist, but by being a jewish vegetarian I get to eat fish. Fish is paerve, meaning it is neither meat nor milk. I will have to give up shellfish, but that will be easy. I figure conversion will be easy. I'll get a subscription to Heeb. My first and middle names are highly jewish, and my last name has been questioned by jews in the past as being jewish.

Sade says we should mock religion, and what better way to mock than to get an actual benefit - fish!

Or maybe not. I can always mock vegetarians by eating fish and calling it paerve, or just say I am bi-vegetarian.

Finally, a real interpretation.

2009-06-11T08:47:00.000-07:00

Click to enlarge.

Long Time, No Type

2009-06-10T15:54:00.000-07:00

I hope no one feels bad, but I have been a non-posting guy lately. Lots of obnoxious religious stuff going on, primarily the murder of a brave doctor by a nut-job in Kansas.

Frankly, I have been avoiding the news at all costs. I now only listen to the classical station. No news, no traffic, no weather. Just the time and what sonata in G is coming up next. Ignorance truly is bliss.

So, here is a bit of Atheist fun. Gore Vial debating some spiritual types. This via Queer the Pitch.

Next, a bit of offensiveness. As Sade would tell you, disparaging a religious figure is not a validation of him, but certainly entertaining.

So, where can I get these warning labels?

2009-04-29T10:23:00.000-07:00

Social Problems with Atheism

2009-04-28T09:42:00.000-07:00

Two things I notice some trouble with.

First, a small one. Obviously, I don't say "bless you" when someone sneezes. Why do people do this? Are they afraid you will die when you sneeze? I sneeze all the time and am still here. Once I was in line somewhere (fast food, or such) with the wife. She sneezed, I was silent. The woman in front of us just couldn't take it, and after a few itchy seconds turned around to bless her. From now on I plan to do as the Unitarians do, and say "ew, germs!"

Second, is a bigger one. Obviously I don't believe in prayer. Also, I am not comfortable providing empty hope. A virtual friend has a sick relative, and as far as I can go is "good luck." My desires will in no way influence the illness. I wish I could get away with "I'll pray for him," or other such nonsense. It would be easier. I would try to comfort through science, but those involved are being a bit of a pain. I also know better than to say "the doctors know what they are doing."

Society has ingrained so much of this into us. I at times feel callous because I was taught that being as I am is callous. Problem is, many of those responsible for my upbringing were/are superstitious fools.

So, in the case of my friend now, and in future situations, I will say, "I desire an outcome that will not cause you grief." It doesn't sound good, but is accurate.

Nice

2009-04-21T18:18:00.000-07:00

I am a pacifist, and as such should not condone such talk, but...

And I thought I hated Wal-Mart

2009-04-08T08:44:00.000-07:00

see more pwn and owned pictures

Being reactionary for a bit... Sorry.

2009-04-08T05:02:00.000-07:00

Getting bombed with Chinese SPAM. Must moderate comments for a while. If you see this person called "sexy" punch them in the dick for me.

And he was a genius...

2009-04-07T15:56:00.000-07:00

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

—Albert Einstein

A Bible Story... Really?

2009-04-05T07:03:00.001-07:00

This is pretty funny. Some little girl did a pro-creation video, and someone else added cartoons to assist in illustrating her point (so to speak). It is worth watching, though it starts slow.

Man, some people's kids entertainers...

2009-03-11T06:12:00.000-07:00

That is quite a smile. Of course, if I had abs like that I might smile more too.

via The Daily What

Cali Supreme Court is Looking at Prop 8

2009-03-06T09:27:00.000-08:00

I, for one, hope they overturn this. Prop 8, btw, banned(?) gay marriage in California as the result of a referendum. People say gay marriage lessens the sanctity of their marriage. Well, I am an Atheist who was married catholic. I even lied to the priest about being confirmed and all that jazz just to keep all the parents happy. Shouldn't that invalidate your christian union more so?

Anyway, you want to talk about an economic stimulus? Start letting gays and lesbians have weddings. Weddings are expensive and involve a great deal of (generally) local vendors. Increase the slice of the population that can throw a bunch of money around for a party, and you'll see some people working, or at least eating this month.

Last bit on this. Why is it that the referendums are always:

_ Yes, I want to ban gay marriage
_ No, I don't want to ban gay marriage

Why is it never:

_ I want to ban gay marriage
_ I want gay marriage to be legal

Probably because those making decisions (for the most part) do not want to legalize gay marriage. They just want to know how hard a line they can take against it.

PrayerMAX 5000

2009-03-02T18:43:00.001-08:00

Him, I might follow...

2009-03-02T11:40:00.000-08:00

The Atheist Blogroll and Bowling with Atheists

2009-02-22T18:38:00.000-08:00

I'll do the lazy cut/paste version up front:

Sublime Depravity has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can use the blogroll icon in my sidebar to see the entire roll. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.

There are some good sites here.

Saturday I met with a group from meetup.com, local Atheists and Agnostics. We planned to bowl, but could not get a lane, so we hung out, drank beer and ate snack bar food. It was good to get together with strangers whom you didn't have to worry about the j-word rearing its bethorned head :-)

I am changing that Lee Greenwood song.

2009-02-19T09:47:00.000-08:00

"Well I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free to be a complete douche-bag..."

This from Burning Wellies, a BBC report of some midwestern dicksmacks going to England to prevent a production of The Lamarie Project, a play about a man killed for being gay. They want to shine the light of their lard on those godless Brits. Wisely, the Brits plan to turn them away for their intent to express extremist doctrine.

Good for them. Fuck these snake handling bastards. Do us a favor though. When you turn them away, put them on a plane to Pakistan, a dangerous part of it.

The original, and funny, post here at Burning Wellies.

Hmm... Google Ads stupid, or trying to be inclusive?

2009-02-19T05:18:00.000-08:00

I found a link on A is for Atheist today that was pretty funny, godcam (live!).

I think we all know what I found there, but just in case you haven't guessed and/or don't want to follow the link, the "camera" portion is black with the words "Still Not Here."

Like everything else, there are Google Ads on the site. Six of them. The first two, maybe, make sense:

"2D & 3D CadCam. Free Demo: Easy to Learn & Very Affordable See for yourself. Try Our Free Demo" - okey, at least Cam is in there.
"The Dark Side: Learn about Sarah Palin's Religion" - dubious, but is titled The Dark Side.

The next two are to the side, and pretty spot-on:

"Find Atheist Females: Take The True Compatibility Test & Find a Atheist Match Right Now" - alright, a chance to get laid with someone who won't feel guilty about it afterward. I can dig it.
"Oxford Round Table Darwin: Dawkins leads symposium, Scientist 150th year of Origin" - Darwin & Dawkins. The real D&D.

Then it gets a little off-base...

"God Has a Plan for You: Here is a Prayer That Can Change Your Life" - hmm... I don't think this will be ironic.
"Science Sux: Tee-shirts for all metaphysical occasions" - uh-huh... Um, no.

While I can't really fault the reason these are here, it is a bit indicative of other problems with the intertubes. The page has the words "god" and "Atheism" so naturally the program that places ads will flip the electronic coin x number of times (six in this case) and decide whether to place a "god" ad or an "Atheism" ad. This dependency on scripting, this lack of any human input, makes things feel... well, a little retarded maybe? Print publishers are typically picky about what ads appear in their publications. For years Playboy would not take any advertising for hair-loss, or other old-uncool-guy products. Now they do, but they decided to. The scripted ads don't discriminate, but in this case they feed the christian; they get to find new atheist sites (if they mention both "god" and "Atheism").

I don't really have an end to this bit, so I'll just say good day.

"Good day."

You are here.

2009-02-17T17:28:00.000-08:00

From BizarroBlog, via Outside the Interzone.

Quick (I hope) little rant.

2009-02-17T12:39:00.000-08:00

Why is everyone so on fire about Salma Hayek breastfeeding some little African kid?

I know that we never brought the wet nurse concept to the New World, but in Europe most children were breastfed by a wet nurse. The mothers were, in a few cases, too busy planning balls and seducing the stable boy, or, in most cases, farming.

I think I know what the real problem is. Salma Hayek is famous for having outstanding (almost literally) breasts. Is this starving child really getting any sexual pleasure out of it? Now, getting inside Salma's shirt would certainly be a high point in my life, but even if this kid survives past age five, he isn't going to remember.

He's a baby. She's being compassionate. Go read your bible and leave the woman alone.

Okey, all done now.

Internet Blackout Week

2009-02-16T05:25:00.001-08:00

More from the Way-Back Machine, but funny this time.

2009-02-15T16:38:00.000-08:00

More from the Way-Back machine:

Thanks to MikeCann for reminding me of beloved brother Bill.

"Tramp the Dirt Down"

2009-02-15T13:49:00.000-08:00

Please forgive the indignation from the Way-Back Machine here, but I was listening to Sarah Vowell's The Wordy Shipmates last night (we are true romantics, listening to theocratic history on the drive to Valentine's Day dinner), where Ms Vowell rips Ronald Reagan a new one for a good three tracks. She mentions this song by Elvis Costello, where he hopes to live long enough to dance on Margaret Thatcher's grave. For Vowell, and myself, Reagan is that same monster. He is worse than George Bush, H.W. or W., in that he started all the mess we are in today and is idolized by America's more repugnant citizenry. Enjoy.

Lake Woebegone Atheists

2009-02-13T07:46:00.000-08:00

On last weekend's "A Prairie Home Companion" Garrison Keilor was discussing the Lutheranism of Lake Woebegone, and I thought this was particularly funny. I am paraphrasing, because I have a lousy memory.

"In Lake Woebegone, we are all Lutherans. Even the Atheists are Lutherans, because it is a Lutheran god they do not believe in."

Two new sites (to me)

2009-02-10T05:48:00.000-08:00

First, The Friendly Atheist, which looks less preachy, more thoughtful, and has a lot of humor. It led me to:

Atheist Cartoons, which had this little gem:

"The Misfortunes of Virtue" vs "Justine"

2009-02-06T05:02:00.000-08:00

We had a comment regarding Sade's Justine recently, so I thought I would give the book and character a little blurb. "Anonymous", you might want to start a Google account to get a Blogger name. Use a fake name, if you like. That's what I do.

Justine, in my opinion, is Sade's personal favorite character. She appears in numerous works. She is in:

The Misfortunes of Virtue (1787)¹
Justine, or the Misfortunes of Virtue (1791)¹
The New Justine (1799)¹
Juliette, or Vice Amply Rewarded (1797)²

Justine and Juliette, her sister, are raised in a convent. When their parents die they are thrown out; they were not there for free, after all. Justine was devoted to virtue, and Juliette to vice. They separated when Justine refused to enter a life of crime with her sister. Justine falls prey to numerous libertines and gets in trouble with the law. Each time she commits a virtuous act, she is punished.

If you have not read Sade before, The Misfortunes of Virtue is a great place to start. This is Sade at his clearest, though it is early in his philosophical development. The book is rather brief, and David Coward has done an excellent translation to English with a good introduction/biography that is worth reading. The New Justine, translated by Richard Seaver and/or Austryn Wainhouse in their collection for Grove Press, is far more wordy, contains lengthy diatribes, and is closer to the then lost 120 Days of Sodom. There is one difference that changes the entire book for me.

In Misfortunes, Justine comes in contact with a female criminal, Dubois, who helps Justine escape from prison. Dubois is the leader of a gang of highwaymen. She proposes that Justine travel with them and live a life of crime. Justine declines, and the men decide to rape her. Dubois stops them, allowing Justine to escape. In Justine, Dubois assists the prison escape, but is not the gang's leader. They are led by a man called Coeur de Fer (Heart of Iron). Again, Justine escapes, but is not saved by Dubois. Rather than being their leader, Dubois' role is to service the men in the troupe. A bizarre spectacle takes place where Dubois masturbates each man simultaneously with a system of strings. This removal of a woman from a leadership role is a shift in Sade's thinking. Women are not only less capable as men in the commission of evil (as we'll see in Juliette, but are incapable of leadership.

This opens a door on the idea of Sade as a feminist. He is commonly thought to be victimizing women, but is he rather showing the baseness of men? There are other examples of Sade preaching for the social equality of women (particularly after the Revolution), but he also believes in survival of the fittest and that might makes right — not from a moral standpoint, but as a social fact.

References:

Phillips, John. The Marquis de Sade: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
"Bibliography of the Marquis de Sade." Wikipedia. 6 Feb 2009 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_the_Marquis_de_Sade>.

Atheism as Crusade?

2009-01-19T09:30:00.000-08:00

I do not really read books or magazine articles on Atheism. I don't really follow blogs or other news. I also do not try to convert others. I don't think I am much of an Atheist Crusader.

I ignore most writings on the subject because, frankly, they are written for the non-Atheist in hopes of making her into one. This, I do not need. I don't need an explanation on why I should be or am an Atheist, it just makes sense to me. The main exceptions are the Marquis de Sade, who I do read, and Christopher Hitchens, who I occasionally follow. Both have more to offer than talking points.

As far as conversion goes; is it really a good idea to do away with religion? The majority of people obviously need it. The need for religion by the masses is as plain as its fallacy, in my mind.

One reason is that people, by and large, and not all that smart. They do not want an obscure answer to why x is when it is easy enough to believe their deity made it so. Stephen Colbert made the best point-via-joke about this; Occam's Razor proves creationism, as the simplest answer is typically the correct one, and what is more simple than a deity saying "make it so?"

Second, man is a cruel beast. We are little better than the animals we subjugate. The difference is that animals do not have some invisible bogey-man to tell them how to behave. It is a tool of civilization, and a necessary one. The depravity of Sade's libertines show the extents of man's capacity for "evil" and often make a case against him. If there were no great father in the sky wagging his finger at man, who knows how we would have turned out?

The problem for me with religion is the problem for believers; when religion starts to impose itself on you, regardless of your beliefs, you often have little recourse. Religion and the state are always tied together. Either the ruler declares divine right for his rule, or the elected official must placate the unwashed masses by displaying a similar zeal to theirs. In America, we often see going against religion (christianity) as going against the deity, so few question faith based rulings, and few are drawn to Atheism.

So, ultimately, I agree with anyone shouting "keep your rosaries off my ovaries," and other such slogans. I'll support any Atheist who makes any sense, but I do not proselytize. I feel religion is a necessary "evil," but would prefer they keep it to themselves. I would never argue with someone over their faith (partly because they love that), but frankly lose a little respect for anyone intelligent whom I find is backwards enough to fall for such crap.

Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma (Pasolini, 1975)

2009-01-15T06:50:00.000-08:00

What happens when you take the most disturbing book of all time and try to make a movie of it? Typically, you fail. Pier Paolo Pasolini, however, was able to capture the spirit of The 120 Days of Sodom and add to the depravity, sense of despair, and the abject cruelty of the "Four Friends." If you are not familiar with Sodom, I did a brief overview here.

In Sodom, much of the focus lies in the stories being told by Duclos. The libertines are cruel, to be sure, but they are border-line comical. Sade is mocking them, and since the most horrific actions occur in the chapters of the book we do not have, they are not as feared as might be warranted. Pasolini changes this. Some other things make the movie more troublesome, and it is not purely the visual representation that does so.

In Sodom, the major action takes place a the Chateau Silling, which is high in the alps. It is impossible to get to after the libertines arrive, and they brick all windows and doors to prevent ingress or egress. It is winter. The chateau feels small. It is claustrophobic, and the libertines relish the seclusion. In Salò the chateau is out in the open. It is sunny and seems like Spring. Sade's vision may be darker, but the impression of things being in the open is more disturbing. Pasolini was apparently inspired, you might say, by the fascist activities in the country of Salò. In that case, the libertines were the law and could do these things publicly. This is more disturbing to me than clandestine actions.

Another area where Pasolini adds to the depravity is with his expansion of the role of the collaboratori, or "The Fuckers" as they were described by Seaver & Wainhouse. In Sodom, they are often mentioned, but have little in the way of personality. They participate, but are not the focus. In Salò, they are represented as young stormtroopers. They are armed, and often take action without prompting, though they are acting in the libertines' interests. They are still the libertines' lovers, but have an enhanced fuck-anything-with-a-pulse character.

The last thing I'll mention here is the expansion of the slaves' character. In Sodom, the slaves are primarily nameless, faceless objects. They have names, of course, but the names lose meaning, any thing that happens to one of them could be happening to any of them. If we had the whole story, there likely would be expansion of their characters, but they are undeveloped by Sade. In Salò, some of the slaves begin enjoying the depravity. Sade touches on this, but Pasolini expands the thought. It is plain that children in harsh circumstances will often be drawn to what appears to be right. Also, at the story-telling sessions, you see many sitting around listless, crying, bored... Acting as children would in situations they are not pleased with. This aspect comes across more effectively in visual media.

IMDb Entry for Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma

The 120 Days of Sodom, an Introduction

2008-12-29T06:53:00.000-08:00

The 120 Days of Sodom is quite possibly the most vile book in the history of literature, and we only have a quarter of it. A bit of history:

Sade wrote Sodom while imprisoned in the Bastille. He had been arrested for blasphemy and assaulting a prostitute. He was accused of cutting her back and pouring wax on the wounds, defecating on a crucifix, and sodomizing the prostitute after inserting a communion wafer into her rectum. He was acquitted, but his actual guilt is questionable; he was an aristocrat, and as such could get away with a variety of crimes if committed against commoners; on the other hand, blasphemy was not tolerated, and sodomy was a capital crime in France. His imprisonment came about through a lettre de cachet (a special order from the king as a favor to a noble, used to keep unruly nobles in line). In this case, the lettre de cachet was granted to Sade's new mother-in-law.

Sodom was meant to be a catalogue of libertine passions, ranging from the mundane to the highly criminal. The "heroes" represent groups Sade despised:

The aristocracy is personified by the Duke du Blangis.
The Church by the Dukes brother, the Bishop of X.
The nouveau riche by the financier Durcet.
The courts by the President du Curval.

It is hard to determine who is most villainous, but my money is on Curval.

Now, as to why we only have a quarter of the book. Sade knew it was dangerous, so he hid it in his cell. When the Bastille was stormed, he thought it was lost, and frantically worked from his notes to rewrite it, so we have the first quarter in literary form, and the rest in outline. The original was eventually recovered, but was burned by his son.

I'll get further into the text later. If you are interested in reading Sodom there are two easily available versions of the book in English:

The 120 Days of Sodom & Other Writings translated & compiled by Austryn Wainhouse and Richard Seaver (pictured above).
The 120 Days of Sodom translated & edited by James Havoc (pictured below).

The Wainhouse/Seaver edition is much better. It is a literal translation, contains some similar stories, and has critical material from both the translators and other scholars. The Havoc version cuts out quite a bit of material, particularly the setup. Sade describes the libertines' histories quite a bit and you get to know just what kind of depravity is coming. Havoc edits a great deal of this out in order to get directly to the château. He also changes some of the flavor of the story. It reads a bit more quickly, but I think it sacrifices a good deal of what Sade is trying to say.

There is also Pier Paolo Pasolini's Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma (1975), which is a film based on Sodom that is very true to the book (more on that in a later post. It is currently available as Salò from the Criterion Collection.

That's all for now. Next time we'll look at the libertines, starting with the Duke du Blangis.

Quick Note

2008-12-19T11:17:00.000-08:00

I wanted to do an introduction that I could point to, so it was pretty generic. Here is a bit more of the deal.

I likely won't post as often here as on AiN or D&N. What I have in the work will hopefully be a bit more substantial to make up for the spareness of posts.

First, several posts about aspects of The 120 Days of Sodom. A despicable, but compelling book. It is a terrible place for new Sade readers to start, but is fundamental to understanding him.

Second, a review (or several reviews) of Pier Paulo Pasolini's Salò, which is based on Sodom. I had planned on this for one of the other blogs, but the bootleg DVD I had would not play on my laptop. I just god the Criterion re-release, so there should be no problems.

Other than that, we see how things go. I have not flagged this blog as being adult, but may eventually change that. I'll definitely touch on Sade a lot and likely Catherine Millet. Maybe Sacher-Masoch?

Introduction

2008-12-18T12:16:00.000-08:00

So, another blog? "What's up with that?" you might ask. If you are here from Adventures in Nerdliness you may know I try to steer clear of religion, politics, and sex. Those are not items for the target audience. I tend to think of blogs as magazines. You don't read Vanity Fair for gaming news, or Big Naturals for political insight.

I am a big fan, a student you might say, of the Marquis de Sade, staunch atheist, and a believer in the vaugeness of right and wrong. I know what I believe in and do not proselytize; I naïvely expect the same from others. Discourse with similar minded people is at the heart of free thought, so here is my place to pursue that. So please feel free to post comments to any posts that strike a chord.

—Darius Whiteplume