The Portable Atheist - Some Internet Sources

I recently read The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Non-Believer, by Christopher Hitchens -well, most of it. A fair amount I’d already read elsewhere, other bits just didn’t grab me. But I have to say its a treasured bit of reading that will stay handy on my bookshelf. I’ve made fair bit of pencil marks in the margins and left a few little sticky arrows on the pages so I can navigate my way back to the passages they mark at a later date.

It occurred to me that much of what is found in this tome can also be found on the web. In fact, a lot of it can. Of course, you miss a fantastic introduction by Hitchens and the portability factor is nearly completely lost even if you have a laptop with WIFI.

I thought I’d list the table of contents here, linking to the articles, excerpts, and books as they are already found on the internet. The links worked the day I typed this and I offer no warranty or guarantee that they’ll continue to work in the future. For the essays, articles or texts that I didn’t have or couldn’t find a link for, I tried to link to a biography or personal webpage for the writer, usually indicated by the fact that the link is the writer not the title of the work itself.

Pay close attention, also, to the information in brackets. In at least one or two instances it denotes a PDF file.

I’m confident that by browsing some of these links, you’ll purchase a copy of The Portable Atheist. It’s great to have a source for these texts so you can do keyword searches or copy/paste excerpts in blog posts, etc., but there’s no substitution to being able to pick up a book and take it with you.

**************

1. Lucretius, from De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things), Book I Translated by W. Hannaford Brown

2. Omar Khayyam, from Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam: A Paraphrase from Several Literal Translations by Richard Le Gallienne

3. Thomas Hobbes, Of Religion, from Leviathan

4. Benedict De Spinoza, Theoological-Political Treatise

5. David Hume, The Natural History of Religion; of Miracles

6. James Boswell, An Account of My Last Interview with David Hume, Esq.

7. Percy Bysshe Shelley, A Refutation of Deism

8. John Stuart Mill, Moral Influences in My Early Youth, from Autobiography

9. Karl Marx, Contributions to the Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Right

10. George Eliot, Evangelical Teaching

11. Charles Darwin, Autobiography

12. Leslie Stephen, An Agnostic’s Apology

13. Anatole France, Miracle

14. Mark Twain, Thoughts of God, From Fables of Man; Bible Teaching and Religious Practice, From Europe and Elsewhere and A Pen Warmed Up in Hell

15. Joseph Conrad, Author’s Note to The Shadow Line

16. Thomas Hardy, God’s Funeral

17. Emma Goldman, The Philosophy of Atheism

18. H.P. Lovecraft, A Letter on Religion

19. Carl Van Doren, Why I Am An Unbeliever

20. H. L. Mencken, Memorial Service

21. Sigmund Freud, From The Future of an Illusion, Translated and edited by James Strachey

22. Albert Einstein, Selected Writings on Religion

23. George Orwell, From A Clergyman’s Daughter

24. John Betjeman, In Westminster Abby

25. Chapman Cohen, Monism and Religion an Old Story

26. Bertrand Russell, An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish

27. Philip Larkin, Aubade; Church Going

28. Martin Gardner, The Wandering Jew and the Second Coming

29. Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World; The God Hypothesis

30. John Updike, From Roger’s Version

31. J.L. Mackie, Conclusions and Implications, From The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God

32. Michael Shermer, Genesis Revisited: A Scientific Creation Story

33. A.J. Ayer, That Undiscovered Country

34. Daniel C. Dennett, Thank Goodness!

35. Charles Templeton, From A Farewell to God, A Personal Word; Questions to Ask Yourself

36. Richard Dawkins, Why There Almost Certainly Is No God; Gerin Oil; Atheists for Jesus

37. Victor Stenger, From God: the Failed Hypothesis [promo site], Cosmic Evidence

38. Daniel C. Dennett, A Working Definition of Religion, From “Breaking Which Spell?”

39. Elizabeth Anderson, If God is Dead, Is Everything Permitted? [abstract]

40. Penn Jillette, There is No God

41. Ian McEwan, End of the World Blues [PDF]

42. Steven Weinberg, What About God?, From Dreams of a Final Theory

43. Salman Rushdie, “Imagine There’s No Heaven: A Letter to the Six Billionth World Citizen”

44. Ibn Warraq, The Koran; The Totalitarian Nature of Islam

45. Sam Harris, In the Shadow of God, From The End of Faith [excerpts]

46. A.C. Grayling, Can an Atheist Be a Fundamentalist?, From Against All Gods

47. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, How (and Why) I Became an Infidel

Atheists on Twitter?

Just curious: how many atheist bloggers are on twitter? I’ve been using Twitter with another username for a while and I’ve got to say it has its advantages.

I was skeptical about whether or not I’d find it useful at first, but now I keep a Twitter window open all the time. It’s a great way to pass links and notes about new developments and news. Once you’ve established a circle of friends that you follow, you’ll see their “tweets,” a timeline of short, 140 charact messages that can include hypertext links (Tiny URL becomes a must).

Initially, I just kept a twitter tab open in Firefox or Opera, but now I’m using two different Twitter clients. One is a widget for Opera, the other is Twitux. My primary operating system is Ubuntu Linux, and both work well there. But at the Twitter Downloads Page, there are several clients, widgets and gadgets for iGoogle, Firefox, Opera, Windows, Mac, mobile devices, etc.

Signing up is simple, just choose a username & password and enter an email address. You can then add friends by letting Twitter search your email contacts, or you can search key words like “atheists,” “science,” etc.

Give it a whirl. If you find you don’t like it, you can always delete your username from Twitter. There aren’t a lot of social networkng sites that allow that.

Point of Inquiry and the Chris Hedges Interview

I just finished listening to the recent interview D.J. Grothe did with Chris Hedges on Point of Inquiry: I don’t believe in atheists (5/2/08). Grothe is an excellent interviewer and I’m always impressed with his ability to engage a guest with smart questions and dialog, resulting in a podcast that gives the listener a new insights to a guest they may have already listened to time and again. His interviews with Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, James Randy and many others who are already familiar speakers have never failed to provide a fresh perspective.

Having said that, I’d add that his interview with Chris Hedges was the first I’ve listened to that even Grothe seemed a bit frustrated with the guest! Mind you, he still manages it well (far better than I would have) and the result is still an informative interview.

Chris Hedges is the author of I Don’t Believe in Atheists, in which he attempts to outline a case against the “new atheists” (Dawkins, Hithchens, Harris, …), specifically that they are “fundamentalists,” “radicals,” and believers of “utopianism..” To be fair, I’ve not read the book. Indeed, I’ve not even heard of it or Hedges until the POI interview. So my criticisms of Hedges’ opinions are based solely on the interview itself and his words there, which Hedges implied were a reflection of what he wrote in the book.

• Radical Atheism

To the first charge that the “new atheists” are “radical,” (I’ve a feeling there may be some liberal use of inverted commas throughout this post, so forgive me (at least I’m not nesting parenthetical comments)), I’d say this is true. After all, this is part of the reason the adjective “new” is applied to the label of atheism. Books like The End of Faith, God is Not Great, and The God Delusion are radical departures from previous atheistic literature if only in their marketing and popularity. The messages of these atheist authors is, likewise, radical in that there is a call for the rationally minded to speak out, to question, and to come out as atheists were applicable. Never before has atheism been so popular. There’s nothing wrong or inappropriate about being radical, particularly if it’s for the right cause.

But what Hedges seems to want us to believe is that being radical is synonymous with being wrong, evil, or otherwise negative for society. Granted there are many radical people who are flat out evil: suicide bombers, car jackers, wife beaters, polygamist cult leaders, advocates of female genital mutilation… these are all radical members of society. But what of those that led movements of suffrage, organized labor, and civil rights in the early part of the 20th century? And countless other “radicals” who recognized that the status quo was worth changing or improving upon?

• But what of Hedges’ charge that the new atheists are “fundamentalists”?

Hedges wields the term like a pejorative with an intent to be insulting more than critical. This, of course, isn’t new to atheists who apply the term to religious wackjobs, nuts, and cranks that go on about creationism, try to convince reasoned people that huricanes and tsunamis are hurled by imaginary deities at cities and nations because of homosexuality, and that science is the work yet another, albeit evil, deity known as Satan. In order to see why it’s a term that wouldn’t apply to atheists, new or old, it might first be helpful to understand the origin of term “fundamental.”

The Fundamentals were a series of pamphlets distributed by to churches and clergy by Protestant Christian apologists in the earliest decades fo the 20th century. Funded by a grant by Milton and Lyman Stewart of Union Oil Company, this collection of 90 essays in a 12 volume series of pamphlets essentially touched on what were then described as the “fundamentals” of Christianity:

1. the inerrancy of the Bible as the literal word of God;
2. the virgin birth of Christ;
3. the bodily resurrection of Christ;
4. the belief that Christ , through his death by crucifixion, forgave for the sins of humanity;
5. the belief that Christ will, one day, return to establish his kingdom on Earth

Later proponents of The Fundamentals advocated, a return of society to a “pre-1950’s” structure and hierarchy in family and society as a whole: where gender roles were clear and those that wouldn’t accept a fundamentalist worldview were marginalized from the in-group of “right thinking” Christians. Mormons, Christian Scientists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews, etc. were all threats to the “fundamental truths” of Christianity. This may even have been handy in demonizing the “atheistic communists” during the first years of the Cold War, the same years we first see the words “in God we trust”, on U.S. currency and hear the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Eisenhower probably wasn’t trying to follow the advice written in the essays of The Fundamentals that lambasted “higher criticism,” argued against liberalism, and denounced false churches. Instead he was seeking to unify a nation against the common enemy of communism. It must have been easier to show the American people that our cause is just by vilifying and demonizing the communist as godless -surely God was on our side.

These days, fundamentalists are generally regarded as those cranks and kooks in society that adhere to the literal “truths” of whatever cult they belong to, as told in their scriptures. Ironically, fundamentalists are the truly honest members of their respective religions since liberal or moderate adherents appear to cherry pick what portions of their scriptures are to be taken literal and which are to be considered allegorical, poetic, or the limited perspectives of Bronze Age nomads.

I think liberal and moderate adherents of religious cults know this. It pisses them off since their reason and intellect tells them most of their cult scripture is pure B.S. -otherwise they’d be proponents of stoning adulterers and beheading rape victims. And yet they can’t shake their delusions about old bearded white men in the sky and pretend to be affronted with the “new atheists” that dare to point out their fallacy. The new atheists dare to question time honored traditions of superstition. The new atheists have the audacity to criticize beliefs of others and to suggest that those beliefs are linked to violence, ignorance, and -let’s face it- stupidity.

Worse than that, Hedges goes so far as to mischaracterize the arguments of new atheists, specifically, Sam Harris. Several times, Hedges stated that Harris advocated in The End of Faith for a preemptive, first strike and nuclear war with Islam; that he equates all Muslims as suicide bombers and terrorists who fly planes into buildings. Clearly Hedges either: 1) didn’t actually read Harris’ book; 2) didn’t understand what he read; or 3) is outright mischaracterizing Harris’ words for those whom he is betting has not read The End of Faith. I don’ t think 1) is true, though it is possible. Had 2) been the case, I wouldn’t imagine Hedges would have been employed by newspapers like the Dallas Morning News and the Christian Science Monitor. That just leaves 3), unless I’m overlooking an option, and, where I live, mischaracterized is just a fancy way of saying “he lied.”

Here’s what Sam Harris had to say in The End of Faith (pp 128-129):

What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen.

One thing that was very obvious with Hedges’ interview with Grothe, and if I’m off the mark please tell me in a comment here, is that Hedges seemed pretty full of him self. Several times Grothe questioned the reasoning or the justification for his opinion and each time Hedges seemed to respond with an appeal to his time spent with Muslims here or there; the fact that he’s allegedly “banned” from Saudi Arabia for his journalism there; etc.

I’ve decided I’m not going to comment on the “utopianism” nonsense that Hedges seems to go on about. There are so many other things wrong with his arguments in his book (assuming that he was accurately portraying them in the interview) that I’ll let others listen, read and criticize.

One things for sure, if the nonsense he was spewing on Point of Inquiry is any guide to his intellect, honesty, and integrity, I certainly see no reason to believe in Chris Hedges or accept the veracity of anything else he’s written on the Middle East, Islam, Iraq, and Terrorism.

Rick Perry Is Just Too Scary

This is the Texas governor that was caught on a DPS dash-cam telling a female trooper (who just stopped his limo for speeding) that she should just “git on down the road, [little lady?]” because he’s above the law the rest of us must follow with regard to speeding.

Now, he’s promoting his book On My Honor: Why American Values of the Boy Scouts are Worth Fighting For. I honestly haven’t read it, but, by his own words, the gist is that he’s mounting a “counter-attack” to support the bigotry and superstitious nonsense of the Boy Scouts.

Scouting ought to be about building character, not about sex. Period. Precious few parents enroll their boys in the Scouts to get a crash course in sexual orientation.

… [t]he ban in scouting applies to scout leaders. When you have a clearly open homosexual scout leader, the scouts are going to talk about it. And they’re not there to learn about that. They’re there to learn about what it means to be loyal and trustworthy and thrifty.

… The argument that gets made is that homosexuality is about sex. Do you agree?

…[if you disagree,] then why don’t they call it something else?

The above dialog was taken from an interview Perry did with Deborah Solomon of The New York Times. And his sentiment is representative of the fear and bigotry that exists among the “religious right” about people who are different than they. It also reveals an underlying form of ignorance that associates the word “sex” with human intercourse. Perhaps this is one of the reasons they have so much difficulty with scientifically established concepts like evolution which includes the notion of “sexual selection.” Like the 5th graders snickering at the back of the classroom when the biology teacher uses the term “sexual dimorphism,” Rick Perry leaves us to only wonder whether he’s Beavis or Butthead.

After Perry’s visit to the TCU (Texas Christian University) campus, promoting his book, Brett Larson wrote on the Daily Skiff, the official student publication for TCU, a brief critique that included these very pointed comments:

If children are the future, and the future is tolerance, how can an establishment with the sole purpose of building morals, justness and courage take a cowardly and offensive back road?

With a motto like “Always be Prepared,” how can the Boy Scouts fail to prepare for this undeniable disillusionment in the quality of difference?

Here’s a brief excerpt from the book:

If I see “Eagle Scout” on a yong man’s resume, I know immediately that he has been tested and has persevered; that he can stick to a task until it is completed; that I can trust him to give his full effort in the advance of our mission.

It wouldn’t be difficult to add that Perry would also know in his mind that the “young man” probably wasn’t a fag or atheist, or if he was either he was very adept at being extremely discrete about it. You see, one of the main things that the so-called religious right wants preserved is this unique and effective method of discriminating. Every Eagle Scout includes it on his resume.

If you have the chance, visit this Amazon Review and vote it up or even add comments. Or, if you’ve actually read the book, post a review of your own. But please vote this reviewer up so his comments might be moved to the top -he’s the only critical reviewer thus far and, to date, 37 people have voted that it was “not helpful” (which is a telling response by itself).

Bible Bashing Crime

Alabama mayor Larry Langford has been accused of not doing enough to fight crime.

So what does he do?

Increase spending to law enforcement? Support crime prevention measures and awareness? Find ways to reduce demonstrable catalysts for crime like poverty, failures in public education, joblessness, and housing?

No, nothing so mundane or worldly. The Mayor of Birmingham boldly boasts of biblical brawn. He handed out 5,000 bibles in both English and Spanish to attendees of a family summit on April 4th.

“He is the only source of protection you’ve got. I make no apologies for it. I serve a good God and I’m glad He found me.”

Think I’m kidding? Watch the video.

Actually, the move is politically brilliant. He’s a failure at crime prevention and protecting his constituency and clueless of how to accomplish realistic and rational goals in this endeavor. By invoking God and playing to the superstitions of the voters, he makes himself appealing and difficult to criticize by anyone that runs against him. After all, he has God on his side, right?

Some interesting figures:

There are 1332 churches listed in the “SuperPages” for Birmingham, Alabama.

There are 229,424 people in Birmingham, AL according to Wikipedia.

There are 311 churches in listed in the “SuperPages” for Madison, WI.

There are 223,389 people in Madison, WI according to Wikipedia.

Birmingham, Alabama and Madison, Wisconsin are roughly the same size cities according to Wikipedia and yet the difference in number of churches according to SuperPages is roughly 1000! Not a scientific comparison, but a rough one that serves a purpose.

Now, what is the comparison of crime between the two cities?

Answer:

Conclusion: Bibles and religion aren’t working.

Edit: the above graph can be found at AreaConnect.com, Crime Rate Comparison: Birmingham Vs. Madison. Check it out… compare your own city to the city you’re planning to move to, etc.

Science and Evolution with the NCSE

I just discovered a site that may not be new to many others in the atheosphere but it is a welcome and new addition to my Google Reader (and I’ll put a link in my sidebar). Not an atheist blog (but I’m sure there are many creationists that would disagree), the National Center for Science Education has some interesting news bits on recent developments in science education (as implied by the site’s title), particularly in evolution.

A recent entry announces the International Society for Science and Religion which just adopted a position that describes intelligent design as “neither sound science nor good theology.”

Other news items of recent days include the news that the Florida state education board voted to include “the scientific theory of” just before the word “evolution.” I don’t see the problem with this, but nuts that think ”theory” is synonamous with ”hair-brained idea” will equate creation mythology with scienctific facts that comprise theories.

The NCSE isn’t a blog per se -there’s no comments section for the items above that I could see, but there’s an RSS feed. Add it to your aggregator  for the latet news in science education.

Evidence of Delusion: Cartoon Inspired Riots

The cartoon-inspired riots in the past few weeks over the reprinting of the infamous Danish Cartoons of Muhammad are clear evidence of religious delusion. Why else would someone call for the death of a cartoonist who drew and inked the image of another person who’s been taking a dirt nap for nearly two thousand years? The dumb-asses who riot and burn effigies and flags of Danes and Denmark don’t even know if the cartoonist was event close at approximating Muhammad’s likeness!

And what’s this fetish with creating effigies and buying flags for burning? That they truly think this hurts peoples’ feelings shows how ignorant, backward, and deluded these people are. If they weren’t so bent on killing someone over a bloody cartoon, it would be comical! Just this past week, about 150 nutjobs of the local Muslim cult in Jakarta, Malaysia  Indonesia demonstrated in front of the Danish and Dutch embassies after a reprinting of the infamous cartoons (one of which is shown above) by a Danish publication.

Are they that stupid? Don’t they realize that the Danish embassy has no connection to a publisher that happens to be in the same nation the embassy represents? Being so wrapped up in their own sharia bullshit, banana court system and government, do they think that the rest of the world works the same way? Probably, which is still more evidence of their delusion by thinking that concepts of free press, freedom of expression, and free thought are non-existent.

Muslims are free to believe whatever batshit, superstitious nonsense they would like. So are Christians, Jews, Hindus, Fulani, and Wiccans. If they want to believe that creating an image of their silly prophet (penis be unto him) is offensive and against their religion, that’s fine. But they don’t have the right to bully, pressure, threaten and otherwise mandate that free press and the publications in free nations observe their batshit superstitions.

Sorry for the rant. I just ran across the story above and, having read several others recently, I had to get it off my chest. And its another good reason to publish a picture of Muhammad’s ugly mug. Next thing you know, I’m going to start using the word “theistard.”

The Godless Community

I’m a big fan of Atheist Revolution. In fact, of all the blogs in the atheosphere that I read, Vjack’s is the only one that I would be hesitant to delete from my Google Reader. Vjack has a post on a topic that I find near and dear: Defending the Atheist Movement. He begins thus:

Driving down the freeway, I observe two men, both riding Harley-Davidson motorcycles, pass each other while heading in opposite directions.Both extend the well-known “low wave,” a one-armed salute one often sees among bikers. There was no reason to suspect that these men knew each other, only that they share a common bond. They belong to no real community and certainly have no organizational structure. Their bond is about a shared identity. And even though they may never meet face-to-face, the connection is palpable.

And like the biker culture, Vjack rightly points out the existence of dissent among motorcycle enthusiasts in which there is an elite group that considers itself to be “bikers” and the rest “posers.” He doesn’t say this in terms as explicit, but the atheist movement is very much the same in that there are those that consider themselves to be “atheists” and the rest to be the equivalent of “posers.” This sub-group of weak atheists, Neville Chamberlain atheists, and other disparaging or pejorative terms that separate them from the “militant”-type atheists, many of whom embrace the “militant” term with open arms.

Personally, I’m not a big favor of “militant,” “weak,” “Neville Chamberlain,” and other monikers, though I acknowledge they do tend to characterize individual atheists that have differing opinions of how to approach the topic and movement of atheism.

However, there are some commonalities that atheists generally share. Even the bikers who disparage the “posers” cannot disagree that there is something alluring and free about riding a motorcycle -a quality shared between the posers that ride Hondas, Yamahas, and BMWs and the “bikers” that stick to their Harleys and Indians.

The atheist who considers himself to be “militant” in his atheism also shares most of the same concerns as the atheist that is less-militant. And Vjack nails it on the head here:

1. Sharp, sustained criticism of religion as irrational and destructive
2. Promotion of a reality-based worldview including reason, science, skepticism, critical thinking, secular education, and secular humanism
3. Defense of atheist rights from a Civil Rights perspective to end anti-atheist discrimination and reduce anti-atheist bigotry
4. Support for atheists in their escape from religion

Possibly the only item above that might not be universally shared is the first, but even the “Neville Chamberlains” among us probably recognize the irrationality of religion, so some bit of that point will also ring true. Reading the comments of Vjack’s original post, there is a bit of disagreement with some to the inclusion of “secular humanism,” but I think their reservations are misplaced. Some view secular humanism as a pseudo-religious position. This might be true but only if you accept that the things that it takes from religion is the sense of community and social bonding, leaving the supernatural and other deleterious aspects behind. The result isn’t a religion or even a philosophy that aspires to be a religion. The result is a worldview that simply says you can have morality and justice in the world without invoking supernatural origins or authority.

But Vjacks main point is the one that shouldn’t be overlooked, regardless of how each of us individually characterizes our own atheism: we our bonded by a common godless position. Whether we are hard-line militant atheists or agnostics who think its fine for the religious to believe what they will, we each accept that the supernatural isn’t necessary to live our lives. We each recognize the irrationality of religion. We each attempt to hold a rational worldview. We each desire that atheists rights be recognized. And we each hope that those seeking to escape religion are at least provided with an environment that allows them to make their own choices and to inquire freely.

I don’t always agree with all of its members, but I’m proud to be a member of the godless community.

Reason -vs- Faith

A new blog & website has been launched by the folks that brought us The Jesus Myth. It’s called Reason vs. Faith and described by the authors as:

My intentions for this site is to have a fair and balanced place for atheists, theists and agnostics to discuss whatever issues they would like…

The blog isn’t an Atheist Blog, but rather a crossroads of sorts, where they hope to have an intersection of atheistic and theistic dialog. They have plenty of atheist contributors, but are a bit short of theistic ones, so if any theists are reading they might like to try their hand at debate and discourse at Reason vs. Faith.

Carnival of the Godless - Oops!

I missed yet another opportunity to include a post with this outstanding blog carnival. I really must make a reminder for myself … if anyone knows of a tiny PIM or calendar that can sit in the system tray, perhaps that would be the solution (Outlook is just too bulky and cumbersome).

Anyway, while I might have missed a chance to post there, I’ll certainly not miss the opportunity to read the latest edition of  The Carnival of the Godless at Mind on Fire! I’ve already perused some of the links and the bloggers there have done a fine job of presenting them. Now… I’m off to read more…

For the link to submit entries to CoG, click here.