Teaching Darwin to Voodoo Evangelicals & Other Darwinophobes

by Omyma

If the Theory of Evolution were on sale at Wal-Mart, these would be Darwin Days. For the coincidental 200th birthday of Charles D plus the 150th birthday of the publishing of his Origin of the Species, many around the world celebrate by publishing articles, books, blogs and exhibitions on the importance of the man and his breakthrough ideas. But for some 25% of Americans, according to a CNN poll, and possibly more from the 36% undecided/don't know group, evolution is not true, not fact, not even important. Evangelicals and their conservative brethren consider it a dangerous lie.

It is not just 'evolution' but the foundations of scientific enquiry that inspires their rage. It is ironic that in this technologically-advanced nation, a large section of the population does not believe the very basis on which much of that technology, the core processes and investigations upon which much of modern civilization and advancement, is based. They are are not passive dissenters. They exert political pressure and take other actions to prevent the free dissemination of scientific ideas.

One would expect a better result in the UK, Darwin's home turf. But that's not exactly the case.

Half of British adults do not believe in evolution, with at least 22% preferring the theories of creationism or intelligent design to explain how the world came about, according to a survey.

With about 50% of Britons believing in evolution to varying degrees, this is somewhat better than the U.S., where only 39% believe in evolution (just slightly more than the undecideds), but it is far below where one would think. Even stranger is this fact:

..around 10% of people chose young Earth creationism – the belief that God created the world some time in the last 10,000 years – over evolution.
About 12% preferred intelligent design, the idea that evolution alone is not enough to explain the structures of living organisms. The remainder were unsure, often mixing evolution, intelligent design and creationism together. The survey was conducted by the polling agency ComRes on behalf of the Theos thinktank.

Why is this? Even if you take into consideration the recent hype about so-called "intelligent design", we're still left wondering what was going on in the last, say, 150 years... I was fully expecting the UK to be different, not the least because Darwin is a native son, and the whole idea should give Britons a sort of patriotic high - just in case rationality is a non-starter.

But when you consider that both the U.S. and Briton are running at roughly half for and half against, maybe we should consider something else.

Robert Haston's book The Origin of the Political Species presents the view that in fact, people are evolved to be "two tribes" or to have two political leanings - and we're talking hard-wired, in the genes. This would mean possibly roughly half of homo sapiens are liberal, and half conservative. Although it's not really that simple, the striking point here is that looking at the number of people tending to accept evolution as scientific fact vs. the number of those rejecting it outright, you get a similar rough 50-50 breakdown.

The "political species" theory goes that two opposing tendencies, genetically expressed, have evolved in our struggle for survival: the "conservative", alpha male, authoritarian, hierarchical, tradition-preserving, paternalistic, militaristic, "rule from the gut", macho, emotional (especially fear and anger), "in-group" protecting type on the one hand; and the "liberal", forward-looking, rational, empathetic, universal-thinking, peace and diplomacy-bringing, "outside-the-box" looking, artistic, egalitarian and compassionate type on the other hand.

Of course, these labels are somewhat simplistic, because everyone has a mix of each type of gene. But some people are definitely more on one side and some are definitely more on the other. Then there are the folks on the fence; the in-betweens, the people targeted in elections, the swing voters.

So what's this got to do with evangelicals and their intrusion of religion into politics? Religion, especially and particularly evangelical Christianity, which involves voodoo-like trances, speaking in tongues, and other obvious examples of irrationality, is a hotbed of conservatism. It gives their world view, their "tribe", a double-whammy: it appeals to the emotions and creates a bonded "in-group", and simultaneously numbs the sensibilities of those people to rational, progressive governance, thus paving the way for typical conservative top-down, hierarchical, paternalistic government. And so atheist Karl Rove harnessed the power of evangelical Christianity to numb millions of rural, relatively uneducated, unempowered people into rallying behind their own subjugation to the Bush regime's heavy-handed, militaristic, undemocratic, authoritarian-style government.

President Obama's rise to power is not only a direct blow to conservatism, but shows that conservatism has completely lost its bearings, having nothing but "gut-instinct" to go on and a set of irrational, but strongly felt, slogans, usually starting with the instinctive expression, "NO!" and "We gotta win!" So you have the scenario of all Republicans still standing lining up and crying "No!", with the "reasoning" being repetition of platitudes about tax-cutting that their own gurus have been shamed into admitting were all wrong. The only "yes"-sayers were women: who often have a certain ability to think progressively, when pushed to the wall. But the problem is the basic conservative mind-set is not going to change.

And if it's not going to change, does this mean that half the population will be literally fighting progress, keeping people in the dark ages, working hard to send humanity farther and farther back in time until we end up with the victory of the "earth is at rest" theory? No, because many conservatives actually already believe in the theory evolution and would support it vigorously if they really knew what it was. But it's been presented to them as a "progressive" and "anti-God" idea, and the fear factor, self-defense thing kicked in. Progressives have also focused the narrative on God vs. evolution, which is patently absurd, instead of on common ground, such as how this "theory" has helped humanity survive. And anything less than common ground is totally useless, impractical, and hence, not all that progressive.

Regardless if one believes liberal and conservative tendencies are in the genes, history does display conflict between them fairly dramatically. Or, as Mr. Haston put it:

Given that the world‘s climate has seesawed back and forth, the engine of evolution has learned to keep plenty of older genes in circulation, ready to be selected when the pendulum swings back and forth. Man‘s culture has done the same, swinging from Dark Age to Renaissance and back with far more fury and speed than the climate. So keeping a balance of traits in play is a good survival strategy. ...

Stop trying to change each other because you won‘t. Take the advice of Sun Tzu: understand yourself and your enemy and win every battle. To be as blunt as possible: Understand the view of those who don‘t agree with you and why they have it, or you are screwed. If your opponent learns to and you refuse to, then you are only screwing yourself.

To scientists, Darwin's theory and the science it generated, which has since morphed considerably (i.e., evolved), is an essential part of the scientific and technological gains which have benefited society and also hold some of the keys to solving projected future problems. In a democratic society, which is essentially a progressive or "liberal" thing, it is almost suicidal to mix religion with science, but that fact has to be presented to conservative minds in a different way that takes their basic mindset into account.

In other words, progressives have been shooting themselves in the foot on this issue by such in-your-face non-starter attitudes as Christopher Hitchens, for example, or Richard Dawkins, who are almost evangelical about atheism. It isn't Christianity per se, or Voodooism per se, that threatens science. It's the politicization of religion. So to get them to back off, we should take a 2-pronged approach, one "liberal" in style and the other "conservative".

For the "liberal" style, present the universal benefits and plusses of evolution, as contrasted to the total disaster that would occur if we were to turn back the progress of free inquiry and impose some sort of religious-based "science". We could start with antibiotics. It's a known fact that bacteria become resistant. They evolve. They become different species. It's just the time-frame is faster, hence more easily understood. Without evolutionary theory, we couldn't have modern medicine or understand why antibiotics started to fail after they were initially successful. Shall we then impose a ban on all medical research, except that which is mentioned specifically in the Bible? Few conservatives would agree to that. Then remind them of the geocentric universe. Shall we cancel those satellites and cell phones and that Devil Internet? I doubt many would follow this route.

In fact, those who would follow this route might consider attending a certain university in Peshawar, Pakistan, where they might find some folks of a similar mindset. Would those evangelicals really like their newfound cameraderie with the Taliban, for example?

For the "conservative" style, bring a religiously respected Wise Man to confer his judgement in a time-honored manner on this issue. To wit, Solomon.

What would Solomon have suggested? Voila:

If you want to impose religious dogma on science, then we must equally impose scientific knowledge and opinion on religion. No sermon, no priest, no pastor, should be allowed to operate without presenting the views of Darwin and others on Natural Selection and Evolution. And while we're at it, the Pope should have Darwin's Origin of the Species on his required reading list. Not only that, they have to give prime-time lectures on the subject - equal time for "equal" views. And, to be even more "fair", we should give equal time to the theory that "the sun revolves around the earth on the ether, or firmament", not to mention the notion that the earth is carried on the back of a giant turtle. Whenever priests read sacred texts, they should supplement those texts with "balancing" readings from scientific literature. If religion is "relevant" to science, then science is equally "relevant" to religion.

Oh, does this strike some young-earthlings as infringing on their freedom of religion? We likewise detest infringement on freedom of scientific inquiry by enforcing totally unrelated concepts, sources, and mythologies on it. If they like their earth young, their dinosaurs recent, and their biological change instantaneous, that's fine for them. But if they want to impose it on the rest of us, we demand the right to impose scientific facts on them. Otherwise, they can enjoy living as their ancestors did when the earth was indeed younger - with stone tools.

And by the way, if God wanted creation instantaneously, magician style - to our human perception, no less - then wouldn't He have created Instant Gestation? Or Instant budding, flowering, and fruition in plants? Why all the mess, the time, the stages? Would these hot-n-heavy evangelicals miss that flowering stage? Or that season for fruit? Did anybody ever read Ecclesiastes? Obviously, all "creation" occurs in stages, in gradual progression, from the birth and death of stars to the birth and death of living creatures, to the birth and death of life itself (as in, say, extinctions). Beyond that, arguing about God is totally useless scientifically.

As for the Darwinophobes, their idiocy has been laid bare. Nobody wants to give up their cell phones in order to have Flat Earth Theory resurrected, except a few crazies. Nobody wants to give up the benefits civilization has attained by scientific discoveries and applications based on Darwin's theory. Meanwhile, scientists and progressives should lay off the pro-atheism, often condescending heavy-hitting when presenting evolution. After all, it just means "gradual change". That happens in the womb before every baby is born. Nobody can argue against that.

The soft-sell worked on Dalai Lama, who looked at Darwin's Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, discovered his abolutionist and compassionate views on humankind, and was won over.

...the father of evolution theorised that emotion and compassion were universal and naturally selected features of humans...

"I am now calling myself a Darwininian," Ekman recalled the Dalai Lama saying, after Ekman read him some passages of Darwin's work.

Meanwhile, when feeling frustrated over Voodoo science and general ignorance created by ultra-conservative mindsets and policies, think about the possibility that this whole controversy may be part of an ongoing evolutionary process that even affects our politics. The best civilizations are those that take the best from both sides, and in this sense Obama stands out as a potentially great leader, balancing as he does without capitulating to a conservative brand that no longer adequately supports even its own constituent conservatives - as Bush has presided over arguably the most profligate government in U.S. history. "Profligate" is not a conservative value. Just as condescension and a confrontational, dogmatic approach to scientific argument is not a liberal one.

---

---

Sarah Palin Denies Global Warming, Says Polar Bears Not Endangered

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Alaska leads the US in global warming! As for Polar Bears --Alaska's entire population of Polar Bears will be killed off by the year 2050 unless Palin's policies are stopped now. These developments are concurrent with the increase of oil exploration and drilling in Alaska. Palin is lying about Alaska, about oil, about Polar Bears and about Global Warming. [See: Washington Post, Polar Bear Population Seen Declining; ]

As a result of these efforts, polar bears are more numerous now than they were 40 years ago. The polar bear population in the southern Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s North Slope has been relatively stable for 20 years, according to a federal analysis.

...

In fact, there is insufficient evidence that polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct within the foreseeable future — the trigger for protection under the Endangered Species Act. And there is no evidence that polar bears are being mismanaged through existing international agreements and the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act.

--Sarah Palin, New York Times

In fact, the polar bear population in Alaska is declining.

Two-thirds of the world's polar bears will be killed off by 2050 _ and the entire population gone from Alaska _ because of thinning sea ice from global warming in the Arctic, government scientists forecast Friday.

Only in the northern Canadian Arctic islands and the west coast of Greenland are any of the world's 16,000 polar bears expected to survive through the end of the century, said the US Geological Survey, which is the scientific arm of the Interior Department.

--The Associated Press, Washington Post, Polar Bear Population Seen Declining

Palin denies that human activity --including the drilling, production and refining of oil --has any effect on environments, a position that puts her to the right of even George W. Bush. In fact, Alaska is where it's 'at' in terms of global warming.

We have billions and billions of barrels of oil and trillions of feet of natural gas. We have so much potential from tapping our resources here in Alaska. And we can do this with minimum environmental impact. We have a very pro-development president in President Bush, and yet he failed to push for opening up parts of Alaska to drilling through Congress — and a Republican-controlled Congress, I might add.

I thought when we hit $100 a barrel for oil it would have been a psychological barrier that would have caused Congress to reconsider, but they didn't. Now we are approaching $200 a barrel. It's nonsense not to tap a safe domestic source of oil. I think Americans need to hold Congress accountable on this one.

Sarah Palin, Newsmax

Palin has put short term economic and monetary gains above the longer term concerns about quality of life, the environment, and renewable energy. It is not only her positions that are wrong, it is the attitude and mindset that places shallow and short-term values of this generation above those of the longer term concerns of future generations, indeed, life on earth.

Palin is either wrong or lying about Alaska and the harm that is done to the environment by an oil industry that she is in bed with. Palin should have talked with folk in Texas, an environment that has been raped and despoiled since Spindletop. Some parts of the world --like Iraq --are simply bombed and waged war upon for oil! But there is a word for those folk, like Palin, who just do it for the money.

Though warming is happening faster in Alaska than anywhere else in the US — average temperatures in the country's biggest state have risen 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 50 years — Palin is on record doubting that human action is the main driver behind climate change.

...

More pertinent might be Palin's positions on oil drilling in Alaska, where rich petroleum reserves paid each citizen over $1,600 in dividends in 2007. Though the McCain campaign has made much of Palin's willingness to stand up to the powerful energy industry in Alaska — last year she adjusted the state Petroleum Profits Tax to close loopholes exploited by oil and gas companies — on the whole she's been a staunch supporter of fossil fuels. She opposes strengthening protections for beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet, where oil and gas development has been proposed, and she spent $500 million in state money to encourage the development of a 1,700-mile pipeline that would transport natural gas from Alaska's rich North Shore. When the Department of the Interior in May listed the polar bear as a threatened species due to warming—an action that could interfere with drilling in Alaska's coastal waters, where the polar bears live —Palin sued the Federal Government in response. "Our main concern with Sarah Palin's positions are that they are based on doing what is best for the oil industry, and not what is best for Americans," says David Willett, national press secretary for the Sierra Club.

--Time, Palin Far Right on the Environment

Addendum: Facts About Global Warming

What we know:

Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It allows light to pass through but traps heat. Here’s how it works: CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths of energy. This means that radiation from the sun can enter the atmosphere as light. Once this radiation hits the ground, it turns into heat. This heat then radiates back into the atmosphere and out into space. CO2 traps some of the heat.

1. CO2 has gone from roughly 280 ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution to about 380 ppm now. Each year humans pump out about 6 billion tons of CO2 with an annual growth rate of about 1.9% predicted between 2001 - 2025 (although actual emissions growth was 3.2% per year from 2000 to 2005).
   
2. CO2 remains in the air for about 100 years, so even if we stopped emitting it right now we would still feel the effects for decades.


3. CO2 and temperature have increased and decreased together over the history of the planet.
4. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there has been in 650,000 years. The rate of increase is unprecedented over the same period.
5. Svante Arrhenius estimated 100 years ago that a doubling of CO2 would create a 4 degree C rise in temperature. In 1979 the Charney report predicted global warming of 3 degrees C if CO2 doubled in the atmosphere (we are a quarter of the way there). In 1988 James Hansen of NASA predicted to Congress that temperature would increase over the next decades.
6. Temperature has increased since those predictions were made. The top 5 hottest years according to NASA are, in order, 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2004.The World Meteorological Association claims 2005 as the second hottest year on record. The difference is because NASA includes data from the Arctic. The top ten warmest years have been since 1990.
7. Since 1850, we have seen temperatures increase at a rate of 1.1 F per century (about 1.5 - 1.8 F total). The rate increased to 3.2F per century since the mid 1970s (click here for more information).


8. Species around the world are reacting to climate change: Since 1950, species distribution has shifted to the north 4 miles per decade, shifted to higher altitudes by 20 feet per decade, and Spring has advanced by 2.3 days per decade. In America, butterflies have moved their ranges north. They are no longer found in the southern parts of their old range. Costa Rican birds have extended their range northward. Tropical fish have been seen for the first time off the British Coast, and animals such as the Pied Flycatcher and the Winter Moth are finding their food supply affected by earlier Springs.


9. Climate has changed rapidly in the past. The common example of rapid climate change is the Younger Dryas, when temperatures suddenly plunged, interrupting the warming trend at the end of the last ice age.
   

What we think we know:

1. Temperatures are most likely warmer now than they have been at any time in the past 400 years. They are probably (slightly less certain) warmer than in the past 1200 years, perhaps (less certain) warmer than in the past 12,000 years, and new evidence suggests that we are approaching the warmest temperatures this planet has seen in a million years.


2. Models predict that Earth’s average temperature will rise somewhere between 2 to 4.5 degrees C in the 21st century.

Sarah Palin --Lies and Idiocy

• Palin's Churches and the 'Holy Laughter anointing' [Really Weird Stuff]
• John McCain's Choice of Sarah Palin: What It Says About Him and What It Tells Moderates
• Is Warming Causing Alaska Meltdown?
• Polar Bear Population Seen Declining
• Palin Billed State for Nights Spent at Home
• Palin Backed 'Bridge to Nowhere' in 2006
• Massive Arctic Ice Shelf Breaks Away
• Palin: God Tasked Us With Iraq War:
• Scientific Proof: Alaska's Polar Bears In Danger of Extinction!
• Center for Biological Diversity
• Palin Billed State for Nights Spent at Home
• Sarah Palin Sued Government To Delist Polar Bears
• Gov. Sarah Palin - Just Another Corrupt Politician
• McCain's VP Choice Is Under Ethics Investigation For Abuse Of Power In Alaska

---

Ann Coulter is even more ignorant than I thought

I found the following scary insight on a friendly blog. Brilliantly written, it's a rare look at someone who has made a helluva lot more money than she ever really earned or deserved.

Over dinner she reiterated her obnoxious opinion that the “experiment” with woman’s suffrage is the root cause of big government. Like a child playing with an Etch-a-Sketch, she points to a straight line, leading back through history. There, she says… big government started right there, in 1920. That’s when the 19th amendment was ratified, ergo that’s the cause of the whole problem. After that, according to Ann, it was all downhill.

Doug and I looked at each other curiously… But Ann, that same line, if you move it just a bit further, actually seems to start in 1913, when the Federal Reserve was created, the prohibition of income taxes was repealed and the Republic was put to rest through the direct election of senators. Don’t you think these changes to the Constitution and the policies they enabled – like FDR’s gold seizure and our resulting experiment with paper money – were far more significant than woman’s suffrage?

Ann Coulter had never heard of the gold standard. She didn’t believe us when we told her that in 1933 FDR seized all of the privately held bullion in the country, then devalued the dollar – probably the greatest financial crime in history. She didn’t even know it was illegal for citizens to own bullion up until 1974. Bretton Woods? Coulter thought we were talking about tennis rackets. She told me flatly “I don’t know anything about finance or economics.” Not even the basics, like how inflation affects prices or the key role paper money and progressive income taxes have played in building the welfare state. We might as well have been talking to a horse. Ann just looked at us, her long face turned sideways with incredulity.

Lacking anything intelligent to say, she decided to simply insult us. “I was a libertarian as a teenager, but I emerged from adolescence…”

Good one, Ann. What a zinger.

--My Dinner With Ann Coulter

Do we all feel "zinged" now!

I didn't think so.

The Cowboy's Shared News Items

Coulter
GOP
Idiocy

Spread the word:

Ignorant Republican Attacks "Existentialism"

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The GOP has run out of strawmen --"phony wars", "pot" "evolutionists", and "secular humanists" to demonize, attack and/or ridicule. Now they've taken aim at a mainstream philosophy with roots in the enlightenment, a philosophy defined by 'personal responsibility', an attribute with which goppers have precious little or no experience.

I expect nothing else, certainly nothing more, from a party whose existence depends upon blaming everyone and everything but itself for its own many crimes and failures --political and personal.

But --the GOP is not a political party, it's a cult, possibly a criminal conspiracy. It ought to be investigated by a Federal Grand Jury for the probable cause that it routinely violated anti-racketeering laws. It dares to attack a mainstream political philosophy with roots in Cartesianism ['I think, therefore I am!'] ; Voltaire's famous statement: "I have no name but the name that I have made for myself" and Satre's: "A man is nothing else but what he makes of himself!"

The GOP hates 'existentialism' because they have made of themselves 'crooks' and have no one but themselves to blame for it. Bertolt Brecht had their number: "A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook!"

The GOP are Crooks!

But --alas --I have grown accustomed to endemic stupidity and ignorance from a party that is also characterized by greed and arrogance.

Now Starting: The War on Existentialism

In a stirring speech yesterday, former Missouri Senator Jim Talent said that not only does global terrorism demand a stronger a more efficient military, but also that it is part of an "existential threat to America."

"These people are reading Jean-Paul Sartre to their children," the fiery Talent railed. "We cannot have that influence our society."

"American demands a philosophical undermining that is grounded, epistemologically-speaking, in a fervent belief in God and his infinite capacity to bless us at the same as damning half our citizens to hell. The Terrorists want to spread their message of mortal isolation, forlornness, and the accidental nature of existence upon us, but we must fight them!"

When asked if he had any experience with existentialism, Talent replied, "I read The Stranger once, and all I wanted to do was tell him he wasn't a stranger to Jesus."

Existentialist Noble Prize Winner Jose Saramago replied to Talent's ramblings saying, "Entre os fataés eventos desta presente guerra, entendo serà de V.m. sem duvida havido por digno de maior ponderaçaõ, o que aconteceo na Cidade de Genova, no dia dez do corrente; eu, que com horror vi o principio, e o fim delle, faltaria aos empenhos da nossa boa amizade se deixasse de participalo a V.m. com individuarlhe as cauzas de que se originou, e narrarlhe sinceramente os factos mais essenciaes de que se compoz."

To which Talent replied: "Yes, that is exactly the kind of filth I want to fight."

It will be a long struggle, defeating existentialism. We'll have to burn a lot of books. Killing philosophers should be easy, but what if Woody Allen has to go as well?

Either way, if the threat to America is, as Mr. Talent says, existential, I'm sure our brightest minds will find some way to fight it, just as we did that pesky War on Drugs that finally went away.

To start with, Talent used the term "existential" incorrectly. Most certainly, in context, he means "existentialist" threat. The quagmire of Bush's creation in Iraq is an "existential" threat whether Talent is an "Existentialist" or not.

Goppers, like Bush, "don't do nuance". But Talent's mistake can be dismissed. It's just a product of an inadequate education or willful stupidity. It's the GOP; take your pick. Remember, this is a party that waged war on public education. Education lost.

I find it incredible that Talent bothered to read 'a' book. That he might have read 'at' the Bible is not surprising. But it is strange that he would have attempted "L'etranger" or, for Talent, "The Stranger". Why does a fundie bother to read a book when it is so much easier to blame others or call them names?

I am frankly fed up with stupid people telling me and the nation what to do. As far as I am concerned, Talent can just fuck off! While defending Talent's right to be stupid and his First Amendment right to say stupid things, I likewise defend my own right to be intelligent and call him an idiot. So here goes: Talent is a typical GOP idiot, a typical GOP bigot, a typical GOP ignoramus, and, because he has chosen to be a gopper, he is responsible --existentially --for the choice that he has made. Talent and Talent alone is responsible for having chosen to be a part of an organization that appeals to crookedness, thrives on corruption and promotes lies. Absolutely unforgivable is the fact that the GOP is --at its black heart --elitist but ignorant, if not endemically stupid.

Existentialists are free because, by definition, they accept responsibility for what they are. By contrast, the GOP has defined itself by blaming black people, liberals, progressives, academics, writers, artists, actors, environmentalists, young people, rock n' roll, 'liberal media' (an oxymoron) a 'world wide communist conspiracy' recently replaced by an Islamic conspiracy to commit acts of 'terrorism' on American soil. Bush's theory of 911 was a 'conspiracy theory': 14 Arab hijackers --whose very existence cannot be proven --were said to have hijacked flights that did not exist causing the demolition of buildings that could not have been penetrated by any aircraft not made of hardened industrial steel. Clue: NO airliner aircraft is made of hardened industrial steel. On 911, Bush provided the GOP with a scapegoat --Muslims!

There is no freedom without choice, no choice without responsibility. Even concentration camp victims of Hitler found freedom in incarceration. Victor Frankl purposefully chose his own attitude in the face of death. Existentialism is the philosophy of freedom, courage and choice --the courage and freedom to make a choice and the courage to take responsibility for its effects. It takes great courage to accept responsibility for what you have made of yourself. It takes only cowardice of the GOP kind to blame everyone but themselves for the fuck ups they have made of both themselves and the nation.

Talent is not a free man; Talent is a tool!

Now --if you wish to become expert on Existentialism, you must start with Descartes' cogito: I think, therefore I am. In Southern parlance: if you ain't thinkin', you ain't livin'. Even a gopper has no choice but to admit his/her own existence, given that the gopper in question has a pulse. One's own existence cannot be doubted. Everything else follows from that. Then read Soren Kierkegaard, a "Christian" existentialist. What could Talent possibly have against a fellow Christian? Perhaps, the fact that Kierkegaard dared to be intelligent while Talent and his fellow minions dare to show themselves in public.

Then there is the monumental volume Being and Nothingness by Jean-Paul Sartre, an atheist existentialist. If you have time for only one book about existentialism, read Existentialism and Human Emotions by Sartre. It can be summed up in a single clause:

A man is nothing else but what he makes of himself.''

--Jean-Paul Sartre

It must surely be the many corollaries to that which bother idiots like Talent. It means simply that they --Republicans --can no longer get away with blaming others, indeed, the entire world for their failures as people, their failures as a party, their failures in positions of governmental responsibility for which they are singularly unsuited.

Let us assume that Talent was born with at least an average intelligence. In that case, Talent alone is responsible for the sorry mess that he has made of himself, the cesspool that his party made of Washington, the hell hole that it made of Iraq.

An addendum: 20 things you have to believe to be a Republican today

1. 1. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
2. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
3. Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.
4. "Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.
5. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all humankind without regulation.
6. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
7. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
8. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.
9. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
10. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
11. HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.
12. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
13. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
14. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
15. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is a solid defense policy.
16. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
17. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
18. You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have a right to adopt.
19. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the 1980s is irrelevant.
20. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist; but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
    --20 things you have to believe to be a Republican today

The Ballad of the Existentialist

---

---