Gay marriage does not threaten straight marriage: SELFISHNESS does- A straight ex-pastor's view in the wake of the CA Supreme court ruling

First, we need to define what marriage is. It is not one bond or covenant, it is really three:

1. MARRIAGE IS... A commitment between two people to each other.
   
1. Usually innate to this commitment are exclusivity (of affection and sexual relations) which = fidelity
2. There is usually also the expectation of constancy "for richer or poorer"
3. There is also the expectation of mutuality (what's mine is yours, and vice versa.
4. All three of these are sometimes modified by agreement of the participants, and sometimes these modifications are codified in the marriage contract, which is issue #3.
2. MARRIAGE IS... A commitment between these people and their God.
1. This is where the church comes in. The church can chose to give or withhold its blessing, but it has no bearing on #s 1 or 3.
   
2. Churches marry people because
   
1. The people seek the church's blessing
2. The state gives them civil permission to do so.
3. Without the couple seeking the church's blessing AND the state granting it the civil power to wed, the church is irrelevant.
3. MARRIAGE IS... A civil contract mediated and recognized by the state.
1. In the U.S., this means the state as in one of the 50. In other countries, it can mean this or the national government.

So lets keep some perspective regarding the California ruling. It only bears on #3- the civil contract. We have neighbors who are a same sex couple who have been together longer than most heterosexual unions last these days. They made the commitments of #1 and maybe #2, and the bond's efficacy was in no way weakened by the lack of #3.

The sky is not falling, the fabric of the universe remains intact.
And whether you favor homosexuality or not, I'd like to suggest a little humility, perspective, and knowledge would go a long way.

Heterosexual marriages do not break up because of homosexuality or homosexual unions, unless one of the partners in a heterosexual marriage is having an affair with a person of the same gender.

From my standpoint as a married man of 13 years (we just celebrated our 13th anniversary) and a former pastor, the main factor I've seen which causes the strain and break up of a relationship all start and end with uncompromising, unyielding SELFISHNESS. And since our society is indeed a very individualistic one, driven by the urgent need to satisfy all of ones desires in the shortest time possible, this is hardly surprising.
This selfishness evinces itself in all sorts of ways which the experts (see below) describe:

• Lack of respect for the other person. (I know better, what's the point in even consulting / involving him/her.)
• Lack of willingness to compromise (I say we do this THIS way- be that raise children, go to church, what ever.)
• Lack of fidelity to the expected exclusivity.
• This other "other woman / man" can be an affair
• It can also be putting work ahead of family
• It can be putting some other goal or desire ahead of the needs of your spouse.

In none of these will you find that the sexual activities of other people- be they homo or hetero sexual- factor. Heterosexual selfishness is the greatest threat to heterosexual marriage, not homosexuality or homosexual marriage!


I checked out a couple of reputable websites as to what the causes of divorce are.
causesof.org says this:

Divorce rates are higher today than compared to rates just fifteen years ago. The causes of divorce vary from couple to couple, but most commonly stem from one specific issue that is compounded by a lack of commitment to the marriage. The most common causes of divorce include money, infidelity, and career choices.

Commitment to the marriage has little bearing on certain causes, or grounds, of divorce such as infidelity, abuse, or addiction. However, other common causes of divorce such as money, career issues, lack of communication or emotional maturity, and incompatibility are often compounded by a genuine lack of concern for keeping the marriage in tact.

Marriage councilors and experts agree that various communication problems are the root causes of divorce and are just closely followed by the other issues. Though specific grounds for divorce are not required to be filed during a divorce proceeding, incompatibility covers nearly all causes of divorce.

Surprisingly, physical and emotional abuse are not as commonly reported as causes of divorce. This might be because reports are kept private or because physically and emotionally abused spouses find it more difficult to leave the marriage than those in other circumstances.

While money is reportedly the number one argument between a couple, it is unknown if this is actually the number one cause for divorce. Again, this is because the generalized incompatibility grounds would cover a reason for divorce based on money issues.

Far less likely, but reported causes of divorce include disagreement on child-rearing issues. Here again, it is difficult to determine the rate of divorce based on this issue as it is also considered incompatibility. Though incompatibility covers a wide range of domestic issues, it is safe to say that of all the possible causes of divorce, incompatibility is the number one reason people file.

---

Divorceinfo.com says this:

There are as many theories on this issue as there are people offering them. The usual explanations are communication, compromise, and commitment, and it’s hard to disagree with them.

Indeed, if both spouses were consistently able to communicate with each other, able and willing to compromise with each other, and 100% committed to their marriage, it’s hard to see how it could fail.

The vexing question, of course is HOW do they foster communication, compromise, and commitment? Here the explanations diverge.

For those with a fundamental faith foundation, the answer is clear. Marriages work if both spouses obey the principles of the faith. For a more prosaic explanation, check marriagebuilders.com, where therapist Willard Harley lays out a simple set of principles he says any couple can use to help their romance survive and thrive.

The principle that creates the most stir with groups I address is from Cosmopolitan magazine a few years back, namely that the most reliable indicator of the success of a marriage is the extent to which both the husband and wife had close, long-term, platonic relationships with members of the opposite sex before they met.

When you think about it, this makes sense. It’s startling to reflect on how little time husbands and wives spend in genuinely romantic interaction. They will spend most of their married life relating to each other as friends. If either or both of them lacks the essential skills or inclination to do that, the marriage is unlikely to thrive.

One thing I feel strongly about is how little impact adultery has on divorce, and I know that I'm going against the tide here. I hear constantly from all-knowing observers - many of them fundamentalist Christians - who proclaim that if you look behind most divorces, you'll find an adulterous affair somewhere. That may be partially true, because many divorces do involve adultery, but I believe adultery to be a symptom, not a cause, of most divorces. Adultery is a reaction to abuse, and it is a tool of abuse.

Adultery is the legal "gotcha," but I don't think it causes many divorces. I think the crud that drives husbands and wives apart causes divorces. And I think the crud that drives husbands and wives apart also causes adultery. That means they certainly are related, but that doesn't mean adultery causes divorce.

When it comes down to it, my guess is that the main factors that make a marriage work are a combination of the three C's - communication, compromise, and commitment, with a generous sprinkling of blind luck. For those of us in stable, long-term marriages, we have to acknowledge the role that luck plays.

---

I could go on and site hundreds of articles and sites, but it all comes down to the basic concept of selfishness- loving yourself more than you love your partner.


Good people can disagree about the theological issues involved... and do. But I would commend, urge, and beg that this be done without the hysteria, finger pointing, and blame throwing which so often dominate this discussion.

As for my own views... they don't matter. I'm not serving as a pastor anymore, so I don't have to decide whether to bless anything or anyone. (I will say that when I was involved with weddings as a pastor, I thought they had less to do with God than with putting on a "Disney-land" like spectacle. Just because a wedding's in a church doesn't make it a religious act! This is why when we wed 13 years ago, we had none of that. We got married after the sermon, before the Lord's Supper... we kept the spectacle to ourselves on our honeymoon. *grin*)

I'm appalled by the grade school level name calling that swirls around this issue and the rampant selfishness which soaks our society. What two consenting adults decide to do sexually or emotionally is their concern, not mine.

My only concern with marriage is tending to my own. By God's grace and by Tess being such a devoted spouse- exemplary in every way- mine has lasted 13 years now. I'll continue to concern myself with it and with her, and let state legislatures and courts and consenting adults do as they will.

He's "run the good race" and now the good-bye... its about time! (Rev. Gov. Huckabee)

Rev. Gov. Huckabee:

• So long
• farewell
• auf wiedersehen
• goodbye

(A nice British rendering)

---

My feelings on the matter are best expressed by the great Doxology

This is known to some as "All people who on earth do dwell" or "The old 100th."
This particular setting is by the great Ralph Vaughn Williams who was actually rather a-religious. None the less, I think it stands as one of the finest works of sacred music ever, and one of my happiest memories from my time at the Seminary was getting to be in a choir which sang this piece.

---

A touching almost sensual Russian version

The hagiographic hooplah around Obama & Hillary's brilliant ad- I'd almost think about voting for her after viewing it!

One of the Obama videos I posted last night, the one I said gave me lactose intolerance problems, has had embedding disabled. I said of it

Not sure what to make of this video, other than that being lactose intolerant something this cheesy is putting my intestinal health in grave danger, not to mention my sanity... but maybe that's the point, to be as over the top as my slideshow. I see it uses the same silly picture of him with the Superman statue as I did, so...

It was embeddable last night, but now isn't, so if you want to watch it, you have to click here. The same user has posted several other videos which seem more to be VERY hagiographic.
Here's a more blatant one... I wonder how long before it gets yanked.

---

I just don't get the "cult of Obama." Aside from Jesus Christ and my wife, the only thing I've come close to having that sort of reverence for or worship of was the 21 year old cheddar I found in Tomah Wisconsin years ago. People is people, for feck's sake.

• We all drop stinky loads after mawing down a bag of our favorite junk food
• We all think of adding a level of hell to Dante's 7 when someone with 20 items in their carts gets in front of us in the 12 items or less isle.
• We've all followed the crowd and enjoyed or participated in something we've later come to rue and regret. (In my case, it was string ties in the 80s, and the Bee Gees in the 70s.)

Would Mother Teresa or Albert Schweitzer or get the same level of adulation, the same exemption from any criticism or critique?! I doubt it! As I found on JibJab, one might as well advocate the clubbing of baby seals or the torture of kittens as critique him.

To paraphrase my favorite booze commercial- a mind is a like a parachute, it only works when when open. This is a presidential primary for pity's sake, not the Immaculate Election!

The brilliant Hillary Clinton Ad

Of course, my reaction to this was the same as every other commentator with a few active brain cells- that it takes after Johnson's [in]famous "Daisy Ad"

Now, I can't claim I remember this commercial- I heard about it on cable TV, but its striking how similar the ads are... and for good reason, the same guy produced them both!

---

Heaven knows, I'm no fan of either Clinton, but I have defended Senator Clinton when she was attacked unfairly because she has 2 "x" chromosomes, and I've got to give her credit for laying out the issue so well here, even if it is a reprise of an older spot.

Initially I was proud of America for being open to Obama's candidacy, and was pleased he was appealing to the "higher angels" in us. But two things have soured me on him.

1) The more he speaks, the less he says. If brevity is the soul of wit... the inverse is holding true with him. His campaign is like a pep rally with no game following... a warm up without an act!

2) The fanaticism of his fans, and the way they treat naysayers. I'd already noticed this and been quite off put by it before I started getting feces for it. No one should be worshiped, adored, and exempted from critical scrutiny... much less someone running to be the modern day equivalent of Caesar Augustus!

~~~ Arrogant Ignorance ~~~ Do we know enough about the rest of the world to have the effects and influence we do- FOCUS: ISLAM & THE MIDDLE EAST

Every candidate worth voting for, or commentator worth listening to, should be able to answer at least 4 of these questions without a second thought, without a call out or teleprompter or ear piece.

If they can't- they don't deserve to be voted for or listened to.

(Yes, I do think we'd be better off as a country were all Americans to know these... I think most of the rest of the world knows at least this much about us after all... but lets start with the people who send our money to foreign despots, our troops to foreign lands.)

The answers are linked. (Yes, I know, this was a short sabbatical, but its the longest I've gone without blogging in months probably, and I did a lot of Spanish study today, so this is my reward.)

1. Who was Averroes?
   
2. Describe the difference between Shiite Islam & Sunni Islam.
1. When and why did the schism occur?
2. What are the major theological differences?
3. What are the major practical differences?
3. What is the most populace Moslem country (in terms of sheer numbers?)
4. The Kabaah:
1. What is it?
2. Where is it?
3. What is its significance?
5. What is the official English translation of the Qur'an for most Muslims?
   
6. Who are the People of the Book?

Only one of those requires an answer of more than a few words, and one other could be construed as a trick question, but all deal with the most BASIC of matters regarding Islam. To be involved with the Middle East without at least this much knowledge is as foolhardy and dangerous as walking out on a frozen lake without knowing how thick the ice is.

But we've been doing so as a nation for years, haven't we?

• We go charging off into countries whose names we can barely pronounce,
• whose history we do not know,
• whose culture and people we do not respect.

I'm not just talking about our military expeditions... we send our relief agencies, engineers, agriculture experts, etc. off to the four corners of the globe with the same arrogant ignorance.

---

If knowledge is power, then we are the weaklings of the world

---

PS: If any of our many loyal readers are followers of the Way of Islam, I should be very pleased to know what YOU consider the basic facts about your Faith and its history which all Americans and our leaders should know. I selected these six items as very elemental things... on the order of "Who was the first President of the United States" or "From which empire did the U.S. break away"... but I'd be quite interested to know what things YOU wish more Americans knew about YOUR faith and history!

Classic Liberalism 101- Jefferson and Thoreau- a grand but now nearly extinct philosophy we desperately need to bring back to life

A recent comment praising me for invoking these men's names and thought brought to mind that neither are well enough known... especially in this sad day when the major parties don't really differ substantially on taxing, spending, regulation, federalism, etc. The difference between them comes down to...

• whom to tax and regulate
  
• which of our personal and civil liberties the government should be violating-
  
• which of our personal choices they should be usurping
  

It was not always so. In the early days of our Republic, there were those who favored a big authoritarian government, and those who favored a smaller less intrusive decentralized one. The leader of the latter was none other than Thomas Jefferson. Those who follow after him are called "Jeffersonians" or "Jeffersonian Liberals"

The Wikipedia aptly enough expands this:

Jeffersonians, so named after Thomas Jefferson, support a federal government with greatly constrained powers, and are strong advocates and followers of a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Jefferson himself followed and exhibited these principles. Jeffersonian philosophy also called for state and local governments to safeguard the rights and property of citizens. Jeffersonians recognized both private and common property. During his early public career, Jefferson hoped that each State and County would be smaller examples of the national American Republic. He believed that republican governments established and governing at these levels would best keep the federal government in check.

The Jeffersonian philosophy held that all men had the right to be informed, and thus, to have a say in the government. The protection and expansion of human liberty was one of the chief goals of the Jeffersonians. They also reformed their respective state systems of education. They believed that their citizens had the right and should be educated no matter their circumstance or status in life.

The most famous adage of the movement which grew out of and flowed from Jefferson's thought is "The government which governs best governs least." This was coined by Henry David Thoreau in his monumental essay "Civil Disobedience." If you've not read it... you should... BEFORE you vote, and before you let the government do any more of your thinking for you or take any more of your rights away.The Wiki's summary of this captures nice the power and point of this essay.

Civil Disobedience is an essay by Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849. It argues that people should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that people have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice. Thoreau was motivated in part by his disgust with slavery and the Mexican-American War.
...

“That government is best which governs least”

An aphorism attributed to either Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine — “That government is best which governs least” — actually was first found in this essay.^[3] Thoreau was paraphrasing the motto of The United States Magazine and Democratic Review: “The best government is that which governs least.”^[4]

A Paraphrased Synopsis

Governments are typically more harmful than helpful and therefore cannot be justified. Democracy is no cure for this, as majorities simply by virtue of being majorities do not also gain the virtues of wisdom and justice.

The judgment of an individual’s conscience is not necessarily or even likely inferior to the decisions of a political body or majority, and so “[i]t is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.… Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.”(¶4)

Indeed, you serve your country poorly if you do so by suppressing your conscience in favor of the law — your country needs consciences more than it needs conscienceless robots.

It is disgraceful to be associated with the United States government in particular. “I cannot for an instant recognize as my government [that] which is the slave’s government also.”(¶7)

The government is not just a little corrupt or unjust in the course of doing its otherwise-important work, but in fact, the government is primarily an agent of corruption and injustice. Because of this, it’s “not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize.”(¶8)

Political philosophers have counseled caution about revolution because the upheaval of revolution typically causes a lot of expense and suffering. However, such a cost/benefit analysis isn’t appropriate when the government is actively facilitating an injustice like slavery: Such a thing is fundamentally immoral and even if it would be difficult and expensive to stop it, it must be stopped because it is wrong. “This people must cease to hold slaves, and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people.”(¶9)

We can’t blame this problem solely on pro-slavery Southern politicians, but must put the blame on those here in Massachusetts, “who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do justice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may.… There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them.”(¶10) (See also: Thoreau’s “Slavery in Massachusetts” which also advances this argument.)

Don’t just wait passively for an opportunity to vote for justice. Voting for justice is as ineffective as wishing for justice; what you need to do is to actually be just. This is not to say that you have an obligation to devote your life to fighting for justice, but you do have an obligation not to commit injustice and not to give injustice your practical support.

Which of our politicians dares speak this way today?
And for that matter, what of our body politic?

• Why have we let the politicians get away with pandering to us instead of leading us?
• Why do we settle for the lowest common denominator instead of striving to reach the

So when I talk of "Jeffersonian liberalism," "Libertarianism" Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Adam Smith, and so forth... now you know a bit of the substance and background of it. Those other people are worthy of comment as well, but I am going to stop here to determine how much more of the free Poly Sci lecture you're really interested in.

Regardless, Jefferson and Thoreau are such monumental figures that they and their thought should be known to everyone... if only we would listen to them more and the screaming "talking heads" on TV less, we'd be a lot better off as a nation and as people.

Vote early and often: Help Citizens Against Gov't Waste chose the Porker of the Year

Citizens Against Government Waste (http://www.cagw.org) announces the nominees for Porker of the Year, and the Winners of Porker of the Month 2007

The 2007 Pork Report


I love this organization. Their only agenda is that the government should be responsible with our tax money, and they especially take aim at the congressmen and senators who insert special pork projects into bills.

Voting for the Porker of the year for 2007 is now open! The details of the nominees and voting are here: http://swineline.org/porkeroftheyear/

I'm no Bill Clinton fan, but COME ON! He who has not fallen asleep during a sermon let him cast the first... nodoz

Source: http://www.nypost.com/seven/01212008/news/regionalnews/01212008_bill_clinton/photo01.jpg

Dateline New York... and all over the media. The below is from the NY Post, in an article snarkily called "Bill has a dream" but its been everywhere....

January 21, 2008 -- Bill Clinton showed yesterday why he made it into the book "The Art of Napping." During an appearance at the Convent Avenue Baptist Church in Harlem, the former president was caught nodding off. Clinton was there during a service to honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., while his wife was nearby at Abyssinian Baptist Church, where she was endorsed by its minister, Rev. Calvin Butts. Clinton has had napping episodes before. Among others, he nodded off at a Mets game and at Ronald Reagan's funeral.

Look, I'd not vote for him to be dog catcher, but SO WHAT IF HE FELL ASLEEP?!

Are we really such children that when every anybody with whom we disagree or for whom we don't care does ANYTHING we can use to attack and smear them, we do so...?

When I was an acolyte, I used to fix my eyes on a spot across from me and keep my eyelids open to stay awake. When I became a pastor, I used to joke that it was the only way I could stay awake during sermons.

I'd like to say this is beneath us as a nation, but clearly it isn't... and the faces on Rushmore are weeping over it.

Be still my heaving stomach- A memo to Ms. Clinton, Rev. Huckabee, and all other preachers and politicians

I tried very hard to find a video clip of this... the words and setting and blatent mixing of church and state are bad enough, but her phony affected delivery of these lines was just stunning in its audacity!

At a historic African American church in Harlem she said

“Faith without works is dead - But works without faith is just too hard.”

To read more about this, go to this AP story, from which I also linked the picture.

---

A bit of historical background for the next phase of this rant. You've heard the Press referred to as the 4th Estate, and might have wondered what the other three were? The Wiki Article on the 4th Estate describes the situation aptly and succintly:

Novelist Jeffrey Archer in his work The Fourth Estate made this observation: "In May 1789, Louis XVI summoned to Versailles a full meeting of the 'Estate General'. The First Estate consisted of three hundred clergy. The Second Estate, three hundred nobles. The Third Estate, six hundred commoners. Some years later, after the French Revolution, Edmund Burke, looking up at the Press Gallery of the House of Commons, said, 'Yonder sits the Fourth Estate, and they are more important than them all.'"

Therefor, I would put forth this modest proposal... to be adopted unilaterally and universally because I say so, I'm right, and I'm royally sick of politicians preaching and preachers politicking!

Let it be resolved that effective immediately, Monday January 21st at 12:32 AM Greenwich Mean Time in the year 2008 AD and forever henceforth that...

1. The first estate (clergy) shall lie about God
2. The second estate (nobles... extended to government officials and elected officials) shall lie about government
3. The third estate (commoners- ie, us) shall lie about our weight, age, and sexual practices and other matters personal and really no business of anyone else anyway
   
4. The forth estate (the press) shall lie about everything.

OK, can we keep that straight now

people? Sheesh!

A libertarian take on the SC primary- A triumph of ideas over identity, principle over purity

{I've been a little coy about this in the past over on my Multiply blog since more than a few of my friends viewed Rev. Huckabee as the great white hope of the GOP, but I posted this there too. }

I'm very pleased- ebullient even- that Senator McCain won and Rev. Huckabee lost in South Carolina.

I'm even more so by the way that this broke down.

On the one hand: Rev. Huckabee has been pretending that he is the true blue Reagan conservative (yeh, and I'm the Easter bunny... only Senator Thompson can claim that mantle, and it served him sooooo well!), that he has appeal outside the Evangelical circles.

On the other hand: He's been campainging in churches, preaching in them even, and his lead issue has always been "values." That's Orwellian doublespeak for "Christian faith." If ethical values were really the issue, then Mitt Romney should have had the advantage because -what ever you think of the story of how the Book of Mormon came about, the LDS' early experiments with polygamy, etc.- the LDS church today walks the walk better than most any Christian church body. Their young people are expected to do service for both church and community, they take care of the poor and needy of their community, and so forth. None the less, consider how much anti-Mormon rhetoric has been thrown around in this campaign by so-called Christians. For pity's sake people, we're electing a PRESIDENT here, not a pope or a pastor!

Even in the [in]famous episode of South Park "All About Mormons" where the story of the Book of Mormon is told with a chorus humming "dum dum dum dum dum" in the background, the point that for most Mormons their church provides them the encouragement to be good people, love their family, etc. is made. From the Wiki article linked above...

Stan's anger doesn't much upset anyone in the Mormon family other than Gary, who confronts Stan and the other boys the next day, pointing out that he believes his religion does not need to be factually true, because it still supports good family values. Gary condemns their bigotry and ignorance, stating: "All I ever did was try to be your friend, Stan, but you're so high and mighty you couldn't look past my religion and just be my friend back. You've got a lot of growing up to do, buddy. Suck my balls." He walks away, and the episode ends as Cartman (with a new-found respect for him) says, "Damn, that kid is cool, huh?"

Finishing off on my critique of Rev. Governor Huckabee. His appeal can be summed up and paraphrased thusly: Vote for me because I'm like you. I share your social and religious values. He's running on his social and religious purity more than political experience, principles, or policies. He's so afraid of being shown to be impure in any way that he's even refused to give straight answers to questions which might show that he's less than a purely "small government, low taxes" Republican. SO WHAT?! Be different, be your own man, and be PROUD of it. I'd rather hear straight from a candidate what they believe, what they've done, and what they want to do, than have them try to tickle my ears with what they think I or some core constuency wants to hear.

I find the way he's conducted his campaign and the source of his support as small minded and divisive as if Senator Clinton were to go around saying "Vote for me, I have ovaries!" or if Senator Obama were to say, "Vote for me, I'm black." Not that I don't expect one or both of them to sink to this level... while I've been typing this, I heard a report that Oprah Winfrey's been getting hate mail because she supported a male candidate over a female candidate.

A humorous aside: Were I to be the same way, then I'd be chairman of "Alice Cooper '08".

Senator McCain, on the other hand, has focused his appeal on his qualifications to be president, and his long standing record of telling people what he believes, not what they want to hear.

I was impressed with his victory speach. He was well spoken, gracious, and did speak a lot to the "responsible, small, fiscally conservative" libertarian values which I hold most dear. He said something along the lines of "The government shouldn't be doing for us what we can better do for ourself." Amen and Amen! (Yes, that's me being funny.)

To be fair, I should also say that I was also impressived with R-G- Huck's concession speach. Were he not running on "values" and preaching in churches while running for president, the kind of things he said in his speach were ones I find generally acceptible.

---

On to the Dems, and a summation of the issues of my subject line

Most of my critiques of Rev. Governor Huckabee have parallels in how Senator Clinton has comported herself, going back to her initial election to the Senate from New York. She's from Chicago, but she made herself out be a pure New Yorker. Then there were the times she went around the country trying to affect the accent and style of each place she went. More recently, she's been backpeddling and obfuscating about her support of the initial war resolution as much as RGH has done about his tax record.

Both of them have been trying to run more on identity and purity than ideas and principle.

I don't know what to make of Senator Obama yet. His win in Iowa and his continued viability are historic. They suggest that the day may yet come in our life time when we see and live Rev. King's dream of people being judged not on the color of their skin but the quality of their character. The problem is... I don't know much about his character, I don't know what kind of president he'd make. When he's gotten specific on issues I've disagreed with most all of them, they're about as far from the classic/Jeffersonian liberal idea of "The government which governs best governs least" as you can be. But again, he's a great speaker, he's broken through a barrier which should be been destroyed long ago, and he could well be a great man. His presence in the race and his success are a good thing for America.

In summary, a bit of a history lesson, since those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it (extra points if you can ID the source of that paraphrased quotation.)

We throw around the term "fascist" in a very loose and inaccurate way. The blog "morpheme" has an excellent and extensive discussion of the word, of which I will quote only a small part.

It comes from both the Italian fascio and the Latin fasces. Both words mean “bundle”; the latter specifically refers to ““bundle of rods containing an axe with the blade projecting” (pl. of fascis “bundle” of wood, etc.), carried before a lictor, a superior Roman magistrate, as a symbol of power over life and limb: the sticks symbolized punishment by whipping, the axe head execution by beheading” (from the Online Etymology Dictionary) Similar to the Chinese tale of a father demonstrating to his sons that one chopstick is easily broken but a bundle is stronger than the sticks that compose it, this etymology implies that Fascism is an ideology concerned with the collective and opposed to the individual.

Identity and purity politics of the sort I've spoken above are a form of this in its original etymological sense. The word has come to gain such a range of meanings and negative connotations that this denotation is now meaningless, so I shan't be applying it to any given person or group.

Rather what I'm on about is this: The original and true motto of our country was not "In God We Trust" as the revisionists would have us believe, it is the Latin phrase "e pluribus unum" as seen on the Great Seal of the United States. Varying translations are given, but it means basically "from many, one" and is often and aptly compared to the adage "United we stand."

Politics of purity and identity divide us, they break us into little groups which are set in constant conflict- men vs. women, blacks vs. whites, nascar vs. indycar, red state vs. blue state, and so forth. (Extra points if you can find the one bit of almost subliminal humor there.)

I'm alarmed when any candidate tries to peel off a section of the electorate for the sake of political advantage, be it by demonizing Mormons, homosexuals, environmentalists, homeschoolers, people on welfare, wed mothers, unwed mothers, creationists, or anyone else.

I don't know that we'll ever be able to "all just get along" but I sure would like it were we to look beyond the tips of our noses when electing the president who will lead all 300,000,000 of us in all 50 states.