Four More Years!

Aaaaahhhh, the schadenfreude.  For once, I actually enjoy watching Fox News, and this Tumblr, White People Mourning Romney, has given me nothing but a steady stream of Me gusta.  The best part is that Obama's margin of victory was almost exactly what Nate Silver and the other scientifically-grounded statisticians had predicted, unlike the "unskewed" polls coming from nearly every conservative outlet.  It's always fun to watch reality force itself upon the willfully ignorant. 

I'm also thankful Obama won the popular vote.  If he had received fewer actual votes than Romney, I can imagine that would have been a huge source of contention in the months ahead.  Of course, it seems one of the Republicans' current coping mechanisms is to to insist that the popular vote was really close--which it was--but...so?  A win's a win, and the only thing that matters anyway is the electoral college, so there you go.

Looking to the future, check out this chart from Slate that breaks down the races of each candidates' supporters:

Clearly Republicans have a problem.  The only group they dominate is the only one that isn't growing as an overall share.  Furthermore, in both 2008 and 2012, Obama has garnered overwhelming support from all age groups below the age of 40.  So Republicans, you've spent the past thirty-plus accusing minorities and young people of being lazy grifters, bashing gays, and forcing Conservative Christianity on everyone else.  Sure, it allowed you to dominate the old white people demographic, which worked out pretty well for a while.  But guess what?  You've successfully painted yourself into a corner.  Have fun with that shrinking constituency.  And oh my science, it's been great watching the blowhards on Fox News shed tears of infinite sadness over the death of "traditional" America.

It'll be interesting to see what happens from here.  Because of the demographics above, Democrats look to have a structual lock on the electoral college, and it will become tougher and tougher for Republicans to break through in future presidential contests.  Already, Ohio's Republican Secretary of State, Jon Husted, wants to find a way to award Ohio's electoral college votes in the next election based on the outcome of each congressional district rather than as a winner takes all system.  This would almost guarantee a Repulbican candidate 12 of Ohio's 16 electoral votes due to gerrymandering after the 2010 census.  Indeed, such a system across the country would result in a Republican landslide unless the Democratic candidate achieved a massive margin of victory in the popular vote.  So yeah, expect that to be a fight in the near future. 

Personally, I think we need to do away with the electoral college all together and use a straight popular vote.  It would give everyone incentive to vote and not just the voters in a handful of swing states.  But who knows if that will ever happen.

Looking beyond the Presidential contest, I also get the sense that this election will mark a tipping point in the ongoing demographic and generational shift.  I already mentioned the structural challenges for the Republican Party to win the presidency, but we also saw equality for gays win out this year in every state where it was on the ballot, and marijuana was legalized in Colorado and Washington.  I'm thrilled to see gay rights finally succeeding at the ballot box.  I never expected opinions to turn this fast, and hopefully this will be the year that everything changed.  And with marijuana, perhaps the end of it's prohibition is in sight, and we can stop incarcerating so many of our fellow citizens for partaking in a substance that is no more harmful than alcohol.  Not only would it free millions from jail, but it would save billions of taxpayer dollars too.

Anyway, I hope this election marks the point when my fellow Millenials finally take control of the national conversation and steer the country towards a more inclusive future.  I'm sur ethere will be setback along the way, but things feel pretty good this week.
 

Everyone Chill Out

I know I missed a busy week politically, but I just got back from an amazing trip to Paris and Normandy.  Being a history major, it was nice to finally see several of the places I had spent so long reading about.

Anyway, the big political news of the weekend was Romney's debate "victory".  Now that 've seen it, yes, Obama lost on style while Romney enthusiastically and convincingly endorsed policy positions that he had completely opposed the week before.  Since the last debate's audience was a national one, I suppose Romney was smart to suddenly take a centrist position.  In hindsight, the Obama campaign should have expected it, considering Romney always tells his current audience what they want to hear, but the complete about-face was surprising even for Romney.  Instead of tacking to the center, he sprinted to it.

The real question is, will it matter?  Andrew Sullivan is in full despair mode and ready to admit defeat while the rest of the media jumped on the narrative that the debate is a game changer, but I'm skeptical that one poor debate performance can throw an entire election, especially when the electoral college is so strongly in Obama's favor and the number of undecideds are so low.  Besides, George W. Bush was an atrocious debater and he (arguably) won two terms.

Looking at the big picture, the BLS released improved unemployment numbers, which certainly helps Obama.  The usual suspects screamed conspiracy, but things are getting better, if slowly.  The first post-debate polls have been coming out, and depite a huge reversal in Pew's numbers, most show a modest bounce for Romney that has improved his chance of victory to only 25.2 percent in Nate Silver's model.

So to the Obama supporters out there who are in a panic, maybe it's time to take a step back from the horse race and not read any election news for a few days.  Never forget, the media's going to make this one look close until the very end, because that's where the money is. 

Election 2012

Today I'd like to talk about the election.  Not that anyone really cares about my opinion, but this is my blog and if you're here, you get to read my rants...you're welcome.

But seriously, as it stands today, things are looking promising for Obama.  Nate Silver's model currently gives Obama a 79.7% chance of victory, and Romney's campaign is quickly turning into a joke (albeit a disturbingly frightening and callous one if you're a little light in the bank account).  I think that's what happens when you run for president after holding only one prior elected position and are the least bad choice in a primary filled with incompetent hacks.  Romney's just not ready for the big leagues, and it shows.  Maybe I should be thankful this election is showing that being rich can't buy you the presidency...or at least not yet.

I'd be lying if I said I was feeling this confident back in January.  With the slow economy and the promise of unlimited Super PAC money supporting the Republican party, it seemed Obama faced an insurmountable hurdle.  As it turns out, lots of Americans seem to disagree with the Republican fantasy that cutting all assistance to the poor and lowering taxes on millionaires will magically fix the economy because job creators will suddenly have "confidence".  As I see it, if business people need to feel confident all the time in order to run a business, then maybe they shouldn't be in business, but maybe that's just me.

With the Super PAC spending, it seems to have discovered the point of diminishing returns.  There are only so many commercial slots one can buy, and after a while people just tune it all out.  In some way this has been the silver lining of the Citizens United ruling.  Let the billionaires waste their money.  It wouldn't make it into the economy otherwise.  But I am glad I live in Germany at the moment so I don't have to suffer through the barrage every time I turn on the TV.

As for Obama, I will gladly vote for him again even though being a Texas resident will render my vote mostly harmless.  Still, I've been generally pleased with Obama's first term.  Sure, he hasn't done everything the liberal in me would like, and he has done little to relax the police state atmosphere that arose after 9/11, but from the beginning Obama has presented himself as a centrist candidate so it shouldn't be a surprise.  Moreover, he's accomplished far more than any Democrat since LBJ.  He managed to get health care reform through Congress.  No, it wasn't perfect and was more of a give-away to the insurance industry than I would have liked.  Still, it's a start, and it finally allows the US to join the rest of the world in providing some degree of socialized healthcare for its citizens.  That alone is a monumental achievement, but then the stimulus was the greatest investment in alternative energy in US history, gay and lesbian service members can finally serve their country without having to hide who they are, and Obama was the first president to publicly support gay marriage, which finally pushed the Democratic Party to make the issue a plank of its platform.

Of course, the Tea Party came along halfway through and put the breaks on everything.  I know the media tries to claim that both parties are responsible for the gridlock, but when Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Senate Minority Leader, says his number one goal is "to make Obama a one term president" even when there's a severe recession and two ongoing wars (at the time), you know there's something seriously wrong with a party's priorities.  My greatest concern at this point is that Democrats will not be able to retake the House, and we'll have two more years where the only thing to make it out of the lower chamber will be Ayn Rand fantasies masquerading as "serious" ideas.

Back to Obama, I have been deeply disappointed with his growing use of drones to assassinate individuals, even US citizens, without due process.  While the world might be better off without those killed (especially Bin Laden), it is a disturbing milestone in our nation's long slide away from the ideals of justice and fairness for all.  Still, the Republican Party's opinion on the matter is even more ruthless, so I guess I can thank the President for showing a degree of restraint.

Sorry about the long post.  I know I'm jumping into the race at the home stretch, but I felt like airing my thoughts before moving forward.  For what it's worth, I endorse Obama for reelection, and I wil be voting for him in November.  Please go out and vote, and let's run up the score to get Obama some help from Congress.  And if you're a Republican, I still want to encourage you to go out and vote for your preferred candidates.  It's your right as an American and the best chance you get to have a say in what happens in this country.
  

Wherein I Lament the Idiocy of an Elected Official

Think Progress had a mildly disturbing quote from Representative Steve King (R-IA) the other day. When asked if he thought the attack on the Austin, Texas IRS building was motivated by the overwhelming anti-tax rhetoric from the Right, he replied:

I think if we’d abolished the IRS back when I first advocated it, he wouldn’t have a target for his airplane. And I’m still for abolishing the IRS, I’ve been for it for thirty years and I’m for a national sales tax. [...] It’s sad the incident in Texas happened, but by the same token, it’s an agency that is unnecessary and when the day comes when that is over and we abolish the IRS, it’s going to be a happy day for America.

Ignoring the fact that he completely dodged the question and saw some sort of justification for the crime, I wonder if Rep. King has ever really thought this out during his "thirty years" of being for the abolition of the IRS. Even if there were a national sales tax, there would need to be some government entity that has to oversee the collection of those taxes. Maybe there's something I'm missing, but I hope he's really not that stupid. Then again, the anti-tax believers have never been amongst those I would consider rational.

On a side note, tax revenue still has to come from somewhere if we want to have a functioning government, whether it's from income taxes, a value added tax, or a sales tax. Besides, I seriously doubt shifting the mode of taxation would do anything to change the irrational tax hatred that dominates the Right. They seem to believe cutting taxes are a magical cure that will allow the ever-benevolent market to save us from all of our problems. It's a pipe dream. Now, I don't enjoy paying taxes anymore than the next person, but it's a price I willingly pay to ensure we still have a generally functional, modern nation where we're not completely at the mercy of those with the most money...some of the time...maybe. Okay, now I'm just depressed. Better work on my novel and imagine happier places.

Some Thoughts On the GOP Victory in MA

As I'm sure you know thanks to the unrelenting media coverage, Republican Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's open Senate seat in a special election last Tuesday. Regardless of how I feel about Senator-elect Brown or the Republican Party, the voters of Massachusetts have spoken, and we have to seat him. Sure, he could derail healthcare reform if the House refuses to accept the Senate bill as is (which is stupid, at least pass something while you have a chance because this opportunity won't come up again for a while).

Anyway, this whole episode highlights a tragic fact of our legislative system: it's broken and no longer following the rules as laid out in the Constitution. The fact that 41 senators are now all it takes to prevent any legislation is asinine. The Constitution clearly states that bills will be passed with a simple majority, and there is no mention of the filibuster, which is a procedural rule that has become more and more common over time. These days, the filibuster makes any vote on a bill require a 60-40 majority. The actual law laid out in the Constitution is now effectively being ignored.

This isn't a matter of wanting to see a Democratic agenda passed. I'd be just as upset if Democrats decided en masse to oppose everything in a Republican-controlled Senate. In fact, I'm sure that's what will happen whenever Republicans do retake the Senate. We face huge challenges, and if neither party is willing to let the other try and enact solutions because they want to "win", we are totally screwed.

Sarah Palin: The Ongoing National Embarassment

I'm going to say this very plainly: Sarah Palin is an absolute farce. Her public persona is so well shielded and crafted, that few of her supporters know how horrifically uninformed she really is. What's worse is that she has virtually no desire to learn more. Perhaps her supporters are just projecting their hopes and preferences onto her. She's been so well shielded from the press and from any sort of direct inquiry, that her overall ambiguity makes this projection fairly easy.

However, the ugly truth has been slowly leaking out. Recently, 60 Minutes featured an interview with several McCain campaign strategists concerning their choice of Palin as the GOP running mate:



Andrew Sullivan did a nice job summarizing the ignorance of Sarah Palin as revealed by her old campaign managers:

Palin had no notion of basic high school history. She barely understood what the Cold War was.
She didn't know what the Federal Reserve did. She believed that her First Amendment rights meant she was protected from press inquiries. She couldn't tell you why there's a North and a South Korea. And she had an inability to distinguish between her own view of the world - which always rationalized everything that Sarah Palin did - and reality.

While her complete lack of knowledge was appalling enough, what's worse is that she was chosen without any real consideration of her credentials or her stances on any of the major issues. When the McCain campaign realized her gross ignorance of even the most basic facts, they moved quickly to shield her from all media scrutiny. She conducted no press conferences and held only a few interviews with friendly media outlets such as FOX News. The only time the campaign managers let her speak on the record with a non-friendly interviewee was for the now infamous Katie Couric interview, where her shortcomings were laid bare for the world to see. Even after the campaign, Sarah Palin has continued her media blackout, refusing to speak with media sources that don't share her partisan views. The only time she divulges anything is through carefully controlled sources such as her book or her Facebook page.

As a result, her fans only know the crafted, fictional version of Sarah Palin. Any attempts to point out her obvious lies or gross ignorance are considered liberal smears. Palin supporters even insist the "smears" are why Palin stepped down from the governorship of Alaska, even though she never gave an actual reason. Besides, if she really wanted to escape the supposedly unfair "liberal" media, she would have dropped out of public life completely. But she hasn't. In fact, she continues to insert herself into the political dialog, holding up her Downs Syndrome child as a political prop (quite disgusting, really). But despite all evidence to the contrary, her supporters continue to believe she is "just like them" and that she would make the perfect president. I think projection is the obvious explanation for this. On most issues, Palin has remained purposely noncommittal except for the few issues that drive the Religious Right, including abortion, gay marriage, and patriotism (read, nationalism). Beyond that, no one really knows where Palin stands (it seems she has no idea either), and that makes it easy for her supporters to assume she shares their beliefs. After all, she unquestioningly loves Jesus and sticks to the party line on the major issues that Fundamental Christians care about. She must be exactly what they want, right?

Before I am accused of being a liberal, partisan hack, let me point out that a lot of liberals were guilty of the same problem with President Obama.  This is also why there's such a liberal backlash against Obama right now.  Too many projected their wishes onto him, and are now deeply disappointed he hasn't been everything they dreamed of.  However, President Obama differs from Palin in the fact that he never hid his views or his stances during the campaign.  He was always open to the press, and has largely followed his proposed agenda.  More importantly, he's knowledgeable of the issues and shows a remarkable degree of open-mindedness.  Sarah Palin is the exact opposite.

Frankly, I fear for the future of America if incompetent know-nothings like Sarah Palin can get anywhere near the presidency just because she's attractive and can convince enough people she's "just like them". It's a sign that America's infatuation with celebrity has risen to dangerous new heights.

Theocracy in Alabama

Bradley Byrne, a GOP gubernatorial candidate for Alabama, recently clarified that he believes the Bible is true. "Every word of it." As depressing as that is, what's worse is that he had to make that statement as a rebuttal to his opponent's primary line of attack.

Last November, he made the mistake of saying, "I believe there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be literally true and parts that are not." Sounds reasonable enough, right? Of course, that won't pass muster with GOP voters these days, especially in the South, so Byrne's busy saying all the right things to soothe Christians' riled feathers. Yeah, that's way better than focusing on, you know, actual issues.

Can the South just hurry up and declare itself a theocracy? It's already there with garbage like this.

The Soviets' Revenge

Even though I was on an extended blogging hiatus, I’ve kept an eye on the news as closely as ever. Out of everything that’s happened over the past year, what bothers me most is America’s complete inability to fix its growing problems. On issues as wide-ranging as healthcare reform, energy independence, sustainability, and financial reform, we have frighteningly huge problems staring us in the face. I don’t blame Obama, and I’ve been generally pleased with his performance. He’s curtailed the power of his office from the severe overreach of his predecessor, focusing on his constitutionally mandated task of enforcing laws and being generally constructive on foreign policy. All in all, it’s what I voted for. Unfortunately, this retraction of executive power means the legislative branch has the burden of reform. But even with 60 Democrats, the Senate has struggled to pass any substantial legislation this year beyond the economic stimulus and the Senate version of the healthcare bill—and even that had to be severely watered down with tax cuts just to garner enough votes. In many ways, it seems clear the United States federal government has fast become ungovernable.

Where I Stand on the Presidential Primaries

Since I'll probably devote a large number of keystrokes in the coming months to the presidential election, I figured I'd share my thoughts so you know where I'm coming from.

First, I've become a huge supporter of Barack Obama. Early on, I was pulling for John Edwards...until I heard Obama speak the night he lost the New Hampshire primary. The whole thing was and incredible speech, but one line in particular has stuck in my mind:

"In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope."

I'll admit, after watching the Republican Party systematically destroy our nation domestically and on the world stage while the American people battled over trivial shit like abortion and gay marriage, I felt like an outsider in an increasingly backwards nation. This country felt less and less like home. But the nation's response to the Obama campaign has been amazing. It has shown that there are vast numbers of people who desperately want to but our country back on the right path.

However, I'm still skeptical that anything can be done. Far too many Americans insist America can do no wrong, and anything is justified if we do it. And far too many Americans simply don't care or don't pay attention.

Nevertheless, as Obama has said, there is nothing wrong with hoping for a better future because it compels us to do the work necessary to realize that future. That's the attitude we need to turn this nation around. Furthermore, the fact that Obama has focused on the issues that truly matter has been incredibly refreshing. He's the first candidate who has ever inspired me to donate to a campaign, and I'm clearly not the first as Obama's online fundraising has shown. I don't know if he'll be able to overcome the ignoramuses, but I have hope, and it seems huge swaths of the American people feel the same way.

As for Hillary Clinton, I was pretty much neutral towards her, but I intended to vote for her if she won the nomination. Never again will I vote for a Republican. However, she showed an appalling sense of entitlement to the presidency and proved she was no better than Bush in the way she surrounded herself with ideologues and sycophants. I probably still would have voted for her, but I would have been torn by the decision. Luckily, the delegate math makes it impossible for her to win at this point, and the superdelegates won't go against the votes of the people.

As for John McCain, I'm sure he would be an improvement over Bush, but he strikes me as hopelessly out of touch with the general mood in the country. Besides, after the sheer criminality of the Bush Administration, I don't think I can will myself to vote for a Republican ever again. Regrettably, I cast my first vote for president for Bush in 2004. I learned firsthand the perils of not paying enough attention, and I won't ever make that mistake again.

Anyway, I just wanted to establish my position on the whole thing since I sat out blogging during the interesting part of the primaries, alas.

Huckabee's Medieval Mindset

Everyday, new bits of information come to light concerning the positions presidential candidate Mike Huckabee took while he was governor of Arkansas. From Think Progress:

In June 1998, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a “statement on the family” that asserted, “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.” Two months later, then-governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee was one of 131 signatories to a full-page ad in USA Today specifically endorsing the Convention’s view on marriage:

You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband’s sacrificial leadership.

I sincerely hope this and Huckabee's other archaic statements drive all the Republican moderates and idependents towards more rational-thinking candidates. Surely the moderate Republicans can see that Huckabee would lead with the Bible first and foremost in his mind and constitutional considerations would only come as an afterthought. Surely they can see that Huckabee would create a virtual theocracy where only the Southern Baptist version of Christianity would have any real say.

However, I think the progressive bloggers' efforts to bring these sort of facts to light will go a long ways towards sinking Huckabee's campaign by driving away any independent who might have considered him a decent candidate. Furthermore, I doubt any self-respecting woman who isn't deluded by her church would support a candidate who stands behind such a blatant violation of women's rights.

Mike Huckabee: An Ignoramous on History

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee recently did an interview with GQ Magazine. He said a lot of theocratic crap that made me wince, but the historian in me just died a little when I read this part:

GQ: Is the strategy shifting because social conservatives are losing on those core issues? Ten years ago, it would have been unimaginable to have gay marriage even in liberal Massachusetts. Now it’s there.

Mike Huckabee: I don’t think the issue’s about being against gay marriage. It’s about being for traditional marriage and articulating the reason that’s important. You have to have a basic family structure. There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived. So there is a sense in which, you know, it’s one thing to say if people want to live a different way, that’s their business. But when you want to redefine what family means or what marriage means, then that’s an issue that should require some serious and significant debate in the public square. And if you look at states that have had it on the ballot—I know in our state it was a 70-percent-against issue. Most states are similar to that.

First off Mike, you sure as hell didn't articulate the reason it's important. You just said the standard Conservative Christian line that it will cause the downfall of our civilization because it's happened before. That's nice rhetoric, and I'm sure it works with the ignorantly faithful, but give me one example of a civilization that collapsed because it deviated from what you consider the basic family structure. Furthermore, name a civilization that had our modern concept of family.

DevilsTower at Daily Kos did an excellent job addressing my second challenge to this propaganda:

Was it the many civilizations were marriage was arranged and decided long before children were of marriageable age? Was it the Jewish civilizations of Jesus' day where brothers were required to marry their brother's widows? Was it civilizations that allowed siblings to marry? How about first cousins? Could be it civilizations who adopted the silly idea that you should marry for love. Perhaps it was the Mormons who decided to practice polygamy. Perhaps it was those who decided to stop. Or maybe it was the polyandrous cultures in many mountainous or arctic regions.

To start with, "marriage" is merely a word with a culturally defined concept behind it. Committed homosexual couples are already in a "marriage" state on an emotional and philosophical level. Just because you attach the legal term marriage to it doesn't change anything. The stars won't realign, the mountains won't crumble at their foundations, and the seas won't rise and swallow us all. No, homosexuals' serious relationships will just have a legal word attached to them that makes it easier for them to deal with things such as retirement plans and untimely death. Plus, you don't have to recognize it in your church. That's your right. But realize they are already in a state of marriage whether you attach the word to it or not.

But, the fact remains that our modern concept of marriage is exactly that, modern. Before the 20th century it was virtually unheard of that a man and a woman would marry for love. Far more often than not, marriage was used for political reasons to strengthen family alliances. Of course, maybe that's what Huckabee supports, since it is what we find throughout most civilizations at the height of their success. Maybe Huckabee doesn't believe in marriages based on love. After all, that's what led homosexuals to want marriage in the first place. They can't help who they fall in love with.

I seriously doubt Huckabee stands behind arranged marriages, so I'll leave it at that and move on to my other challenge: did any civilization collapse because it altered family structures?

To start with, civilization is a fairly vague term. It can be incredibly broad, such as: Western Civilization. It includes a plethora of societies going all the way back to the ancient Greeks. It's had its difficulties, but it's never completely collapsed and disappeared. The same goes for the other broadly defined civilizations as we see them today. The only large scale civilization that has really collapsed and disappeared was the Meso-American civilzation. However, we know fairly well why it disappeared, and it had nothing to do with family structure. No, it was ravaged by the worst plague in human history and then subjected to a slow genocide at the hands of invading Europeans. I don't think making sure only men and women are "married" would have saved it from either one of those problems.

Perhaps Huckabee means something more specific, focused more on individual nations. Perhaps he sees the United States as its own civilization. Okay then, let's look at a few nations (or entities that resemble nations since the modern concept of the nation-state didn't appear until the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648). To keep this post a reasonable length, I'll only consider the superpowers in history. I say it's a fair truncation since, following Huckabee's line of reasoning, weak nations obviously didn't have strong "family values".

We'll start with the Persian Empire, the world's first superpower. Unfortunately, we know perfectly well what brought about its demise: Alexander the Great. And it wasn't because the Persian family structure had been changed. No, the Macedonian army was simply superior in battle, forcing King Darius III of Persia to flee, bringing about a collapse in his empire.

That leads us to Alexander's Empire, but it only lasted as long as its king. Once he died without an heir, his generals turned on each other for control of the throne. I doubt family values had anything to do with it since the Greeks were comfortable with homosexuality long before Alexander's day.

Next we have Rome. But it didn't collapse until after it became Christian. Obviously, Christian family values didn't save it. Of course, they were Catholic and Orthodox, so that doesn't count for Baptist Huckabee. But looking at the families, they were usually the standard form that Huckabee calls for with a patriarchal hierarchy, but marriage in Rome was arranged to create family alliances, and that never really changed throughout its history. However, that "traditional" family structure probably hurt more than it helped. Towards the end of Rome's existence, it simply didn't have enough soldiers to guard its extensive frontier against a growing number of incursions on all sides. The only thing that really would have saved Rome is more babies, and monogamous societies almost always have lower birth rates than polygamous ones.

Then I can point to the Mongols. But they were brought down by internal stuggles due to their highly tribalized political structure. Plus, field cannons made cavalry archers, the most potent weapon in the Ancient and Medieval worlds, obsolete, removing the Mongol Empire's only advantage.

Then we come to the British Empire, but its civilization still exists, just in a liberalized form without its colonies. Even then, Britian didn't allow gays to marry before it started losing its colonies, so there's clearly no correlation there.

Then I suppose that just leaves us with the Soviets and the US. Since Huckabee is a Republican, I'm sure he knows it was Ronald Reagan who single-handedly brought down the Soviets. Even though that's not entirely accurate, it was obviously economic reasons tied to the communist market system that brought the USSR down and not gay marriage.

As for us, we'll decline eventually. But it won't be because homosexuals get a legal term attached to their relationships. No, it'll probably come when China supplants us as the richest nation in the world. Saying that civilizations collapse because they allow gay marriage is worse than saying the decline in pirates causes global warming. At least the latter has a correlation.

Update: If you'd like to learn more about Roman family values over time, Richard Saller from the University of Chicago has an excellent essay on the subject. Then, like today, conservative Roman politicians decried the decline in Roman family values and harkened back to a mythical era that never actually existed. So, before I get accused of poor historical scholarship, there were cartainly Roman writers who spoke of a decline in family. But we have the same thing today, and, unless you think the Cleaver family was real, it just doesn't correlate with reality. Similarly, the evidence doesn't support conservative Roman propaganda.

Romney Doesn't Get It

If you've been following the presidential campaigns at all, you know that Mitt Romney has recently been spending considerable time defending his Mormon faith, on the grounds that it shouldn't matter. In a speech earlier today he said:

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution.

No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

On that point, I have to agree. It shouldn't matter what a candidate's religion is as long as he doesn't let it interfere with his job so he or she can stay fair to all the nation's citizens.

However, Romney goes on to show that he has no idea on how to maintain that fairness when he lambasts separation of church and state:

It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

I'm going to look past the fact that secularism is, by definition, not a religion.

However, Romney wants to have his cake and eat it too. Secularism is the only way to ensure that no religious liberties are trampled upon. If Romney refuses to adhere to secularism when governing, then what religious philosophy does he propose to utilize? Governing through any type of religion convictions will immediately infringe on other religious beliefs, due to their mutually incompatible doctrines. Secularism is the only way to maintain any sort of fairness.

And I'm not talking about oulawing any sort of belief system. I'm not even talking about atheism. That's not what secularism is about. People are free to have their beliefs. I want to be very clear on that. But people can't have their beliefs uninfringed so long as the government rules through specific religious ideologies. No matter how vague, these religious ideologies will only appeal to a fraction of the nation's citizens. Only a secular government that rules through reason and clear evidence can be truly fair. After all, beliefs are subject to interpretation. Facts are undeniable.

The only way Romney's faith would become a non-issue is if secularism were the name of the game in our government. However, since he seems intent on pushing religion into our governing process, his Mormonism will never cease to matter.

Although, he'd be a far better choice than Mike Huckabee. The last thing we need is a former Baptist minister in the White House. If you think Bush has been bad, he'd be nothing compared to the theocratic crap that Huckabee would bring to the executive branch.

Anyway, you can read more on Romney's speech at CNN.

Obsess Much?

Kieran Healy from Out of a Crooked Timber has brought to light an amusing, yet extremely telling set of statistics from Conservapedia.

If you don't know what it is, Conservapedia was created as a counter to Wikipedia, because of Wikipedia's supposed "liberal bias". I think it just goes to show that Stephen Colbert wasn't too far off when he said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." So to fix this, a group of conservatives decided to create an online encyclopedia with their mythical version of reality.

Anyway, if you go to Conservapedia's Statistics page, you'll find the following:

I hate to make generalizations, but it seems obvious that the subject of homosexuality is an obsession for many conservatives. Of all the legitimate problems in this country conservatives could focus their efforts towards, they choose the non issue of homosexuality because they seriously believe that if homsexuals get married, it will somehow destroy everyone else's marriage. It makes no sense. It should be obvious that a marriage is solely dependent on the relationship between the two people involved. It doesn't matter what happens between other people you will never meet.

Unfortunately, I think it's just a symptom of a greater problem. Americans are deathly afraid of the wrong things and politicians are able to use this to their advantage. For example, terrorism is a threat, but Republicans act like it is the greatest existential threat our country has ever faced. I'm sorry but jihadists will never be able to destroy this country. They simply don't have the means. The only enemy that ever had that capability was the Soviet Union, and it's gone now. In the same way, Conservative Christians are terrified of the prospect of homosexual marriage for irrational, religious reasons, and Republicans use it to their advantage, which only reinforces the problem.

I say, let the gays get married and let's focus on something that is actually hurting the country. We'll all be a lot better off for it.