Helping college students be careful readers and careful listeners

I finished the book Breath, the New Science of a Lost Art by James Nestor. It was recommended by one of my doctors. I kept it in the car and read it while waiting, like at a doctor’s office. The book is about the best way to breathe and some of the good things that can happen when we do it right. We all know how to breathe. We’ve been doing it as long as we’ve been alive. The chest goes out and in and the diaphragm goes up and down. It happens even we don’t even think about it. Until recently doctors figured if air got into the lungs it didn’t matter how it got there and all was good. But it does matter. Nestor and a colleague spent ten days with their noses plugged, breathing through their mouths. Their health deteriorated. During the next ten days they taped their mouths shut (except when eating), breathing through their noses. Their health dramatically improved. Breathing through the nose has a large beneficial impact on our health. And this is a lot more than the nose providing filtering. For more details than that read the book. Nestor then reviewed various practices that involve breathing. For example, many religious and spiritual traditions involve repeatedly chanting a phrase. Nestor saw that most of those phrases took five to six seconds to say. Which meant one took a breath about every ten to twelve seconds. It is the slowed breathing that produces the calming effect of these spiritual practices. Through the book Nestor reviewed the literature of various people who had great success in treating breathing disorders such as emphysema. Alas, these people usually didn’t have a medical degree and were criticized and ignored by the medical community. But then the medical community didn’t do actual scientific studies that verified or refuted what these breathing pioneers were able to do. These practices were lost or left to the fringe. We exhale carbon dioxide. In high concentrations CO2 is indeed bad – just ask any astronaut who has to repair a CO2 scrubber. However, Nestor learned that well below the danger threshold CO2 actually has benefits that we don’t see because normal breathing expels it before it can rise to beneficial levels. And our bodies strongly resist doing what is necessary to raise CO2 levels. Again, read the book. Starting about 300 years ago our species became really bad at breathing. Large numbers of us had and have facial and tooth deformities that impeded breathing. Nestor went looking for what happened for humans worldwide to have breathing problems. The answer is industrialized food. I mentioned it to my friend and debate partner at lunch and he thought of mechanized processing of food, which happened more recently than 300 years ago. But in checking the book Nestor means shifting from hunting and gathering to agriculture. I can hear my friend say but that happened much longer ago than 300 years. While true, agriculture didn’t become a worldwide thing until about 300 years ago. And what’s wrong with industrialized food? It is softer and needs less chewing. Exercising our jaw muscles keeps our facial bones in good shape and can even restore bone long after doctors thought bones stopped growing. That means the worst way to imbibe a meal is through a smoothee, where all the ingredients are pureed and there is no chewing involved. A way out of this is chewing gum (though your dentist will want it to be sugar free). Nestor also suggests Turkish Falim (sugarless mint is good) or mastic (which has a nasty taste). Both give the jaw muscles a good workout. As for how and why this works, read the book. I keep a book in the car, usually one that is good for reading in small spurts over months. For the rate I discuss books I’ve read I also have a book in the house that I read while eating and in bed. It is also a story that benefits in reading it in weeks rather than months. I mention all that because I also finished my house book. It is the novel Young Mungo by Douglas Stuart. Mungo, now a boy of 15, was named after a patron saint of Glasgow, where the story is set. He would have preferred to be named for St. David or St. John. He lives in a Protestant housing scheme with his sister Jodie, two years older, who essentially takes care of him. His mother is an alcoholic and frequently absent. His brother Hamish, four years older, lives with the girl he got pregnant, their daughter, and her family. Hamish is essentially a gang leader and prone to violence. Mungo’s father was killed several years before. At the start of the story Mungo’s mother sends him off on a fishing weekend with two men she met at AA meetings (attendance has not yet affected her drinking). The purpose is to make a man of Mungo. We gay guys know that that’s code for. The two men are too involved in their drink to adequately prepare for and lead the trip. From the start we know this trip won’t end well. Then the story backs up a few months to explain why Mungo was sent off with the men and we jump between the two stories. That explanation is simple: Mungo falls in love with James. Not only do they have to deal with homophobia they have to deal with James being Catholic. James is without a mother and his father works at an oil rig and is home only two weeks out of four, so James is essentially raising himself and saving money to escape Glasgow, where he sees no future for himself. When Hamish finds out Mungo’s new pal is Catholic he demands Mungo join him a Friday night fight against the Catholic boys or he’ll hurt James. When James learns of this demand he tells Mungo if you go battle Catholic boys don’t come back to me. Stuart is an excellent writer and I learned a lot of what living in Glasgow’s housing schemes are like. At times it was a struggle to read dialog representing the Scottish accent and to figure out what Scottish slang meant. Alas, with all the violence the book isn’t an easy book to enjoy. Hunter of Daily Kos discussed a recent episode of Mike Huckabee’s TV show. Ol’ Huck had been a candidate for president and a former national moral scold. The episode includes this bit:

Here's the problem, if these tactics end up working to keep Trump from winning, or even running in 2024, it is going to be the last American election that will be decided by ballots rather than bullets.

Yeah, that Mafia don threat again. Hunter agrees:

Again, it's the stuff of the militia movements. Every fascist couches their predicted revolution in this same "look what you made us do" language. If Trump does not win his election because prosecutors had the audacity to indict him, then it will be evidence that President Joe F--king Biden, who to everybody's knowledge has been staying as far away as possible from every Trump investigation, must be defeated with "bullets." And this is why the Republican base has turned fascist so quickly. It's because they've had two decades of people like Huckabee hitting all of fascism's notes—the paranoia, propaganda, and demonization of enemies and insistence that the time for violence is coming up Real Soon Now. Of course, the base believes it. Of course, the base believes their Dear Leaders should be able to do crimes and face no consequences.

An Associated Press article posted on Kos almost four weeks ago discusses how a group of thirteen American universities are partnering to elevate free speech and counter threats to democracy. The campaign was created by the Institute for Citizens & Scholars with funding from the Knight Foundation. The nation is in deep political polarization and higher education should show a better way for people to speak across differences in civil ways. The efforts includes such things as Jonathan Holloway, president of Rutgers University, will lead a freshman course to examine the meaning of democracy and ask students to help design a program for the university to improve civic education. The nonprofit PEN America offers training, including showing why protections for free speech matter. Lucas Morel is a professor of politics at Washington and Lee University and chair of the Academic Fredom Alliance wants more colleges to embrace this mission and help students become engaged citizens. He said:

If we don’t do a good job of helping them be careful readers and careful listeners, it stands to reason that as citizens they won’t be careful listeners and careful expressors of their own thought. And it will be difficult for us to function as a self-governing society.

Return on investment

Terrence Heath, in his personal blog, asks the big question this campaign season: Why are there fifteen candidates in the GOP field? Most of them know they aren't going to get very far. Heath lists some reasons:

They can parley their name recognition into fame, fortune, or influence. See Mike Huckabee and his Fox News show.

Those already rich or famous (such as Donald Trump) can use their campaigns to raise interest in whatever they do afterward.

Others are looking for redemption (Rick Perry and his "oops" moment) or have lots of ambition – Obama became president after one term in the Senate. Marco Rubio is likely thinking if he can, so can I.

Heath gets to the major point of his essay. A viable run takes money. Lots of it. Likely at least $50 million. That gives us another reason for so many candidates: GOP sugar daddies (Heath lists them, including the Koch brothers) have money to spend. A presidential candidate is likely less money than a yacht. What's $50 million when you have $40 billion? Especially when a bought candidate can produce a huge payoff.

In the Citizens United decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that huge political contributions “do not lead to, or create the appearance of, quid pro quo corruption.” My response to that is these guys are spending all that cash to get something. They're making an investment and expect a return. That is even more obvious with the "Billionaire Primaries" where candidates audition for the cash. Have you noticed that all 15 of these candidates are saying the same thing?

A 50th anniversary

Perhaps a year ago someone commented to me that it seemed that gay rights have come along quickly. This person said it took women 70 years to get the right to vote. The Seneca Falls Convention was in 1848 and the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920, giving women the right to vote. My friend implied it took 70 years for black people as well, but I don't know what came in 1895 that culminated in the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts in 1964 and '65.

Yes, lots of people feel gay rights, or at least gay acceptance, has rolled over the country with astonishing swiftness. But these people don't know history and weren't paying attention.

With the arrival of marriage equality, which some say marks the arrival point of our movement, a few media people have been looking back to the Stonewall Riots of 1969. This is usually seen as the start of the gay pride movement because the following year was the start of the Christopher Street Liberation Day event, which was soon copied around the country as gay pride celebrations. Because the riot and the Christopher Street event were in June, most pride parties are in June.

I reminded my friend that though gay acceptance appears to have come quickly, it had been close to 50 years. And today is the 50th anniversary of the start of an important series of protests. The East Coast Homophile Organizations held their first protest outside Independence Hall in Philadelphia on July 4, 1965. There was probably a protest or two before then and protests at the White House followed. The leaders were Frank Kameny and Barbara Gittings. Kameny was the one who insisted participants dress for the office – suits for men, dresses and heels for women (in Philly in July) – because a major complaint was that the federal government banned gay employees and protesters should look employable. Kameny had been fired by the gov't for being gay. It is good to know Kameny, one of the pioneers of our movement.

These protests continued through 1969. That year the protest was just two weeks after the Stonewall Riots and this time some of the protesters were no longer interested in conforming to the society's view of respectability. This tension between "establishment" leaders and those no longer wanting to conform and also the start of the Christopher Street events in 1970 meant the Philly protests became pride parades.

Even so, those Philadelphia protests were considered important enough that in 2005 a historical marker was put in front of Independence Hall to honor them. This was the first such marker for LGBT history.

This year the 50th anniversary of the first march will include a ceremony in front of the Hall, legal panels, and a VIP lunch with Judy Shepard (mother of slain Matthew) and Edie Windsor (whose case overturned the Defense of Marriage Act two years ago). Area museums will have related special exhibits. There will also be parties, especially in the nearby Philly Gayborhood.

There is much to celebrate for 50 years of effort. Inclusion in the national Hate Crimes law. Protection from discrimination in some states. Openly gay and lesbian candidates routinely elected to office. The right to marry. And a lot of societal acceptance.

But women will tell us that even with almost a century of voting rights they aren't equal to men in pay and position in society. And blacks will tell us their right to vote 50 years ago didn't end segregation and allow them to escape the slums. So it is with us. Our ability get married nationwide does not end the discrimination against us, as various voices have been saying all last week.

The latest example is from Mike Huckabee's facebook page. It says, "An attack on Christians and their religious liberty is a Hate Crime that must be prosecuted." He vows to implement that as an executive order on his first day as president. Alas, we know that "attack" translates as "even the mildest disagreement" and "religious liberty" translates as "our God requires us to persecute gay people."

A sarcastic commenter (scroll down) on the blog Joe.My.God included the image of Jesus paging through a big Bible and exclaiming, "Oh, here it is... Thou shalt not fixeth the gay cars or serveth the gay pizza."

Celebrate our progress. Honor those who made it possible. Then get back to work.

Equality is a family value

While my dad was in the rehab center and when my conservative brother came to visit I thought it prudent to borrow Dad's copy of the March/April/May issue of Washington Monthly to get it out of the house (hmm... named "Monthly" and printed quarterly). The reason: the cover article is Can Gay Wedlock Break Political Gridlock? The illustration showed a happy donkey and elephant in a red convertible with a "Just Married" sign on the back and heading into the sunset. Even my 16 year old niece had learned there are some issues we simply do not discuss with this brother.

Of course, with a title like that I just had to actually read it. And then I read a couple more articles.

This cover article is by David Blankenhorn, William Galston, Jonathan Rauch, and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead. I've read stuff by Rauch before and was quite impressed with his understanding. The article in the magazine is six good-sized pages, so my summary will be leaving lots of it out.

With same-sex marriage soon legal nationally the political landscape for marriage has changed. For about 50 years both parties have lamented the decline of marriage. A big part of that has been marriage becoming a class-based institution. Middle and upper class people get married, poor people don't. A big chunk of the article goes into this in detail. This marriage gap harms children because it deprives them of a parent's support. It harms adults by reducing their chance of economic success. It harms communities because the young aren't guided into stable relationships. It harms the country by fueling inequality.

Lots of research went into the importance of families during the 1970s and '80s along with much discussion of what to do about it. But the debate was sidetracked in the 1990s by women's equality and gay rights. The discussion of marriage became a pitched battle with equality on one side and family values on the other. Pro-equality meant anti-family (sound familiar?).

But the ideas have shifted. Progressives have realized that family structure and social justice are related. Conservatives are beginning to realize that a man's marriageability is dependent on his prospects in the job market. Gays and lesbians have realized that they have a stake in the health of marriages. That has prompted progressives to see that social equality of both gays and the poor is impossible without access to marriage. Conservatives are realizing that antagonism to same-sex marriage turns off the younger voters and it is better to support gay and lesbian couples.

The authors make some recommendations. Make a public argument for marriage opportunity; explain why it is important. Increase marriageability by helping the poor join the workforce and handle life in the middle class and by providing community support of marriage. Change public policy, such things as not reducing benefits upon marriage, offer counseling to those considering divorce, support public education of life and financial literacy, and reduce incarceration which removes men from families. Include sexual minorities in all that family support. Do research on gay families, including why marriage matters and cultural factors that support marriage.

Equality is becoming a family value.



Another article in Washington Monthly that caught my attention is A New Agenda for Political Reform by Lee Drutman and Steven Teles. Most of this nine page article describes how Congress made itself stupid by cutting a big chunk of its support staff. That included staff that knew institutional history, how things got done, and could offer independent analysis of what was in various bills, and guide legislators in writing bills. Only in America are the ranks of advisers to lawmakers filled with twentysomethings, even if they are bright and eager. That means Congress must rely on industry lobbyists to explain what is going on in the world, and to write the bills that Congress passes. Naturally, those lobbyists are highly biased. I knew the situation was bad, but I didn't know how bad and precisely why.

All through the article I was thinking this is the situation the Congressional corporate masters want. How would we convince Congress to defy their masters? What reasons could we give? Thankfully, the authors have some, though they know it will be an uphill fight.

The Tea Party may realize that a stronger Congressional staff is necessary to effectively oversee the rest of government and root out waste. The GOP may realize that while they wail about executive overreach they are cutting their power to do anything about it. Both parties complain about out-of-control and do-nothing bureaucrats and may soon realize they need staff to identify and fix abuses. The cost for an expert support staff? Less than the typical Pentagon project overrun, which legislative oversight, made possible by an expert support staff, could reduce.



A third article has only a morsel to share. The title is How Mike Huckabee Became the New Sarah Palin, and is by Ed Kilgore. In 2008 Palin turned resentment of the "liberal elites" who supposedly run the country into victimization, self-pity, and vengeance. Democrats didn't just do bad things, they looked down their noses a "real" Americans. Since then many Republicans, especially Huckabee through his new book, have adopted Palin's line of attack.

The Christian Right, Tea Party members, and conservatives in general have added this general indictment of the liberal elites and their underclass clients:

an unpatriotic determination to undermine rights and overthrow governing norms set down eternally by the Founders of this exceptional nation under the direct inspiration of Almighty God. So liberals were not only mocking the religion and culture of good white middle-class folk, and stealing their hard-earned money (and richly earned government benefits) to buy votes from the lower orders – they were also spitting on the foundational principles of America and defying God.

Yeah, that's what we're facing.

Tammy Baldwin for president!

Back in February the Arkansas Legislature passed a bill banning local non-discrimination protections for sexual minorities. About the same time the city of Eureka Springs approved what the state law banned. An anti-gay group gathered enough signatures to put the city's ordinance up for a vote of the citizens. That vote was Tuesday and 71% of the voters want to keep protections for sexual minorities. So the city will enforce their ordinance – until July 20 when the state law goes into effect.



A new poll by the Pew Research Center shows that since 2007 the number of adults calling themselves Christian has dropped by about 5 million, or a drop of almost 8% of adults. All denominations are affected, though Evangelical Protestant dropped less than Catholic and Mainline Protestant. In contrast, the number of those unaffiliated with a church has risen. Among adults under 35 – the Millennials – the rise is indicating a religiously unaffiliated generation. Many are saying the reason is a political backlash against the GOP and their religious conservative backers.



In another new poll, this one by the Wall Street Journal and NBC:

found 61 percent of Americans would be enthusiastic about or comfortable with a gay or lesbian presidential candidate. In comparison, 52 percent said they'd be enthusiastic about or comfortable with an evangelical Christian running for president.

Yup, Tammy Baldwin over Mike Huckabee.



I've mentioned the extremely flawed and discredited study by Mark Regnerus that was declared unbelievable when it appeared in the Michigan same-sex marriage case a year ago. Two sociologists went through the study's data. They removed the suspect stuff (such as the person who claimed to be 7-foot-8 and 88 pounds), and corrected the methodological errors. They recomputed all the conclusions and – surprise! – all that data showed that "adult children who lived with same-sex parents show comparable outcome profiles to those from other family types, including intact biological families." Quite the opposite of the conclusion Regnerus computed. This corrected study will appear in Social Science Research, the same journal that published the original.

We may not need the Supremes

t seems the marriage equality map is changing daily, and maybe more often than that.

Apparently a court ruling comes in two parts. One is the ruling, a declaration that a law is unconstitutional. The other is the mandate, what the losing side has to do about it. It also seems that both of these are rarely issued together. When the 9th Circuit ruled on Tuesday that the bans on same-sex marriage in Idaho and Nevada were unconstitutional it issued the ruling and mandate together. It also combined the mandates for the two states.

While Nevada officials said same-sex marriage is just fine with them, Idaho balked. They asked for a stay. Though the Supremes may not take the case, Idaho wants the entire 9th Circuit to rule in what is known as en banc, not just the usual three judge panel that heard the case and issued the ruling.

So Justice Kennedy, the one to oversee the 9th Circuit, issued the stay. But he didn't separate out the two states, so Nevada was affected too. Kennedy later removed Nevada's stay. Then Nevada's Coalition for the Protection of Marriage popped up and requested a stay. So no marriages until that got sorted out. Last year's Calif. case showed they won't have standing when a court takes a closer look.

Another complication: The federal judge, the one handling the Coalition's request, says he can't sign an order to allow same-sex marriage in Nevada because, well because he has a strong bias against it. So he stepped aside to let another judge take over, That next judge is being chosen. There is an important question: If that judge is that biased, why didn't he say so and step aside when the Nevada case was first decided? That sounds like judicial activism.

The Coalition has now withdrawn their motions. Marriages in Nevada have begun.

At least one gay couple in Idaho was able to get married before Kennedy issued the stay.

In other states:

West Virginia Governor Earl Ray Tomblin, under guidance of AG Patrick Morrissey sees where the issue is heading and thus has no reason to be defiant. He has directed state agencies to comply with the 4th Circuit ruling. It will take a few days to withdraw their defense of same-sex marriage cases and for the Dept. of Health to get the forms ready. Gay couples across the river in Ohio had always considered their state more progressive than West Virginia. Not this time.

The GOP lawmakers in North Carolina have decided their state is special and the 4th Circuit ruling doesn't apply. If that gambit doesn't work they'll ask for an en banc hearing.

A lawmaker in Utah wants to officially rename same-sex marriages as "pairages" to avoid redefining marriage.

Some counties in South Carolina are taking applications for same-sex marriages – there is a waiting period before licenses can be issued. And that waiting period was enough to allow the state Supremes to stop the process. There is a case that will soon go before a federal district court to overturn SC's ban and the state Supremes are halting marriages until that case can be heard.

A federal distsrict judge in Kansas has ordered the Johnson County Clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This county includes the southwest suburbs of Kansas City.

Mike Huckabee has threatened to leave the GOP and become independent because the GOP has been so silent on same-sex marriage. Oh goody! Though I hear independents don't want him.

The 5th Circuit agreed to expedite a same-sex marriage case from Texas. One of the couple is pregnant and they don't want to go through the hassle of the other woman adopting the baby. So this case will be combined with a case from Louisiana. Even so, hearings may not happen until December (which means the 6th Circuit, which heard the Michigan case two months ago, is the closest to a ruling).



Ari Ezra Waldman of Towleroad takes a look at what the action by the Supremes means.

* There is no definitive ruling on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage or bans of marriage.

* There is no explicit legal precedent beyond the particular seven cases the Supremes refused to hear.

* In those seven cases there are no more appeals. Also, appeals aren't possible in the other states covered by the affected Circuits.

Waldman then explains why he thinks the Supremes did what they did.

* The conservatives didn't take the cases because they don't believe same-sex marriage is a federal right (they don't like federal rights in general). Allowing all the action to take place at the state and Circuit level (as distasteful as that may be) means the Supremes don't have to declare another federal right.

* The moderates, Kennedy and Breyer, may not want to take these cases until they absolutely have to. Part of it is judicial humility and part of it is a feeling the nation isn't ready for such a ruling (but, sheesh, this action affected South Carolina).

* The progressives may not want to take these cases because they don't want a slim majority, they want a decisive majority. And waiting may allow Roberts to stew over the idea for a few years.

Waldman also says we may not need the Supremes. We may get to all 50 states through the Circuit Courts. His reasons:

1. Marriage equality already exists in all states covered by the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Circuits (well, not Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands).

2. The recent Supreme (in)action covered the 4th, 7th, and 10th Circuits. Actions by the 9th Circuit pretty much mean equality is coming to all of its states.

3. In spite of the GOP Obama has done pretty good at rebalancing the federal courts. The 11th Circuit has become quite progressive.

4. Lots of judges appointed by GOP presidents have sided with equality.

5. Circuit judges who haven't ruled yet (5th, 6th, 8th, 11th) are aware of the pro-equality rulings issued around them and of the growing public support.

6. Those same judges have a pretty good idea how Justice Kennedy will rule, based on the Defense of Marriage case a year ago.

A commenter suggests one reason why the Supremes didn't take any cases is there are no compelling arguments for a ban that the justices thought didn't get a thorough hearing in lower court proceedings.

Making a case for rights

A couple days ago I wrote about one comment from John Stewart's interview of Mike Huckabee. Terrence Heath (fellow blogger) caught Stewart's closing:

"I think it’s that it’s a travesty that people have forced someone who is gay to have to make their case that they deserve the same basic rights as someone else."

He elaborates that being required to do so is an indignity. The other person is saying: Convince us that you are as human as we are.

And while I gave the Huckster a pass for his comment, "Just because I want to preserve the sanctity of marriage doesn't make me a bigot." Terrence isn't so generous.

”From a religious perspective, is it really possible to love someone that you don’t see as an equal? Is it possible to see someone as less than equal without hatred, or without at least contempt? If so, how?

"From my perspective, either you see me as equal or you don’t. If you don’t, as far as I’m concerned it amounts to hate - and the actions taken to maintain inequality stem from hatred. I don’t care if it’s for religious reasons. If you can’t see me as equal - and treat me as equal - then you have to see me as (even slightly) less than human. You can’t really see me as equal and still deny me equal treatment."

Protest too much?

I probably won't do well in a debate because it sometimes takes me a while to figure out exactly what I see wrong in someone elses statement. One such moment of clarity came today in response to yesterday's viewing of John Stewart interviewing Mike Huckabee. The Huckster at one point said something like, "Just because I want to preserve the sanctity of marriage doesn't make me a bigot."

Fine, Huck, we'll let that one slide. But…

* Lying as part of your efforts to preserve the sanctity of marriage;
* Refusing to consider our side of the issue;
* Comparing us to terrorists when we protest the outcome;

Does.

The comedian gets it

Mike Huckabee has said some nasty things about gays. A mild one is that gays haven't suffered enough to deserve civil rights. John Stewart takes him on -- and John Stewart gets it. It is curious and disappointing that such a challenge doesn't come from mainstream media but from what is billed as a comedic take on the news. The film clip is just over 7 minutes. Every time Huckster opened his mouth I cringed at how he was distorting the way things really are.

Worst case examined

Worst case presidential scenario: To appease the Right, who hate him, McCain selects Huckabee as his VP. Since Huck actually won several states in the South last Tuesday he is a reasonable pick. McCain/Huck win the presidency. McCain, who is the oldest guy to run for the office (a couple years older than Reagan) dies -- or is assassinated by a fundie -- while in office and Huck becomes prez. Which allows him to be pastor-in-chief and cause all sorts of fundie mischief.

As evidence that the Right hates McCain, this letter suggests fundies research who most likely could beat McCain in their own state and vote for that person, even if it is Ron Paul. Some rather interesting pictures were included in the letter.

Dobson finally makes an endorsement -- Huck -- which is a clear signal that making Huck the VP will appease the Right.

God's Constitution?

In the continuing debate... Why should Huckabee stop at marriage protection and human life protection amendments to the Constitution if he wants to bring it up to God's standards? Here are some other amendments he could champion:

* Require a woman to be a virgin when she weds. Execute her if she isn't (Deut 22:13-21).

* Ban divorce (Deut 22:19).

* Ban interest fees (Exodus 22:25).

* Ban Red Lobster restaurants (Lev 11:10-12).

and more…

Disgrace and Ridicule

Huckabee's call to update the constitution to God's standards got a response on the Christianity Today blog site. The main posting asks:

But what does "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards" mean? Does it mean that the Constitution does not measure up to God's standards? Is the Constitution anti-God? Would the addition of a human life amendment and a federal marriage amendment would make it measure up to God's standards? And is Huckabee suggesting that those who oppose these amendments, say, because of their views on federalism, are trying "to change God's standards"?

One of the comments after the posting declares Huck isn't a Christian because he says one thing to Evangelicals and another thing to the regular public:

Christians, above all others, should speak honestly and plainly letting their yeas be yea, their nays be nay (Matthew 5:37, James 5:12) lest the cause of Christ be disgraced and ridiculed.

And the cause of Christ is certainly being ridiculed these days.

The Church isn't the State?

The important -- and scary -- campaign news was made by Huckabee during a standard campaign speech Monday evening in Warren. As part of his call to amend the USA Constitution for "human life" (anti-abortion) and "marriage protection" (anti-gay) statements (something he has demanded several times) Huck added a new dimension:

"I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."

He's usually pretty good when speaking to a non-evangelical crowd (which is what Warren is) at not being obvious about his desire to overturn the separation of Church and State.

Huckabee tries to have it both ways

Another article about Huckenfreude, this time from Newsweek. The commentator, Howard Feinman, notes that Huckabee is trying to have it both ways -- a vocal Christian Fundy when talking to Fundy crowds, and a regular guy with no Fundy taint when talking to others (records of his time as a pastor are completely unavailable to reporters, creating a Lost Decade). And that brings up the question, just what does Huck believe and how far will he push those beliefs as president?

Some clues.

In a small New Hampshire church where cameras were banned (meaning nothing on the evening news) Huck gave a sermon saying that when one becomes a Christian one has signed up to be a member of God's Army, a soldier for Christ. As in a national military, it is a Christian's job to obey orders.

Never mind how much the previous misses the point of Christianity. It gets worse, straying even farther afield. Huckabee has been keeping close company with a few Dominionists, even sharing a book authorship (in 1998) with one.

A Dominionist is one who follows the writings of R.J Rushdoony. He said that every word of the Bible must be at the core of a Christian's life. That means it must replace civil laws and national constitutions. Thus a country isn't acceptable to Christ until all Old and New Testament laws become actual laws of the land -- including the death penalty for homosexuality, incest, and adultery. Never mind that the Bible itself says that salvation is not through the law.

Huck's fellow author is George Grant, who wrote in The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action (1987):

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ – to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.

It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less."

One of the comments to this post is apparently from a Dominionist, who claims that Huckabee can't be one of theirs if he is gives a secular reason for some of his goals as president.

Sin v. Sinful

If you very carefully parse the words Huckabee and Giuliani use to describe gays you encounter an interesting split. It all comes down to the difference between the words "sin" and "sinful." The first refers to failing to live up to God's expectations and no matter how severe the offense (such as murder) it can be forgiven and forgotten. In contrast, "sinful" means rejecting God's guidance and rejecting what is right. So, according to Huckabee, adultery is a sin, but homosexuality is sinful because no matter how far the first is outside God's laws (and it made the Top Ten), the second is also "unnatural" and "aberrant." He may sin (no, I'm not accusing him of adultery), but he is never sinful. But Giuliani doesn't describe gays as sinful and makes no distinctions between his own sins and those of a gay person. That would make a big difference in policy, though I'll take any Democratic nominee over either one of these guys. This commentary includes full transcripts of both candidates remarks.

The South has Risen Again?

The top contenders for Prez so far (after just Iowa) represent the opposing sides of the worst time of our nation's history. Huckabee is a leader in the Southern Baptist Convention, the driving force to maintain slavery a century and a half ago (though he did force the integration of his own congregation). The Old South has scored its greatest victory. Obama is from a marriage that would have been illegal in many states before 1967. We know where Huckabee stands on gays: hell is the appropriate place for us. Obama? He's said some nice things, done some bad things, but does he have enough spine to cross his own base?

One of the comments in this post noted that news outlets are reporting percentages, not actual vote counts. After digging another found that in a state of nearly 3,000,000 people (1,800,000 voters) only 36,000 voted for Huckabee. Something is wrong with this picture.

Huckenfreude

Schadenfreude is a German word that means taking delight in another's misfortune. With Huckabee leading in the polls in Iowa we now have Huckenfreude, the delight that the GOP might get stuck with this dude. For 30 years the general idea was that the GOP candidates were supposed to pander to the religious right, not come from there. The right was to be a bunch of cicadas -- rise up every 4 years, elect their guy, and go to sleep. And now they must contend with Huck:

But now the holy-rolling monster the GOP's Dr. Frankensteins have created has thrown off the shackles, fled the lab, and is currently leading in Iowa. And the party doesn't know what to do.

The columnists of the libertarian branch of the GOP, those who want to keep government out of the lives of citizens (and out of the way of business), have lots of outrage and hyperventilation about Huck being in the lead. Well, guys, you made your bed… Here's a summary in the Huffington Post of the weeping and wailing. Enjoy your Huckenfreude while you can.

This just might be a great season for quotes.

“Unless Moses comes down with two stone tablets from Brokeback Mountain to tell us something different, we need to keep that understanding of marriage."

-- Mike Huckabee

"Let's understand what sin means -- sin means missing the mark. … The mark is that we have marriage -- men and women, they marry, they create children, and they train their replacements and you have a future generation then that creates their replacements and trains them. That's the mark. If we didn't have that as the ideal, we wouldn't have a civilization that was able to perpetuate."

-- Mike Huckabee

Though not a formal part of any denomination (including Huckabee's own Southern Baptist) this second quote is a part of the heterosexual imperative, marriage imperative, and procreation imperative. And Huck believes them all. In summary: It is a sin to be non-Christian (well, duh! They get to define the term!). It is a sin to be homosexual. It is a sin to be single (in spite of St. Paul's urge to remain single if you can) unless you become a priest or nun, because otherwise your urges will lead you astray. Since you have to get married, it is a sin to not have as many children as God might choose to bless you with. And if everyone sins, everyone fails to do all these things, than we won't have any more babies and Western Civilization will collapse.

Scan into the comments and we get more of Huck's beliefs. Though the government has to maintain the separation of Church and State, the people don't have to. That means that morality and religious beliefs can be decided by the majority. No one may restrict the religious rights of the majority but the majority has every right to restrict the religious rights of any minority. Huck would make Bush look like a wimp. Tyranny of the Majority? Never heard of it.

Here's the first strip in a series in Doonesbury in which Bush and an aide talk about Huckabee.

Faith in politics, Huckabee and Romney style

Church services and afternoon concert canceled due to snow. We had 4 inches overnight and it is still coming down.

Newsweek has a big article about Mike Huckabee, now that he is at the top of polls in Iowa. The guy has some nice things to say -- he appears to genuinely care for the poor and honestly abhors racism which means he would actually practice compassionate conservatism. He will not be silent when other's rights are at stake (he forced the integration of the church where he was pastor). He is willing to raise taxes (and has) for needs that affect the common good. He appears to be a genuine human instead of a political construct. Alas, the negatives pile up pretty high. Bush may push Creationism to please his base but Huckabee actually believes it. That bit about equal rights excludes gays. He isn't in the Republican Party to reform it, but to embody its current nasty policies.

A commentator lists Huck's top ten moments of extremism.

Another Newsweek article takes a look at the religious battle in the GOP between Huckabee and Romney. When Romney gave his big speech about his faith he said a person's faith really doesn't matter -- except if you have no faith. Somehow liberty requires faith. The reason is that Romney (and lots of others on the Right) believe to have no religion is the same as having no morals. That's something my Unitarian-Universalist friends hotly dispute.