Science Debate 2008 Date and Venue Set

According to a press release issued yesterday, a date and venue for Science Debate 2008 have been set and invitations to the remaining presidential candidates have been sent.

Candidates invited to debate science & economy
Intel Chair Craig Barrett joins Science Debate 2008;
Debate to be held at the Franklin Institute before Pennsylvania Primary

WASHINGTON – ScienceDebate2008.com, the citizens initiative calling for a presidential debate on science and technology policy, today announced that it has formally invited the presidential candidates to a debate on April 18 at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, four days before the Pennsylvania Primary. The invitation to the candidates can be found here.

"The future economic success of the United States depends on out-performing the competition with smart people and smart ideas," said Craig Barrett, Chairman of Intel. "Without the best education system and investments in basic research and development we will become a second rate economic power."

“This is about the future of America,” said Shawn Lawrence Otto, one of the debate organizers. “Most of the major policy challenges the next president will face, from climate chance to jobs and economic competitiveness to healthcare to the health of the oceans, center on science and technology. Where is the next transistor economy going to come from? Is there going to be action to address climate change? Do we need a Marshall plan for science in America? What about peak oil? Why are our school children falling behind other countries in math and science, and what should be done about it? We are trying to elevate these important policy issues in the national dialogue. We want voters to have a chance to assess candidates’ in terms of their visionary leadership on these big issues and others like them. It’s not a science quiz, it’s about policy. We’re talking about the health of your family, the health of the economy, and the health of the planet. What are the solutions? We hope the candidates for president will want to explore these issues more thoroughly with the American people.”

The group, started in December 2007 by two out-of-work screenwriters (Otto wrote and coproduced House of Sand and Fog; fellow screenwriter Matthew Chapman wrote Runaway Jury), two scientists and a science journalist has garnered a series of impressive endorsements in recent weeks, including 97 major universities and other organizations, and leading business executives like Craig Barrett, chairman of Intel, as well as dozens of Nobel laureates and current and former government officials, including members of President Bush’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, and Clinton Health & Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala. It is now cosponsored by the AAAS, the Council on Competitiveness, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The list is here.

Apparently only the four remaining "major contenders" -- Clinton, Obama, McCain and Huckabee -- were invited. Ron Paul and Mike Gravel were not. As they've been mathematically eliminated as viable major party candidates at this point, I suppose that's understandable, although I would have liked to have had an opportunity to hear their ideas about the role of science in America over the course of the next four years and beyond, too.

It remains to be seen whether all four candidates will accept the invitation to debate on this topic. This may be a bit cynical of me, but I have a seeking suspicion that at least one of the four may opt not to take part (Huckabee). Of course, that's my own bias showing through; I have no concrete reason to say this, so take it for what it's worth.

This is an important issue to me, and it's likely important to many other individuals in the scientific community by which term I include scientists, science students, and general members of the public who keep up with science and technology in general. Let's hope that more than one of the current crop of candidates feels the same way!

Sphere: Related Content

Florida Republican Primary: Religious Candidates in Counties With Creationist School Boards

McCain won the Florida Republican primary, taking 36% of the vote to second place Mitt Romney's 31%. I thought Huckabee would do better than his meager 13%, a fourth-place finish that put him behind even Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani has dropped out at this point; Huckabee would appear still to be expecting a miracle. Clue for ya, Huckster: there won't be one.

For his part, Romney's concession speech touched back to his own religious appeal, containing the notable line about how "hard-working, god-fearing" people are what made America great "and always will." Huckabee has been the biggest bible-thumper in the Republican race without doubt but Mitt Romney is certainly willing to do the same. McCain is a somewhat more secular-minded candidate (which isn't to say I like his positions) and Giuliani, the least-religious of the bunch, has endorsed him at this point.

I was curious, though, as to how candidates who've made religion an issue did in those Florida counties wherein school boards have passed pro-Creationism resolutions against the proposed science education standards. In other words, is there any correlation between Huckabee and/or Romney finishing in first or second place in a given county and a Creationist school board being present? I cobbled together side-by-side comparisons by using a map of counties that have passed or proposed such a resolution (by Pim van Meurs) and an interactive map from The Washington Post that broke down voting by county.

Huckabee


Huckabee finished first in four counties (Holmes, Washington, Suwanee and Gilchrist). Two of these counties (Holmes and Washington) have Creationist school boards. He came second in 11 more counties (Jackson, Calhoun, Madison, Taylor, Hamilton, Lafayette, Baker, Bradford, Levy, Hardee and Okeechobee). Of these, pro-Creationist resolutions have been passed by the school boards in Jackson, Madison, Taylor, Hamilton and Baker counties. Of the 12 counties where such resolutions have been passed, then, Huckabee finished first or second in seven.

Romney


Romney finished first in 18 counties; of these, Baker, Nassau, Clay, St. Johns, and Union have school boards that have passed anti-science resolutions. He finished second in 35 more counties (there are 67 counties in Florida). Among them are Putnam County, where a resolution has been passed, and Dixie, Wakulla, Okaloosa, Martin and Palm Beach Counties (considered likely to draft a resolution) and Polk and Pinellas Counties (where resolutions have been drafted but not yet voted upon).

In both the cases of Huckabee and Romney, they often came second only by less than 5% of the vote. McCain squeaked out wins in several of the counties. He finished third in only two counties, one of which (Baker County) has passed a resolution condemning Florida's new science education standards.

Of the counties in which school boards have passed these resolutions, then, McCain lost in seven. In the pro-Creationism counties in which McCain won, the victory was by less than 5% in three:

Jackson County: McCain 35%, Huckabee 33%
Madison County: McCain 36%, Huckabee 34%
Taylor County: McCain 39%, Huckabee 32%
Hamilton County: McCain 37%, Huckabee 31%
Putnam County: McCain 33%, Romney 32%

In none of these did McCain win a clear majority; it appears that Huckabee and Romney are splitting the religious conservative vote overall. In the aftermath of Super Tuesday, I'll be looking for Huckabee to drop out and endorse Romney. If he'd done that before the Florida primary, in fact, Romney might just have won the thing. What happened in Florida, I think, gives us a good glimpse of where McCain's support base isn't. If he becomes the nominee, I think a lot of evangelicals will stay home on election day. That's fine by me. I'd love to see a Republican candidate take the nomination without carrying the religious wingnut vote. I think it could be done, and if so it would demonstrate eloquently the diminishing influence of the Bronze Agers on politics.

Sphere: Related Content

Fred Thompson Quits, Huckabee is Going To, and John McCain Will Be Running in November

Fred Thompson is giving up his lukewarm presidential bid. He never seemed to want it all that much, anyhow. Even his announcement was only three sentences long:

Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people.

— Source

Nah, I don't think anyone benefited from Thompson's snoozer of a campaign, except maybe for John McCain and Mike Huckabee. The former may have won South Carolina because of Thompson. The latter, as mentioned yesterday, may be in the midst of a religious revelation because of it.

From the sound of things, Huckabee isn't going to last too much longer, either. That's what I thought would happen if he didn't win South Carolina. So the Huckster is largely conceding Florida and hoping to hang in until February 5, Super Tuesday. I'm not sure what the point of that is, but that's what he's doing. Giuliani isn't going to win Florida; he'll be dropping out after that primary. The Republican race is essentially between Romney and McCain at this point. Not that I would vote for either one of them, but I think McCain is going to be the Republican candidate for November. Huckabee may well make a return then, though. I could see a McCain/Huckabee ticket, or a McCain/Romney ticket, for that matter.

It's interesting to watch the Republican candidates beginning to drift away from the heavy religious message. Maybe that says something about how this country is changing just a little bit. Perhaps the evangelical fundies are finally starting to lose their stranglehold on political discourse in this country. Time will tell. Still, Huckabee is sinking like a rock, Romney is talking about business now, and McCain is probably the least religiously-motivated of the pack with the exception of Giuliani. Even most New Yorkers don't like Giuliani.

Democrats? Dunno yet. I have a sneaking suspicion that it's going to be Hillary Clinton on that side, maybe with John Edwards as a VP if he'd accept it. It's still too close to call, though. It probably doesn't matter too much; barring any huge change in momentum, the Democrats are more likely to win in November. Of course, a lot can happen between now and then. We'll see.

At least we'll finally be rid of ShrubCo either way, more or less. Who knows — perhaps the next administration won't be so keen on supressing science and rewriting reports to fit policy instead of fitting policy to the fact-finding that results from inquiry. After eight years of the crap we've had, that alone would be a nice change.

We'll see.

Sphere: Related Content

Mike Huckabee Religious Conversion: Will Worship Fred Thompson

Huckabee on religious switch
Says Fred Thompson more powerful than Jesus, Chuck Norris

LITTLE ROCK, AR — Stunning staffers and supporters alike, Mike Huckabee today announced his intention to abandon his Baptist faith and found a new religion in the wake of his string of primary losses...

"I did the math," the former governor explained, "and my beliefs didn't add up. I'm sorry for all the people I've led astray in my years as a Baptist minister and invite all of them to join me in an improved search for salvation."

Standing at a whiteboard in his Little Rock campaign headquarters, Huckabee began scribbling notes in what looked like a mathematical proof. Turning to his supporters, he reviewed them line by line.

"God was powerful enough to cause a surge in my opinion polls last December. Fred Thompson was powerful enough to stop me from winning key counties in South Carolina. He also made it snow. I have to conclude, and you should, too, that Fred Thompson is more powerful than God. I'm going to leave off campaigning and wander the land proclaiming the glory of Thompson for all my days, and I invite you all to join me. I understand that not all of you will. It's up to you if you want to be Left Behind..."

Huckabee calls the new religion Thompsonian Dispensationalism... and warned that if anyone tried to talk him out of the new faith he would "tell them what they could do with their Bible..."

Calls to Thompson's campaign headquarters about this development have not been returned...

I hope that anyone reading this has figured out by now that I made all that up. If you clicked the headline link, you've certainly figured that out — and good for you for checking sources! The bizarre part of this, however, is that it's only one logical step away from almost being true. I base this stretching of reality on a combination of arguments put forth by Huckabee over the last month or so. For starters, there's this:

“We obviously wanted and we honestly thought we would win. The fact of Fred Thompson’s being in the race took away some votes that we most likely had. I believe every analyst has looked at it that way, Huckabee said. “The snow pretty much - not only froze the streets of the Greenville-Spartanburg area, but the votes came to a stop when it started snowing. That was an area where we had really looked forward to get a heavy and significant vote margin.”

— Source

Combine that with Huckabee's assertion from his speech at Liberty University in November:

In a brief question-and-answer period after his talk, one student asked Huckabee what he can attribute the surge in success to. Huckabee replied: “There’s only one explanation for it and it’s not a human one. It’s the same power that felt that … two fish and five loaves could feed a crowd of 5,000 people. … There literally are thousands of people across this country who are praying that little would become much and it has.”

— Source

The juxtaposition of these two assertions results in the "math" in the faux-article above. If God is powerful enough to raise Huckabee's numbers in a poll, but Fred Thompson is powerful enough to lower his numbers in a subsequent poll, it is reasonable to conclude that Fred Thompson is capable of thwarting divine will, which means that he's more powerful than God. Therefore, it is better to worship Fred Thompson than it is to worship Jehovah.

That's not a personal belief of mine, by the way. I don't think it's better to worship one thing than another or, indeed, to worship anything at all. Fred Thompson didn't thwart divine will and certainly isn't responsible for it having snowed in South Carolina. To extend one argument often put forward by the religious that attributes statistically unusual events to divine intervention (miracles), however, it would be just as valid to posit that snow on primary day was a divine act intended to hurt Huckabee in the polls. The probability of the event occurring randomly, after all, are rather low. Perhaps Thompson had a hand in this as well? There's no way to reliably test for either divine or Thompsonian-induced precipitative powers.

By the way, if you think I've been picking on poor ol' Huckabee lately, you're right. I admit freely to doing so. There's a method to the madness, though. Huckabee has made rather loud public religious statements, including everything from attributing his success (but not his failures) to divine influence to his desire to make the Constitution conform to what he perceives as biblical edicts. He thus makes a good foil for illustrating what a terrible basis religion is for making judgments about the world. One can create all kinds of macabre results from religious reasoning because the suppositions in the arguments put forth, not to mention the logical process involved, is so far removed from testable reality. I don't expect such things to ever disappear from our memepool, but it's always worth noting that people who talk about basing policies that affect the lives in the real world on this kind of reasoning are likely to make some bad calls. When they do so, everyone bears the brunt of the faulty reasoning, whether or not they believe in the religion behind it. This isn't to say that non-believers don't make bad decisions based on faulty logic, either. They certainly do. To start from a religious position, as is the case with Huckabee, should be a red flag, though. It is effectively an announcement, like a man jumping up and down, waving his arms and shouting, "Hey! Look at me! I'm going to do something dumb now!"

Religion as a matter of personal choice? Whatever; it doesn't involve anyone but the believer. Religion as a basis for policy? That involves everybody, and so is an entirely different matter.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go find a goat to sacrifice to Fred Thompson.

Sphere: Related Content

... and Speaking of Huckabee ...

I thought about writing a serious, ranty, happy entry about Mike Huckabee's losses yesterday. I really was. I mean, yeah, go Huck! Keep going! Go until you're gone!

I was going to write it... but Howie Carr of the Boston Herald already did it, and he did it much better than I could have done it.

Thanks a lot, Howie. There goes half an hour of perfectly good procrastination, right down the tubes.

Sphere: Related Content

The Opposite of Huckabee

Riddle me this: What is the opposite of Mike Huckabee?

Answer: The opposite of Mike Huckabee is A Dirty Shame, John Waters' 2004 twisted masterpiece.

I've seen all of John Waters' movies, except for Cry Baby, at least once. Last night was my third time watching A Dirty Shame and I like the flick better each time I see it. It's his most subversive movie. His other movies are about weird people; A Dirty Shame is based on the idea that normal people are just one minor head injury away from becoming absolute freaks.
In the wild world according to Waters, we all have an inner pervert waiting for an impact to the cranium to emerge. Anything at all can be sexualized, from a can of Spaghetti-O's to a car tire, and the world is divided into freaks and neuters, the latter being people who hate sex. None of it's true, but it makes for a hilarious cinematic world view.

Waters goes even further, of course, because that's what John Waters does at his best. It's not enough for everyone to be either a perv or very nearly one. There's a perv Jesus and perv apostles and the whole thing is part of a religious awakening. The whole world will become instantly transformed into paradise when an act that has never been sexual becomes one. As it turns out, the magical sex act that brings on the Rapture is... butting heads. That's it. We all bang our heads together and the neuters get "left behind." I mean, who else but John Waters can come up with that after shocking and challenging an audience with some of the most bizarre, deviant behavior ever brought to the screen? Who else would even try turning Tracy Ullman into a nymphomaniac in the first place? John Waters is the Genius of Trash. I love his flicks and I love A Dirty Shame best of all.

But there is one thing that makes my favorite Waters movie even better, and that's watching it as a break from keeping tabs on the presidential race. Let's face it, the world of presidential politics is every bit as trashy and unreal and perverse as the best John Waters movie. They're all so earnest and squeaky clean and wrapped in flags, those candidates. It's an act. John McCain and Mitt Romney's victory speeches don't show us anything more real about humanity than does strapping a pair of enormous prosthetic breasts onto Selma Blair and calling her Caprice Stickles. They've all got handlers who tell them how to look and what to do. They all follow a script designed exactly to remove as much authentic humanity from them and turn them into caricatures in an effort to cover up the imperfections that make us people. When we see Barak Obama or Mike Huckabee campaigning or when we see Johhny Knoxville levitating in "astral orgasm," we're seeing a symbol, not a person. They're all characters that stand for something, some principle, some ideology, some perversion. It's unreal. It sure is fun, though, to whiplash between the extremes. There's a balance to be struck by experiencing the characters created for A Dirty Shame and the characters created for CNN.

Everybody creates a character that they project into the world to some extent; only a very, very few people — perhaps only one, if we're lucky — ever see our total reality. That's intimacy. When that intimacy slips out, the person-as-symbol becomes debased. When Howard Dean screamed in Iowa, he became too human and that was the end of his presidential bid. When Bill Clinton got a blowjob, and when Larry Craig tried to get one, they became debased, even though the truth of the matter is that just about every male on the planet has spent at least a few minutes of their day thinking about or getting the same thing (on a good day). Does that mean I want to see Fred Thompson's sex face plastered across the front page of the newspaper? Ugh, no. Still, the images we have in our heads, placed there through the aperture of some camera, are just fiction. Whether we ever see it or not (oh god oh god I'm sorry for putting this image in your heads so early in the morning), it's entirely possible that Hillary Clinton prefers doggy-style and that John Edwards has passed gas in a movie theater at least once. It's just as likely that Minka [This link is NOT work-safe or family-friendly!!!!] can quote Jean-Paul Sartre and Ron Jeremy enjoys discussing Impressionism over a snifter of fine brandy.

These are thoughts engendered by watching A Dirty Shame between coverage of Nevada caucuses and the South Carolina primary. Get a copy of the flick yourself and do the same on Super Tuesday and see if you don't come up with something similar. In any case, the opposite of Mike Huckabee is A Dirty Shame. There's just no getting around it.

Sphere: Related Content

What That Flag Stands For: Mike Huckabee and the Confederate Flag Flap

We've all heard by now about Mike Huckabee's comments about the Confederate battle flag and its proud flapping in South Carolina. For his part, Huckabee won't say whether he personally finds the flag to be offensive, ducking behind the notion that only those who live in some particular place should have anything to say about what goes on there:

Colmes pressed, "But, Governor, people want to know what your sensibilities are. Do you see it as a symbol of southern pride or do you see it as a symbol of racism? How do you, personally, view that flag?"

Huckabee dodged again. He said, "It doesn’t matter. No, you’re missing my point, Alan, with all due respect. It is not an issue for me because I don’t live in South Carolina."

— Huckabee on Hannity & Colmes, 1/18/08

While it can be argued whether or not such a thing is appropriately an issue in a presidential contest, it can't be denied that the position on such a question taken by a candidate tells us something about his character and/or understanding of American history. The heart of the question that could be asked about Huckabee's response, then, is: Does Huckabee understand and support what the Confederate battle flag stands for?

This is an argument I've had a number of times over the years. People, whether out of ignorance or misplaced pride, like to argue that what the Confederacy was about, and by extension what the Confederate flag stands for, is essentially anti-federalism. "States' rights!" is the usual response from such people. The next question I like to pose in such discussions is, "States' rights to do what?" Typically, I get some vague comments about self-determination, which answers the question with an equivalent term.

At this point, I like to let a fellow named Alexander Stephens respond. You'd think it was hard for him to do that; he's been dead for a long time now. During his life, though, Stephens was the vice president of the Confederate States of America. On March 21, 1861, Stephens made a speech in Savannah, Georgia in which he laid out in no uncertain terms what the CSA stood for. For this reason, that speech has come to be known as The Cornerstone Speech. Among the core principles of the CSA, and so symbolized by the flag that flaps so proudly above the South Carolina state capitol building, we find these passages:

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically... The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error...

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth... Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind—from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails... They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal...

May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system... The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws...

— Alexander H. Stephens, The Cornerstone Speech, 1861

Does Stephens' Cornerstone Speech contain other things than this? Of course! It talks about other ideas embodied by the Confederacy — laissez faire economics, representation in government, and ideas about responsibility for infrastructure that we might characterize as Libertarian in modern parlance are all present as well. Still, all of these things rest, in Stephens' own words, upon a "cornerstone" of slavery, a foundation of racism positing that the proper condition of anyone of African ancestry was to become the property of superior European descendants. Stephens could hardly have been more clear on this point; he sees this situation as having been ordained by God. Slavery is not only a social arrangement in his eyes but a Biblical commandment and those who oppose it are both insane and blasphemous. It is no more justifiable to deny, then, that the Confederate flag stands for this philosophy than it would be to disregard the idea of the Final Solution in Nazi Germany and fly the flag of that regime while claiming that it stands for making the trains run on time. Stephens himself was not some insignificant southerner; he was a founder of the Confederacy and second in command of its government. He spoke with full authority as its representative.

This being the case, nobody with a knowledge of history and a functioning reasoning faculty can fail to understand why so many people see the Confederate flag as inherently offensive. That it stands for a base racism justified not only on the basis of expediency but religious fervor is beyond any doubt worth consideration. For Huckabee to endorse its being displayed on public property anywhere in America, for him to defend such a thing on any basis, reveals that he either sympathizes with what it symbolizes or else that he isn't aware of what it means. Neither one of these conditions speaks of an individual who is the best choice, or even a good choice, to be the leader of this country. It may not be a presidential issue, but Huckabee's defense of that flag and his subsequent refusal to express even personal objection to it speak volumes about the kind of human being that he is. At best, it tells us that he values his own political well-being above the strength of character necessary to stand up to racism, hatred and oppression. At worst, it tells us that he is a vile sympathizer with one of the most shameful institutions in all of the history of civilization.

That he once accepted an invitation to act as a speaker at a conference of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a group that states among other things that

...We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called “affirmative action” and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races...

— Source

doesn't do much to dispel the idea that Huckabee may have some racist leanings. There is more on that story in The Nation today.

America would do better to elect a flagpole as president than it would in giving the job to Mike Huckabee. The best we can hope of the man is that he's an idiot.

Sphere: Related Content

Michigan Primary Mystery: Huckabee a Distant Third Despite Promise to Make Constitution Godly

Once again, the supernatural power to which Mike Huckabee attributed his surge in opinion polls last December failed to come to his aid in the Michigan Republican primary. He finished a distant third, taking just 16% of the vote behind winner Mitt Romney (39%) and John McCain (30%). What I wrote in last week's entry about the New Hampshire primary applies here. God has apparently not backed a horse in this race despite Huckabee's earlier contention that he was the anointed one.

Huckabee's loss must be especially puzzling to him in light of his explicit promise to amend the Constitution so that it conforms to "God's standards" by which, of course, he means the Bible:

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution, but 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.

— Mike Huckabee, Warren, MI, Jan. 14, 2008

To say that the quote exemplifies Huckabee's belief that no Constitutional separation of religion and government is inadequate; this is Huckabee-as-preacher speaking for Jehovah. He essentially wants to do for America what the Taliban did for Afghanistan. Every time Huckabee loses, I feel a little better. Every time he loses, America wins.

The South Carolina primary is in three days. Huckabee's strategy has been to campaign heavily there, and I would be surprised if he doesn't win in that state. He's hanging on for the primaries in the heavily evangelical South:

We put a flag in the ground here Saturday. We're going to make it real clear that the first-in-the-South primary is going to give their support to the first-in-the-South candidate.

— Source

South Carolina is, I think, a must-win for him at this point. If he can't take a conservative, religious Southern state, he's done for. He'll likely take it, though, and lumber on with his message of desecularization. I'm sure that's what he's praying for.

Sphere: Related Content

Meanwhile, in a Different Part of the State of Disenlightenment

Hey kids!

Do you like the circus?

Well, if you're going to be in Orlando, Florida in less than two weeks, you can see one! It's a three-ring circus, no less, with the ringers being Don Wildmon, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich! It's the sorriest show on earth! It's the...

---

Rediscovering God in America Conference

with special guests

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich

and

Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee

More than 500 pastors from across Florida will be there! While the event is designed for pastors, it is available to all who sign up.

---

Who knows, maybe some of the school board members from Taylor County will be on hand to explain how the universe was formed!

Is there anybody left who doubts that the election of Mike Huckabee would be one giant step toward government by theology? Well, if you still do, click here to reserve your space, even though it's a webcast. But you have to be registered to access it, because the American Family Association can't have just anyone watching their webcast. Besides, how are they going to add you to their mailing list otherwise?

Sphere: Related Content

Jehovah Skips New Hampshire: Huckabee, Robertson and Mushy Thought

Yesterday was a long day, and because I dropped off to sleep quite early I didn't find out until just a little while ago what the results of the New Hampshire primary were. Clinton took the Democratic vote and McCain won for the Republicans. Despite my general lack of excitement for any of the candidates on either side, I'm happy that someone other than Huckabee won even though I don't support any of the Republicans at all. Try not to be too shocked about that. All in all, though, Huckabee represents a worst case scenario. Whomever gets elected president in this next election is facing a world of problems that necessitate an office holder willing to face reality and exercise real critical thought to solve them, and nothing about Huckabee demonstrates that he's that person.

In December, Huckabee spoke at Liberty University and delivered the following quote as part of his address when speaking about his surge in opinion polls at the time:

There's only one explanation for it, and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of five thousand people… There literally are thousands of people across this country who are praying that a little will become much, and it has, and it defies all explanation.

— Source

This is a paraphrasing of Mark 6:41; it's clear to what power Huckabee was referring. He's attributing his performance in an opinion poll to the Biblical God.

In New Hampshire, however, Huckabee didn't do so well. He finished a very distant third with 11% of the vote, far behind McCain (37%) and Romney (32%) [Source]. McCain doesn't mix religion and politics to the extent that Huckabee does and Romney is famously (thanks in part to Huckabee and many of his supporters) Mormon. Huckabee hasn't made mention of Jehovah again in the context of his defeat in New Hampshire, but I don't think it would be unreasonable for one to ask why the same deity whose support Huckabee touted in December wouldn't "make all things possible" (Mark 10:27) with a win in New Hampshire, too. After all, that quote is found in the same New Testament Gospel that contains the story he paraphrased while speaking at Liberty.

That's just the thing about post hoc citing of supernatural agency as causation. It only happens when something that the one asserting it has gotten something they wanted. We've all seen professional athletes trotting down a field with finger pointed at the sky when they've scored a point for their side; that's effectively what Huckabee was doing when he picked up points in the opinion polls. You'll never hear a baseball player, for instance, complain that Jehovah was at fault for the player's hitting into a double play, however. Assertion about God being on one side or another is symptomatic of mushy thinking. It starts with the idea that there is a causative agent that is beyond human comprehension and then invokes it into the course of purely human affairs, whether they be politics or baseball. It doesn't matter much how an athlete thinks. Nobody is every likely to pay A-Rod 150 gazillion dollars to solve real-world problems based on accepting or rejecting hypotheses based on empirical evidence. If he wants to point at the sky as he comes down the third base line, I'll still be happy to see him score the run. It's a very different matter when it comes to electing a president, though. We've already had nearly eight years of mushy, theologically-inspired thinking in the White House; it doesn't work out well. America, I would hope, has by and large developed enough wisdom based on experience to tell us that we need to avoid having another leader who thinks that Jehovah is whispering into his ear or is a "decider" who can base decisions on "what's in his heart" rather than upon the best available information. Vladimir Putin didn't, after all, turn out to have such a "good soul."

This kind of fundamentalist thinking also tends to cut humanity out of the dialog. In Huckabee's case, his statement about divine involvement at one point and his lack of one at another may just be the tip of the iceberg or it may not. There's a certain disdain for humanity in such statements, though, that gets taken to extremes by those who aren't as reliant upon public opinion as an office seeker. For example, we can look at Pat Robertson's prediction of a mass destructive attacks against the US made in January of last year based on what God told him:

...religious broadcaster Pat Robertson predicted Tuesday that a terrorist attack on the United States would result in “mass killing” late in 2007.

"I’m not necessarily saying it’s going to be nuclear. The Lord didn’t say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that."

— Pat Robertson, 1/2/2007

When New Year's Day 2008 rolled around and no such attacks had taken place, contradicting what Robertson reported Jehovah as having told him, his reaction was:

All I can think is that somehow the people of God prayed and God in his mercy spared us.

— Source

Nonetheless, Robertson is still discussing the future with Jehovah and delivering prognostications. That he posited that human wishes could overcome divine plan as a reason that his 2007 prophesy didn't come to pass doesn't appear to have factored into his thinking about 2008 and beyond. There's always an excuse for an undetectable supernatural agent to change it's mind, after all. Maybe he won't next time. We humans can't tell what God is thinking... but we can tell what God is thinking when it lines up with what we wanted somehow. How could either Robertson or Huckabee expect that the omniscient, omnipotent invisible puppet master wouldn't have counted on believers praying extra-hard at some particular moment in the course of the events he was planning in the first place? The object of religious belief can't be relied upon to take religious belief into account, after all.

Robertson is more extreme — and probably more murderous — in his thinking than Huckabee. I don't know Huckabee's private thoughts, and Robertson likely feels freer to express what he's thinking because he's not subject to an electoral mandate. Still, Robertson's predictions and Huckabee's supernatural attribution of very human opinion polls have the same basis. Both cut out the human middle-man until things don't go their respective ways. Huckabee, for his part, offers no explanation of why the deity couldn't have swung more than 11% of New Hampshire voters his way.

It's this kind of mushy thinking that makes me glad that a Huckabee presidency became a little less likely thanks to New Hampshire voters yesterday. Rather than a continuation, or even an intensification, of the problems we already face due to similarly sloppy, inconsistent and misguided thought from the current administration, the new election should be an opportunity to put someone in charge who will take an entirely different course. It may well be idealistic of me, but I would like to continue hoping that the next chief executive will have his/her feet planted squarely in this world and act accordingly.

I haven't made up my mind yet who that person is, but I've come to some conclusions about who it isn't, and it definitely isn't Mike Huckabee.

Sphere: Related Content