Truth and a Gay Guy

Whenever I read something about how bad being gay is or how evil the government is or even how the republicans are being big dicks I always remind myself a bit of wisdom someone once told me: "No matter what never think that you know the whole story about anything. There is always a piece missing. Even if you find it all it does reveals more missing pieces."

Fox ran a story titled "Christian Teens Say Gay Activist Made Girls Cry". I had already watched the video before on Reddit. At the time I did not think much about it. He was simply pointing some facts about a holy book that are true. Take it for whatever that means. Not to sound mean but faith does not really care much about the truth outside of its own brand.

The students walked out did so because, well they did. I do not like people speaking for me so I will try to do others the same. But the Fox News story does have one person who left explaining why they left. "Naman said he was simply following the prompting of the Holy Spirit." 

That's cool but it is not an answer. Okay it is one but it makes little more sense then saying I was simply following the prompting of my cat. If you have seen the video you see people leaving the room as soon as he says "The Bible".  

We are all people here and the thing about people is that we really do not like to be proved wrong. It is not self reflection but a truth. It is being studied and it is called the "argumentative theory of reasoning" more or less we care more about being right then truth. 

Christians think of their faith in glowing terms. It is the one true faith. God is real and Jesus loves you. All very old ideas. Modern Christians like to play up how fluffy and caring their faith is. Also, how mortal it is. They say the Bible was written by God and is the highest moral standard. 

But then some Gay Guy reads the damn thing and points out that is says it is cool to own slaves. It does not hint at it or mudded through it. Nope, it flat out says slaves are great own em. 

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"

Even the hipper New Testament is fine with the idea. In fact it says if your own is a Christian you should work harder for your master. 

"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)" 

But a lot of good people overlooked this part of their faith and the words in their own holy book. It is a fact that Quakers and a lot of other Christians fought against slavery back when slavery was legal and common. Risking life and limb to end it. But it is also a fact that Christians that owned slaves and used the bible to support them owning another person.  

Alright back to my point. Humans have this bad habit of hating to be proved wrong. It is embedded in us. Whenever someone points out that we are wrong we tend to react like this people did in the video. We leave unwilling to hear out the other side because we already are right and what they are saying is wrong so why even bother.

It is a habit that all of us need to break. We are all collectively dumb and helpless. Even the best Action hero does make their own guns or are self trained by wolves. Humans sorry we all need to get over ourselves, use our minds, and listen. We do not have to like what we hear and we do not have to hear everyone out but as a rule we need to start thinking more about why we believe what we believe and less about how right we are.

The truth is always there even if we do not know it. Truth is a solid point of reality. Even if we believe something to be true that does not make it so. Truth is just that truth it does not rely on our thoughts or opinion it simply is. We humans need to start driving towards truth and not avoid it.

Truth really does matter. Reality does not care about us. Truth is our only tool against everything. We are alone without a net spinning on big rock in the middle of void. We are just chemical reactions and electrical impulses. Truth is all we have. It why the houses we build do not fall in on us. It is why we know how to make fire. It is how we fight off illnesses we cannot even see.

We all have to stop trying to be right and comforting what is true.         

    

Why the Rich Rule

I am at a loss for who said it but I remember someone once said. "There are only five jobs in the world Healers (Doctors, EMT, and the like), Builders, Educators, Farmers, and Protectors (Cops, judges, and military). All the rest is bullshit for money.

Politics soundly falls into the bullshit for money category. While I could not find any data about the amount wealth that a congress person had before they where elected into office and what they have after they leave office. Even term to term wealth changes could not be found. Likely a good thesis could be done on such a topic.

But there is information out there on how Congress gets richer as average American loses. Nothing all that shocking there in fact it think people would naturally expect such a thing. As the old saying goes with power comes wealth. Also, the simple truth is that just to run for any political office calls for good amount of money or the backing of those that do.

The simple fact is that those with money always lead. Poor people do not rule. Look at South Africa post-apartheid. Once they African National Congress got into power the leadership quickly became very wealthy. What is shocking is that despite a far amount of research into the topic I could not ever find one time in which person who was poor left power  peaceful and was still poor. Even Cincinnatus the icon civic virtue and restraint was a rich man before we was in power and stood rich afterward. The Dalai Lama while in and out of power was and is no poor holy man.

So the question is why. Why is is this a universal human standard?

I think it is because money and power are drugs. The most addictive drugs known to humanity. Just a simple taste of power and wealth corrupts body and mind more than the most powerful narcotic. It changes the reality of the user with such a force even the strongest moral being is crushed under its weight.

Even if you think that a person can hold their grown against the taint of wealth and power. Those around such a person will fall into its pits. Causes such a person to fall down to their level if only for a moment. Think about it you have lots of money and you a mayor of a small town. Your sister uses your name to get a loan for a house that she ends up being unable to pay for and calls on you to save her from foreclosure. Perhaps not dramatic but think that person has the power over another person in such a way that it is hard to those without to understand. For someone to so easily change another's fate is not something to be taken lightly.

Think about it the first time you can just buy a nice car with the same ease of mind as someone buying a pack of gum. Or how you would feel with someone coming to you knowing that you unquestionable power over them. You can change their life or damn them. How can a being walk away from that unchanged. 

Even if the person uses their wealth and power for good. Their reality is not one of the rest of the world that is simple trying to get by. Their is no just get by with wealth and power. With such things comes options that the rest of us simply do not have. How can a person not change under such a reality?

Whats the answer. It is not an easy one but it needs to be said. Those with power and wealth need to be watched and legal power holding them in check. They are addicts and need to be seen as such. We need to hold them to a higher standard. Power watch dogs need to be in place to guard against human nature. Those with power cannot hide behind such power their actives need to be public and known to all. Who they see what is said has to be recorded and make public knowledge no secrets no hiding. For these people hold power over us all we need to know what they are doing in our name.       

NC Amendment One - Part Two

On issues like this both sides should be heard out. It is only fair, since the simple truth is that for a lot of people this issue matters more to them than anything else. For some reasons moralist and those that view themselves as such have really taken to this Amendment. I have looked at what those in favor of the Amendment are saying. Their support is will meaning but flawed for many reasons.

I looked up the two largest organizations that where for the Amendment. N.C. Values Coalition and Vote FOR Marriage NC for information about the reasons for for the Amendment.

N.C. Values Coalition was founded in 2011 and takes on more issues then just the Amendment one can what causes they have taken on here. While I will be just focusing on their stance for the Amendment their issues do make for a fascinating read. Namely the part in which they say that "We also believe that private business owners have the right to refuse service to customers on the basis of their religious faith." I can only think that it is a misguided move to say such a thing. It does nothing but create a needless firestorm as people can and will put out that smacks of every kind of hatred imaginable. My religion says I cannot sell to Jews and you look like one so I will not sell to you or Hey my faith says blacks are bad so don't shop here. It does not seems like wise company to keep.

Nevertheless,  N.C. Values Coalition stance for the Amendment is simple enough to understand:

"Marriage in North Carolina is under attack and needs protection. Although our current laws define marriage as between a man and a woman and prohibit persons of the same sex from marrying, these statutes are subject to being overturned either by judges or by future legislatures. North Carolinians do not want to leave the issue up to a future legislatures that might impose gay marriage on them without a popular vote of the people. ..Judicial or legislative activism could be coming to North Carolina very soon. We need a marriage amendment to settle the gay marriage issue once and for all, so we don't have it in our face every day for the next ten years."

I dislike with a passion the idea that marriage is 'under attack'. It sounds like roving gangs of people are beating up married couples or burning marriage certificates. It also brings to mind the notion that the government is trying to pass laws that will ban marriages. Granted this is not what they are talking about. It is a term that shows up time and time again in the same sex marriage debate. They stand behind the idea it is some how an 'attack' to be inclusive and give legal rights to same sex couples. But that is not what the issue is here. It needs to be stated again that not passing the Amendment is not a vote for gay marriage. Same sex marriage will still be illegal.

Anyway with the statement "Judicial or legislative activism could be coming to North Carolina" it appears that the NC Values Coalition are trying to fight against the shadowy forces threatening the future by legal or political action. It is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Using fear without reason to get what you want, in this case to pass a bad Amendment. Fear is not a good enough reason to do anything let alone pass an Amendment that will forever change the state. The simple fact is that there is no threat. No law is being considered in the State house or Senate that would allow same sex couples to marry. None has ever been considered. So much for  legislative activism. 

The Coalition does make the following statement singling out judges: 

"Legislators who oppose a Marriage Amendment say our current law is sufficient to protect the definition of marriage without amending the Constitution. That excuse is just plain wrong! They ignore what has happened in Iowa, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, where judges have overturned statutes protecting traditional marriage and legalized gay marriage. An activist judge in North Carolina could overturn North Carolina's marriage laws."

Moreover it speaks to the ignorance of the legal system that the Values Coalition has to think that a judge can some how make a ruling that will suddenly allow for same sex couples to marry. It is against the law in NC full stop, no question about it, a judge interprets the law they do not make laws. This notion of 'judicial activism'. You can read an great opinion piece about how 'Judicial activism' is a convenient bogeyman. The simple fact is "in our system of government, courts are meant to be "bulwarks" of liberty, not rubber stamps for government power." To think that they some how bully citizens into following laws of their creation is simply not possible in sense that the NC Values Coalition is claiming.

I looked up the cases that they highlighted. While they do not name names or point to cretin cases I tried my best and I think I found out what cases they where talking about.

In Massachusetts "Judge Joseph L. Tauro, ruling in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, declared that the law “induces the Commonwealth to violate the equal protection rights of its citizens’’ and “plainly intrudes on a core area of state sovereignty, the ability to define the marital status of its citizens. This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status." 

Not much activism there. The judge said that the state makes the rules on marriage for the state.

As for Iowa nothing that extreme. Direct from the ruling itself: "In this case, we must decide if our state statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the Iowa Constitution, as the district court ruled. On our review, we hold the Iowa marriage statute violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution." Furthermore, "Iowa Code section 595.2 is unconstitutional because the County has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage. A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution. This record, our independent research, and the appropriate equal protection analysis do not suggest the existence of a justification for such a legislative classification that substantially furthers any governmental objective. Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage."

Boiling it all down.  The ruling stated that the court could find not good reason for why the state banned same sex marriage. Iowa has a standard called 'appropriate equal protection'. Meaning that all are protected by the law equally. So if a group of people are to lose or never get the legal protection of marriage a good reason needs to be found for why it was done. It is very damning to those against same sex marriage that they could not come up with a good reason for excluding same sex couples from the same legal rights to marriage as heterosexuals.

As for Connecticut the case played out much the same as Iowa. No good legal reason could be found for banning gay marriage. How often do people forget that in the court of law one has to prove their case. Let me say that one more time. In a court of law proof matters, legal proof. Just because you do not like it is not a good enough reason. You have to make a case and use logic.

Okay enough of that. On to the next points that the Coalition makes. What I found to be very odd is that they have this page that lists the benefits of marriage. Claiming all the positives:

"Promotes optimal health and success of children. Children need a mother and a father;[2] there is no substitute for either in a child’s life. Children from homes with a married mother and father are:

- Seven times less likely to live in poverty

- Six times less likely to commit suicide

- Less than half as likely to commit crime

- Less than half as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock

- Develop better academically and socially

- Healthier physically and emotionally when they reach adulthood [3]"

I followed the sources. None make the claim that the benefits of marriage are the exclusive domain of Heterosexual couples. All they compared was two parent households vs. single parent. In many ways the whole page simply highlights good reasons for the state to be inclusive to same sex couples. Why leave same sex couples out something to seems so beneficial? Should the sex organs of parent really matter that much. The Coalition says that their vision "is to take the initiative to preserve and promote families — the basic building block of society in North Carolina — on an economic, social and values level." Gay people have families. But for some reason a family group only cares about families so as they have mismatched sex parts.

I many ways this group demeans those that support their cause. By making outlandish claims and statements on many topics.

Now on the next group, Vote FOR Marriage NC. They are the milder one of the two groups and seems to be the most reasonable with their case being made with a clear head and some sense of reason. Here are some of their reasons why they are for the Amendment. 

"What is at stake in this debate are two competing definitions of marriage. One definition – advocated by same-sex “marriage” activists – would define marriage as the union of any two people regardless of gender, with the law treating the parties’ genders as irrelevant to the meaning of marriage. The other definition, contained in the proposed constitutional amendment and reflective of North Carolina’s current law and the collective understanding of virtually every nation throughout recorded history, is that marriage is the union of one man and one woman."

Because it is the way we have always done it is never a good reason to keep doing something. Women should have the right to vote because well that is the way we have always done things. No, I would give you that surgery we have always used a faith healer and we get by just fine. Societies change social standards evolve. It is simple fact of human life.

The History of Marriage is not a rosy one. For most of human history marriage was between one man and many women. There are still places around the world where this is true. What is now taboo for most societies was or is a fact of daily life. Also, for generations past often who you married was not your choice but rather one of your parents. This is still the case for many people. However, in modern times we see it as an attack on personal freedom. Really I could make this whole post about how marriage was sexist and more of a legal contract between families then one of love or even respect. Families would sell their daughters or arrange for babies to marry one another when they came of age.

The point is the definition of marriage has changed a great deal with time. Our view of it now is a oddity when compared to recorded history. Traditions change, peoples views on things change. It is a fact of life. When it comes down to it. It is easy to say well that is way it has always been done but that does not make it right or even a good idea to begin with.

Getting deeper into the issue Vote for Marriage says the following:

"Whenever schools educate children about marriage, which happens throughout the curriculum, they will have no choice but to teach this new genderless institution. In Massachusetts, kids as young as second grade were taught about gay marriage in class. The courts ruled that parents had no right to prior notice, or to opt their children out of such instruction."

Okay they don't cite a source for this. It turns out that this claim is made by groups around the nation. But I like to look things up and found the following:

"Bottom line: the only evidence is two incidents five years ago. It’s possible that somewhere, in one of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts (teachers) have taught about same-sex marriage."

Even if they do what is the issue? It is a fact of life for many children that their parents are gay. As it is for other children to be born to single mother, or live just with their father or another extended family member. The nuclear family is not the only type of family out there. Why should children not learn about other types of families. Why hide it? I fail to see what the issue is.

Carrying on:
"Wedding professionals have been fined for refusing to participate in a same-sex ceremony. Christian innkeepers in Vermont and Illinois are being sued over their refusal to make their facilities available for same-sex weddings despite offers to refer the couples to other providers and in spite of the deeply-held religious views of the inn-keepers."

Oh look I found a nice chart that covers all of this:

CLAIM	REALITY
“Religious groups who have refused to make their facilities available for same-sex couples have lost their state tax exemption.”	The only example conservatives ever cite is a New Jersey Methodist pavilion, and that pavilion did not actually have a religious exemption.
“Religious groups like Catholic Charities in Boston and Washington DC have had to choose between fulfilling their social mission based on their religious beliefs, or acquiescing to this new definition of marriage.”	Catholic Charities have never been obligated to shut down their services, but have done so voluntarily when they are no longer subsidized by the state because they discriminate.
“Nonprofit groups are faced with abandoning their historic mission principles in order to maintain governmental contracts (for things like low-income housing, health clinics, etc.).”	Again, no group has been forced to close, though some may lose state funding. In one case, the Maine Catholic Diocese shuttered a homeless support agency as punishment for supporting marriage equality.
“Whenever schools educate children about marriage, which happens throughout the curriculum, they will have no choice but to teach this new genderless institution.”	Marriage equality or not, same-sex families are a part of all communities. To refuse to acknowledge their existence stigmatizes the children who are being raised by gay couples and deprives all young people of understanding the world around them.
“Wedding professionals have been fined for refusing to participate in a same-sex ceremony. Christian innkeepers in Vermont and New Hampshire are being sued over their refusal to make their facilities available for same-sex weddings.”	This is a red herring. When businesses are fined for not renting to same-sex couples, they are violating state non-discrimination policies, like in the case of the Wildflower Inn in Vermont. Inns and reception halls should be no less publicly accessible than lunch counters and water fountains.
“Doctors, lawyers, accountants and other licensed professionals risk their state licensure if they act on their belief that a same-sex couple cannot really be married. A counselor, for example, could not refuse “marriage therapy” to a same-sex couple because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage.”	This is another red herring, as licensing laws and professional certifications have no connection to marriage laws. The 11th Circuit ruled last month in favor of a university that required a counseling student to affirmatively counsel LGBT clients.
“Those people – a strong majority of North Carolinians – who believe marriage is between one man and one woman, would be the legal equivalent of bigots for acting on their heartfelt beliefs… Not only will the law penalize traditional marriage supporters, but the power of government will work in concert to promote this belief throughout the culture.”	No law has ever “penalized” opponents of marriage equality, but more importantly, there is no “strong majority” in support of the amendment. In fact, a December poll found that 56 percent of North Carolinians support at least civil unions — which this amendment also bans.

• Marriage Equality: North Carolina

Again the issue here is not should same sex couples marry. It is about the Amendment. All these groups keep pointing out the horrors of gay marriage. But I keep saying it same sex marriage is not legal in this sate. So really all of this is needless. What both of these groups are doing is confusing the issue. They are for a needless Amendment that will be fought out in the courts if it passes. It is going to be costly legal battle. The Amendment does little to really stop same sex couples and ends up hurting a lot of people. 

The real issue here is why. Why are we doing this as a state. Why are we so fearful of group of people that love and care of each other? Why is it such a threat? How can we call ourselves a nation of free people when we go after those who are exercising their personal freedom to love another. Why is there a need for extra legal protection that does no good and only cause harm. What does this say about us a people. Why should heterosexual nuclear family be the only type of family offered in this state? 

I cannot answer these question because I do not think there is an answer. We are all people all people should be free to live there lives. You do not have to like it or even respect it. But no one needs to attack someone that is causing no harm to others.    

NC Amendment One - Part One

For quite some time now North Carolina has had the distinction of being the only southern state without a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The state does have a law on the books which bans same sex marriage. But as of this date it has avoided  However, that unique status many change on May 8 2012. On that day an Amendment to the state constitution will be voted on state wide.  

The Amendment is not very long nor it is particularity complex. Here is what the voters will be voting on it its more or less in its entirety:   

"Article 14 of the North Carolina Constitution is amended by adding the following new section. Sec. 6. Marriage.

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts." 

Here is the link to the proposed Amendment.

My employer is one of them many North Carolina business that has come out against North Carolina Amendment One. You can see a full list of other business opposed to the Amendment here. I cannot speak for my employer nor do I intend to. But I believe it speaks to how important this issue truly is. Our business has been in operation for over 18 years and had a strong tradition of staying outside of politics. I do not think that this was a move taken lightly on their part.  

I can only praise the businesses that have come out against  Amendment One. The move by my employer is completely understandable and logical. Personal feelings aside is make sense in the world of business:

"Over 89% of the Fortune 500 companies have adopted written nondiscrimination policies prohibiting harassment and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, as have more than 95% of Fortune 100 companies, according to the Human Rights Campaign. Nearly 70% of the Fortune 100 and 43% of the Fortune 500 now prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or expression." (Source) 

The business world knows that it makes little sense to turn away the best talent available just because of their sex life. A business does itself no favor alienating potential workers over a personal matter that an employer has no reason to be involved with to begin with. It can only be called voyeuristic for a company to care so much about what happens in the bedroom.

It is very seasonable for a business should speak out against such matters. People are gay it is a simple fact and one that will not go away even if the Amendment becomes the law of the land. All it does is hurt businesses. Why would gay person want to work and start a life in a state that discriminates against them? Why would they want to buy a house and start a family in this state? How could anyone be expected to pay their taxes to the state that uses it own constitution ensure that they can never have the same legal rights as a straight couple? It is not sensible by any means to use a  constitution  turn away a group a people simply because you do not like what they do in the bedroom.   

Furthermore, it gives national and international businesses good reason to move their headquarters out of the state or avoid any major investment in the state out of fear that they could be viewed as supportive of the discrimination. It adds a needless barrier to doing business in this state.  Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign pointed this out in a statement:  

“Even in the most challenging economy, leading employers are forging ahead of federal and state law to recruit and retain a diverse workforce – regardless of employees’ sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. (Taking) steps to ensure all employees in their workforce are treated fairly today.”

Moreover the CEO of Duke Energy Jim Rogers put it rather bluntly:

“This is the 21st century, and we're competing with people around the world.We've got to be inclusive and open.”

He even went so far as to say:

“If this amendment passes, we’re going to look back 20 years from now, or 10 years from now, and we’re going to think about that amendment the same way we think about the Jim Crow laws that were passed in this state many, many years ago."

Here one can see a list of companies that have spoken out national against such measures like the Amendment One. One should not expect these companies to seek out North  Carolina if the Amendment passes.     

It should not be North Carolina has one of the nation's best University Systems. Students the world over come here to be educated. But will they keep coming in the future if the Amendment passes. Again why would a gay student or educator want to make a life in this state if the state legally bars them form doing so? Why would a great mind that happens to be gay want to work for one of the Universities in a state that keeps them second class citizen. Status forced on them only because they share the same sex organs as the person that the love.

But it is not just gay people that are harmed by this Amendment. While the focus of the Amendment is clearly meant to be stance against gay marriage. It ends up taking many people as collateral damage regardless of the their sex life. It affects unmarried couples of any sexually orientation. A child of an unmarried couple does not have the same rights as one of a married couple. Furthermore, it adds one more needless and harmful layer to the legal onion that is domestic issues.  

The simple statement that "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State." This means that all other unions are null and void and have no legal protection. A widow/widower could lose retirement benefits because they spouse is no longer alive thus they cannot be married anymore. Do not think for a moment that a company would not try to use this to weasel its way out of paying out benefits to someone.

It effects children of unmarried couples in both legal matters and other basic issues such as health care. Since no legal protection can legally be offered to them in the state of North Carolina. Such worries where neatly summed up in a article by Shawn Long.

"They want to amend the N.C. Constitution - to eliminate the "all are equal" clause - to define marriage as the "only domestic arrangement" in the state, and only between a man and a woman. This seemingly benign phrasing is used in other states to prohibit domestic partner benefits. I could no longer offer health insurance to my partner of 16 years or our 9-year-old son. This would apply to all unmarried couples, gay or straight. It would also be used to challenge hospital visitation, wills and powers of attorney."

Moreover, it leaves unmarried couples at the mercy of the courts. Their legal rights would be left to the interpretation of judges.

Chris Fitzsimon, director of the progressive NC Policy Watch. Pointed out that even if the judges are fair and will meaning. It will still massively affect the NC legal system:

"What we have here is untested language that would need to be interpreted by the courts. At the very least, it will mean that our courts will be tied up for years trying to figure out what this law means for domestic violence cases. (Source) 

For more information (at lest better written information) about the ill effects of this Amendment check out this website: protectncfamilies.org 

Rommey and Crassus

I haven't been very good at keeping up with my blog. I tend to start writing about one topic but after all is said and done I find out that I have lost my away along all the mess of text and half ideas. But some ideas still stick more so then others. Looking back at my America posts I quickly realized that I have gone about it the wrong way. I won't delete them but they will stand as a reminder of a past time. 

Mitt Romney is very rich. Right now there is little doubt that he is using his own wealth to earn the Republican nomination.  Romney partly financed his campaign with his own personal fortune. We should expect this Romney wants to be president and is willing to put is own money where is mouth is. In way it almost commendable. 

I many ways I see Romney as a modern Marcus Licinius Crassus. Grant it is not a perfect comparison. Romney is not one of the richest men in history nor has he ever lead anyone into battle. But I feel the comparison is justified.

You can guess who is who right?

To grossly simplify Crassus was very rich what he wanted at the end was political glory. The only real way that a roman could get such political glory was on the battlefield. Thus, Crassus lead his legions to a failed invasion of Parthia and died along with his son  Publius who was a rising star a skilled commander.

How Crassus got his wealth was quite ingenious he had his own fire company. Whenever a building in Rome caught fire (some say he had those fires set) he would send out his fire company to buy the building that was on fire at cut rate prices. After the building was bought his slaves would put out the fire. While Crassus did have other investments farms and other things. This is what many historians like to point to as the way in which Crassus went from a rich man to the richest man. 

But being rich was not enough for Crassus he wanted power. If it was not for the military glory of Julius Caesar and Pompey he may have very well gotten it. But it was not to be he was out classed by the  Parthians and lost his head literally. The loss brought great shame to Rome. It lead to the fall of the Roman Republic and gave glory to her enemy Parthia.

     

So what does this have to do with Mr. Romney? Romney if elected would be among the nation's richest presidents. Romney made a lot of is own money by buying business and then selling them. Not quite like the fire company of Crassus but it has been pointed out that his company Bain Capital “apparently looted the companies, left people unemployed and walked off with millions of dollars.” Perhaps a more modern take on the fire company.

I do not dislike Romney for this because it is Capitalism. Capitalism could care less about the worker or the 'everyday' person. As I said in past posts it is the system that we have and everyone seems to like it. Romney made his money and made money for his firm thus he was good at his job. In the eyes of Capitalism and the law what he did was fair. Companies made money for a select few those that work for it are replaceable and if you can get rid of them so you can make more money then you have 'won'.  It should also be pointed out that Crassus fire company was viewed as fair in the eyes of the Romans. Heartless but perfectly legal and the same goes for  Romney.

It is often thought that Crassus death and war was needless. His operations against Parthia, "aroused considerable opposition since Parthia had never done the Romans any harm. Ateius, one of the tribunes, tried to stop Crassus from leaving Rome. When the other tribunes did not allow Ateius to detain Crassus, he called down a formal curse on Crassus as he left the city (54)." In many ways Romney campaign can be seen in the same light. Few Republicans called for him to enter the race. His lack of support form the Republican party has reached the point of mocking. With the reason why he is gaining any of their support is because they have to have someone run against Obama.

It is hard to tell but as I read the histories on Crassus I often see him the same light as Romney. All in Rome knew how Crassus made his money. I cannot imagine that your typical Roman would have liked what Crassus did. Furthermore, Crassus had wealth which in any place or time in history means power. Outside of his wealth and family name Crassus had little to offer. In many ways his death may have been praised. Much like Romney (not that wish death for the man). I believe that few people truly like this man but he simply has the money to keep himself relevant as did Crassus.

Romney is like Crassus in another key way. Crassus went to war in many ways to be popular. Now it maybe a touch bold to say this but Crassus needed to be greater than his rivals. Two popluar men that stood for ideas and had the military power to back it. Thus war was only way in which he could get the popularity he so needed. The same can be said for Romney he wants to be President he believes that he can fix America. He sees it as the only way in which he can be effective. He is willing to sing whatever tune plays to the public he is willing to put up all his wealth to get the power that he seeks even if no one truly wants him to win. 

Romney like Crassus would be nothing without their wealth it was and is the only factor as why they made it as far as they did or are going to. Romney simply spends and spends to find whatever support he can. He seeks support like a thirsty man seeks water. Damn everything else. Romney has to be unclear about what he stands for and he will do as President. Because someone may not like what he has to say and he could lose their fleeting support. 

In the end I should not be to unfair to both this men. Crassus made it history books and will be talked about long after my death or likely the death of anyone reading this. However, Crassus did not make it to the history books as a man of ideas but as a man of wealth and in the end a man of epic failure. While Romney has yet to be a failure it should be pointed out that Romney is not a man of ideas. Romney is no great political thinker. After all Romney is not running ideas but on the fact that he is the other choice in the voting booth. Much like  Crassus was other man at the time in Rome.

As a said before it is not a perfect comparison and it may not even be a fair one. After all Crassus did lead thousands of men to their death for his vain glory. While the worst thing that Romney did is lead thousands of men to the unemployment line. After all is said and done Romney will win the nomination. Leading us to the horrors of endless political ads on television. I would like to think that Crassus would do the same.