24 posts tagged “politics”
Looking at the exchange rate for euros today and swirling that together with the national debt figures gave rise to the following:
On May 25, 2001, the Euro was worth US$0.8591; that is, you could buy $116.28 in Euros for US$100. At that time, the US national debt was a mere US$5,660,883,342,386.72 [1].
On May 25, 2008, the Euro was worth US$1.5669; that is, you could buy $63.69 in Euros for US$100. On that date, the US national debt had increased to US$9,492,245,770,788.70 [2].
Converting the debt into Euros is interesting - in 2001, the debt was the Euro equivalent of $6,582,422,491,147.35 whereas today it is a mere $6,046,016,414,521.46 in euros. In other words, the value of the United States (as measured by the worth of our debt) has decreased by nearly 9% since 2001.
This isn't the only indicator of the drop in the value of the US. The Euro is now the world's most popular currency. Foreign investment into US debt has slowed. And exchange rates continue to climb.
So ask yourself one simple question the next time you talk to your politician: Have the past eight years improved the US or made it worse? And then vote appropriately.
John
[1] That works out to $19,855.64 for every US citizen alive in 2001.
[2] Or $31,169.40 for every US citizen alive today.
One of the strengths of the American system is that it allows itself to make mistakes and then correct them [1]. Today, we were witness to one of them, in Breyer's dissent where he said:
Let me get this straight - folks in a neighborhood where the police fear to tread in a city known for its high murder rate have no right to keep loaded handguns [2, 3]? IMHO, that is the best reason to uphold a broad interpretation of the second amendment. Had he said "There is no untouchable constitutional right to keep loaded handguns in gated suburban communities with low crime rates", it would have seemed almost reasonable. But to say that folks who live in a crime-ridden area have no Constitutional right to use guns to defend themselves is just silly."In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
John
[1] Dredd Scott, anyone?
[2] The DC law was a wondreful mass of contradictions. You had to apply for permission to have a handgun, which had to be stored unloaded, trigger-locked [a], and disassembled - but they wouldn't punish you if you used an unlicensed gun to defend yourself. What kind of sense does that make?
[3] Of course, you could strain at gnats and say that the modifier he used ("untouchable") means that there could be some rationale under which you would want those folks not to have guns. But I'll be damned if I know what it is.
[a] The trigger lock makes sense, IMHO - too damn many parents are sloppy about where they store their gun. Hey, Dad - if i can find your stash of Playboys, I can certainly find your 45!
Have you ever voted outside your own party? Why or why not?
Submitted by Soup.
Yes, I have. Why? Because I am, first and foremost, an American rather than a Democrat. Though it might surprise my political party's leaders to hear it, they are not always right on the issues nor do they always field the candidate who is best suited for office.
For example, this year I am strongly inclined to vote for McCain rather than for Obama. Why? Because it is my opinion that McCain holds the better position on many of the issues before us (the war in Iraq, corruption in politics, climate change). Though it is my considered opinion that only a Democratic president would be able to muster the moral authority to balance the budget [1], the other issues are more pressing.
This doesn't mean that I won't hold McCain's feet to the fire, metaphorically speaking. As an Okie, it is my fundamental assumption that all politicians are corrupt [2], and that the only way to minimize their damage is by keeping a very close eye on them. I would encourage you to do so as well.
John
[1] A view that is born out by history; compare the budget under Clinton to the Budget under any of the Republicans from Reagan to Bush43.
[2] At one point in my childhood, county commissioners for 60 of the 77 counties in Oklahoma were either on trial, under inditement, or in jail.
As you may have noticed, the topic of taxes crops up in my blog from time to time. Recently, I came across a really nifty simulator that allows you to tweak the budget and tax code to see what the result of your priorities would be [1]. I've played it a couple of times and had fun [2]. To share the joy, I proudly give you the link to Budget Hero. Enjoy!
John
[1] The result of mine was a budget surplus, a reduced debt, and increased national security.
[2] OK, so I'm verging on becoming a nerd in politics as well as science and literature. Sosumi.
<Moved to the top, as it is once again appropriate>
The political season is upon us, and we shall shortly be subjected to an unremitting cacophony of jackadaws of every feather, calling out for our vote. However, as with all things human, the political process and those who partake in it for their own sustenance should be treated with care. They will try to ensnare you with their words, while always looking out for their own interests first and foremost. How?
Through the simple tricks that follow. It is my hope that by publishing a list of the tricks you may be placed on guard as so oppose the sea of troubles that they would unleash on you.
Demagoguery
Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost. – John Quincy Adams
A statesman is willing to say what he is for, and to act to promote it even when it goes against his own self interest. A statesman will vote against a bill putting a military base in his state if he thinks that it will waste money. A statesman will vote for a bill that opens up a waste repository in his state if he feels it is right. And a statesman will vote against a bill authorizing force if she believes it to be wrong. Sadly, politicians are rarely statesmen.
Instead, they will vote for what is popular, not what is right. Thus, they will vote for a bill that they know will not correct the problem, for fear of being labeled “soft” on something or the other. This is why Democrats won’t change the tax code (any improvement will necessarily increase taxes on someone, thus they will be “tax and spend democrats [1]”) and why Republicans won’t support improved medical coverage (which would increase the government’s oversight role, making it “socialized medicine”).
Unfortunately, there is no way to counter this other than by voting against demagogues and for statesmen. But when everyone is a devil, what’s an angel to vote for?
Religion card
Villainy wears many masks; non so dangerous as the mask of virtue Sleepy Hollow
This ploy has been around at least since Washington’s day, and has two variations with minor flourishes. Either a politician will attempt to say that his opponent isn’t a religious person (and is therefore immoral and unworthy of the office) or the politician will suggest that his opponent is too religious (and is therefore immoral and unworthy of the office). For example, Huckabee is currently getting a lot of flack for being a Baptist minister and Romney is getting a lot of flack for being a Mormon [2]. Kerry was roundly abused for saying that he wouldn’t let the Catholic Church tell him what to do as President, whereas Kennedy was roundly abused for fear that he would let the Catholic Church tell him what to do as President.
The only touchstones true Americans have on this issue are these:
- There never has been and never should be a religious test as prelude to public service. The US Constitution makes it clear that we are as free to be free from religion as we are to practice religion. And I don’t know about you, but I don’t elect someone because I expect him to pray for me; I expect him to work for me and to pray on his own time!
- The United States never has been and never should be a religious government. It is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people!
So when a politician tries to use this as an argument against an opponent, remember that the politican is being as un-American as he can be – and vote against him!
Big Lie
He who cannot lie does not know what the truth is - Friedrich Nietzsche
Hitler didn’t invent the big lie [3], and Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. But big lies are incredibly popular in politics simply because they are so damnably effective. They work by making some statement without a shred of support (e.g., “Trickle down economics was an unqualified success”) and repeating it ad naseum (“It’s the economy, stupid”). If anyone tries to suggest that the lie is, well, untruthful, they are scorned and abused for even suggesting such a thing [4].
The big lie doesn’t even have to be directly stated. Reagan used it to great effect by saying “There you go again” after Carter’s responses during their debates. Note that Reagan never directly said that Carter was untruthful; he merely implied it. Against pillow monsters like this, brave men labor in vain. Nor does it have to be said by the politician; it can come from another source (remember the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth?)
How do you counter a big lie? First, you have to work at it. You have to check the statements or rely on someone you can trust to do it for you:. If you haven’t the time, try one of these groups:
Factcheck.org
Truth in Political Advertising
Second, you have to refuse to let the lie lay there. If a politician says an untruth, call them on it, by writing them and letting them know that you don’t vote for liars. If a supporter says it, tell them the truth [5].
Frame Shifting
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all." – Lewis Carroll
This is a trick related to the big lie. The politician doesn’t lie; instead, they shift the discussion to a topic where they can claim the moral high ground. If you’ve seen the movie “Thank you for smoking” [6], then you’ve seen some classic examples in action. This, btw, is a classic logical fallacy (then again, so are most political arguments…)
If you have watched any of the debates, you’ve seen this in action there as well. A key indicator that they are using this technique is when they say “I don’t want to play politics with <FITB>”. The only way to counter this is to hope for a moderator in the debates who won’t put up with this sort of nonsense, and to keep asking the politician the same question over and over again until he slips and answers [7].
Push polls
When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you. – Samuel Goldwyn
This little gem is relatively new, but packs quite a punch. In a typical opinion poll, a neutral question is asked (e.g., “Is there a problem with social security?”), and the purpose is to gather information on how people feel about a topic. In a push poll, the purpose is to influence how people feel by asking loaded questions (e.g., “George Bush has admitted to taking cocaine. Should drug addicts be allowed to run for office?”). This tactic is most common near election day, when the strong emotions it creates are most effective.
How do you counter act a push poll? Insist on getting the contact information for any group claiming to be polling; by law, they are required to give it to you. In most cases, true opinion pollsters will give you the information and then ask the questions whereas push pollsters will hang up.
Robocalls
Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages of making a disagreeable person keep his distance. – Ambrose Bierce
Another one of the benefits of modern technology, this automated calling system was specifically exempted from the CANSPAM act and DO NOT CALL registry by national politicians hoping to keep one of their more cost-effective tools; fortunately, some states ban them. It comes in two flavors – the positive robocall and the negative. Positive calls tend to remind you to vote and to give a politician’s position on some topic. However, because robocalls are inherently annoying, they are more frequently negative in tone. Negative calls typically point out something that the sponsors hope will reflect badly on the opponent and trust that you will transfer your annoyance to the opponent. As with the push poll, these are more common near election time.
The only way to counteract a robocall is to hang up as soon as you get one. If you do listen to one, listen to the whole message; again, they are legally required to reveal the group sponsoring the call. Then call the organization and give them a piece of your mind! (If you are exceptionally annoyed by them and/or masochistic, you can try suing them in small claims court, but be prepared to have the judge decide that she has better things to do.)
Redistricting
Redistricting is a deeply political process, with incumbents actively seeking to minimize the risk to themselves (via bipartisan gerrymanders) or to gain additional seats for their party (via partisan gerrymande). – Thomas E Mann
This is a favorite of the politicians, who love to carve out sinecures so that they can collect money for campaigning without actually having to spend any of it [8]. It works when the folks in power decide to re-arrange which “district” people live in. In many cases, this is done on a regular ten-year basis, following the US Census re-apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives; it is even done without rancor in a few cases, with representatives of both parties sitting down to drawn out a reasonable map.
However, what is far more common is that whichever party has an edge will seek to draw districts that concentrate “their” voters while simultaneously diluting those who might vote for the other party. This gerrymandering has led to such absurdities as a 10-ft wide corridor stretching several hundred miles to connect voters. And, after the Texas Republican’s move to redistrict areas even without the re-apportionment, things are only going to get worse as each party regains power for a brief instant and tries to cement their hold.
To combat this you should contact your local and state politicians to let them know that you don’t approve. Speak out for simpler, more honest boundaries. And vote yor conscience, not your party.
Politics of fear
There is nothing to fear except the persistent refusal to find out the truth, the persistent refusal to analyze the causes of happenings. – Dorothy Thompson
The politics of fear is about the opposite of hope. By frightening the voters, politicians hope to get them to remember some unpleasant emotion when they think of the opponent come election day. The infamous “Willie Horton” ad is a classic in this field; by portraying Dukakis as soft on crime and by using negative stereotypes, Bush was able to overcome his own “personality deficit”. Other classics include the mailers which are often sent out or left on cars with statements such as “They’ll ban the bible” or “They’ll let gays marry” if you elect the opponent.
Such attacks are frequently the sign of a desperate campaign, so the best thing to do if you get one is to ignore it or to send in a contribution to the other side along with the mailer – and send a note to the folks who sent you the mailer, letting them know that their work led to a gain by the others [9].
Second party attacks
Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more. - George S. Patton
This is an outcome of Ambassador Bush’s [10] success; others decided that it would be fun to play with the toy as well. You see, Bush didn’t directly release the Willie Horton ad, nor any of the other attack ads in that campaign. Instead, he directed “fellow travelers” to release them and funneled them the money to do so. In the last two elections, these second party attack ads have become more and more prominent, from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to MoveOn.org. They provide the politician with plausible deniability (witness President Bush’s comments on the ads) while still letting him attack his opponent.
This, btw, is not a new development. Early attack ads were a little more humorous, such as the newspaper article saying Thomas Jefferson had died; it was referring to a slave at Jefferson’s home, also named Thomas, and pointed out his position as an abolitionist who was also a slave owner. Another example of the popularity of this method is the use of pastors to attack a given party or politician, as Cardinal Arinze’s attack on Kerry showed. However, churches and other non-profits must be careful when using this method. If they tell their parishioners to vote for a specific person or proposition, then the church can lose its tax-exempt status.
The best way to counter this tactic is to treat it as you would a politics of fear mailer: let them know that you won’t stand for this, and are taking your vote elsewhere. And if you are in church when this happens, please let your pastor/priest/whatever know that he/she/whatever has risked your congregation’s tax exempt status – and that you will be reporting it to his/her/whatever’s superiors and to the IRS.
Dirty tricks
If one good deed in all my life I did,
I do repent it from my very soul. - Titus Andronicus
So far, we’ve dealt with things that might be simple, honest mistakes or errors in judgment. However, not all politicians are pure, kind, and good [11]. And, in their sneakiness they have developed many methods to get the result that they want in an election. Here are a few of the more notorious.
Chicago Voting
The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do. - Josepf Stalin
The old joke goes that Chicagoans “vote early and vote often”; some don’t even let a little thing like death stop them. Of course, this problem isn’t limited to Chicago, nor to the Democratic machine that kept the Daly family in power for three decades. It was as popular during the reign of the Whigs (predecessors to today’s Republicans) as it is now – and much easier, as they didn’t have all that “voter registration” nonsense to deal with.
To counter this, you need a good organization, such as the League of Women Voters or Vote Smart. If you suspect that someone is casting fraudulent ballots, tell the registrar at the polling place; do not confront the person yourself! Not only can that be a poor interpersonal relationships moment, it can lead to your vote being disqualified. Just remember that the registrar is required by law to make note of any questions about the voting. The person who is being disputed should be allowed to vote using a “provisional ballot”, which will then be counted only after the registration is verified.
Poll changes
Republicans have been accused of abandoning the poor. It's the other way around. They never vote for us. - Dan Quayle
This is another oldie but a goodie; I’ve run into it myself. Typically, what happens is the party in power wants to keep the other party form getting power, so at the last minute they shift the polling places of those precincts where the other party has a large number of supporters. Since many of us only have a limited time to vote [12], this effectively denies the vote to the folks most likely to use it. It is most effective when the voters are poor, as they have less access to transportation and cannot make the shift as easily. A variant on this was used last year when the Republican party in Florida shifted the primaries for both parties to early January. As a result, the republican delegates were cut in half – and the Democrats lost all of their national delegates.
To combat this one, you should simply vote by mail. No lines, no problems, and you can even send the vote via certified mail if you want to ensure that it arrives.
So that’s your quick guide to politics this year. Sit back and enjoy the ride – it’s going to be a very bumpy ten months!
John
[1] Never mind that the Republican Party has more than doubled the National Debt in the past six years. In politics, it isn’t what is true that matters, it is what you can convince the voters is true….
[2] Given my druthers, they’d be given a lot of flack for their records, but that’s another matter.
[3] According to Godwin, you should probably stop reading this blog now.
[4] Easy check on this one – ask around. How many people really think that Al Gore did claim to have invented the internet?
[5] Nota Bene: This is one place where “agree to disagree” doesn’t exist, IMHO. When a politician lies, he is saying “you assholes are so stupid, I can say anything and you’ll believe it”. When a political party lies, they are saying “The truth doesn’t matter; only getting more power for us does.” And when a supporter lies, they are saying “I am so freaking stupid!”
[6] Or the suspension scene in Animal House.
[7] Unfortunately, they are getting very, very good at not slipping…
[8] Did you know that a politician gets to keep the money he raises for re-election, even if he decides not to do so? And that he pays no taxes on this income? And that he can claim, with a straight face, that donations to his re-election fund are not bribes?
[9] Yes, I stole this from the folks who use it to combat the Westboro Baptist Church. Notice how they don’t picket gay funerals anymore? That’s because folks started donating to P-FLAG whenever Westboro showed up…
[10] Just as a ship can only have one captain, a ship of state can only have one president. The current President of the United States is G. W. Bush. Once a PotUS leaves office, he is addressed by the title of the highest non-unique office he has held. In the case of G. Bush, that was Ambassador; in the case of Clinton, it was Governor. This is why we refer to Washington as General Washington, to Andrew Johnson as Senator Johnson and to Taft as Chief Justice Taft.
[11] What am I saying?!? No politicians are any of those things!
[12] For example, my job gives me an hour on election day.
Got a letter from the IRS today, telling me when to expect my "economic stimulus" check and ho much it would be. According to them, in six weeks, I can expect a check for $2.25.
Let the good times begin!
John
Do you support the gas tax holiday being pushed by Clinton and McCain?
As an oil company employee, I should be all for it. At least half of that money will end up in our pockets, based on Texas' experiment. And the expectation of lower prices will drive up demand, allowing us to sell more gas. So we make money both ways.
But, as an American, I've got to say that this is the stupidest idea since putting roller skates on a pig [1]. That money pays for new highways, and for repairing old ones [2]. In addition, it takes the focus away from conservation and alternative energy (both of which would reduce the trade deficit [3] and improve our national security [4]) and puts it onto a silly election-year stunt. It is vote-buying, plain and simple.
Dunno about you, but my vote is worth a hell of a lot more than what they are offering...
John
[1] Or releasing Microsoft Vista - your choice.
[2] Remember the Minneapolis Bridge collapse? You know - the one due (at least in part) to shoddy maintenance? Exactly how is cutting the funding for road repair going to keep this from happening again?
[3] Most of that oil comes from overseas. A surprising amount comes from places that support terrorists, are against full civil liberties, or just plain don't like America. Explain to me again how sending them our money to attack us is a good thing?
[4] "He who can destroy a thing, can controls a thing" - Frank Herbert, Dune. Our modern economy runs on energy, which means oil. By reducing our oil supply by a mere 10%, those who control the oil can cripple us. By reducing it 25%, they could destroy us. Do you really want to be controlled by those bozos?
The candidates (and PotUS) have filed their taxes, so we can indulge in a bit of ethics checking by comparing the amount that they paid to the amount that they "should" have paid [1]. The numbers are somewhat interesting:
- Filed: Joint
- Income: $719,274
- Taxes paid: $22,1635
- Effective tax rate: 31%
- Nominal taxes owed: $230820
- Percentage of nominal taxes paid: 96%
- File: Single
- Income: $405,409
- Taxes paid: $84,460
- Effective tax rate: 21%
- Nominal taxes owed: $120,967
- Percentage of nominal taxes paid: 70%
- Filed: Joint
- Income: $ 20,400,000
- Taxes paid: $5,100,000
- Effective tax rate: 25%
- Nominal taxes owed: $7,119,074
- Percentage of nominal taxes paid: 72%
- Filed: Joint
- Income: $4,200,000
- Taxes paid: $1,400,000
- Effective tax rate: 33%
- Nominal taxes owed: $1,449,074
- Percentage of nominal taxes paid: 97%
The
candidates all paid less than the average tax rate [2] for their 2007
taxes. McCain is the greatest tax cheat/smartest taxpayer, laying out
just 70% of the what the tables say he should owe. Clinton comes a
close second, paying just 72% of the nominal amount. Both Bush and
Obama paid nearly the full amount.
As with all things political, you can look at this two ways. Either McCain and Clinton are smart enough to find the deductions hidden in the tax code, so they should be praised and voted for. Or Bush and Obama are honest enough to only take those deductions that they know they have earned, which means that they should be praised and voted for. Of the two sets, the latter is probably closer to what the typical American pays [3].
In either case, it is interesting food for thought.
John
[1] "Should" meaning that they only have the standard deductions and only earned income. If Bush had earned his $719,274 as capital gains on stocks, then he would have been liable for only about half of what he paid in taxes as the current capital gains rate is 15%.
[2] Calculated using Moneychimp.
The average rate is the actual rate at which you pay taxes, as opposed
to the "marginal rate" which is the rate at which your highest level of
income is taxed. If you earned $100,000 last year, your first $7825 was
taxed at 10%, the next $24,025 would be taxed at 15%, the next $45,250
would be taxed at 25%, and the remaining $22,900 would be taxed at 28%,
so that the average rate would only be 22% even though the marginal
rate was 28%. Clear as mud, no? S'why CPAs make the big bucks... In
general, the higher your income, the closer you should come to paying
the marginal rate.
[3] How many of you have $125,461 in itemized deductions?
Sounds nasty, doesn't it? That's because it was meant to. Miscegenation is what people used to call interracial marriage back in the days before it was lawful in the USA [1]. The theory behind prohibiting it went something like this:
This logic went essentially unchallenged until 1958, when Mildred (who was black) and Richard (who was white) Loving got married because she was pregnant [3, 4]. Because Virginia would nor grant them a license to marry, they went across the state line to Maryland, where they could and did get hitched. When they came back to Virginia, the state prosecuted them for “cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth” [5]; in return for a guilty plea and an agreement to leave the state for 25 years, they were released. They moved to Washington and then began working to have the law overturned. When they wrote the US Attorney General, he referred them to the ACLU. In 1967, the US Supreme Court heard the case and overturned their conviction based on the “full faith and credit” and “equal protection” clauses in the Constitution.God created separate races for a purpose. Mixing the races defeats that purpose. Therefore, people of different races (black, white, asian,, hispanic [2]) should only be allowed to marry people of their own race.
A similar battle is raging now, over whether or not two people of the same sex have the right to get legally married [6] and to have the decisions about marriage made in one state be valid in another [7]. Constitutionally, this is a mixed bag. The equal protection clause probably doesn't apply, as this legal distinction is based on the sex of the two people (which is not explicitly recognized in the clause), rather than their race (which is). However, most readings of the full faith and credit clause would argue that the legal contract [8] known colloquially as “marriage” issued by one state should apply in others. If the ultimate decision is “no”, then this opens the doors for every state to impose its own laws regarding credit [9], banking, and other interstate transactions - which was the mess that forced the Confederacy to call it quits and re-organize as a republic [10].
Several solutions have been proposed for this conundrum, from the adoption of a constitutional amendment to define marriage to separating the legal and religious definitions. Fallacious arguments abound on both sides, from the “marriage has always been between one man and one woman” [11] to “the Christian church has always recognized gay marriage” [12]. About all that can be said for sure is that, given that this is an election year, we can expect to hear a lot of noise and see a lot of heat generated over this issue – but have very little light shed on it. And no matter what the solution that they come up with is, there will be a lot of people who hate it - and it will cause more problems than it solves.
John
(This post inspired by an article on the aptly-named Mildred Loving, who challenged miscegenation laws and won.)
[1] Not to say it didn’t happen; it just wasn’t legally recognized by many states.
[2] Senso stricto, “asian”and “hispanic” are ethnicities, not races. And biologically speaking, “race” is a null concept. There are subspecies of animals, but humans are less varied than many other species, perhaps because of that close call we had some 70,000 years ago.
[3] Not to say that folks didn’t micegenate; they simply didn’t make it legal. After all, if they hadn’t been mixing, then we’d never have such evocative terms as octoroon, would we?
[4] In the 1950’s, being pregnant and unmarried was considered a bad thing and often was said to be “the girl’s fault” [a]. In the 1850’s it was not unusual – and frequently was considered to be part of the courting process [b].
[5] This law is still on the books in Virginia, BTW! However, the ACLU has challenged a similar law in North Carolina, which means that this law’s days may be numbered.
[6] As opposed to the right to get married in their church. The latter is not in doubt, except when more than two people want to get in on the fun.
[7] As previously noted, we’ve been down this road before. First with racially-mixed marriages, and then with “no fault” divorces.
[8] Socially speaking, it is a contract under state laws.
[9] Instead of everyone coming under Delaware’s business-friendly laws that permit universal default and other annoyances.
[10] What? You didn't know that the US was a confederacy before it was a republic? Where have you been?!?
[12] Er, no; it hasn't. Even if we just go by what is written in the Bible, there are numerous counter-examples from Lamech's matched pair to King Solomon's 700 wives. If we use what is observed in the world around us, there are customs ranging from the Romanesque primogeniture-based monogamy to the more common polygyny to the rare but interesting polyandry. About the only thing that humans don't seem to want to try is abstinence...
[12] Er, no; it hasn't. Though the original church was more likely to engage in free-love than in monogamy [c], very few sects of the Christians have ever accepted homosexuality (though many were willing to wink and nod at it).
[a] Though the last time I checked, there was only one birth on record where a man wasn’t involved.
[b] Hence the adage about eager brides being able to do in six months what took cows and countesses nine.
[c] Where do you think that bit about the “holy kiss” came from?
