Globalization (And Our Children's Future) Demands That We Restructure the Military

The United States military budget, just taking into account figures going back to 2002 (before the Iraq War), made up 45% of the entire WORLD'S military expenditures. Represented in cartographic form (mapped according to the proportion of military spending per nation) our world looks something like this:


© Copyright 2009 SASI Group (University of Sheffield)

In other words, our taxes (which conservatives are always so keen on lowering) largely go towards supporting nearly one-half of all the money spent worldwide on military expenditures (and with the Iraq War figures not being accounted for in this, perhaps much more). A good deal of this is spent on stuff that simply gets destroyed (and a good deal of that is NOT destroyed in acts of war, but in training exercises).

A huge portion of that money goes to supporting around 4700 military bases and installations both domestically and on foreign soil (see page 11 of the PDF in the link... and that was just 2004, prior to huge budget increases, and does not include secret sites).

Combine that last with the fact that the reasoning for keeping most of these military bases, as well as the hardware and personnel required to keep them operational, are based on projecting power for a now non-existent Cold War; some are even running on inertia left over from WWII.

So three questions based on the following postulate: if America makes up 4.5% of the world's population, occupies 2% of the world's landmass, is running neck and neck with China and the EU as one of the world's premier economic powers, and is still the undisputed superpower in military technology and delivery capabilities, then:

1. WHY DO WE NEED EVEN 10% OF THE BASES OUT THERE? Can't America "project its power" with 80 foreign bases, if we represent such a military superiority while at the same time having such a small population and proportion of land? We have already demonstrated that we can move personnel and hardware around the world in a matter of hours using only a handful of major bases; what is the purpose for the rest of them?

2. WHY DO AMERICANS FEEL THE NEED TO BE THE "WORLD'S POLICEMAN"? This did not exist until Pearl Harbor, except in our own "back yard" with Central and South America vis–à–vis the Monroe Doctrine. Could it be that we are so anxious and afraid of being attacked again (as in Pearl, and as in 9/11) that we feel the need to be the biggest, toughest “bully on the playground”, or is there something less archetypal and more rational about it? Could it instead be something as simple as a desire to protect our markets by planting military bases right on top of strategic resources?

3. IF CHINA AND THE EU ARE RAPIDLY EQUALING OR EXCEEDING OUR ECONOMIC POWER, SHOULDN'T WE LET THEM SHOULDER MORE OF THE BURDEN OF PROVIDING MILITARY SUPPORT IN TROUBLED REGIONS OF THE WORLD? If we accept the obvious (though morally dubious) fact that a semi-capitalistic country such as ours uses its military to protect its markets, but we are now a global marketplace as the "Friedman Flat-Earthers" like to promote, then would it not make sense for every nation with a stake in globalization also do their part to provide security for trouble spots around the globe?

The next time you have a conversation with a conservative who thinks globalization is a wonderful thing and advocates a strong military, and who blanches at the thought of cutting military spending (while touting our need to cut social programs as "unsustainable"), perhaps you could ask them to answer these three questions. While I am sure there are some rational arguments they could present to support our present military budget, I have a feeling that most other arguments will simply devolve into circular logic.

In my view, since we have dramatically reduced the chances of worldwide nuclear annihilation with the end of the Cold War over 20 years ago, and the chances of an old-style "invasion" of our country are virtually nil, then our military is no longer primarily protecting American SOIL: they are protecting the American ECONOMY. While this fundamental shift in our military's purpose is important in many ways, it came without a fundamental shift in overall mentality from the top to the bottom. We have a military that is still structured as though we are going to, any day now, fight yesterday's war. And that leaves it enormously bloated.

Now think about the logic of this huge military budget that is now primarily tasked with protecting our economic well-being around the world: we are spending trillions of dollars over many decades to protect our ability to generate trillions of dollars in a global economy that we ourselves created.

Isn't that kind of like hiring a full security team costing $50,000 per month to protect your corner store that produces $100,000 per month, when you could do just as well with an electronic security system (cameras, alarms, etc.) that has a one-time cost of $10,000 and perhaps one security guard costing $3,000 per month? Imagine what your store could do with that extra money. Why, you might think of investing it in growing your business!

Imagine what we could do in our own country and around the world if we restructured our military to meet the needs of the present and future instead of the past. What would you do differently in America with, say, an extra $300-$500 billion per year? Universal healthcare? Fully-funded education through college? Pay off the national debt and re-invest that interest money into domestic needs? Invest in infrastructure improvements and sustainable transportation? Pour money into researching ways to wean ourselves off of foreign oil and gas? Colonize the Moon and Mars and leave the cradle of Earth before an asteroid comes and wipes us all out?

Imagine a future where the greatest desires of both liberals and conservatives are met: a future in which our grandchildren are not paying off a huge debt burden left behind by previous generations, are able to drink safe and clean water and food, where taxes are lower but are still able to fund great social programs to meet the needs of the people, and peace in the world is possible because America is no longer seen as the "bully on the playground" but is instead a co-partner with the rest of the world. It won't be Utopia, and there will still be vast areas of improvement necessary in areas like income inequality and poverty, cleaning up the mess left from advancing climate change, and much more. But at least for America, NONE of this will be possible unless we cut back on spending.

And we have a choice: do we cut back on already-inadequate social safety nets upon which millions depend, or do we cut back on a bloated, inefficient, and antiquated military superstructure and redesign it for our modern age? And why do I even have to ask this question?

The Influences of Western Musical Culture in Iran, Post-1979

Iran has a long, rich cultural history of musical innovation stretching back to the earliest days of the Persian Empire. Iranian Classical music pins its beginnings to pre-Islamic days, and operatic forms were in vogue long before they became popular in Europe. More recently, the 20^th Century C.E. saw the development of a thriving pop-music culture blending elements of both Western and Persian artistic styles to form a uniquely Iranian sound. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, Beethoven and Bach were as often heard as Minbashian and Mahjoubi on Iranian radio stations and at concerts. Rock music using Western instruments (especially the electric guitar) also grew in popularity among Iran’s younger generations.

The Islamic Revolution and Repression of Western Influence

The musical scene in Iran took a sharp turn after 1979 following the Islamic Revolution. Seeking a fundamentalist Islamic society, the new regime outlawed all things Western, including Western influences in music. Rock music was banned, as was the use of Western instruments and musical styles. Only music which fit with the limited acceptability of Islam, as determined by the leaders of the Revolution, was allowed: traditional folk music, Revolutionary songs praising the regime and Islam, and religious music were allowed; all else was banned. The forms of this ban were haphazard and often confusing: sheets of music deemed unacceptable were confiscated and destroyed, while pianos (a Western musical instrument) were largely left alone; violins were prohibited, while trombones were not. These restrictions and their enforcement varied and shifted over the years, and for those who felt the sting of being unable to play the kind of music they cherished, helped to lead to a vast and thriving underground music culture in Tehran and other cities throughout the country.

The leaders of the Islamic Revolution sought to remove all aspects of Western culture and influence and create an ideal Islamic state. While they succeeded in many areas, when it came to the more esoteric arena of the arts, success has been fleeting at best; in fact, many of their efforts have been counter-productive, in no area more so than in music. With each new wave of repression, musicians simply took their music and their compositional efforts underground; in addition, the flow of Western musical influence continued unabated through such avenues as black-market recordings, Voice of America and other internationally-broadcast music sources, and of course the constant communication with expatriated friends and family around the world.

From Repression to Reform

In diplomatic circles, it is often said that music is the ultimate cultural exchange program. Even when political and cultural tensions are high, musical influences still seep through any barriers. Despite the tense relations between the West, especially the United States, and Iran following the 1979 ousting of the Shah, Western music has continued to influence artists within the Islamic Republic in remarkable ways. During the leadership of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, whose strict control forced many Western-influenced musicians to flee the country, harsh punishments were often handed out to violators of “Islamic sanctity”. This continued through a series of leaders, especially during the Iran-Iraq War when Western (especially American) backing of Iraq and Saddam Hussein resulted in further backlashes against Westernization, until the 1997 election of President Mohammad Khatami, who brought a reform-minded agenda and an easing of restrictions on Western influences. Khatami’s presidency was marked by a number of reforms, including those for women’s rights, democratic principles, the rule of law, and perhaps most importantly a greater freedom for the arts, including those with Western influences.

In the period of Khatami’s leadership from 1997 until 2005, despite ups and downs caused by restrictions on legislative and social actions by the conservative clerics making up the ruling Council of Guardians, Iranian music once again began to flourish with the addition of Western influences and new trends in the art. New instruments, including synthesizers and computerized composition, began to come into use in a uniquely Western-Persian mix, and entirely new genres of music gained popularity, including electronica, rock, heavy metal, rap, and hip-hop. Iranian rock bands gained ground, and performed both in Iran and Europe. It seemed for a time that Westernization, at least in music, was due for a comeback.

A New Crackdown, But a Different Iran

With the election of the ultra-conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, however, the comeback was pushed back to the days of Khomeni. All Western-style music was banned from state-run radio and television, even as “background” music without lyrics. The playing of Western music, especially American, was once again outlawed and carried stiff penalties for those who violated the new bans. A return to Revolutionary styles and religious music was favored and pushed by the ruling elite. A number of things had changed, however, since the Islamic Revolution that made these new restrictions sit less well with Iran’s musicians and listeners.

The eight-year long Iran-Iraq War had devastated the country in many ways, not least of which was the decimation of a huge section of the population of fighting age. The war had left a large divide in generations between the old and the very young. As this younger generation grew up, they had far less connection to the original Islamic Revolution and its memes; in addition, they felt far less threat from, and in fact a greater attraction to, Western culture, including music. As these young people gained adulthood, their exposure to the freedoms of Khatami’s administration fed a musical culture that was both vibrant and innovative, adopting some of the newest trends from the West while fusing them with traditional musical styles and “officially acceptable” lyrics. This younger generation grew up being exposed to artistic styles that were exciting and provocative; thus, the failure of the reform movement with Ahmadinejad’s election and the subsequent restrictions and bans chafed these younger people greatly. A rebellious underground musical movement soon began, under threat of persecution by the state, and far more than in the past has grown extensively despite numerous crackdowns and arrests.

Some elements of this underground movement have used creative means to get their music out: one rock group, immensely popular in Iran, called “O-hum”, used the ruse of recording their music while outside the country and having it distributed hand-to-hand throughout the country. Others have used their respect and fame to leverage more flexibility for their music, such as Hafez Nazeri who has worked to combine Western and Persian symphonic styles into a unique fusion of “East meets West”. Despite harsh restrictions on lyrics (even including ancient poetry; some is considered too “worldly” despite being from famous and respected Persian poets), the rise of even hip-hop and rap groups in the underground music scene has been met with wide acclaim by Iranian youth.

An Iron Fist Spawns a Musical Flood

The current situation for music in Iran is especially exciting, and potentially explosive. The 2009 elections were widely panned both internationally and within Iran as fraudulent. The final ruling power in Iran, the Council of Guardians, decreed that Ahmadinejad had soundly beaten reform candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, despite claims of obvious election fraud and strong-arm tactics. This set off what many have called the “second Revolution”, usually called the Green Revolution after the color of Mr. Mousavi’s campaign flags (which by chance were the same light-green color symbolizing Islam and the Prophet). Hundreds of thousands of Mousavi supporters have taken to the streets since the elections to protest, but they have not stopped with mass demonstrations.

In the YouTube and Facebook world, audio and video spread messages that cannot easily be controlled by the ruling elite in Iran. A fantastic array of musicians, both inside and outside of Iran, have contributed protest songs and stirring “Green Music” in support of Mousavi and his supporters. Unlike previous songs, however, many of these do not take care to avoid criticism of the regime; on the contrary, they are resoundingly critical of Ahmadinejad, the Guardian Council, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and even the secret police. Many are angry, harsh rock or heavy metal in style, while others are simply singers lamenting what they see as the downfall of the Revolution. Many have compared Ahmadinejad to the deposed Shah Pahlavi or even to Hitler or Mussolini, while some have condemned the Supreme Leader of being anti-Islamic. The combination of anger at what is assumed to be a stolen election with modern telecommunications and social networking has had an enormous influence on Iranian music in a very short time, even including the addition of “death metal” and “rage” genres which had previously enjoyed little attention in Iran to that point.

Can't Stop The Music

The influence of Western culture in Iran since the Islamic Revolution has been greatly enhanced by the virtually non-stop reciprocal flow of music into and out of the country. Despite the best efforts of the ruling conservative elite to enforce “Islamic sanctity”, Western musical culture has continued to have a major influence on the Islamic Republic. With the advent of the Green Revolution and the dramatic inflow of new, Western-based music as well as a harder-edged, combative (and illegal, by current standards) lyrical style, it appears that the younger generation will, over time, win the fight with the old guard to ensure that they have a permanent voice in Iran’s culture and growth, including and perhaps especially in the area of music.

For more on Iran's music scene and the politics of music:

"Iran: More than 20 musicians banned from radio". (2009, November 30). FreeMuse. http://www.freemuse.org/sw35914.asp

"Iran president bans Western music". (2005, December 19). BBC News Online. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4543720.stm

"Iran's underground music challenge". (2006, May 8). BBC News Online. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4973690.stm

Levine, Mark. (2009, June 18). "Blog Posts From Iran's Metal and Hip Hop Artists: Is Music the Weapon of the Future in Iran?". Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-levine/blog-posts-from-irans-met_b_217517.html

Levine, Mark. "Heavy Metal Islam". Three Rivers Press: New York, NY. 2008. http://heavymetalislam.net/

Pellegrinelli, Lara. (2009, November 14). "Hafez Nazeri: From Iran, Music Beyond Politics". NPR: Music Interviews. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120397164

Sadighi, Ramin. (2009, February 19). "Iranian Music: An Unexplored Territory". PBS: Frontline. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/02/iranian-music-an-unexplored-territory.html

Newsflash: Progressives Outraged Again, Uncertain Why; Eating Own In Response

I'm not joining in the circular firing squad just yet. I was very, very disappointed at Rachel Maddow's handling of Jared Bernstein on Monday's show, and her Tuesday show was no better. As I said in a previous post, Bernstein, who kept trying to explain the economic proposal to be highlighted in the State of the Union address, was repeatedly cut off by Rachel. And no matter what he said, she kept going back to her original "OMG it's Hooverism!". We lost a good opportunity to hear about what's actually going to be proposed, rather than what we all imagine it will be, and that's sorely disappointing.



Just for the record, I love Rachel dearly, but that interview was way, way over the top (just saying so I don't get slammed with "Rachel is perfect, and you're a lying scurvy dog conservative-in-progressive clothing for saying otherwise" comments as I did with my previous posting). If you disagree and think Rachel was in top form, then you really need to get out more. That was the most horrific display of one-sided interviewing I've seen outside of Hannity or O'Reilly, and Rachel is far better than that. I hope to see some kind of "talking down" on her part, if not for the substance, then at least for her demeanor and complete lack of objectivity (Remember that? It's SUPPOSED to be a trait in which liberals take great pride).

And this goes for just about every liberal blog and news-site in the last 48 hours. The hysteria has been palpable, while the echo-chamber effect has been so evident that nobody really knows anything about anything... it's all just speculation dumped onto opinion based on rumor. My usual daily rounds through HuffPo, Daily Kos, FireDogLake, and others revealed that virtually everything posted there was, with few exceptions, inordinately and overwhelmingly opposed to this "proposal" that isn't, yet. Everyone is fixated on the "spending freeze" part of it (which doesn't take effect for nearly two years... and freezes spending at 2010 levels which are expected to be much higher than 2009 levels, I might add), while getting the vapors about ANY kind of "spending cuts" that might be in the package. It's a roundtable of no-nothingness expounding upon the dire consequences of imagined and unspecific vagaries. People are pissed off, and they don't even know why, much less if they actually have a reason to be.

And I know I'm stepping on exalted toes here, especially since I'm just an economics minor and don't have Ph.D.'s and Nobel Prizes, but frankly this time I'm in full-on disagreement with Reich, Krugman, Stiglitz, DeLong, and others who have weighed in on this as "appalling" or worse. I have no problem with spending cuts during a recession... IF THEY ARE TARGETED AT THINGS THAT DON'T PRODUCE JOBS OR OTHERWISE DON'T IMPACT OVERALL GDP. I think our beloved progressive intelligensia have jumped the shark here, because nobody knows exactly what's going to be proposed yet. How can they possibly opine about the dangers of the proposal, when nobody outside the White House knows what's going to be proposed? They're all harping on an overly-simplistic "look what happened in 1937, OMG!!!" without knowing what the heck they're even talking about.

Entry-level macroeconomics (at least the Keynesian-influenced versions) says don't cut spending during a downturn. Fine. Then you take higher-level macro courses and they say "well, most of the time". If folks only have an entry-level understanding of macro, they'll be screaming about this. If you have a more nuanced understanding of macro, you're not so quick to start screaming. Which is why I'm so baffled by liberal economists getting all bent out of shape over this... if I can understand that, surely they can too!

Not all government spending is stimulative during a downturn, but from listening to both economists and progressive bloggers, it's as though ALL government spending is the same in their eyes, and making cuts in ANY area is absolutely horrific. This is simply ludicrous: even the least politically aware people out there know that huge sums of money go to what amounts to little more than paper-shuffling activities. They don't produce anything more than a few paper-shuffler jobs, so their loss won't even make a tic in the unemployment numbers. However, they cost the taxpayers a huge amount in administrative expenses. Cutting spending in these kinds of things, and then re-routing the savings into job-creating areas, is smart both economically and politically. If, and I stress, IF these are the kinds of things Obama & Co. have planned for their spending cuts, then I'm all for it.

And that's what I think Bernstein was trying to say, from what little I could hear over Rachel's constant interruptions and dismissals: that money from the cuts would be re-routed into job-creating programs and stimulative efforts. He was saying that even though there will be a spending freeze... which won't take effect until 2011... that money saved through these immediate cuts will be used to EXPAND THE STIMULUS. Get that, folks?

I'll say this again:

We all know the stimulus package was too small;

It's too late to ask for more money; the political energy behind more stimulus money is gone;

The only way to get more money to stimulate the economy is through cuts in programs that are ineffective, bloated, and that don't produce meaningful job growth;

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT OBAMA CAMPAIGNED ON IN 2008 (Remember his comment in the debates that across-the-board spending freezes are a hatchet, whereas we need a scalpel?);

From what I heard Bernstein trying to say, THIS IS THE SCALPEL, FOLKS.

And yet we're crucifying him for using it, because in 2 years time part of what may be in the proposal is that there's a spending freeze (again, frozen at a higher level, and it won't be taking effect until, hopefully, the economy is actually strong again).

I'm sorry, but is there anyone out there on the progressive/liberal side of things who bothers to take the time to understand the nuances of things before they go off half-cocked and instantly attack something that may actually be beneficial and supportive of progressive goals (like increasing stimulus spending?). I'm including all of the high-falutin' economic wizards in this list too... because unless I missed something, pretty much all of them came out swinging against this as-yet unproposed proposal, and I got little impression they knew any more about what was actually being proposed or what it might entail than anyone else in the blogosphere. And that's a sad, sad day, because these are the folks who are supposed to have a handle on what's going on in the economy from an liberal perspective. In my opinion, they collectively dropped the ball on this in favor of knee-jerk attacks.

And another thing.

Jared Bernstein is one of the most liberal economists out there... he's a Democratic Socialist with a Ph.D. in Social Welfare, for g-d's sake! He's written books and papers on allieviating poverty, helping the working class, and reducing inequality in our society. Why would everyone automatically assume that he'd be out shilling for something so entirely alien to everything he believes in? In a HuffPo piece following the Maddow interview, he did a credible job trying to explain how all this is supposed to work; we'll learn more as the details come out in the next few days.

So unless these folks believe in Pod People and that Bernstein's been converted, it's assinine to toss him under the bus without at least listening to what he's trying to say. If he supports these things, then by g-d we should at least respect the man and his history enough to listen to his reasoning. The blogosphere and yes, Rachel's handling of the interview, have left this man being ripped up one side and down the other as a shill, a toady, a technocrat, and far worse. The same guy that progressives hailed and cheered just a few months ago as he was named Chief Economic Advisor to Vice President Joe Biden. Talk about liberals eating their own; there is no better example than this. Case in point for how unhinged the progressive movement has become, and why we are rapidly throwing away any semblance of the unity we showed in 2008.

So in the upcoming SotU speech, I'll be listening closely to what's said, and I'll be reading the economic proposals carefully. But until I see something that says outright, in black-and-white, that Obama and his team have completely gone off the rails of reality, then I'm willing to listen, discuss, and even argue about specifics. And who knows, if it makes even a modicum of sense from a liberal-progressive perspective, perhaps I'll even support the ideas proposed.

And maybe, just maybe, some of my fellow progressives and liberals will quit sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming "HOOVER-HOOVER-HOOVER!!!" long enough to join me in a rational discussion of what is actually proposed, once it IS proposed, instead of making bloody hash of it using their worst nightmare fantasy scenarios.

Maddow on Spending Freezes: 1937 Redux? Um, not so fast...

I had to record the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, and so I'm late commenting on her Monday show. And I'm sad to say my comments aren't as glowing as they normally would have been. I love her just tons and tons, but I have to say she jumped the shark on the interview with Jared Bernstein at the top of the hour regarding President Obama's announcement of spending freezes (the details of which we still don't know, I might add).

She was too upset to listen to her guest, who kept trying to explain how the spending would (a) not take effect until 2011, (b) was targeted to non-productive and wasteful areas of the budget that had languished for years without pruning, (c) that areas of the budget that PRODUCED jobs would be, if anything, bolstered (including especially green jobs and energy initiatives), and that (d) they were well aware of the Hoover mistakes and were taking pains not to repeat them.

If she'd not been so focused on her own anger and upset, she might have heard these things, but instead just kept arguing her original position. In doing so, not only did she continually interrupt her guest (which sadly made her sound a lot like a certain other host in a nearby timeslot on MSNBC), but also did a disservice to her viewers, who were unable to get a good explanation from Mr. Bernstein and were instead fed a continual course of "this is bad, horrible, terrifying, disgusting, baffling, what are you people thinking!?!?" from Rachel.

As I love Rachel and her intellectual approach to these kinds of things, it was actually kind of painful to watch. I was a bit embarrassed to see her so... un-Rachelly.

I'm not saying she's not right to closely question this announcement, nor to approach it with great skepticism (as we all did when we first heard of it... trust me, my first reaction was to echo Rachel with "what are they thinking!?!?"). Especially troubling to me was the ban on cutting defense spending, which every breathing soul knows is chock-full of waste and contractor abuse. But her apparent black/white understanding of what happened in 1937 shows either that she doesn't really have a good grasp what happened back then, or that she has completely bought in to the overly simplistic idea that "any spending cuts or freezes during a downturn are a bad idea" (which is, in fact, what she said).

So I'll offer a bit of history; I apologize for over-simplifying in advance, but it's really just a simple point that Rachel should have known: The 1937 debacle that returned a recovering country back to the Great Depression was caused by ACROSS THE BOARD spending cuts and freezes, and worst, among these were the job-creating programs that had helped put so many millions of people to work.

The public sector employed millions of folks, and though it seemed that the private sector was recovering, they were not yet ready to hire back all those millions of people; when programs like WPA and CCC were trimmed, folks were tossed out of jobs that had no recourse but to return to the breadlines.

So that's the lesson of 1937. What it tells us is that if you cut spending across the board, including in areas that are proven job-producers, you are shooting yourself and your fellow citizens in the collective foot.

But targeted, surgical cuts to programs that do nothing to bolster jobs... that basically eat up money but don't produce anything other than paperwork (and perhaps the jobs of a few Miltons and their red staplers)... and then turning some of that money over to reducing the deficit (which makes conservatives happy) while turning the rest of it on investments in current and future jobs (which makes liberals happy) is actually quite helpful to the economy.

It's trimming the deadwood while planting new trees. It works in forestry, and it works in economics. The only thing you have to be careful about is how many trees you plant and how fast they grow. The very real danger here, to further extend my woodland metaphor, is that if you don't plant the new trees quickly and in great abundance, the soil will erode and the whole thing will turn into a mudslide that'll swallow the entire landscape.

Rachel is right to be concerned, and it's not that her questions to Mr. Bernstein weren't called for; it is that she entered into the interview with a one-sided, limited point of view and then proceeded to cut him off during his explanations, and worst, completely ignored what he was saying simply to reiterate her own point. And her repeated comment that "responsible economists" say that the stimulus wasn't enough and that spending freezes or cuts during a downturn are generally a bad idea came across (perhaps only to me) as a not-so-subtle personal insult to her guest, who is himself an economist.

Of course, this is all just my opinion and others may have a much different reaction to that segment than I did, but if Rachel, after she's had time to further study this and get "talked down" about it, agrees then I sincerely hope she issues some kind of retraction, apology to her guest, or both. Or at least maintains her skepticism, but returns to her usual "I'm willing to listen" approach to things. Because in my view, tonight she wasn't willing to listen to anything but her own preconceptions. And frankly, she's a hell of a lot better than that.

It's time to change the rules

(Via MoveToAmend.org):



"We the corporations"

On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.

We Move to Amend.

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:

•Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

•Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.

•Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments."

Sign the Motion:

It's time to change the rules

Letting them know, "Help is on the way!" in Haiti

I keep hearing reports of people in Port-au-Prince and elsewhere getting frustrated because they see no signs of aid coming (mostly because help can't get through to them yet); it seems like a good idea for teams of helicopters with loudspeakers to flyover the city constantly broadcasting messages that help is on the way, and where to go for help. Some reports have indicated that people have died just blocks away from groups of aid workers simply because they didn't know they were there.

Otherwise, reports of gangs and violence are only going to go up as people begin to think, with no other information available, that they've been abandoned. No electricity, no water, no food, no shelter; no working radios or TVs, much less Internet. I understand that some cell phone carriers are functioning again, and they should perhaps be sending out text messages to disseminate information. The folks in Haiti need to know that a massive effort to help them is underway, and that they have NOT been abandoned.

Anyone have any contacts with folks on the ground down there to pass this idea along, or perhaps know if this is already something being done? I haven't seen any reports that indicate anything like this is going on.

A Progressive Purity Test is No 'Revolution'

A Progressive Revolution. I admit it's an enticing thought; we NEED some kind of non-violent, progressive revolution in this country to return power to the electorate instead of the monied interests and career politicians. However, as JFK said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable", and we are increasingly finding it difficult to effect revolutionary change through peaceful means with corporations and their paid puppets running just about every level of national government, including voting. The system is rigged, those who rigged the system are in charge, and many people on the left are feeling as though we had better get our groove on fast or we'll lose the whole thing. I tend to agree with this position, but it seems that many want to take it further: they consider the system too broken to fix, and want to bypass efforts to work with what is left of it and just start a real-live revolution... "Damn the torpedos!" style.



Not to bore anyone, but I think a little bit of history is in order. We all know the story of the American Revolution: the oppressive British monarchy finally goaded Colonials too far, and the 1775 "Shot Heard 'Round The World" set off a battle that finally resulted in freedom from British rule. What most folks tend to gloss over, if they even know it at all, is that in the decades leading up to the revolt, the Colonial government repeatedly tried to "work the system from within". Representatives made the long ocean voyage back and forth many times trying to get the King and Parliament to see things their way. Sometimes they succeeded, but more often not. And more importantly, EVEN AFTER THE FIGHTING BEGAN, there were still attempts to work within the system, to bring about a peaceful settlement. It was only after such attempts were rebuffed and more and more violent acts by the British and their hired mercenaries occurred that such attempts slowed to a crawl; independence became the goal, rather than remaining under colonial rule. Even so, diplomatic efforts continued and even increased once France and others joined the American cause. Eventually, as we all know, the war ended and our country was born.

One lesson I take from this is that while many actively desired a clean break from British rule, many others were not quite so quick to want such dramatic change. For some it was loyalty; for others it was economics and business; and for others, it was simply that though things weren't all that great, they weren't all that bad, either. In other words, it wasn't a revolution made up of revolutionaries, it was a revolution made up of enough people who agreed with certain goals or ideas that they were willing to work together, even if they disagreed with, or were ambivalent to, some of the other goals or ideas held by their fellows.

We're fast approaching something similar in our time. The frustration among many progressives over what seems to be blatant corruption and systemic failure of our democracy at every turn has led to a number of calls for a Progressive Revolution, which may not sound like anything new, but there is increased pressure given today's severe problems to do SOMETHING. This frustration often turns against itself, however; many progressives, growing impatient for change, call for progressives to "throw out the bums": mainstream liberals, moderates, or even "pragmatic" progressives who seek change through incremental or "within the system" means.

The only problem with exclusionary rhetoric is that progressives NEED liberals, moderates, and "pragmatic" progressives in the same boat, not cast overboard. Just like in the American Revolution, there just aren't enough progressives in the entire United States, even if they were gathered in one place, to effect any real change based solely on "pure" progressive idealism. We spend a lot of time in our progressive echo chambers patting each other on the back and thinking we're part of a huge movement, listening to Thom Hartmann or watching KO and Rachel and getting all fired up, but if we were really that numerous we'd have no problem enacting changes like real universal single-payer healthcare, stopping the wars, repealing DOMA and DADT, implementing same-sex marriage, ending corporatism, enacting real climate change reforms, etc. Compared to the overall United States adult population, though, we're just a handful. We NEED others who at least agree in part with our goals and ideas to get anything accomplished.

And in today's gilded age of Internet Activism, getting enough people out from in front of their computer screens and marching in person in the streets, and especially in the National Mall in D.C. is a real challenge. When hundreds of thousands showed up to protest Vietnam, not for one big event but on a regular basis; when the Million Man March filled up the Mall; when President Obama was inaugurated and there wasn't a patch of grass more than a foot across without someone standing on it... that's the kind of real activism that gets national attention. If you gathered all the progressives in the nation in one big march, you would have the largest such march in history; but logistically, that simply isn't going to happen. And unless we as progressives work to reach out to, rather than exclude, mainstream liberals, moderates, and those among us who are more "pragmatic", then we never will have such a march... or anything even approximating it.

Which is why I choose to work with, even if grudgingly, the "incrementalists" and "work the system from within" folks. Because they outnumber us ten to one, for one thing... and because by doing so, we can pull more and more of them into the progressive camp rather than excluding them and making them see us as too radical, too "noisy", to work with. For moderates and most liberals, progressives have, until recently, been seen as the "looney fringe". But we're achieving some inroads into becoming "mainstream".

And that goal is being met without anything we're doing as progressives, per se; outside forces are doing much of the work for us. The economy continuing to trudge along precariously, more and more jobs still being lost, globalization and free trade agreements sapping what jobs are left, corporate money blatantly corrupting politics, a healthcare crisis that doesn't seem to have any end, a housing crisis that shows no sign of recovery, and on and on. All of these are helping people see that our progressive message, that "IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY", makes more and more sense, and they are able to break out of their status-quo thinking. Once they do, even if they don't become overnight progressives, they find themselves willing to support progressive causes.

But when some of us continue the rhetoric of "FU, we don't need you, you worthless sheeple" (as is the implied (and sometimes explicit) message being put out by many on the left), it shuts down this process and leaves potential allies seeing all progressives as, once again, the "looney fringe".

The Progressive Revolution, to succeed, will require people from all camps, and all across the spectrum, to come together and work for change. If they disagree in part, that's fine, as long as they support the overall goal. As in the American Revolution, we might have our equivalent of Jeffersonians on one side and Hamiltonians on the other, but they managed to work together, and so can progressives, "pragmatic" progressives, liberals, moderates, and perhaps even some conservatives and libertarians. Calls by some to "purify" progressivism will only lead to a complete failure of the progressive cause, just as efforts by conservatives to "purify" the GOP are leading to its irrelevance and imminent demise. The trite but true statement that "there is strength in numbers" has never been more true than today; but some progressives who call for a purity test, instant rather than incremental change, and working outside the system threaten to sap the growing strength of the progressive cause.

So it's no capitulation to progressive ideals and goals to "work the system from within"... it is in fact the only way that we will ever get enough people in this country over to our side. Without it, we will continue to be nothing but a tiny handful of folks on the left who want fundamental change in our government, but who are too intransigent to be seen as viable partners in enacting change by the vast majority of the rest of the country. Exclusionary rhetoric will ensure that our message is lost, and that our country will continue the slide into corporate fascism while a growing majority of Americans lose themselves to reality shows, mindless entertainment, and the meaningless, powerless distractions of partisan bickering.

For a revolutionary movement to succeed, it must have the people on its side. And that only comes about when we are willing to accept that some who join our cause may not agree with us on everything, or perhaps may even oppose us on many things. What is important is that our goals are clear, our methods are understandable and focused, and our message is inclusive.

The Technology-Driven Sheeple Machine

I for one am seeing a complete paradigm shift in American thinking, something unfolding, unknown in our history. It's not about what the politicians have done, or even the corporations. It's what we've done to ourselves. We have voluntarily and even aggressively sought to become a nation of sheeple.

I look back to the 1920's and 1930's for the beginning of this. Most people think of this as the Great Depression years, but it is also the Rise of Radio and also the Rise of Movies. Then the late 1940's and especially 1950's brought the Rise of Television. For the first time in history, this Instant Information Triad came into existence and began shaping the way people thought, felt, and even acted.

Before this, there were only books, newspapers, magazines, public town meetings, postal mail, or musical and theatrical performances to pass along information; this was slow and allowed for far more careful thought and discussion. Ideas traveled quickly, but there was a great deal of time to contemplate how they shaped society. But then, in the course of a single century, we added the instantaneous and directly audio-visual mediums of radio, movies, and television. Far faster than the written or spoken word, far more influential on our mental pictures of the world, our society became more homogeneous though the use of these instantaneous communication methods... and far less critical of what was being communicated.

Now add in the drive for consumerism which began in the 1920's and ramped up throughout the entire of the last century, mostly through the efforts of this self-same Triad. We were not only bombarded by advertisements, but also by both visual and auditory images of "the good life" expressed through everything from soap operas to comedies on radio and TV shows like Jack Benny, Family Affair, Beverly Hillbillies, The Brady Bunch, Dallas and Dynasty, 90210, The Nanny, or Prince of Bel-Air, ... all shows with rich or at least very well-to-do households... and I'm not even going to go there with shows modeled after Lives of the Rich and Famous. The American people were convinced that if only they got that good education, climbed the corporate ladder, or maybe just married well, they too could live "the good life". And if not, they could buy their way into pretending they were. After all, if Elizabeth Taylor wears that perfume it will make me smell like a rich movie star, Betty Crocker is as good as home-made, and if you drive a fancy new Lexus you're pretty hot stuff, right?

Now add in the multiplexing effect of the Internet, and we have a perfect storm of instant gratification, instant numbness, instant information (often without context), and even instant political activism. Especially regarding this last, people of this latest generation actually think that if they sign enough online petitions, and join enough online groups supporting this or that cause, they are actually accomplishing something REAL. Mostly, they find that texting their votes to choose the next American Idol is enough.

Many of these people even work from home, watch movies from home, order food to be delivered at home, and some even attend church from home. Socialization amounts to going out to a "rave" where you can't even hear yourself think, or going shopping with a few friends (assuming they're not all online too). And it's not the youngest generation of adults I'm talking about here... it cuts a wide generational path. I for one acknowledge the latent hypocrisy of bringing this to an online medium for dissemination; but what other path is open to most of us? We, in a very real sense, ARE our technology now. We're not cybernetic beings, but we're so dependent on instantaneous communication technology that we might as well be; and probably, someday, will be.

We are becoming a people who are intensely networked and connected, but who are in many ways almost completely mute. I think we're fast becoming a nation of mere IP address locations and pixels and bits... a 21st century finalization of the instant communication of the 20th century, with the resulting pacification effects that brings. In America, we have not only become used to our instantaneous lifestyle, but demand it; in fact, I am sure that for many people, life quite literally would be unthinkable without it. No TV? No Radio? No Movies? No Internet? How could we possibly survive?

And truth be told, in many ways, we couldn't. Modern society and infrastructure is built around this instant communication ability. Without it, many of us would not be able to survive; if there ever was any kind of world-disrupting communications blackout, a great many people in the "Developed World" would die off, leaving those in the "Emerging World" quite capable of taking our place. We are losing our ability to survive without the aid of our technology, and that is just not a good idea from an evolutionary standpoint, much less a rational one.

And it is making us impotent in affecting greater change in society. Completing an online petition to save rainforests is helpful. But if that's all you do, all day long, it may make you feel better about yourself but it doesn't save a single tree. In fact, if people aren't physically marching in the streets, demanding change, the people who run our government (the entrenched politicians and the corporate special interests) will continue to do what they wish in the "real" world, feeling safe to ignore the ghostly Diggs and Shares and Reddits and Tweets of the furious but ephemeral online hoards. They'll just send along some highly-shareable YouTube videos and text message us about a sale at BigOnlineMegaStore, and we'll remain nicely distracted.

Unless we constantly strive to sift out the subliminal and subconsious messages we receive, to think critically about the information (and to limit how much and from which sources it comes), to find ways to physically get up off our collective bums and take to the streets to demand action from the government that, for the moment, is still technically "ours", then this country is no longer going to remain "The United States of America". It will become something quite different, unrecognizable either to ourselves or our forebears. We must use our iPhones and Facebook accounts to rally real people together at real events, to get away from American Idol and Bachelorette, or this country will cease to exist as anything but a mega-corporate ATM full of easily-distracted sheeple, happily leading their consumer-driven lives as their financial and mental energy is sucked dry.

And rainforests will continue to be cut down, healthcare will remain in the hands of the corporate profit-makers, educational standards will continue to decline, infrastructure will decay and collapse, and the environment will destabilize and destroy all life on the planet except maybe cockroaches, crocodiles, and the few rich and powerful enough to build their own private Galtian communes to survive the apocolypse they helped, but did not force, us to create.

1984 and Brave New World combined wouldn't hold a candle to what we're headed towards unless people break their self-made chains. Marx didn't have any way to know at the time, but the "opiate of the masses" was not and never has been religion; it is information overload and consumer satiation. With those two working at the behest of the people themselves, corporatists will never have to fear a return to democratic governance, much less "socialism"; they simply send out new products and sell the latest fad, and democracy will wither on the vine with the help of every person with a credit card.

This isn't a blame-piece, nor a back-to-nature call for everyone to join communes and live in harmony with nature (although that harmony with nature part would certainly help a great deal). And this isn't a rant about the stupidity of the masses in the style of Matt Taibbi or Chris Hedges; it's more of a question, or perhaps a plea: what can we do about this? Is it inevitable, and the collapse into sheepledom well on the way to completion, or is there a magic bullet that will wake people up to their self-made fantasy of comfort and security? More than anything, I want answers as to how we can re-engage our citizenry and re-energize our country, how we can return to a democratic society where the corporate machine doesn't reduce people to mindlessness. Do we still have the power to change this, or should we all go turn on Dancing with the Stars and forget about this grand idea we used to call The United States of America?

HOLIDAY RECIPE: John's (In)Famous Creamed Onions

Warning: My apologies to my vegan and vegetarian friends; stop reading now and move along, nothing to see here! Also, there is absolutely no chance that the American Heart Association would endorse this recipe. Please have paramedics standing by before consumption.

I've been making this recipe for years around the holidays, and it's usually a big hit; my family considers me the "creamed onions" guy, and though I have a lot of other great holiday recipes, this one seems to be my specialty. As a number of folks have asked me "what's this creamed onions stuff you talk about", I thought I'd share my recipe with the world. Please consume at your own risk, and may whatever God or gods are out there have forgiveness on my soul.

My creamed onion recipe began as an experiment with a version of carbonara sauce, and has become virtually unrecognizable from those humble beginnings. Thick, creamy, slightly sweet, and so rich you can feel your arteries clogging with each bite, it's versatile as both a great side dish and an entree. Preparation is fairly simple and quick, and the recipe can be cut or added easily for different numbers of servings. The version here is for a basic four entree/eight side-dish servings.

John's (In)Famous Creamed Onions

1 large sweet yellow onion (Walla Walla if available), finely chopped (12 oz package of frozen chopped onions can substitute)
1/2 cup frozen early petite green peas (NOT canned!)
1/4 cup plain bread crumbs, finely crumbled
1 package Stouffer's® Creamed Chipped Beef
1/4 lb ham (smoked or honey depending on taste; chicken breast works well too), cooked and finely chopped
1/4 cup real bacon bits (medium finely chopped)
2 tbsp bacon "cracklings"
1/2 cup Swiss cheese, finely shredded (cheddar or other cheeses can substitute, but avoid "soft" cheeses like mozzarella)
1/2 cup heavy whipping cream (half-and-half can substitute)
1/4 cup sweet cream butter (regular margarine will work, but increase heavy cream to 3/4 cup; low-fat margarine will NOT work well)
1/4 tsp fresh-ground black pepper
1/4 tsp garlic powder
1 tbsp Tabasco® Smoked Chipotle Pepper Sauce
1 tbsp sugar (honey works well too)

Bacon "cracklings" should be prepared in advance; they are best prepared by crisp-frying 1 pound bacon, then removing the bacon for another meal, draining most of the grease off and retaining the leftover solids; do not allow to burn. Thaw peas to room temperature or microwave on high for 3 minutes and put aside. Cook Stouffer's® Creamed Chipped Beef according to package directions and put aside. Place chopped onion in microwave and cook on high for 6 minutes or until very soft. Place onions and butter in frying pan and sautee over medium heat for 10 minutes or until golden brown and just beginning to carmelize. Reduce heat to medium-low and add Stouffer's®, peas, ham or chicken, bacon bits, "cracklings", cream, pepper, garlic, Tabasco®, and sugar and simmer for 10 minutes, stirring often. After 10 minutes, add bread crumbs, and continue simmering and stirring for an additional 10 minutes or until mixture thickens and begins to brown. Remove from heat and stir in shredded cheese until nicely blended. Serve immediately, either as a side-dish to complement turkey or chicken, or as an entree, such as over egg noodles for dinner, or even toast or an English muffin for breakfast or lunch.

Serves 8 as a side-dish, or 4 as an entree.

Hope you enjoy this as much as we have! All the best to you and yours for the holidays, and hope that you have a wonderful new year!

Marriage By Any Other Name… Isn’t “Marriage”

I had a very interesting discussion on Facebook last night that I thought perhaps I would open up to a wider audience. The topic of gay marriage is always sure to bring lively debate, and one of the issues that continually comes up is “why not just call it something else, like ‘civil union’, to avoid the religious connotations; after all, what does it matter what you call it?”

This of course has been brought up and argued back and forth numerous times in the last many years, and of course I include my own take on it, but I would really like to see some other takes on this matter. Please read the edited conversation below, and add your own comments (and please keep it civil; I’m looking for reasoned arguments, not rehashing old talking points):

John Cline: From my new FB friend Jonathan: On Wednesday, March 1, 2006, at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify. At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." The room erupted into applause.

Stacy: Good point. Government should not be in the business of marriage - any marriage. The government should be dealing with the legal and contractual side (civil union contracts for everyone), and leave the sanctification of the union in a religious sense to the churches since marriage is a religious institution. That would solve the problem. Couples (or groups for that matter) of any type could enter into a standard definition of a civil union as defined by state governments, or customize a contractual relationship to suit them. Everything would be nice and equal as far as the government was concerned. It would be up to the individuals and their religious organization to define marriage. If the individual doesn't agree with their religious organization's stance, they can work to change it or find another religious organization. No need for intervention by the government or the general population. It would be all inclusive since agnostics and atheists could do the civil union and just skip the whole marriage bit.

Then we could forget the whole debate and get on with our lives.

John Cline: @Stacy, unfortunately too many people seem to think that marriage is a religious thing, which is 180 degrees backwards. Marriage in the United States is and always has been a civil issue, and the religious element has always been optional (except where the government and the religion are one and the same, such as the first Pilgrim communities, and even then it was recorded as a secular act which wasn't "official" until it had been sanctified before God). Somewhere along the way, folks here got the two mixed up, and now the very idea of "marriage" is intertwined with "before God", even though if you get married by a Justice of the Peace, or out at sea by a ship captain for that matter, you're still just as married in people's eyes (as long as you're heterosexual). The right-in-your-face hypocrisy of the whole "married before God" crowd when it applies to secularly-married folks seems to elude people. I'm not sure when in history all this changed, but I think you're basically right... until we get the word "marriage" either back to meaning the secular sense as it used to, or we find a new term to describe civil unions that doesn't sound so bureacratic, then we're all going to be arguing past one another over what should be a really simple concept.

Stacy: Who cares what it is called as long as the legal status is equivalent?

Heidi: I keep asking this question of everyone. If you and your partner are joined in a Civil Union then what is the term for your relationship? Are you married are you unioned , what term is used to describe it ? I think this is the hang up , we have to have a word to describe the relationship and from than we can get the word for the contractual act. Any suggestions?

Stacy: Spouse, husband, wife to describe each other. Pick whatever you like for the union. As a society we are WAY to focused on labels and pigeon-holing everyone and every thing, most often into two opposing categories. Politics is a perfect example. Little in life is binary, most thing in life are best represented by a continuum.

Heidi: It can't be pick whatever we like. One of the whole points of having a public commitment ceremony is to allow our friends and family to celebrate our ........?????? Our what? Our unioning, our marriage , our committal ...... While it is true that language can be used to label and pigeonhole but by far its most important function is too create common meaning and understanding. So if we all have Civil Unions then what is our common language to describe the relationship?

Heidi: Stacy this question is not directed at you, I would love to have input on what we should call this. I think by default people who are in civil union relationships call themselves married, as that word is the best one in our language that conveys all the nuances of the relationship. If we create civil unions as a state function for all and leave marriage as a religious ceremony then are those who are in a Civil Union married ? I don't know so I keep asking. Anyone have an idea or opinion?

John Cline: @Heidi: This name-issue is a universal problem, stemming back hundreds if not thousands of years.

Marriage is and always has been a civil issue. But throughout world history, until the establishment of the United States, civil/secular and the religious establishment were, if not one and the same, then in close proximity. In much of Europe until the late 1800's, and in some parts even today, ALL marriages occurred in churches with a priest or pastor residing, with few exceptions. Justices of the Peace or their equivalent existed, and could perform marriages; some nations had laws that allowed captains at sea to wed couples. But these avenues were rarely used, and were exceptions intended for when a pastoral presence was not available. Even then, the "accepted" route to take would be to get a civil ceremony, then "make it real" later in a church when possible. Legally, this never had to happen, but most often it did.

The same basic idea applies to marriages performed in non-European countries, going back to ancient Egypt, Rome, China, Japan, etc. Pretty much the only places you find civil ceremonies being the norm and religious recognition of same was more or less left up to the couples were in more tribally-based communities; in Great Britain, for instance, the ancient Celts and Welsh largely just tied a rope around the couple's wrists, pronounced them married, and off they went.

The birth of America screwed with this whole program. Suddenly we have a separation of church and state, but the institution of marriage has, for most of human history and in most cultures, been an inextricable linkage between the two. Even though civil-only marriage grew enormously in the 19th century and beyond, and was more and more accepted as "just as good" as marriages conducted by a religious leader, the idea that whether or not it was done in a religious setting the couple was still married "in the eyes of God" just never quite left the definition of marriage in the common understanding of it... even two athiests marrying were, according to the rest of the community, still married "in the eyes of God", even if they themselves didn't acknowledge it.

So semantics is part of the issue, but it goes deeper than that; despite the "legal" definition of marriage as a secular, civil affair, the psycho-social definition of marriage in most of the world is still inextricably intertwined with religious connotations, even within societies that are now largely secular or even leaning towards the agnostic. Therefore, to answer your original question of what to call it if not "marriage"? There simply ISN'T any other word to call it that has the same psycho-social cultural value. We would have to make up a word and try to promote it as the "new marriage", but it would take generations before that new word would not play second-fiddle to the word "marriage".

So to answer folks like Stacy and others who just say "who cares what you call it", it matters very deeply to just about everyone. Words like "marriage" carry more weight than mere definitions; they carry the baggage of our entire cultural history along with them, and so the only real answer is to let marriage be marriage, and quit trying to make up alternatives to marriage like civil unions, domestic partnerships, and acts of commitment. Those will never be, to most of society, on par with the simple word, MARRIAGE.

Jonathan: John, thank you for taking the time and the energy to write such a wonderful, sensitive rationale for universality of "marriage." As as gay man, I could never verbalize what you said, though the comments about "call it something else" aways bothered me. Thanks for laying this out in such a reasonable, calm and respectful manner.

Heidi: John I absolutely agree. I ask that question to get people thinking and I also wonder what they call domestic partners and civil unions, If they refer to such couples as married then why not call it a marriage?

Also remember our concept of marriage is culturally constructed and has changed over the years from a property transaction wherein the bride alone (the goods handed over) was blessed to the idea of companioship and love and the blessing placed upon the relationship. When it was a property transaction two free men could not get married because one could not be master of the other, now that it is for companionship and love, now that heteros have the same idea of the relationship that same sex couples always have had, that barrier is gone.

I could go on but I will simply suggest the book Same Sex Unions in Pre Modern Europe by Yale Historian John Boswell.

That was where we left off; now it's your turn. What do you think we should do about this issue?