And this is a problem....why?

David Brooks seems to think Americans have actually thought this "government is too big" thing through:

Through most of its history, the narrative begins, the United States was a limited government nation, with restrained central power and an independent citizenry. But over the years, forces have arisen that seek to change America’s essential nature. These forces would replace America’s traditional free enterprise system with a European-style cradle-to-grave social democracy.

These statist forces are more powerful than ever in the age of Obama. So it is the duty for those who believe in the traditional American system to stand up and defend the Constitution. There is no middle ground. Every small new government program puts us on the slippery slope toward a smothering nanny state.

What statist forces? Aside from the requirement to buy health insurance from greedy companies that really generate nothing toward the public good -- the part of health care "reform" on which liberals and conservatives agree, what part of the Obama "agenda" (which from this side of the fence seems to consist mostly of appeasing Republicans) would put us in a "nanny state"?

And would a European-style social democracy really be all that terrible?

It may seem strange for a Jewish-American to be praising Germany. God knows my mother finds it disturbing. But at a time of global economic trauma, Germany seems to be doing quite well. A recent Mercer survey conducted by City Mayors shows three German cities (Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, and Munich) among the top ten livable cities in the world in terms of quality of life.

Yes, in a few parts of Germany around a quarter of the citizenry lives in poverty. But are we significantly better? In the U.S., 51% of Americans will live in poverty at some point before reaching age 65 -- giving lie to the "hard work and free markets will allow anyone to get into the rich guys' club". And Germany has weathered the economic crisis better than almost any other country in the world.

Now, Germans don't live the way we do. They don't go into debt to buy Hummers and they don't lease BMWs when they really can only afford a Corolla. Look at a corporate parking lot in Germany and you'll see small cars. In Germany, many people have a flat, not a 9-bedroom house for a family of four. They often don't get paid what their U.S. equivalents do, but they aren't asked to work 100-hour weeks to show their dedication and they get far more vacation time. They take their vacation, and they don't bring laptops and Blackberries to show how indispensable they are -- because their employers don't lead them to believe that if they don't want to work themselves into an early grave, someone else will want to. Granite countertops and stainless appliance and styrofoam crown moldings really don't matter. Germans also have something called job security. German companies (and I happen to work for one) don't turn to jettisoning people the minute things get tough. I started with the company just about two years ago, before everything went to shit -- and not one employee has been laid off. One of my colleagues has been a contractor for a year -- and was just converted to full-time.

In Germany the 8:37 S6 train out of Cologne arrives in the station promptly at 8:37. Every day. On weekends the cafës are filled with people drinking beer, and there isn't so much as a cigarette butt on the streets. Your taxi driver will do his best to get you exactly where you're going, by the most direct route.

I'm not trying to make Germany sound like a paradise. My German colleagues don't talk politics much, even when I was over there for two weeks last summer. I'm sure there are things they don't like much, and the cost of health insurance goes up for them too (though not as much as here). A growing anti-Muslim movement in Germany echoes that here. But overall, looking at Germany and then looking at what people like David Brooks continue to call "free market" capitalism here, it's hard to see why a "European-style social democracy" would be such a terrible thing, especially when compared to our crumbling infrastructure, willfully ignorant population, growing income inequality, and declining job base.

The best article about not having kids that you will ever read

Our society doesn't make it easy for people who don't want to have, or even adopt, children. I'm 54 now, so even people who thought my clock would start ticking ten years ago have finally shut up and realized that I meant business when I said I didn't want children.

When I was in my early 20's, before it was even an issue, I sometimes thought that I would have them, but that was always within a context of it not being an issue. I never particularly wanted children, nor did I ever see myself as a mother. The closest I ever came to marriage before Mr. Brilliant was a guy who wanted his kids raised Catholic, and that pretty much put an end to those plans. And even then, I didn't particularly even WANT kids.

When you're still in your fertile years, your choice is constantly questioned. It's assumed that you'll change your mind. Some people think it means you're a child molester and so you're afraid to have children of your own. I always knew I didn't particularly like children. I never played with baby dolls as a child. I loved dogs and cats, and was always able to care for and nurture them, but a child? Yuck. Some of it was that while most women think about having children and see a little bundle wrapped in a blamkie with little tiny fingers, I thought about dirty diapers. While most women thought of dressing up a little cutie on Easter, my mind went right to the sullen teenager with the pierced nose and the Mohawk who thinks you're a complete idiot and hates you. Then there's the fact that children just aren't rational. If you've ever seen a mother try to reason with an overtired 3-year-old in the cereal aisle of a supermarket, you know that trying to reason with a 3-year-old is like explaining to a Republican that just because something isn't forbidden doesn't mean it's going to be mandatory.

When I was 44, I went to an anniversary party where a cousin I hadn't seen in over a decade assured me that I would change my mind, that she'd had HER youngest at 44. It's amazing how well people think they know YOUR ovaries. I never did change my mind.

I know some great moms. One woman I know has two kids and would have six if she could afford them. Her greatest joy is spending time with her kids. This family skis together, her daughter does dog agility with her. This is a woman who finds her kids to be no end of fun, and did even when they were three and screaming in the cereal aisle at the supermarket. I know one mom who despite the fact that her daughter is a "glue baby" conceived in the hope of bringing the marriage closer together (it didn't) is a great mom. Her daughter is ferociously smart, speaks in complex sentences with 3-syllable words and she's not even three yet. One of my friends has managed to raise two kids who are confident, happy, and have never been in any kind of trouble. And if that stays the case in the next three years she'll have navigated adolescence without a hitch.

I've also known the people who don't seem to know what to do with their kids, who think their kids are an extension of themselves, who seem to not have wanted children so much as they wanted to shut up the parental yammering in their heads about grandchildren that they've heard since they started menstruating.

I have endless respect and admiration for people who are good parents. I wish, though, that people who just don't have the knack for it didn't feel they had to have children because society expects it, or their parents expect it. I wish more people were able to sort out their own feelings about having a family without this cacophony of expectations. I may have had crappy self-esteem for much of my life, but for some reason, this was one area in which I was able to tell the rest of the world to mind its own business.

So of course I made a beeline for "9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)" over at Alternet. If you or someone you know is wrestling with this dilemma, pass this on. Because we need more great parents in this country...and those who just don't feel they can do it shouldn't have to.

Sarkozy Says No To Burqa Wearing in France

In a show of real balls, French President Nikolas Sarkozy told the French Parliament that the wearing of burqas represents an unacceptable form of "enslavement."
The New York Times reports today that Sarkozy is drawing a line when it comes to something that he finds unacceptable in French society.

The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue, it is a question of freedom and of women’s dignity,” Mr. Sarkozy said in a sober address in which he frequently looked at his notes. “The burqa is not a religious sign, it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women.”

“I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory,” he said to enthusiastic applause.

Sarkozy's unusual appearance before Parliament was the result of changes brought about by his party, allowing the President to speak directly to Parliment, and his speech was mainly concerning the economic crisis. The issue of the spread of burqa wearing is a hot button issue in France, and there has been much debate about how to deal with it. The French Muslim Council expressed relief that the tone of the President's speech was respectful of Islam, but firm on the point that burqa wearing is not welcomed in France. The Muslim Council urges a less conservative form of Muslim practice and does not encourage the wearing of the burqa.

This issue is important as a woman's rights issue, of course, but its also a huge social statement by a pretty liberal society that might just as easily try to take the politically correct way out, as America tends to do. The fact is that not only does the hard line conservative Islam create a difficult life for women, but it creates an unintegrated society in which there is a subclass of people who are unable to live full, safe lives. The burqa also creates a huge responsibility for the men in the society because along with it comes all the rules for how a woman moves around, often requiring men to accompany them and watch over them, creating another layer of responsibility for already overburdened families.

Say what you will about the French, but in a world where the line between the extremists who would go and blow themselves up over an issue like this, and the political correctness of trying to allow for religious freedom, grows ever finer, Sarkozy kicked some ass and made a strong statement about what is expected of those who wish to live in France. This is not a free speech/personal choice/religious issue, but an issue of ingrained abuse of women that is making a comeback in certain areas, and which is disruptive to the entire society. The women may say that they want to wear these garments, but this is beyond what any one person wants; its what is demanded by a free and fair society that is taking into account all of it's citizens.





RIP Coco

What IS marriage, anyway?

The fact that gay marriage isn't at the forefront of this year's presidential campaign is only to the good -- unless you're gay and are no closer to having the same rights as hetero people have when you commit to the person you love than you did a year ago. The lack of focus on gay marriage is keeping wingnut homophobia under wraps, to be sure, but it's also pushed the issue to the back burner, while gay Americans are still being denied spousal rights when it comes to illness, homeownership, adoption, and a host of other things many of us take for granted.

I don't think anyone is advocating forcing churches to perform gay marriages, but if we separate out the church component of marriage from the state component, what we have is in effect a civil union.

When Mr. Brilliant and I married, we had a short secular ceremony done by a Presbyterian minister who was a friend of my parents. We were adamant about a secular ceremony, and he complied only because of the family friendship factor. No church or religious structure sanctions the institution in which we've been living for over 21 years, only the state of New Jersey, where the piece of paper is filed.

Religious traditions may have their reasons for not opening marriage to gays, but the state has none. So why is the state in the marriage business anyway?

Stephanie Coontz writes in the New York Times today:

Using the existence of a marriage license to determine when the state should protect interpersonal relationships is increasingly impractical. Society has already recognized this when it comes to children, who can no longer be denied inheritance rights, parental support or legal standing because their parents are not married.

As Nancy Polikoff, an American University law professor, argues, the marriage license no longer draws reasonable dividing lines regarding which adult obligations and rights merit state protection. A woman married to a man for just nine months gets Social Security survivor’s benefits when he dies. But a woman living for 19 years with a man to whom she isn’t married is left without government support, even if her presence helped him hold down a full-time job and pay Social Security taxes. A newly married wife or husband can take leave from work to care for a spouse, or sue for a partner’s wrongful death. But unmarried couples typically cannot, no matter how long they have pooled their resources and how faithfully they have kept their commitments.

Possession of a marriage license is no longer the chief determinant of which obligations a couple must keep, either to their children or to each other. But it still determines which obligations a couple can keep — who gets hospital visitation rights, family leave, health care and survivor’s benefits. This may serve the purpose of some moralists. But it doesn’t serve the public interest of helping individuals meet their care-giving commitments.

Perhaps it’s time to revert to a much older marital tradition. Let churches decide which marriages they deem “licit.” But let couples — gay or straight — decide if they want the legal protections and obligations of a committed relationship.

It seems like a simple solution, doesn't it? So where's the problem?

I've said more than once that the reason we cannot acknowledge differences among groups in this country is because we seem unable to recognize differences without ranking them according to worth -- and traits or characteristics or benefits that white Christian males have always seem to rank higher on the worth scale than those of other groups, because it's white Christian males doing the ranking. This is why it's unlikely that we'll ever see the states getting out of the marriage business -- because if you take marriages like mine -- secular unions without children -- or marriage between gays and lesbians -- and call them civil unions, it won't be regarded by the Guys Who Make the Rules as the same as their Jeebus-sanctioned unions blessed by some guy in a robe. It'll be somehow second- or third-best and everyone will know that it's not the same.

But maybe that's what we need to do in order to show the utter ludicrousness of this unholy partnership (if you'll pardon the expression) that currently exists when state interests collide with belief in a story passed down through generations.