| ....but for different reasons.
According to a NyTimes article, it is the new, hip trend for heterosexual couples to postpone marriage until it is legally available to everyone (meaning: gay couples). Even Brad and Angelina have joined the "movement." However, it's unlikely that these people will have any effect, unless it becomes nationwide and more public. Right now, it just seems like a private protest in a few select states (mainly California). | comments: Leave a comment   |
| Apparently in Europe it is.
Foreign Policy's blog highlights a study about an increasing number of children born out of wedlock in Europe. The real interesting tidbit is:
While the United States still has more children being born out of wedlock (37%) than Europe as a whole, the profile of unmarried couples differs sharply. In the U.S., births out of wedlock are still associated with teenage pregnancies and poverty. In European countries like France, they have no such stigma. Ségolène Royal, who just won the Socialist Party nomination for France's presidential election next year, has been living with Francois Hollande, the party's leader, for 25 years. They have four children and remain unmarried. And they're hardly the only prominent French couple to prefer l'amour without marriage.
This doesn't actually surprise me since marriage is a fabricated institution, and Europe has always been the cutting edge of social liberalism. Imagine what Rick Santorum would say....and then be relieved that no one is listening to him anymore. | | comments: Leave a comment |
| ...or at least one of them (taken from BBC):
Fidel Parabacuto, 18 Relations should be more respectful - more adult. We should be thinking in Venezuela's future, not in the president's particular point of view. Our relations should be guided by our interests, not personalities. Cutting our ties wouldn't be good. One can't ignore the fact that the US is the world's biggest superpower
If they are all this practical, maybe there's hope for the future of Venezuelan politics as well as US-Venezuelan relations if they are all this practical. PS. I'm not naturally anti-Chavez...if he stopped with the useless rhetoric and actually focused on implementing the social programs that got him into office, i would respect him a lot more. | | comments: Leave a comment |
| | ...receipts in cabs are handed to you blank. Yes, really. It would have been pretty damn hard to try to make money on reimbursements from cab rides in Beijing but amazingly easy in Chicago. | | comments: 1 comment or Leave a comment |
| President Bush, in Vietnam for an APEC summit, decided that it would be a good idea to use the opportunity to compare Vietnam to Iraq. Yeah, "What?!" Of course, only in really twisted logic can you first:
...declare Friday that Vietnam’s transition to a modern, growing economy gave him hope about what could be rebuilt from the ruins of Iraq.
and then conclude:
But he added that the lesson he drew from the bitter American experience here was that “we’ll succeed unless we quit.”
Furthermore, he mentioned nothing about how the comparison works in terms of type of government. But Mr. President, I thought you were hell-bent on making Iraq into a democratic state, while arguably the only way Vietnamese government succeeded in consolidating control of the country was through ruthless authoritarianism.
Oh yeah and:
Still, the day was filled with jarring imagery. When Mr. Bush spoke of driving by the lake into which Senator John McCain parachuted nearly 40 years ago, he focused less on Mr. McCain’s imprisonment than on the circumstances of his capture. “He was, literally, saved, in one way, by the people pulling him out,” Mr. Bush said. Senator McCain ejected from his plane and parachuted into the lake; he was sinking and fished out by the Vietnamese. However, Mr. Bush did not mention that the senator’s rescuers subsequently stabbed him in the foot with a bayonet and smashed his shoulder with a rifle butt. True, if the North Vietnamese hadn't pulled McCain out of the water and then proceeded to torture him for years, then he wouldn't have been alive to challenge the Bush administration's policy of torture today. Ironic, right? | | comments: Leave a comment |
| Blogs on both sides of the aisle as well as many newspaper reports have commented on the protectionist nature of the new Congress, and the old Congress's rejection of the trade deal with Vietnam (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d2427aec-738d-11db-9bac-0000779e2340.html) only hammers this point home. Jim Webb wrote an illuminating editorail in the Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009246) about this economic populism and where it is coming from.
As the title of this post suggest, this is where i part ways with the Democrats. Note, I do agree with many of the problems that Jim Webb raises. And for sure, non-progressive tax policies definitely need to be addressed. However, I do not believe that "fair trade" - a euphemism for protectionism - is the answer. Susan Rice, Assistant Secretary of State for Africa under Madeline Albright in the Clinton administration, recently spoke at Stanford and presented a world view with which I mostly agree. Globalization is happening, whether we want it to or not. And yes, many blue collar workers in the US are suffering from this changing economic reality. However, the solution is not a return to so-called isolationism and tariff wars. That would only serve to destroy the world economy a la the 1930s. Instead, we need to adjust our mindset and embrace this new global environment. The US has many comparative advantages in various service industries and in technology and innovation. Instead of trying to provide the same old jobs for American workers, who will be essentially forced to work for lower wages, we should instead train them and provide them with new skills so that they can compete in the global economy. | | comments: Leave a comment |
| http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/us/14bishops.html
A few bishops voiced concern Monday that the guidelines, on which a final vote is expected Tuesday, would not help them reach gay Catholics. Bishop J. Kevin Boland of Savannah, Ga., said the distinction between calling homosexuality a disordered inclination and insisting that gay people are not disordered would be lost on gay men and lesbians.
I'm very straight and have no clue what the logic behind that one is...
The bishops also discussed another document, on what the guidelines should be for Catholics to take Holy Communion. This proposal asks Catholics to make sure first that they are living in accordance with church teachings. When pushed by reporters at a news conference, Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kan., specified some of those who should not take part in the Eucharist: married couples who use artificial contraception and gay Catholics who are not celibate.
So they are actually going to excommunicate the priests who sexually abuse little children? (though i guess its only those who abuse boys - the ones who abuse girls still get to take communion).
i'm not sure who these bishops are kidding - these polices are only going to *reduce* church attendance rather than increase it. like the article mentions, catholics use birth control at the same rate other americans do. don't demonize the people you are trying to win over.
| | comments: Leave a comment |
| No general argument is made here, but at least BBC reports that in Kashmir, this might be somewhat true:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6109092.stm
"Many young women, speaking on condition of anonymity, say men now prefer to marry working women. And women with permanent jobs have an edge over others in the marriage market too.
As a result, many women are going in for higher education to be able to better qualify for jobs.
But then sometimes highly-educated women in well-paying jobs deliberately delay marriage until they find a suitable match."
This surprised me, as I would think the opposite would happen w/in a conservative society - that men would more and more be looking for women who are willing to attend to their needs, but with unemployment high, if the woman is working, that is good for the family.
"Afsana Rashid, a Srinagar-based journalist, says the role of women in Kashmiri society has changed dramatically over the years.
"A large number of men died or disappeared during the insurgency and that has changed the role of women at home. They are forced to assume greater responsibility. They have to assume the role of bread-winners for the family."
Ms Afshana says that's perhaps not a bad thing after all as it gives women a greater say in decision-making.
"Society is changing very fast. Financial and social compulsions have forced women to play a greater role in decision-making both within and outside their homes.
"Their voice is being heard loud and clear and the political system cannot ignore it any more," she says. "
I'm guessing that she is exaggerating her case a little bit, but any truth to this trend is probably a positive development. | | comments: Leave a comment |
| so i've decided to start blogging again...well we'll see how long it lasts. but since its a new start and i'm in a new country, i decided to make an entirely new journal at: http://meiguofeilong.livejournal.com/
so far it just has the mass email i sent out to friends and family about china, but i promise more will come.
zai jian! | | comments: Leave a comment |
| |
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
dragonfly924's journal