Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (24899)	8/26/2001 7:40:25 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

Merger of equals. Canada our equal? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

To: Lane3 who wrote (24899)	8/26/2001 7:52:52 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 82486

Merger of equals. NO, NO, NO, NO. They have to be re-trained. Lovely people, but they have the wrong instincts. A lot of them, anyway. The eastern ones. They see a problem, they reach for the government.

To: Lane3 who wrote (24899)	8/27/2001 10:09:25 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

For those of you who can remember back to the discussion on the relevance of marriage in today's society, here's today's Raspberry column. The American Experiment Quarterly he references is here: amexp.org <<Marriage-Minded By William Raspberry Monday, August 27, 2001; Page A15 "We begin our marriages with loads of social support. That's what wedding rituals are for . . . the historical way in which the stakeholders in a marriage come together in support of it." That's William J. Doherty, a University of Minnesota professor, explaining our changing attitudes about marriage. We used to understand that the community had a stake in the solidity of the family structure. At big religious weddings, we still call on members of the couple's community -- as represented by the wedding guests -- to do all in their power to make the marriage work. But the fact is that the couples are pretty much left to their own devices as soon as the "I wills" get said. Or as Doherty puts it: "The only other marital event that is universally acknowledged by a community is the death of one of the spouses. A wedding to launch a marriage, a funeral to end it -- the rest of the time you are on your own as far as your community is concerned." Doherty's is one of more than a dozen thoughtful essays in the summer issue of American Experiment quarterly, published by the Minneapolis-based Center of the American Experiment, which features a symposium on making marriage more child-centered. Some of the essays focus on government policy (welfare, taxes, parental subsidies) as a way to strengthen marriage; some are oddly nostalgic (one author thinks marriage for the sake of the on-the-way baby is not a bad idea); some make the economic and child-welfare case for marriage. All are unabashedly pro-marriage. David Blankenhorn, president of the Manhattan-based Institute for American Values, ponders how to talk about marriage in other than economic terms. "In rich modern societies," he says, "marriage is no longer a matter of survival. . . . We have become rich enough to transform marriage from a broad necessity to a personal option." So what is left? Religion, of course. Most people of faith hardly need to be reminded of the sacredness of marriage, and of the marriage vows. And then there is what Blankenhorn calls "sexual complementarity" -- the "profound yearning for human completion, specifically for lasting sexual reunion, or the bringing together of the male and female dimensions of the human person into 'one flesh.' " It's one of those lessons that is likely to make instant sense to those who already believe it -- and to prove unpersuasive to those who don't. The authors are mostly members of what might be called the "marriage movement," and most (but by no means all) are probably right of center. What commends them, though, is that they are uniformly thoughtful -- not surprising given their public reputations. They include, besides Blankenhorn, Doherty and editor Mitch Pearlstein (president of the Center for the American Experiment): Jean Bethke Elshtain, Don S. Browning, Allan Carlson, Martha Farrell Erickson, Chester E. Finn Jr., Maggie Gallagher, William Galston, Wade Horn, Katherine Kersten, Ron Mincy, Robert Rector, Isabel Sawhill, James Q. Wilson and Claudia Winkler. Most are at pains to make clear that their point isn't to condemn either single or divorced parents. Pearlstein, who brought the authors together, is himself in his second marriage. They are talking about the survival of the idea of marriage as perhaps the key social institution for bringing up healthy, happy and competent children. Their essays are their responses to this interesting question: We assume that marriage will continue to exist in some form as an intimate relationship for adults. . . . But given the societal retreat from child centeredness, what can we do -- or should we do -- to vitalize marriage as the principal social institution in the United States for childbearing and child rearing? It's a good question for all of us. © 2001 The Washington Post Company>>