SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (13747)10/24/2003 11:41:10 PM
From: KLP  Respond to of 793843
 
You're right... I always credit Reagan for it...<g>



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (13747)10/25/2003 1:47:54 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793843
 
I live alone here in Waikiki. It is the first time in my life that I have done so. Took 67 years for it to happen. I really enjoy it.
______________________________________________


Christian Science Monitor csmonitor.com

The power of 1
About one-fourth of Americans now live alone. As their numbers grow, these singles are becoming a significant cultural and economic force.
By Marilyn Gardner | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

As Laura Peet put the finishing touches on plans for a vacation in Italy this month, her anticipation ran high. For years she had dreamed of visiting Tuscany, Rome, and the Cinque Terra. Now the trip was at hand, with just one thing missing: someone to share it with her.

"I was holding out on Italy as a honeymoon spot," says Ms. Peet, a marketing consultant in New York. "That hasn't happened yet, so I'm going for my birthday."

Score one for independence and pragmatism, the hallmarks of 21st-century singlehood. In numbers and attitudes, people like Peet are creating a demographic revolution that is slowly and quietly reshaping the social, cultural, and economic landscape.

In 1940, less than 8 percent of Americans lived alone. Today that proportion has more than tripled, reaching nearly 26 percent. Singles number 86 million, according to the Census Bureau, and virtually half of all households are now headed by unmarried adults.

Signs of this demographic revolution, this kingdom of singledom, appear everywhere, including Capitol Hill.

Last month the Census Bureau reported that 132 members of the House of Representatives have districts in which the majority of households are headed by unmarried adults.

In Hollywood, television programs feature singles game shows, reality shows, sitcoms, and hits such as "Sex and the City."

Read all about it
Off-screen, whole forests are being felled to print a burgeoning genre of books geared to singles, primarily women. Nonfiction self-help books, written in breezy, upbeat tones, serve as cheerleaders for singlehood and advice-givers on how to find a marriage partner.

A category of fiction dubbed Chick Lit spans everything from Bridget Jones to titles such as "Pushing 30." Harlequin Books publishes a special imprint called Red Dress Ink, billed as "stories that reflect the lifestyles of today's urban, single woman."

In June, a panel at Printer's Row Book Fair in Chicago discussed "The Fiction of Singledom." The well-attended event attracted a predominantly female audience, says panelist Steve Almond of Somerville, Mass., whose writings include short stories about singles.

Events like this, together with books for singles, dating services and websites, personals ads, and five-minute dating sessions, add up to big business, so sprawling that it cannot be quantified. Mr. Almond calls it the "commercialization of romantic connections."

To help the unattached make connections, even museums are getting into the act. As one example, Boston's Museum of Fine Arts holds a monthly gathering called First Friday, appealing to singles who want more cultured, upscale places to mingle than clubs and bars.

Singles with discretionary time to work out at the gym feed a thriving fitness culture. Travel agencies and special tour groups are also capitalizing on this market. Many travelers, like Peet, go alone. Within the United States, singles take 27 percent of all trips, according to the Travel Industry Association of America.

In supermarkets, the giant economy size still exists, but sharing shelf space with it is a newer invention: single- serving sizes. Mike Deagle of the Grocery Manufacturers of America calls it a "significant trend," although no statistics yet track those changes.

Even restaurants are finding ways to woo the growing number of singles who eat out. Marya Charles Alexander of Carlsbad, Calif., publishes an online newsletter, SoloDining.com, with a dual purpose. It urges restaurants to make solo diners feel welcome - no fair banishing them to Siberia, next to the swinging kitchen door. And it encourages customers eating alone to find pleasure in the experience.

"I do think 9/11 has definitely affected the way singles feel about their quality of life," Ms. Alexander says. "They're going to enjoy right now. More and more of them are saying, 'I am living my life today. I'm not going to be staying home, not going to be shackled by whatever people think about me eating out by myself.' "

A scattering of restaurants offer communal tables, enabling those arriving alone to share conversation. As Alexander notes, "Times are not as rosy as they were in the past for restaurateurs. It makes good business sense to cater to these people who are hungry and looking for an invitation to eat out."

For those setting a table for one at home, other help exists. Retirement communities are holding classes with cheerful titles such as "Cooking for One Can Be Fun," and adult education programs offer Cooking 101, geared to those living alone.

Singles are also nesting in record numbers. Traditionally, one-third of home buyers are single, with women buying houses at double the rate of men, according to the National Association of Realtors. Peet recently bought a house in rural Connecticut, becoming one of the 6 percent of single women who own second homes. In 2001, 10 percent of second homes were bought by single women and 10 percent by single men. All these new households in turn are helping to feather the nests of businesses that sell home furnishings, kitchenware, and lawn equipment.

Unmarried Americans are also changing the face of organized religion. Because younger singles often do not attend regularly, some churches and temples are creating special services to attract them. At Temple Kehillath Israel in Brookline, Mass., a monthly Shabbat service and dinner on Friday evening targets the generation between 22 and 32. And St. Paul's Cathedral (Episcopal) in Boston holds a Sunday evening gathering for those in their 20s and 30s.

"The institutional church is starting to awaken to the fact that churches tend to be almost reflexively family- oriented," says the Very Rev. John P. Streit, dean of the cathedral. "That can be unintentionally exclusive to people who aren't married and don't have kids. The church is starting to pay more attention and be more careful about its language, the way it structures its programs, and who it imagines is sitting in the pews."

In the secular world, that kind of attention to singles is crucial as well. "We've got disposable income," Peet says, using as an example a friend who just bought herself diamond earrings. Other unmarried women are treating themselves to a "right-hand ring," complete with diamonds.

Still, solo consumers may represent an untapped market. "I've been waiting 15 years for advertisers to catch on that single people are important," says Joan Allen, author of "Celebrating Single and Getting Love Right."

Marcia Stein, who lives alone in Washington, D.C., offers another example of singles' power at the cash register - power that businesses ignore at their peril. She says, "When I go to the grocery store, there are huge portions in the meat department. I will often say, 'Will you split this?' Some places will, some places won't. Where they won't, why should I become a customer?"

Not all singles enjoy the luxury of plentiful disposable income, of course. "Living alone is not economically feasible a lot of times," says Sandi Garcia, a 20-something who handles marketing for the Wyoming Business Council in Cheyenne. "It definitely helps to have a double income. It is so expensive to live alone."

As the ranks of singles grow, so does the recognition that dating is not the exclusive province of the young. Noting that there are more older singles than at any time in the nation's history, AARP last month launched online dating services for those between 40 and 69.

This age group represents a lucrative market for other businesses as well. Alexander, who is launching a website of travel resources called SoloTravelPortal. com, says, "Many travel organizations are waking up to the fact that there are mature solos who are saying, 'It's time for me to get out and see all the things I had planned on doing.' It's a group of people who are just beginning to get their sea legs. They're casting out a lot of the societal shackles singles have been living under."

Although singles now have the power to change some things, the agenda is far from finished. Ms. Allen finds that "enormous stigmas" against single men and women still exist. These include inconsistencies in the law and subtle biases in the workplace.

Some things still slow to change
Research by Unmarried America, a group promoting equal rights for unmarried workers, consumers, and taxpayers, finds that single employees generally make less money than married workers, have a higher unemployment rate, and receive less compensation for benefits. Unmarried employees make up more than 42 percent of the nation's workforce, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports.

"Having been single most of my professional career, there have been times when I've felt I was carrying the weight of people with families," Peet says. "And I understand the need for children and parents to have tax breaks, but on the other hand, I don't want to be penalized because I don't have children."

She offers another example of inequities. "When I was married, my car insurance was a certain level, and when I got divorced it went up. Married people were regarded as more responsible. Clearly that needs to change."

What will it take to create a more solo-friendly world?

Thomas Coleman, executive director of Unmarried America in Glendale, Calif., wants political parties to recognize singles. They make up 35 percent of voters, giving them potential power in the polling booth.

Even so, Mr. Coleman says, "It's a tough sell. Democrats seem to take the single vote for granted. Republicans are traditionally, understandably more family, family, family." He also sees the need for a singles-friendly workplace campaign to counterbalance popular work-family initiatives. At the same time, he emphasizes that his organization is not antifamily.

Whatever unfinished business remains, Allen and Coleman, among others, see strength and inevitable progress in numbers. "I do think there's a new evolution going on," Allen says. "Eventually the stigmas will subside."

Adds Coleman, "Even though single people are not organized politically, the sheer numbers, the weight of those numbers is eventually going to force change, slowly."



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (13747)10/25/2003 5:57:20 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793843
 
Al Qaeda's New Base

Osama bin Laden's men are operating in Eastern Iran. What are we doing about it?
by Jeffrey Bell
Weekly Standard

AT A TIME when even nuances of Iraq reconstruction policy become flashpoints for bureaucratic infighting, causing competing leaks to spring from almost every precinct of the administration's foreign policy apparatus, the most consequential policy struggle of all is playing out in virtual silence. That is the debate over what to do about the fact that, for the first time since the fall of the Taliban regime in late 2001, major elements of al Qaeda seem to have acquired a new home. The address is eastern Iran.

This fact, and the nature of the debate surrounding it, was revealed in a thoroughly reported front-page article by Douglas Farah and Dana Priest in the October 14 Washington Post. According to a consensus of American, European, and Arab intelligence officials, the article said, the "upper echelon" of al Qaeda--including a favored older son of Osama bin Laden and the group's de facto secretary of war and secretary of the treasury--"is managing the terrorist organization from Iran."

The intelligence agencies, said the Post, have known about the relocation at least since May, when it was learned that the May 12 Riyadh suicide bombing that killed 35 people, including eight Americans, was conceived, planned, and ordered by high al Qaeda officials in eastern Iran. Around the same time, Saad bin Laden, Osama's son and heir apparent, operating from Iran, was linked to the May 16 bombings that left 45 dead in faraway Casablanca, Morocco.

This information vindicates George W. Bush's analysis of the war on terrorism. At each major decision point since 9/11, the president has pressed for an aggressive, comprehensive view of the enemy and of the moves needed to bring him down. He views the enemy as implacable, protean, and resourceful, bringing together diverse, seemingly contradictory elements that cross national and sectarian barriers to be united by one thing: hatred of the United States and a desire to weaken decisively our role in the world. Interestingly, the Post reports that the architect of the supposedly shocking link between the Shiite and Sunni wings of Islamism was Hezbollah strongman Imad Mugniyah, a Lebanese national responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans going back to the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983.

Above all, the linkup between Iran and al Qaeda supports what could be seen as the core premise of Bush war strategy: the pivotal role of anti-American rogue states--the "axis of evil"--in making it possible for the enemy to accomplish the mass murder of Americans and anyone who stands in the way of bringing this about. Surely it is no accident, in the analysis of the Bush White House, that a surge in al Qaeda activity and visibility coincides with its high command obtaining a new, more secure base. And what better host could al Qaeda have than a well-armed, well-financed Islamist government racing to obtain the nuclear weapons al Qaeda has never made any secret of wanting to use against America and its friends?

What to do? As with other major decision points since 9/11, the current debate is between the aggressive, comprehensive war strategy of the president and some of his top aides, and the cautious, incremental view of many of the military, intelligence, and diplomatic officials responsible for carrying it out. These officials tend to see most issues raised by the war as discrete and separable. Their views have a veneer of expertise and sophistication. Sunnis are not Shiites, they point out. Arabs are not Persians. Governments are not terrorist movements. Islamists don't like secularists. All very true, and yet Islamist warriors are today infiltrating into Iraq to fight side-by-side with Baath restorationists.

So, elements of the U.S. government, and of other governments, do not want to hold Iran accountable for allowing al Qaeda to establish a new global headquarters within its borders. So, the Saudis pursue diplomatic channels demanding extradition of the al Qaeda commanders, while our State Department delivers protests to Iran's utterly powerless president, Mohammad Khatami. Needless to say, these efforts get nowhere, and the excuse given is that the Jerusalem Force, the branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps tasked with sheltering the al Qaeda high command, is said to be somewhat independent of the rest of the Iranian government. Meanwhile, the State Department is described by the Post as "eager to renew talks with Iran on a variety of issues."

Amazingly, this polite, bureaucratic approach is supported by many of the same people who said, more than two years ago, that we needed a polite, bureaucratic approach in Afghanistan. The argument always had elements of truth: Al Qaeda was somewhat independent of the Taliban, after all. In the end, of course, these interesting but diversionary arguments were swept aside when President Bush ordered a full-scale air bombardment on the Taliban units defending Kabul. But while the U.S. military and State Department agonized over how soon and how thoroughly to bomb the forward positions of the Taliban's army, and how challenging it was going to be for the Northern Alliance to represent Pashtun tribal interests in the event of a swift military victory, precious days were wasted and al Qaeda commanders found plenty of time to escape.

Today, as always, the most effective ally of what could be called "micro" thinking is sheer bureaucratic inertia and risk-averseness. How, it is being asked, can we even think about what is happening in eastern Iran when we have our hands full in Iraq and Afghanistan?

It would be foolish, of course, to minimize either the difficulties, or the paramount importance, of bringing peace and self-government to post-invasion Iraq and Afghanistan. But it would be at least equally foolish to minimize the danger to these efforts posed by a reconstituted and revitalized al Qaeda, newly headquartered in the Islamist rogue state that sits between Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, a central premise of the Bush war strategy is once again front and center. The president has repeatedly argued that the nexus between Islamist terror and potentially nuclear-armed rogue states poses the gravest of all dangers to the American people and their safety. If his past performance is any guide, the president will soon turn up diplomatic, political, and--if necessary--military pressure on the Iranian mullahs to break this nexus. One hopes this will happen soon, because what we've learned about al Qaeda's presence in eastern Iran suggests time is in short supply.

Jeffrey Bell is a principal of Capital City Partners, a Washington consulting firm.


© Copyright 2003, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
weeklystandard.com