Shamir Remembered–With Selective Amnesia

by Steve Rendall, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)

Palestine Police Force Wanted List for members of Lehi, a terrorist organization. Shamir is at the center.

In death, the U.S. media remembered the late Yitzhak Shamir as “a political hard-liner who served two terms as Israeli prime minster” (CNN, 6/30/12), “the hawkish Israeli leader who balked at the idea of trading occupied land for peace with the Palestinians” (MSNBC, 6/30/12) and “a man of iron will and simple tastes” (Washington Post, 6/30/12) who

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?

If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.

 
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 




The Foie Gras controversy: why it matters

By Patrice Greanville, Editor, TGP


Download full graphic here: foieGrasHIW

Some readers have asked why we “waste” space on TGP defending ducks and geese…when there are so many urgent issues afflicting humans, the planet, and so on that need attention.

Such readers, am afraid, are missing the point, and their attitude is reminiscent of the famous “straw man argument” so frequently utilized by rightwingers, trolls, and corporate apologists to push back or shame leftists or anyone seeking to redress legitimate grievances. The assumption here, which seems so logical on the surface, is that there’s a scale of priorities in the universe of struggles against the status quo, and that concerning oneself with causes that, in the critic’s opinion, are of lesser value is questionable at best, and possibly a betrayal of the overall objectives of the struggle. Such attacks, mind you, usually originate with people who, while pelting activists for their supposed broken priority compass, do absolutely nothing to better this world in any way whatsoever. This, however,  is not a fact that per se should disqualify their complaint.  In truth, in a rational world, and following the most elementary rules of utilitarianism, we should pay attention to our priorities. We should always try to attend to the most urgent calamity afflicting the largest number of sentient creatures and inducing the most serious consequences.  Waging any kind of battle, any kind of struggle, without a sense of where the importance of each campaign element lies is to doom the enterprise to chaos.

I said earlier that this peeve seemed to me to be a straw man argument, for it imputes that TGP is normally, disproportionally, foolishly and primarily involved in defending any and all animal causes at the expense of human, environmental and the myriad problems and crimes constantly emanating from the pores of a very sick society. Any person of fair mind can easily see that such accusation has no grounding. The Greanville Post —as a simple Google search will show—has a huge inventory of articles covering just about every issue of importance under the sun, and the mix, I daresay, is as rational and balanced as any rational person can make it. Defending ducks and geese—for which I offer no apology—is done without sacrificing a single moment in the battle against other gianormous ills. Quixotic as it may sound, we try to cover them all.

So why do we care about these most unfortunate ducks and geese? Simply put, first of all, because not being speciesists, any and all crimes against animals get our dander up. Crimes against animals (nonhuman animals who attack animals do not commit crimes) are crimes committed against the most helpless of sentient creatures. They are morally base, opportunistic and almost always cowardly, once we consider the grotesque imbalance in power between the victimizer and the victim.

Second, ducks and geese subject to the foie gras tortures are part of factory farming, and factory farming is demonstrably a very big deal.  A huuuge deal. This is an agribusiness practice, a way of life for many—from absentee corporate owners to farmers and farmhands in the field—which encapsulates some of the most colossal self-serving, ethically-blind values, all in the name of tradition, sacred commerce and “feeding the people.” Its dehumanizing practices—where animals, and often the people who must do the killing, are reduced to mere cogs in a gigantic profit machine—have been amply documented. But assuming now that sentiment alone will not move you, and that you call yourself a “progressive”, wrap your mind around this little thought (not often if ever mentioned by the prostituted media):

 Factory farming…accounts for more greenhouse gas emissions than all transport combined. (1)

That’s right, if you’re at all concerned about the multitude of nefarious effects of an accelerating climate change due to the planet’s inexorable warming (and soon enough, heating, when the “methane bomb” goes off), a problem you attributed mainly to automotive and aviation pollution, industrial emissions, and so on, what do you propose to do now that you learn factory farming is a major factor in this manmade disaster? Obviously what we do to animals matters, even to those humble little ducks and geese who must endure lives of utter misery and die horrible deaths so that the more affluent amongst us can have their passing pleasures. And what we do to the environment

Industrial farms, also called factory farms or CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations) pollute the air in many ways, emitting foul odors, airborne particles, greenhouse gases, and numerous toxic chemicals. In the United States and elsewhere, industrial farms are leading producers of noxious substances such as nitrous oxide1 and ammonia.2 United States farms alone produce more than 400 different gases,3 in addition to dust and airborne particles known as endotoxins4 generated during the handling and disposal of manure, the production and use of animal feeds, and the shipping and distribution of farm products. Air pollution from industrial farms can cause health problems in agricultural workers, in residents of neighboring communities, and in farm animals. Although strategies exist to reduce air pollution, many industrial farms do little or nothing in this regard.

Mountains of Manure
The USDA estimates that more than 335 million tons of manure are produced annually on U.S. farms.5 Stored for long periods of time in giant tanks or lagoons, the animal waste decomposes and pollutes the air with hundreds of different gases.6 These storage facilities are often located next to animal confinement facilities, with the livestock and the people who work with them continually exposed to harmful gases.7 Additional air pollution is caused when huge amounts of stored manure are sprayed onto fields.

Hydrogen sulfide, methane, ammonia, and carbon dioxide are the major hazardous gases produced by decomposing manure.8 The EPA estimates that methane emissions from manure increased by 26 percent in the United States between 1990 and 2004, due primarily to larger, more concentrated dairy cow and swine facilities.9 North Carolina’s hog industry alone produces about 300 tons of ammonia each day.10

(Source: Air Pollution—Sustainable Table )

So, you see, everything is linked, after all. and like the scientist warned, “the flutter of a small butterfly’s wings can set off a tsunami across the world…”  We also wish that it was always true that no crime ever went unpunished, but, about that one we’re not so sure.

—Patrice Greanville is editor in chief of The Greanville Post.

(1) Negative Impacts of Factory Farming  

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?

If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.

 
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 




SUMMER READS & beyond: Is Berlin on your mind?

Shakespeare & Company, a venerable Parisian bookstore, has this to say about our senior editor and novelist Gaither Stewart’s ONCE IN BERLIN:

“Gaither Stewart has written a wonderful collection of stories that leaves an indelible mark in the back of the mind. Berlin is not only the setting of these stories but also one of the most important characters. There is an intelligent subtlety to how Berlin invades the collection. The city’s ties to the West and ties to the East are beautifully woven into the characters’ personalities. It is a fantastic collection and a great incite into a city that is unsure of itself.”

Sample this excerpt, the title story from Stewart’s collection ONCE IN BERLIN, and, if you will, tell us what you think.
—The Editors

ONCE IN BERLIN

By Gaither Stewart

Karl Friedrich Strack was standing on the upper level exit of the Benjamin Franklin Hospital holding a bunch of red roses. His father had just died. He lifted his eyes toward the late afternoon skies and dispassionately observed the flow of formations of soundless birds, masses of specks dotting the leaden late winter sky. They seemed to be passing over Pankow in the northern part of the city.

Men are always gazing upwards at the birds, he thought, envying them. He wondered about their arrivals and departures. Probably only the birds knew what they were doing, swooping and gyrating, swelling and contracting, surging and receding like the tide. It seemed strange that humans flew to the moon but didn’t know for sure what the birds were doing up there in the heavens. They must be lonely, he thought. It was their silence. Probably not even the creator knew what it meant.

It was March. The northeastern wind from the Baltic Sea was cold. The trees were still heavy with rain. The twinkling of lights in the distance must be the television tower at Alexander Platz. It occurred to him that the birds were perhaps returning from Italy or Tunisia. Maybe their sudden return was an augury. Were it not such a sorrowful moment, he would have thought it enchanting. In another time, the silence, the sudden chill of the afternoon in melancholy Brandenburg, and the brief coalescing of man and nature would have meant beauty.

Dieter Wilhelm Strack was dead. In calendar years his life was longer than average. Er ist aufeinmal gestorben, Karl thought. Aber mit welchem Recht? He had no right to die so early.

Karl’s father was the chief reason he had moved back to Berlin. Now he would never get to know him. He wondered what he was to do now. There was only one thing he really knew in this moment: his life would never again be as it was before. Everything had changed. Everything was incomplete but everything was changed. And nothing was finished.

Holding the red roses against his chest he boarded the 118 bus. Rote Rosen! For whom had they been intended?

His father was now an even greater mystery. Dieter was only 80. Much too young, Karl kept telling himself, as he had been doing during the twenty-four hours that his father spent dying. Eighty years of miracles, he reminded himself … but still too few years. But were the years ever enough? And then only one day to die! Though Dieter’s life had been full and consistent, he seemed to be one of those who died without ever really beginning to live. Without even knowing how he wanted to live.

In the hospital, the Turkish nurse had put the red roses in a vase of water.

Karl thought how strange it was to see his father with his eyes closed.

At Botanischer Garten, Karl transferred to the S-Bahn and returned to Schöneberg. His apartment was as empty as was his brain. Uta was gone too. Einfach weg! Their story too was incomplete. Berlin was lonely. Maybe as lonely as the ghost city his father had described when he’d returned here at war’s end.

Carefully, Karl trimmed the roses and put them in a vase.

A voice seemed to speak to him. It told him an epoch had ended. He wondered if it meant that he, too, had to separate. Did his father’s departure mean Abschied for him too? Or would Dieter’s exit signify for him a new arrival in a new world? A new start? A new life? He’d never been his father’s son. He’d never been able to accept his father’s world or the things for which he had stood. Dieter, his father, was steadfast, a rock, unmoveable in his ethical life. He’d never once surrendered, not even when the world he believed in turned inside out.

The doorbell sounded. Karl opened. It was William, his friend from downstairs, William.

“Dieter just died,” Karl said.

“Died?” William said, lifting his long leg and pulling his sock straight. He was wearing running pants and athletic socks. A sweatshirt hung loosely on his thin frame. Again Karl noted his friend had the same dreamy expression in his eyes as had Dieter. He’d often thought he and Dieter were spiritual brothers.

Karl watched the expressions on his friend’s gaunt face change from dismay to incredulity, still uncertain whether he was joking.

“Moskovskaya!” Karl added.

“Moskovskaya?”

“Red roses?” William echoed.

“The flowers he bought … they carried them to the hospital with the ambulance.” Karl still felt numb. He wondered what he was supposed to feel. He wondered when the pain would begin.

“Just like him to go to Karl Liebknecht Strasse to buy roses,” William said. He tentatively laid a hand on Karl’s shoulder.

“Faithful to the end,” Karl said, for the first time feeling his eyes watering. “The most consistent person I’ve ever known … the older he got the further he moved to the left.”

“Fate must have taken him to that street!” William exclaimed.

“Not fate! He never for one minute in his life believed in destiny,” Karl said. “Born in Berlin in nineteen twenty-four, died in Berlin in two thousand four. That’s pretty consistent.”

“Enough to know he died a disillusioned man. But still steadfast.”

“How do you mean?”

“He’d been saying there was nothing else for him to do. He got over Russia’s betrayal of Socialism but he couldn’t bear the degeneration today of the whole social idea … into globalization.”

“He had good reason to be demoralized,” William said.

Karl flopped on the couch and looked at his American friend with misty eyes. Yes, William was more Dieter’s political son than was he. William was naïve like Dieter. He also thought men were better than they were.

Darkness was invading the balcony outside his Dachgeschoss apartment. His eclectic furnishings were now meaningless. On the tongue of memory Karl perceived his words: ‘When I go, let my ashes fly away on the northeastern winds.’ In the eyes of memory he saw Dieter’s face, thin-lipped, blue eyes under heavy brows, thick blonde-gray hair, and heartbreak and ambiguity concealed in his expression—the man who in such a short time had re-shaped his life. Tall like himself, and slightly bent, Dieter had always dominated the space around him. His apparent attentiveness to others had made him beloved by everyone. Yet another part of him seemed to be wandering among the stars—an aura of unrequited adventure in his eyes, an aura of the steppes and the seas, which suggested he was not yet done with life. Karl heard in memory Dieter’s peculiar speech—he could switch from Berlin dialect to High German marked by a slight off-key cadence as if he had just returned from a long sojourn in distant lands. And though he claimed to be a man of the people, he had a way of detaching himself, as if both accepting his persona, his nation, his language, while simultaneously allowing his real self to declare universality.

Yet despite his ambivalence and the mystery surrounding his father, Karl realized that he was one of the fortunate few who understood their place in the world. That made him extraordinary.

“At the hospital they said they would take care of things. Father would be disappointed but not furious at the arrangement.” Karl was aware that he’d just referred to him as father, as he never had before. As long as he remembered he’d called his father Dieter—he was too much a stranger to be a father.

“They have space for him in the Zentralfriedhof,” he said, now walking around the room and rearranging objects in their places. Dieter had found the apartment for him when he decided to move back to Berlin. “Out Karl Marx Allee!”

“Politics?” Karl said, “I never thought of his beliefs as politics … they were his life.”

“And his life was exile.”

Karl gazed fondly at his German-American friend’s profile. The wanderer, William Schokmiller, liked to say that exile was his weapon. Like his silences, an expression of freedom.

“It’s a mystery how you resemble so much my father who was always shouting that there was everything to be said.”

“And so little time to say it.”

Karl went out onto the balcony and leaned over the parapet, feeling slightly the dizziness of vertigo. Darkness had fallen. The streets of this part of Schöneberg were quiet and empty. He had never gotten used to the stillness of Berlin as compared to bustling Munich.

“He told me about his responsibility for the streets of the city,” William said, leaning far over the railing beside him and grinning up mischievously at nervous Karl. “I’ll never forget. Seven thousand kilometers of streets in Berlin to be cleaned of the snows,” he bragged—seven times the distance from Berlin to London.”

“When he was boy he dreamed of becoming a chimney sweep,” Karl said. He loved the Schornsteinfeger dressed in black with black faces riding around on a bicycle and cleaning up things … always wanted to clean!”

“He told me he’d rather have been a street cleaner,” William said, “wearing their orange suits. Even nearer to the working class!”

“Nearer the heart of things, he said … yet he never understood the realities of life.”

“I thought he did,” William said softly. “He just didn’t like to talk about them.”

“You know I was a little jealous of your relationship with him … you seemed closer to his ideas of … of the good life.”

“If you knew my father in New York, you would understand why—for him freedom was stepping over everyone else’s body to get ahead. No rules. No limits. Survival of the fittest. That’s my Dad! In general people are no good, he still believes, sitting there in his chair, counting his dollars and railing against the Communists. Nuclear weapons and permanent war are his version of progress.”

“I still thought of him as a man of his times,” William said.

“It was a whole century, William. The hopes and myths of a century. All preserved in his memories—the Communism of his youth in the shadow of Rosa Luxemburg. That was betrayed! Then war. Six years of prison camps in Russia. His return to the ghost of Berlin. Reawakened hopes. Social Democracy. Again disillusionment.”

“Yet he didn’t live in despair. He drove his trams over the streets of Berlin and looked toward the future.”

 

A brilliant mid-morning sun had turned the winter grass to gray. One felt it was almost spring. Karl and William stood alone on one side of the grave in the deepest part of the sprawling cemetery and watched the men from the funeral service lower the casket. It was now closed. Across from them stood the same three men who had looked down into Dieter’s face in the cemetery chapel and touched his casket in the reverent way simple people do. They were dressed in faded suits and ties.

“Former colleagues,” Karl whispered.

The silence about the trio was so ingenuous they seemed noble. Karl felt embarrassment come over him and wondered if he should speak a few words. Nothing occurred to him. After all he’d hardly known the man.

Slightly taller than the other two, the old man in the center had a pallid face and a thin moustache. His head tipped upwards and bent to one side, a thoughtful mien on his face, almost a smile. He gazed into the distance as if in acceptance of what life handed out. At one moment he put a hand on the arm of each of his companions flanking him. His touch seemed to comfort them. His face bore an expression of kindliness. Karl stared back at him, aware that he too was absorbing the comfort the old man emanated.

All three of the old men radiated the same tender quality that Karl realized had distinguished his father. Like Dieter, all three had full heads of hair. Something about Berliners, he thought. You don’t see many bald people. It must be our protection against the cold winters.

Karl felt a sense of equilibrium come over him. He thought it was a gift from his dead father. It was the balance contained in the Rublev icons Dieter had so loved. Suddenly, for the first time, the strange harmony of Dieter’s life stood there visible to him on the other side of the grave.

The sun was now directly overhead. There were no shadows. Just the harmonious figures of the three men and the gray-silver light of the winter sun on the grass. The sky above, the men’s scrubby suits, and William silent beside him expressed his father’s life. Their colors, like his, were all hues, a harmony of nature’s hard colors.

The tallest of the trio stepped to the side of the grave.

“I knew Dieter from the time he came back from Russia,” he said toward Karl and William, speaking simply in a thick Berlin accent. “Today Berlin’s loss is great. For Dieter was a giant. And he had a wonderful life … a full life. He had time for everyone. He loved people. He never forgot anyone.”

He paused, again looking toward the East, as if searching for an elusive metaphor. Then: “The thing about Dieter was he loved everyone the same.

“But Berliners were his family. The streets of Berlin were his home. He especially loved our long winters under our gray skies. Dieter said he was like salt, the salt that defends the city streets against winter’s ice and snow.

“Not many people took notice of him,” the tall man said, now looking over their heads and gazing around at the vacant cemetery, “Many said he was foolish. But Dieter made a mark on all our lives.”

“My mother said he was a fool,” Karl whispered to William.

The one-armed man threw the red roses onto the casket.

The other man lifted his cane.

At that moment a hearse drove slowly along a nearby lane. A line of cars followed. Karl looked after them vaguely and blandly, then felt a sudden irritation. The heavy silence of the alien procession clashed with the serenity of Dieter’s companions, the old man’s words, the sunrays turned silver and the red roses on the casket.

 

He and William and the old men walked slowly down the footpath toward the exit. Here and there, back under the trees in the direction of Marzahn, banks of mist still resisted the sun, and wafted and swirled near thick shrubbery or close to the stonewalls. Gardeners with wheelbarrows and small carts passed nearby, ignoring the mourners, smiling and quietly joking among themselves.

They introduced themselves. The man who had spoken was Helmut. His companions were the one-armed Günther and Klaus with the cane. Karl invited them to lunch.

Karl watched fair-haired William talking quietly with them … he had their same easy tranquil manners. The same as Dieter. Karl had to hold himself in. He felt his dark features cloud … whether in anger or imminent melancholy and depression, he did not know. He looked at William and the others and envied them their stillness. He felt his pain. As he tried to intellectualise the pain, his loneliness washed over him—a gnawing hollowness somewhere in his belly. He recalled recent studies showing that the ache of melancholy was located in the mind. In a small area along the lateral ventricle of the brain called the hippocampus. This mysterious place stores memories and simultaneously fashions and guides the emotions that throw depressives into confusion.

The crazy thing was that the confusion of depression and melancholy—and the pain over Dieter—could be viewed with special instruments … and then medicated. No wonder, he thought, we feel more and more like computers.

 

Their table was on an elevated level near a bow window looking onto the Spree, the river narrow and unimpressive at this point. The weather had changed, the wind had returned and the sun disappeared behind fast moving clouds from the Baltic.

Günther had just said that Karl was fortunate to have had such a father and that he looked just like him. Karl had nodded and admitted that he hardly knew him. He had been with his mother all those years after she left Dieter and returned to school teaching in Munich. The three old men looked at each other.

“Who else but your father would have lived so many lives in one,” Helmut said. “He came back from Russia tired but fired up to live.” He became a Social Democrat, studied art history and politics at Humboldt University and began driving streetcars. He met Karl’s mother, Ursula, married her, and had a son. But for years he rejected firmly white-collar job offers. Streetcars were fine with him.

Helmut moved a thin shrunken hand in the air over the table as if in rhythm with his praise for their dead companion.

“But streetcars didn’t provide for my mother,” Karl said.

“No,” Klaus said, tapping the floor with his cane and smiling the same quiet smile as Dieter. “He was sad when she took you away but he said he had no choice. He had work to do here. That’s the kind of man he was. Unshakeable!”

“But how did he withstand the shock of the Wall?” Karl asked. “It must have dashed all his hopes.”

“But unlike politicians he never gave up his hopes for Wiedervereinigung,” Klaus said. “Reunification was his life goal … yet he celebrated the fall of the Wall with mixed emotions.”

“Let Helmut tell the story,” Klaus said. “He knows more than anyone … it was because of his brother-in-law.”

It had become dark in the restaurant and wall lamps came on. Rain was now falling on the Spree. Ducks swam toward the far banks near the library as if seeking shelter.

“My sister’s husband, Rainer, deserted the army in Lithuania sometime in 1943. He joined the anti-Nazi resistance there but a year later was captured by the SS, tortured and imprisoned. By some mix-up he survived and came back to Berlin after the war. He never really found himself again. He became an alcoholic.”

“Like many of us in those times,” Klaus said, tapping nervously his cane.

“There are worse things,” Helmut resumed. “Like my sister. Times were hard. She was alone. First raped by Soviet soldiers, then by life. She drifted into easy relationships with soldiers of any nation. By the time Rainer got back and met her she was, well … she was used to that life. They married, she brought in the money and he drank. But he loved her, and he was jealous. Poor man! In the late sixties the inevitable happened! On his fiftieth birthday. He came home to their apartment in Friedrichhain, not far from here, and found her with a man. He couldn’t take it anymore. He went into a drunken rage and stabbed her to death with a pair of scissors.”

“My God” Karl said. “Your sister!”

“Still, Rainer was a good man. Your father knew that. He used his streetcar contacts and somehow not only got into the East again but also argued his case to some sympathetic Communist judges. Rainer, he said, was both hero and victim. They let him go and Dieter brought him back to West Berlin.”

“No one in America would’ve believed such a thing possible,” William said.

“Nothing was ever what it seemed,” Helmut said. “Everything was forbidden and anything possible.”

“So what happened to Rainer?” Karl asked.

“He hung on a couple years … but he … well, in the end he hanged himself.”

“Berlin!” Klaus said.

“Life is complex, Dieter always said,” added Helmut. “He was always crying for more space. More room for life, he said. He was like a writer friend of his who demanded more spacious forms to write in. Your father recognized the existence of good and evil but he tried to go beyond it. He rejected scientific views of life … religious views too. He always talked about being human.”

“He told me that after Nazism and the Holocaust God had to be dead,” William said, “but that he believed in Him anyway. I never understood that.”

A moment of silence followed.

Then: “It was because of the Lord’s Prayer,” Helmut said. “He rejected those lines, Thy will be done on earth. He said God died because of those inhuman words … but I think he believed in Him anyway.”

 

Karl found a great surprise when he came home from school the next afternoon. A man and a woman and child were camped in his living room. He stood uncertainly in the threshold, wondering if he was on the wrong floor. The man leapt to his feet, a big grin on a fat red face.

“I told the house manager I was your brother from Russia,” he said in heavily accented English. “Naturally he let us in. So now! Welcome home! How about a hug for your brother?” he said opening his arms and moving toward Karl.

“Brother?” Karl said, stepping backwards and stumbling over an array of suitcases and shopping bags. He looked down and read the label, KaDeWe. Yes, they were Russians.

“Your russky brat! Your brother Dmitri! You mean our father never told you about me? Oh, that man! Never was a good father, was he? Come, come, let’s drink to our arrival. We must celebrate our new life. Ah, Russia already seems so far away!”

Karl didn’t say a word. He let the plump man pull him into the room. The woman half stood up and smiled tipsily. “Irina,” she said, holding out her hand. “Vy govorite po russki?

“And that’s Seryozha,” the man said, pointing at the boy of about ten, fat and puffy-cheeked like his father, dressed in new jeans and sneakers. “Say hello to your uncle,” he said to the boy who just stared at Karl blankly.

Bottles and glasses and plates of food were spread across the coffee table. Two bottles of vodka were opened, a six-pack of beer, a brand new portable radio, some playing cards, an opened carton of cigarettes. Karl stared fixedly at a bottle of pickles.

“This is so good. The family finally together,” the fat man said. “And such a big apartment,” he added, gazing toward the small balcony. “Which is our room? Of course we waited for you to decide.”

He poured a liberal portion of vodka and pushed it toward Karl. “You must eat something! Oh, that gourmet shop at the KaDeWe—certainly the best in the world. And you must not worry, the three of us can sleep comfortably in the bedroom. I see this couch opens to a bed. Or do you have a wife?”

The woman cut a slice of salami, ate it and a pickle, and took a drink of beer. “Seryozha!” she said, pointing at a plate of cake in the middle of the table.

The kid leaned forward, grabbed a piece of cake, and stuffed in his mouth, still staring at Karl.

The woman and the fat kid began speaking in Russian while the man continued his monologue about their new life. Karl shut his ears. What pigs! he thought. Like the money-grabbing Russians you see around Berlin markets. This was a bordel scene from Dostoevsky or a session of madness in Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov’s drinking room.

Carefully he placed his glass on the table, examined closely the orange-haired mother in the tight dress and fat boy, turned toward their baggage near the door, and decided.

Slowly he stood up. The aliens fell silent and watched him. He walked to the door, opened it, and said in a low voice, “I want you to take your things, all your things, and get out of my house!”

“What? What …” began the man.

“Out! Get out of my house. Brother or no brother, get out of my house. Or I will call the police now.”

“But Brother, the immigration papers!” the man said. “Our father signed for us. You are my brother. This is a family reunion. Fa-mi-ly re-un-i-on! Finally … all of us together.”

“My father is dead!” Karl said coldly. He felt he was behaving differently from the way Dieter would have. “I know nothing about yours.”

“You mean you know nothing about your father’s Russian family? My mother, Dasha, is your father’s Russian wife! His only legal wife! Your father, Dieter Wilhelm Strack, is my father. I am Dmitri Dieterovich Strack!”

Karl stared at him in disbelief.

“How?” he murmured. “When? He’s always been in Berlin.”

“The usual reasons, I’m sure!” he said, now almost gleefully. “He met my mother in a hospital … in Smolensk. She was a nurse. They married. And here I am with you in Berlin. Your half brother!”

“He died three days ago … an accident,” Karl said.

The usual reasons, the man had said. Yes, his father had boasted he’d been a secret Communist then. Was that the reason? But being a German Communist in Stalinist Russia was certainly no protection. In fact it meant certain death. He was a German. A soldier. A prisoner of war. They didn’t just let them go. Unless … he hated to think it. Unless what? Unless Dieter was an informer? Was that what he meant? But he was only twenty-two when he went to war. His father, a traitor? Could he have become an informer in the POW camp? A spy against his own people?

“Dead? He’s dead? He sponsored our immigration. He gave this address. And you, Karl Friedrich Strack as co-sponsor. Your signature is on the documents. You are a teacher, you earn well, and you generously agreed to guarantee for us.”

Karl felt he was going mad. What was happening couldn’t be happening in reality. This was pure folly. He was surrounded by unreality. His father’s folly. A forged signature. First abandoning one family, then the other. His mother had been right. She sensed something was wrong. She always said he was falsch und trügerich. A phony! Karl had thought it was just spurned woman reactions. But it had been more. So that’s what Dieter meant when he said, “things are never what they seem.”

And Helmut and Günther and Klaus? Had they never understood him? In all those years. And William too! But William was an American! Naïve. How could he grasp these German matters, things of the soul, concealed somewhere in our mysterious language and mystical culture. In a culture capable of Einstein and Marx and Hegel and Nazism and extermination technology? No, William could never grasp the nuances of Dieter’s world.

He looked over the shambles of his living room, shrugged and without a word walked downstairs to William’s apartment. Maybe they would understand and simply leave. His brother!

That evening William went upstairs to check. He reported party noises from his apartment, loud music and laughter and dancing. Karl decided to stay away.

 

Early the next morning, after listening at the door to the foreign noises coming from inside his apartment, he sighed and started down the stairs for his school. If he wished to he could tell his literature students some real Berlin stories. Oh, how innocent they were! How theoretical! How far removed from real life! He could tell them unbelievable stories that covered a century. But, he thought, the truth would only be more fiction to their ears. Better stick to Goethe.

Karl stepped out onto the sidewalk and bumped into a man running his finger down the names alongside the doorbells. He said he was looking for Karl Strack.

Ich bin Strack,” Karl said. “And there’s no need to ring that bell.” Crazily he was tempted to blab the wild story to the first stranger who came along.

The man was about Karl’s age. A journalist. His name was Horst Zimmerman.

“I read about your father’s accident,” he said, handing Karl his business card. “Please accept my condolences. It’s about him that I wanted to speak with you. Maybe it’s still too early.”

“I don’t mind at all,” Karl said, thinking that getting it all off his chest with a journalist would be more effective than a shrink. “But in thirty minutes I have my first class. What about this afternoon?”

 

Horst Zimmerman was famous in his way. An investigative journalist at the Berliner Tagespost, he had made a career studying the obituaries. His interest was Dieter’s generation. The generation of his own father. He wanted to pinpoint the individuals of that generation and dissect them. He wanted the truth about actual people—he wanted to establish what individual persons had really done during the bad times.

His system was simple. In the years since reunification secret files of the former DDR had become public. Dry details in bureaucratic language about who did what in Germany arrived from the archives of the former East German secret police, the STASI.

He checked the names of a dying generation against available STASI lists … and then spoke with their surviving relatives. Astounding stories emerged. He was writing a new history of Berlin.

 

Potsdamer Strasse that afternoon looked and sounded like Turkey. Karl tried reading aloud the signs on the shops and the newspaper headlines at the newsstand. People passed him, entered the shops, bought the newspapers. They were all speaking Turkish. He understood nothing. Whole city districts were Turkish. As far as he could see up and down the avenue everything was Turkish. After Istanbul, Berlin must be the biggest Turkish city in the world.

Yet either they or he were segregated one from the other. Or were they all isolated, new and old Berliners, alienated one from the other? Was multiethnicity only a meaningless sociological word? Was this the new world?”

In the Turkish coffee house the journalist asked what his father had done during the war. Karl told him about the Russians occupying his apartment—about his father’s Russian family.

“It’s not as incredible as you might think,” the journalist said. “Our soldiers were so young. Most soldiers are so young. But they were men too. For most of them Russians were not the enemy. They just wanted to live. How long was your father there … in Russia? Seven years? Eight years? That can be a lifetime at that age.”

“Do you think it’s that simple?” Karl said. “Dieter Strack was different. He was an idealist. Could he … could he become an informer? Just to survive?”

“I think to live. It’s like you said, he wanted to live many lives. It’s not the same thing. Maybe he too regretted it later. On the other hand maybe he was more consistent than you imagined,” Zimmerman said.

Then he told Karl about Dieter Strack’s name in STASI’s files—he was listed there as an informer in Germany too.

Karl held his breath. Confirmation! He first felt disgust, then hate rise up from his guts. In a flash, years of happenings, pain, unknowing, abandonment, crossed his mind. A lifetime as an informer! While he had put on such airs! He told Zimmerman about Dieter’s friends who adored him, about his funeral, about his dedication to his city, about his social involvement, about his boasts of special contacts to go in and out of East Berlin, about his relationship with William. And how he abandoned his families and wore his silly tram driver’s uniform and preached about the rights of the people—

DasVolk! Das Volk! Always what was best for das Volk.”

“Yes, but Karl, he was an unpaid informer. That changes things, doesn’t it? It’s written in his files—idealist. I’ve learned that intelligence people trusted idealists less. They never knew when they might change their minds. They preferred to pay them. That’s the way their world works.”

“So was he hero or scoundrel? For his sacred ideals maybe he was a hero. But for my mother, for his Russian family, too, he will always be a scoundrel. How did his dedication help us? How did his dedication and commitment to the people help those he informed on.”

“I’ve encountered incredible behaviors in the most ordinary people … but the Dieter Strack you describe is not an ordinary person. He was capable of extraordinary acts. Some people last century committed the most hellish crimes. But sometimes even those same people performed superhuman acts of goodness … near godlike acts. Your father seems to have been one of those who believed everyone is right. He was no judge. Listening to these stories over the years I have come to suspect that transcendence happens often in the trenches.”

“But Dieter Strack was a traitor to himself and to his people,” Karl said.

“Was he? The question is, who were his own people? You told me he loved everybody the same. Maybe he did. Was that a crime? Or a sin? What was his real crime? That’s what we want to know.”

“I once thought his libido drove him from home and his wife and child to Munich … and to do the things he did. But I was wrong. It was something incurable. Maybe his overweening pride. An excess of his German Stolz. After his first taste of pride there was no turning back. After turning informer, how could he ever be innocent again? I don’t know if his pride was the result of the life he lived or if the life he lived was a result of his self-assured pride. Did he become that way when he felt for the first time his power?”

“I’m a journalist, not a psychologist. But I know how hard it is to understand the real motives of others. And Karl, what do you think was his overall purpose?”

“I once thought it was simply to promote his city … Berlin. But then there was his ideal of the planetary community, as he called it. But it was even more than that. Maybe it was a war against evil. For him the ruins of Berlin were the incarnation of that evil. But all the time I had the sensation he didn’t really see evil when it stood before him.”

“Maybe he stood above particular evils.”

“I think so. Above good too. He never felt inferior to the French as we Germans do, nor superior to the Slavs. His standard answer to life was simply that ‘man is man.’”

“What do you think he meant?”

“He asked me once—he looked perplexed when he said it as if he hoped someone would give him the answer—he asked which is best: life in a society where each is free to do as he likes and yet which ignores the welfare of the unfortunates? Or a society that feeds you and takes care of you and keeps you warm in the winter … but that demands total conformity?”

 

Karl continued to live downstairs with William while waiting for the bureaucracy to evict the Russian squatters from his apartment. The warranty to which Dieter had forged Karl’s name was serious business. Handwriting experts had mixed opinions. Immigration officials favored first Karl’s version, then the uprooted Russians. Police and immigration and housing officials were meanwhile disappointed when Dmitri signed a statement that he and his wife were Russians … had they been Russian Jews the decision in their favor would have been simpler. Yet because of Dmitri’s German father—not completely established because Dieter had left that point cloudy—they had preferences as German Russians seeking resettlement in the fatherland.

William instead had begun thinking of his return to New York. Afternoons, walking together over their favorite parts of the city, their thoughts returned to Dieter and his city. Some places they felt his presence strongly. At others he was predictably absent. His spirit accompanied them uneasily from Potsdamer Platz to Pariser Platz at the Brandenburg Gate, down Unter den Linden and through the Tiergarten to Schloss Park. More at ease up and down Friedrichstrasse, Dieter then delighted in the hike to the top of Prenzlauer Allee and back down Schönhauser. William noted Dieter’s miffed absence as they walked through the former West Berlin center out Kurfürstendamm. But he returned in all his pride to visit the old and new rail stations, the landmarks of the public transportation that also fascinated William—Anhalter Bahnhof, Bahnhof am Zoo, Lehrter Bahnhof, and the Ostbahnhof—formerly the station for Paris-Berlin-Moscow trains, now the terminus for ICE high speed trains—and Karl’s favourite, Alexander Platz Station.

One warm day in May they were sitting at a sidewalk table at the Cafè Istanbul that Karl had begun frequenting since the interview with Zimmerman. He felt an inexplicable belongingness among the people speaking a language of which he didn’t understand a word. He had begun thinking he would take a total immersion course in Turkish—he wanted to know who these people were.

“Spring is finally here,” William said, “and the mosquitoes will soon return.”

“William, how many times do I have to tell that there are no Mücken in Berlin?” Karl chuckled, aware that his friend could go on for hours about the mosquito threat. The summer before he had actually used a mosquito net, right in Berlin.

“That’s a fiction … propaganda spread by tourism and city PR people. What do you think I do with all my sprays and ointments.”

“Well, I’ve never seen a mosquito in Berlin.”

“You’re like your father in that. He bragged there were no mosquitoes west of the Oder River. He claimed they were as big as birds in Russia.”

“He exaggerated a bit in that.”

Karl enjoyed speaking about his father, about his quirks and strange convictions, more than he had speaking with him in life. But he had concluded that on a moral level there was no restoration for Dieter. No rehabilitation. His life was over. Finished. Dieter was wrong. And Zimmerman was wrong too. For there was a basic human element common to all. An ethical instinct. A limit you didn’t surpass. Dieter had. Though his father had seemed to live in accordance with some self-imposed monastic rule, he had in reality lived a carefree life—‘capering and cavorting outside the walls of the City.’ What buffoonery, his life! His determination to live diverse lives! Who did he think he was?

And poor William, his spiritual brother. Karl had thought of him as Dieter’s true son.

 

Some days later Zimmerman telephoned to tell Karl he shouldn’t worry—the majority of the names in STASI lists resulted from denunciations by others. Everybody in those years, he said, was denouncing everybody.

Karl sighed and whispered to himself that for Zimmerman too it was a case of ‘if everyone was guilty then no one was guilty.’ Precisely what Dieter had opposed.

Karl felt Dieter’s and his own severity rise up in his belly. The journalist’s escape clause was too easy. Yet he knew he would never condemn his father.

Dieter’s planetary community would never work. It was too intellectual, it always went wrong, some people would always believe they were better than others … and that conviction led to Auschwitz.

Karl and William agreed that Dieter’s unexpected truth was that ‘man is man.’ Yet neither of them understood how he had acquired such humanism in the generation when it was considered good to kill your enemies.

Dieter Wilhelm Strack, his son Karl said, was a son of Berlin. And a victim of his epoch.

____________________________________________

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?

If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.

Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 




California enacts nation’s first foie gras ban [updated]

U P D A T E D

By Patrice Greanville

CALIFORNIA gets a big “Bravo!” in this quarter for being the first state in the union to ban the force-feeding of animals in the production of food. We are certain not everyone will cheer. Addiction to some foods is hard to break, and besides not everyone, even among sincere animal defenders, is or will ever be a vegan.  But that’s the direction that humanity should take. Compassion is one of the noblest virtues and we violate it with banal abandon at our own peril.

YET, AS EXPECTED, THE OPPOSITION TO THIS BAN
has been mobilizing. Read the update below by Katie Waldeck, and an excellent comment stream from the Care2 site devoted to animal questions.

Foie Gras Ban is… Unconstitutional?!

    •    By Katie Waldeck, Care2
    •    July 5, 2012
In 2004, animal rights activists applauded the first-in-the-nation ban on foie gras in the state of California. And nearly 8 years later, the ban on the production and sale of the French delicacy has finally gone into effect. But not without controversy.  Foie gras, French for fat liver, is produced by force-feeding geese or ducks far more food than they would eat both in the wild and domesticated. The large, fatty livers that geese and ducks experience as a result of over-eating cause a number of serious health consequences in the birds.

The California law, aimed at these inhumane production methods, bans all products made from force-feeding birds. Now, a New York-based foie gras producer, a Los Angeles restauranteur and a Canadian exporter are seeking to overturn the law. They filed suit against the state of California under the claim that the law violates the Constitution’s commerce clause.

According to the plaintiffs, the wording of the law is so vague because it, “defines ‘force feeding’ as using a process that causes a bird ‘to consume more food than a typical bird of the same species would consume voluntarily.’ In practice, the vagueness of this purported standard makes it impossible for anyone to know at what point a particular bird has been fed ‘more food’ than the Bird Feeding Law allows.”

So, will this lawsuit be successful? Only time will tell. For now, though, plaintiffs’ lawyer also plans to file an injunction that would halt the law while the matter is sorted out in U.S. district court.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/foie-gras-ban-is-unconstitutional.html#ixzz1zqPnzhmI

It should be noted that the combined donations to environmental and animal causes (of which the enviros take the lion’s share) barely reach 2% of all giving, literally at the bottom of the priorities ruling American giving, with a measly $6.6 Billion received in 2010.  This figure is disgraceful when compared to the enormous needs we confront in every area of activism. Furthermore, since we’re on the topic, it must be said that in a more just, egalitarian and properly organized and governed society (read: a truly democratic society), many of these billions would NOT be needed, indeed, private charity itself would not be necessary.  For example, allocations to education, international affairs, arts & culture, public society benefit, human services, and health, totaling $120.04 Bn, about 41% of the total given, would be covered by national taxation, as it should, for what are legitimate taxes but the will of the people? (I’m speaking theoretically here, folks, don’t laugh.)

P.G.

________________________
The original communiqué—

United Poultry Concerns
5 July 2012

 

CA Foie Gras Ban Takes Effect
By , About.com Guide July 5, 2012
http://animalrights.about.com/b/2012/07/05/ca-foie-gras-ban-takes-effect.htm

[Photo courtesy of Farm Sanctuary]

California’s foie gras ban that was signed into law in 2004 took effect on July 1, 2012. Foie gras is the fattened liver of a duck or goose, and is considered one of the cruelest factory farming practices. The liver is ten times its normal size as a result of force-feeding the birds through a metal tube shoved into their throats. The law prohibits force-feeding birds for the purpose of enlarging the bird’s liver, and prohibits selling the products that result from force-feeding. Because the only way to produce such an unnatural product is through force-feeding, the sale and production of foie gras is effectively banned.

CA is the first state in the U.S. to ban foie gras, but a 2006 ban in Chicago was in effect for two years before it was overturned. Israel, South Africa and several European nations have banned the force-feeding of animals for food production.

Some people have reacted as you might expect – by violating the statute and by filing a lawsuit to try to have the ban overturned.

The animal rights position is that veganism is the solution because any animal use violates that animal’s rights. While some farming practices may be more cruel than others, there is no such thing as humane animal agriculture.

_____________
Follow UPC!
facebook twitter nr-footer (12K)
Home | What’s New? | News Releases | Action Alerts | PoultryPress | Resources | Merchandise | Links | E-mail

Comments (original threads)

Thank you for sharing.

10:46PM PDT on Jul 5, 2012

I live in California and am so happy this has law has finally taken effect! And no, laws against animal cruelty aren’t unconstitutional!

7:50PM PDT on Jul 5, 2012

How absurd greed can be.

5:31PM PDT on Jul 5, 2012

So animal cruelty is “constitutional”? Funny, I thought in most states it’s a felony.

5:13PM PDT on Jul 5, 2012

Whoops. I meant to say, “They serve tons of meals to filthy rich patrons at the rate of $100 per diner that consist of one pretty little ITEM that sits right in the middle of a gigantic white plate…

5:11PM PDT on Jul 5, 2012

Of course it’s unconstitutional…to those that only care about money and fame via feeding the oh-so-grand appetites of rich people with so called sophisticated palates. The making of foie gras is a cruel and inhumane process that needs to be stopped. Trust me, those food distributors and la-dee-da retsaurants won’t finds themselves in dire straits by not serving foie gras. They serve tons of meals to filthy rich patrons at the rate of $100 per diner that consist of one pretty little that sits right in the middle of a gigantic white plate. You know that anyplace where you see more plate than food is raking in the dough. They have nothing to worry about. They’re just whining that they can’t have everything their way and they’re being persecuted and how they suffer for their culinary art, blah blah blah. Well you know what? It all ends up in the same place and the same color in the end. They need to get over themselves!

5:08PM PDT on Jul 5, 2012

dumb people

3:32PM PDT on Jul 5, 2012

as long as any being lives in fear and death at the hands of man so shall all men live under this same threat. the earth is our shared home and to do good should be our shared religion and under the truth of evolution all beings are our family.
you can tell a lot about a person or society by the way it treats the beings it doesn’t think it has to treat well. silence is acceptance
life has value beyond measure
Peace and Love

Read more: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/foie-gras-ban-is-unconstitutional.html#ixzz1zqPEIfsX

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?

If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.

 
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 




5 States Where “Living in Sin” Is Illegal? America’s Irrational Love Affair With the Institution of Marriage

By Thomas Rogers, Salon
Crossposted with Alternet

For most people living in major American cities these days, the idea of an unmarried couple living together is as controversial as toasted bread. Since the 1990s, more than half of married couples in the United States live in sin before getting married. The percentage of people who disapproved of unmarried cohabitation has dropped from 86 percent in 1977 to 27 percent in 2007. In fact, for most of us, it seems far more suspicious to see a couple moving in together after they’ve gotten hitched than before. So how is it possible that living with your boyfriend or girlfriend is still against the law in Michigan and several Southern states?

As Elizabeth H. Pleck details in her fascinating new book,“Not Just Roommates: Cohabitation After the Sexual Revolution,” unmarried cohabitation has had a rocky path toward cultural acceptance — and, unbeknownst to many of us, is still held back by widespread retrograde legal policies. For much of the 20th century, couples were dragged to jail, had their social benefits revoked or lost custody of their children because they decided to live with the person they loved. And even as the civil rights, feminist and gay rights movements gradually won more rights for cohabitators, the law has continued to place an irrational importance on marriage, especially when it comes to Social Security. Pleck’s book focuses on a series of key legal cases from the past half-century, but manages to make a convincing argument about the misguidedness of our country’s continued, irrational love affair with the institution of marriage — and why it’s high time the law caught up with our hearts.

Salon spoke to Pleck over the phone about the importance of gay marriage, the New York Times’ bad science and why America is still so obsessed with matrimony.

For someone like me who lives in New York, the idea that there is still a stigma or a legal case against unmarried people living together is really surprising.

There’s the cultural stigma and the legal stigma, but it’s the legal stigma that is more interesting to me. How come the law and our policies haven’t caught up to the fact it’s no big deal anymore? Cohabitation is still a crime in five states — the four Southern states and Michigan. Yes, no one has been arrested for cohabitation in recent years but there are a few situations in which the fact that it’s criminal can be used against people. There’s the example of Michael Schiavo, Terri Schiavo’s husband, who was denied guardianship of his wife because her parents went to court saying he broke the law of Florida because he was living with his girlfriend.

Like many other aspects of the sexual revolution, [the rise of cohabitation] appeared first and had its greatest effects on the two coasts and while it has affected the entire country, there are holdouts. You find lower rates of cohabitation and more opposition in the non-coastal and rural areas of the country.

How does this current state of affairs compare to the early 1960s and before?

The numbers of cohabitators are estimates, but to the extent they are accurate, the increase is absolutely off the charts. This is one of the huge trends of family and sexual history where you just find the arrow going almost straight up at an incredibly rapid rate. In the early ’50s and ’60s it was confined to cosmopolitan areas, bohemians, student neighborhoods, interracial couples and poor people because of poor people’s flexible relationship status. What we’ve found since then is that it’s become more common, more frequent, more acceptable, and spread in terms of regions, age profiles of the people and so forth. The majority of people, in the 70 percent range, now live together before they marry — about 12-15 million people right now.

If these laws aren’t being enforced, why should we care?

The criminal laws are just the tip of the iceberg. It’s one of a variety of ways we don’t honor the idea that every person is the same or that everybody can be just left alone as an adult to do what they want. The law makes a symbolic stand in favor of legal marriage and promoting marriage, and major entitlement programs — both private and public — are based on this idea, and on the benefits side there are many important points of social insurance, personal insurance, that have to do with being married. Cohabitators, for example, are two or three times more likely not to have health insurance than married people. A lot of social insurance goes to people who are legally married and their dependents. You find many people on the Internet discussing how they only got married to get health coverage, and many who are engaged don’t understand their fiancés aren’t covered by this. Same with Social Security benefits, they are based on marriage. This is about something I call the right to not have to marry.

It’s funny, I’m Canadian and in a relationship with a man and I’m very conscious of the fact that, because of DOMA, I don’t have that option to marry my boyfriend if I want to stay in the United States. It’s something that I’ve had a lot of conversations with people about.

Yes, immigration policy favors legal marriage and punishes people who are not married. Cohabitation used to be thought of as immoral and one of the reasons for deportations was that people were engaged in immoral conduct.

Where does America’s extraordinary love of marriage come from?

I’m extremely interested in the exceptional nature of the American nation. The idea of promoting marriage and marriage policy goes way back. America is a very religious nation. Cohabitation [is seen by many as] a religious sin and a sin against God whereas marriage is not sinful. People think it has to do with 19thcentury and Victorian ideas, but the truth is that there has been an active fight going on in various states on cohabitation since the 1970s, in Florida and Wisconsin and different states. The growth of the New Right in the late ’60s and early ’70s added on new layers of emotional maneuvering.

So how did our attitudes change?

The first big turning point was when the Supreme Court struck down laws against interracial cohabitation in 1964. Florida had a law saying a black man and a white women or a black woman and white man could not legally cohabit at nighttime. It was a major victory for cohabitation but they still said it’s fine for states to have those laws; they just couldn’t use race as a classification in making punishments. You can’t punish black and white couples for cohabitation but it’s still a crime on the books for a couple to live together.

The No. 1 most important change was the domestic partnership movement. The gay liberation movement fought for it especially in the ’80s and ’90s and cohabitators — straight and gay — ended up being the major beneficiaries of it. It’s a huge shift because it took cohabitation from the shadowy world and made it be recognized. You can use it to receive benefits from private or public employers and you can register this status with a municipality and a state government to get favorable tax treatment and some benefits.

How important was pop culture’s role in making Americans more accepting of cohabitation?

Cohabitation is actually very visible in popular music, because popular music is music of young people and young people were doing it. There’s a Bon Jovi song about it and Joni Mitchell sang about it. It was on “Soul Train.” A few movies by liberal filmmakers in the early ’70s showed countercultural people living together. In the late ’70s there were movies like “Rocky” and “Annie Hall” where it was taken for granted. TV is another story because in the late ’60s or early ’70s series would show an age gap where the parents were offended and the parents’ values were eventually affirmed. It was only in the middle ’70s with this Norman Lear TV show “All’s Fair,” that we got a positive view of cohabitation.

People that you quote in the book talk about the “marriage cure,” the widespread belief among lawmakers that marriage is the solution to a variety of social ills. Does the marriage cure work?

So, for example, a judge will have a young couple coming to him. They’re living together and the guy is unemployed or on probation and he’ll say he won’t punish them in any way if they get married. The state is coercing couples to get married with the idea that then you have cured the problem. Some people want to cure poverty by doing this, others want to cure crime, some immorality. But it turns out you can’t cure these things in these ways. One major reason is you can’t make people stay put once you marry them off; they often don’t stay married.

The marriage promotion movement — which consists of conservative social scientists, especially in the ’90s, engaging in anti-poverty policy, welfare reform, abstinence education at schools — has a very strong belief in this. The idea is that marriage is the ultimate poverty program. I quote extensively from the research in the book to show there’s very little evidence that this works.

It’s very interesting that marriage is seen in the U.S., unlike in Western Europe, as the magic bullet that’s going to cure all kinds of ills. Why are their attitudes so different over there?

[In Western Europe, their ideas are] based on recognizing reality: “This is the way people are living, and we’re not going to be able to change it very much so we should be able to recognize this is what’s going on and treat people fairly given that.” In the U.S. it’s, “This is what’s going on, and this is something we don’t approve of, and maybe we can’t really stop it but we should use our law and our policy to make a broad statement that we believe in marriage and stand behind it even if we know in our hearts that it might not be able to work.”

It’s an expression of these very schizophrenic elements of American culture. On one hand the U.S. celebrates individualism and on the other hand it has these moral policies that are very paternalistic.

That’s a great way of putting it. I think there is a schizophrenia or a divide and some people tend to emphasize one and not the other but they’re both there and tugging at each other — I think that’s called the culture war. It’s a very important part of American history especially since the 1970s.

There was a recent, very popular New York Times articlethat argued that premarital cohabitation was bad news for marriages. What did you make of it?

I actually wrote a letter to the editor in response to this. First of all, that writer quoted social science as if it is the bible on this. The various statistics about cohabitation on the whole tend to show that engagement cohabitation is more likely to lead to a marriage that does not end in divorce. But all studies of cohabitation are studying a moving target; last year’s findings are not this year’s findings. But the reason the article is interesting to me is that it became a cultural phenomenon. It was the most emailed article of that week, I believe, as it seemed to be for all “what leads to divorce” articles.

Those kinds of articles actually go way back in American history, but they tap into tremendous anxiety and fear with the assumption that correlation is causation. I sense that isn’t just because we have lots of children of divorce but because when the country is unstable and the economy is still recovering and our country’s national greatness is not what it was, marriage and divorce become the symbol of the nation. They pick that anxiety and mirror it. My opinion is you’re pretty much going to have to do what is best for you and what accords with your beliefs. Dear Abby had to change her views on cohabitation; she was advising people not to do it until the ’90s, and then she capitulated and said it seems to be OK. I just don’t think that it’s very beneficial to engage in fear-mongering about cohabitation and fears of divorce.

I’ve never been terribly fond of the idea of marriage, and it’s interesting to me that the gay community has increasingly moved from this idea of abolishing marriage to making marriage the central part of the movement. Why do you think that change occurred?

The No. 1 reason was the AIDS epidemic. It showed the fragility of life and the fragility of non-legally recognized relationships and the need for social benefits associated with legal marriage. On top of that, there was the lesbian baby boom and, in general, a new generation of gay liberationists who were not coming out of ’60s critique of the nuclear family.

Cohabitation is not a social movement, but it gets a huge amount of energy from gay civil rights. So when gay civil rights moved in the direction of legal marriage the issue of non-marriage benefits seemed to take a back seat. There was the potential at one point that there would be a both-and strategy — that people would be for the right to marry and the right to not have to marry — but it hasn’t been the case. Now it seems like all the energy goes into the right to marry.

For me the ideal future outcome is something close to the Scandinavian model in which many of our rights toward hospital visitation, inheritance, healthcare and so forth are disentangled from the institution of marriage. How realistic is this in the U.S.?

I don’t think it’s very realistic to expect that outcome. I have been absolutely surprised by the success of the legal same-sex marriage movement and that we are on the verge of declaring DOMA null and void. This is a positive movement in same-sex marriage but my calculation is same-sex marriage has to happen first then cohabitation after that, so it’s kind of at the end of the train. I see the train is picking up and moving faster but that end point doesn’t seem to be coming any time soon.

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?

If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.

 
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.