Give It Up for Granny March 16, 2004January 21, 2017 Talk about inspirational. If you haven’t already read Granny D’s speech, click here. # For those who read yesterday’s column before it was amended: The Bette Midler letter was actually written by a woman named Stephanie Finnegan. ‘It’s a beautifully written, heartfelt and impassioned letter,’ Midler told the New York Daily News . . . but she didn’t write it. Sorry. # Has a deep market correction begun? I don’t know any better than you, but I disagree with those who think the market is cheap here. They tend to think so because interest rates are so low. But will interest rates stay so low? Can we keep postponing our problems, borrowing cheaply from the future? And what of November? The market may be worried that a Kerry win could send the long-term capital gains rate back up from 15% to 20%. Or that a Bush win would give us four more years of Bush. Either one could be spooking the market. And although the stock market historically does better during Democratic administrations than Republican administrations, the first years of any administration are generally when the tough medicine is taken . . . and the fourth year when all stops are pulled out to try to boost the market – never more than this year. So I think the next couple of years could be quite rough. Not a problem if you’re in the market for the really long haul, as I am, or, better still, if you’re in a position to keep buying more shares if they should happen to be marked down. But – as always – don’t risk money in the market you might actually need in the next few years. Now go click on Granny. Tomorrow: God Hates Shrimp; A Professor Remembers W.
Matt Miller, Bette Midler (and Chicken) March 15, 2004February 24, 2017 I think this Matt Miller column is just hugely important. And Bette? The only thing that may conceivably eclipse her talent is her good will. And if you’ve ever seen her emerge in full mermaidenform from a giant clam shell – that’s saying something. [Emphasis added for hurried readers.] MATT MILLER’S LATEST COLUMN BUSH “GUTS” THE FACTS AGAIN — WILL THE MEDIA LET HIM? Here at Matt Miller Global Column Headquarters, we report, you decide. So here are the facts: President Bush attacked John Kerry this week for Kerry’s alleged attempt to “gut” U.S. intelligence services via a 1995 proposal that would have cut roughly $300 million a year from a roughly $30 billion annual budget. In other words, Kerry’s proposal would have cut 1 percent of the intelligence budget. Readers who are in business may pause here to laugh their heads off. Can you imagine tough Pentagon CEO Donald Rumsfeld facing down a general who told him that a 1 percent cut Rumsfeld wanted somewhere would “gut” that area? Calling a 1 percent cut a “gutting” is beyond ludicrous. It’s beyond preposterous. The only possible conclusion is that it is an intentional deception. (Yes, Democrats can be prone to “argue” in similar ways on Medicare and Social Security, but we’ll gut those programs another day – and, as your mother told you, two wrongs don’t make a right.) So what was Bush’s attack about? There are two ways to look at it: as a measure of how dumb the White House thinks we are and as a measure of how anxious the White House is a full eight months before November. Think of the choice. Team Bush made a decision to reach back to an obscure 9-year-old proposal, blow it utterly out of proportion, and then have the president – not some surrogate – utter the deception himself, to assure that it would make national headlines and force the press to write stories about just what it was Kerry may have done (which, sensibly enough, was to include shaving some intelligence bloat as part of a broader deficit reduction effort). This is not about facts. It is about planting seeds of mistrust. Which brings us to Bush’s flip-flop strategy. “Once again, Sen. Kerry is trying to have it both ways,” Bush said in his offending remark. “He’s for good intelligence, yet he was willing to gut the intelligence services. And that is no way to lead a nation in a time of war.” Is this rubbish supposed to be the way to lead a nation in a time of “war”? This from the man who always boasts that he’s “plainspoken”? Bush’s bogus attack followed shortly after the White House scored a major propaganda coup by getting The New York Times to do a Page One story on whether Kerry is, indeed, a flip-flopper. You know this charge must poll well because Team Bush is entirely on message. Dick Cheney barely opens his mouth nowadays without noting that “that kind of indecision may not be what the American people want.” Surely that’s right – which is why they must be upset about Bush’s own flip-flops on steel tariffs, farms subsidies, nation-building, and funding his own education bill. And that’s just for starters. Why parse this in detail? It’s a preview of Bush’s unfolding strategy. Karl Rove knows that the public has little impression of John Kerry. He’s determined to use the GOP’s colossal financial advantage, and the media news void now that Kerry is the nominee, to define Kerry before Kerry can define himself. This is politics 101. But it’s also a surreal commentary on how news management (or dueling propaganda) is central to political life in ways that 285 million of our 290 million fellow citizens likely don’t notice or understand. Presidential elections are largely fights over how the press will frame the debate. It’s a case of the “observed” and the “observers” blending interactively in one giant feedback loop. How each side can get the national press to behave – what the press can be persuaded to define as “news” – will go a long way in determining public opinion. Whether you think this is any way to run a democracy or not, it’s a reality. And that means there are three centers of power that matter in the months ahead: the Democratic Party, the Republican Party and the national press. I know top editors and producers at these outlets are often uncomfortable with their enormous power in this process, but it’s unavoidable. As stenographic reports of Bush’s bogus attack this week show, the only question is whether the media has a strategy for exercising this power responsibly – a strategy that’s as thoughtful as those partisans will deploy in attempting to influence the press. Matthew Miller, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, is the author of The Two Percent Solution: Fixing America’s Problems in Ways Liberals and Conservatives Can Love. Reach him at www.mattmilleronline.com. POLITICAL CHOICE Dana Dlott: ‘When I read last week’s New York Times article about gay Republicans, I thought: The Log Cabin Republicans, a group of gays who delivered almost 1 million votes to George W. Bush in 2000, have announced they are withdrawing support for the President following his announcement of support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. In related news, Chickens for Colonel Sanders have announced they are withdrawing support for the Kentucky icon after learning that Kentucky Fried Chicken is made of … chicken. BETTE ON IT February 24, 2004 Dear President Bush, Today you called upon Congress to move quickly to amend the US Constitution, and set in Federal stone a legal definition of marriage. I would like to know why. In your speech, you stated that this Amendment would serve to protect marriage in America, which I must confess confuses me. Like you, I believe in the importance of marriage and I feel that we as a society take the institution far too lightly. In my circle of family, friends and acquaintances, the vast majority have married and divorced – some more than once. Still, I believe in marriage. I believe that there is something fundamental about finding another person on this planet with whom you want to build a life and family, and make a positive contribution to society. I believe that we need more positive role models for successful marriage in this country – something to counteract the images we get bombarded with in popular culture. When we are assaulted with images of celebrities of varying genres, be it actors, sports figures, socialites, or even politicians who shrug marriage on and off like the latest fashion, it is vitally important to the face of our nation, for our children and our future, that we have a balance of commitment and fidelity with which to stave off the negativity. I search for these examples to show my own daughter, so that she can see that marriage is more than a disposable whim, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. As a father, I’m sure you have faced these same concerns and difficulties in raising your own daughters. Therefore I can also imagine that you must understand how thrilled I have been over the past few weeks to come home and turn on the news with my family. To finally have concrete examples of true commitment, honest love, and steadfast fidelity was such a relief and a joy. Instead of speaking in the hypothetical, I was finally able to point to these men and women, standing together for hours in the pouring rain, and tell my child that this is what its all about. Forget Britney. Forget Kobe. Forget Strom. Forget about all the people that we know who have taken so frivolously the pure and simple beauty of love and tarnished it so consistently. Look instead at the joy in the beautiful faces of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon at 51 years together! I mean, honestly Mr. President – how many couples do you know who are together for 51 years? I’m sure you agree that this love story provides a wonderful opportunity to teach our children about the true meaning and value of marriage. On the steps of San Francisco City Hall, rose petals and champagne, suits and veils, horns honking and elation in the streets; a celebration of love the likes of which this society has never seen. This morning, however, my joy turned to sadness, my relief transformed into outrage, and my peace became anger. This morning, I watched you stand before this nation and belittle these women, the thousands who stood with them, and the countless millions who wish to follow them. How could you do that, Mr. President? How could you take something so beautiful – a clear and defining example of the true nature of commitment – and declare it to be anything less? What is it that validates your marriage which somehow doesn’t apply to Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon? By what power, what authority are you so divinely imbued that you can stand before me and this nation and hold their love to a higher standard? Don’t speak to me about homosexuality, Mr. President. Don’t tell me that the difference lies in the bedroom. I would never presume to ask you or your wife how it is you choose to physically express your love for one another, and I defy you to stand before Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon and ask them to do the same. It is none of my business, as it is none of yours, and it has nothing to do with the “sanctity of marriage”. I’m sure you would agree that marriage is far more than sexual expression, and it’s high time we all started focusing on all the other aspects of a relationship which hold it together over the course of a lifetime. Therefore, with the mechanics of sex set aside, I ask you again – what makes a marriage? I firmly believe that whatever definition you derive, there are thousands upon thousands of shining examples for you to embrace. You want to protect marriage. I admire and support that, Mr. President. Together, as a nation, let us find and celebrate examples of what a marriage should be. Together, let us take couples who embody the principles of commitment, fidelity, sacrifice and love, and hold them up before our children as role models for their own futures. Together, let us reinforce the concept that love is about far more than sex, despite what popular culture would like them to believe. Please, for the sake of our children, for the sake of our society, for the sake of our future, do not take us down this road. Under the guise of protection, do not support divisiveness. Under the guise of unity, do not endorse discrimination. Under the guise of sanctity, do not devalue commitment. Under the guise of democracy, do not encourage this amendment. Bette Midler [NOT: see below] Hey, but as much as I appreciate Bette Midler’s letter, go back and read Matt Miller again – and send it to your list. (You have his permission to cut and paste it.) The media totally rolled over in 2000. We can’t let them do it again. Late-breaking correction: I’m told Bette Midler says she did NOT write this letter that’s been going round the web — but that she agrees with it. Sorry.
Which Would YOU Choose? March 12, 2004February 24, 2017 As noted Monday, the President last week replaced two scientists on his bioethics advisory panel who favored stem cell research with three who do not. In a recent newspaper article (thank you, Anna!), one of the remaining bioethicists on the panel, William May, was quoted saying he ‘recalled what his own doctor said to him about the question of stem-cell research. ‘Bill,’ May recounted, ‘if you’re in a burning building with a freezer full of hundreds of pre-implanted embryos and with a 2-year-old child, and you had to pick one or the other, which would you save?‘‘ The article includes May’s thoughts on the Bush prescription drug policy, and AARP, as well. If you think this issue has nothing to do with money, consider what it will cost if you or your spouse should someday suffer from Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s or cancer – or one of your kids should suffer from paralysis – that might otherwise have been cured by the stem cell research President Bush has decided America must try to shut down worldwide. Monday: Matt Miller, Bette Midler
Money – Little and Big March 11, 2004February 24, 2017 ADNOODLE From the estimable Alan Rogowsky: ‘It’s come to this. Here’s a new way to make money.’ You just tell this outfit how much cash an advertiser needs to pay to get you to listen to a pitch. Then they look for advertisers interested in pitching you. It’s not quite as dumb as it sounds, although it’s too early to know whether the company will succeed. It’s a way, at least theoretically, to keep wasting people’s time and advertisers’ money. Rather than pay to reach 1 million people, say, why not pay just the 3,200 who, at any given time, might actually be interested in what you have to say? Instead of paying the magazine or TV station, use some of that cash to pay the potential customer. OREOS Here’s an important two-minute movie about Oreo cookies. I can’t vouch for all the numbers; and I might leave the 40 cookies alone and find the other five by rolling back the tax cuts above $200,000, instead. But see what you think. # ‘President Bush says he has just one question for the American voters, ‘Is the rich person you’re working for better off than he was four years ago?” – Jay Leno ‘The president’s stop at that rodeo this afternoon is not considered an official campaign event. The White House classifies the appearance as a policy event. So that portion of the president’s trip will be charged to taxpayers.’ – CNN, 3/8/04
Protect Your Pet, Soop Up Your Google March 10, 2004February 24, 2017 NOW WILL YOU QUIT? According to the New York Post (but still): ‘A study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that dogs in smoking households had a 60 percent greater risk of lung cancer; a different study published in the same journal showed that long-nosed dogs, such as collies or greyhounds, were twice as likely to develop nasal cancer if they lived with smokers. And in yet another study, veterinarians from Tufts University found that cats whose owners smoked were three times as likely to develop lymphoma, the most common feline cancer.’ GOOGLE AID Soople.com aims to make the Google interface even easier. Until you learn the shortcuts accessible direct from the ever-present Google toolbar (what? you still haven’t added it you your browser to make it ever-present? it’s really worth doing!), Soople may make things like Google’s calculator and phone directory even a bit easier for you. PRESIDENT . . . AGAIN? Gennady: ‘NYU prof’s Giller’s idea about Bill Clinton as a VP would run into a conflict with the 12th Amendment: ‘No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” ☞ Seems to me one could argue this would preclude 33-year-olds and foreigners, but not someone who would not have been elected more than twice. Clearly, though, even if you buy that aggressive stretch, this is not going to happen. # ‘I don’t want them to forbid gay marriage. I want everybody to do what they want to do. If two men want to get married, let them. That’s more girls out there for me.‘ – 54-year-old Fred Voellmecke, as quoted in the Boston Globe
Could This Make YOU Money? March 9, 2004February 24, 2017 Barely out of college, Jonathan Hochman, one of your esteemed fellow readers (this site may be free, but we don’t let just anybody onto it) arranged to have a full-size wood-floor basketball court shipped from the U.S. to Red Square. It was what his Russian client wanted, so he somehow got it done. Clever fellow. He writes: I recently started working for a technology company and was asked to overhaul their Internet marketing campaign. Because the company offers very specific products and services, we decided to use Pay-Per-Click advertising. We pay Google and Yahoo to display our links when people search for terms that correspond to the services and products we offer. My wife is a Realtor, so I decided to apply my lessons learned at work for her benefit. Anybody who ever became a real estate agent knows that it can be a thankless job. Marketing has traditionally consisted of knocking on doors, sitting at open houses, doing floor time in the office, and sending out mass mailings. First I built her web page. Then I used this link to instantly place advertisements. It cost $5 to begin. In addition, we pay Google up to $0.75 every time somebody clicks one of her ads. About one in fifty of the clickers calls to request further information. Thus, the cost of generating a lead is about $37.50. At least one lead in six turns into a sale, so the marketing cost of a sale is roughly $225. An entry level Realtor in our town takes home about $2,500 for selling the average home. Since we started online marketing, my wife only spends time with prospects who have learned about her services and chosen to call. She can also afford not to work with unpleasant people because she has plenty of leads. This is the key to her success. She spends all her work time with live clients, not stuffing envelopes, knocking on doors or waiting around at an open house hoping a serious buyer walks through the door, who is not already represented by another Realtor. I have heard people who make good money complain about work because their customers drive them crazy. Every business has some customers who are more desirable than others. Profit is important, but quality of life and reducing hassles can be even more important. Skillful marketing draws the better customers. Here’s the actual ad we used: Greater Hartford Realtor Together we can sell your home or find you a new one. Call Tami. tamara.hochman.com Interest: This month she sold five multifamily houses to an investor from California who found her on the web. ☞ You may not be a Realtor (though if you live in South Florida, chances are seven in ten that you are) – but the lessons here could apply more broadly. (OK, maybe six in ten, but it feels like seven.) Tomorrow: A Spot on Spot’s Lung
Science Schmience; Martha and George March 8, 2004January 21, 2017 SCIENCE, SCHMIENCE Last week President Bush replaced two stem-cell research advocates from his bioethics advisory panel with three opponents. This makes the 18-member panel largely opposed to the therapeutic cloning that could one day spare you or your kids from Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, cancer, or paralysis. Meanwhile, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a 37-page report accusing the Bush administration of distorting / suppressing findings they didn’t like and stacking panels with like-minded and underqualified scientists with ties to industry. God has told Jerry Falwell to tell George Bush that if he wants evangelicals to turn out November 2, he’d better put the interests of five-day-old blastocysts ahead of the interests of millions of fully formed humans. It’s a choice the Bush administration may be entitled to make, but a choice with enormous consequences for your health and the health and longevity of your loved ones. Already they have largely shut down stem cell research here at home (outsourcing an entire leading-edge industry). Now they are working to shut it down altogether, worldwide. For more on last week’s panel shuffle, click here. To help fight back, consider supporting this fledgling nonprofit. MARTHA, PETER AND GEORGE A lot of people were undoubtedly rooting for Little Ms. Perfect’s comeuppance – we are human – but this promises to be just a GIGANTIC comeuppance. And it’s not so great for Martha’s 550 employees, either. As for my friend Peter Bacanovic, one impulsive mistake (‘Call Martha!’), perhaps made poolside, without any significant reflection (he was on vacation?), cell phone in one hand, beverage in the other . . . and then one thing leads to another (how do you tell Martha Stewart ‘no?’) . . . you dig yourself in deeper and deeper . . . and soon your life is completely ruined. The whole thing is just sad. But the lessons are clear: never trade on inside information; never, ever lie – least of all to federal agents. The irony, many of you will be very tired of my pointing out, is that a member of the three-man Harken Oil audit committee sold a much more significant lot of stock not long before the company released very bad news . . . later told the feds his disclosure form for this trade had been ‘lost’ for eight months . . . and, far from being extensively investigated as a potential high-profile, example-setting, no-special-treatment-for-anyone defendant, he and his case were not pursued. One need not be a cynic to suspect this was in part because his father was President of the United States. Several of you have written to tell me that the insider in question did nothing wrong, because his family lawyer (later named ambassador to Saudi Arabia) told him it was OK. The truth is, we’ll probably just never know. Tomorrow: A Column That Could Actually Make You (or that ne’er-do-well son-in-law of yours) Some Money
Wait a Second! March 5, 2004March 25, 2012 It has come to my attention that there was an extra day in February. What’s up with that? Not in MY contract. I’m taking a compensatory day off.
Politics! March 4, 2004February 24, 2017 SHOW JOSH THE MONEY Josh Dicker: ‘You spend way too much of your weblog on politics and social policy. My objection, you should know, is not based on the fact that your opinions are mostly misinformed exaggerations. Rather, I object because you have attracted me to your site by offering me guidance about finance. The old bait and switch. Boo.’ ☞ Fair enough. Next year, no more Super Bowl ad luring you to the site. But how can I limit myself to mortgages and index funds when I get e-mails like this next one? Larry Loiello (who usually votes Republican): ‘I hate to encourage you, because I really miss the days when you wrote more about money and not so much about politics, but you’ve worn me down! Today’s column finally pushed me over the edge. I think I will not be voting for Bush in November. (And if you want to feel even better about this, I should tell you that I recently moved from NYC and will be voting in FLORIDA this year!)’ BLAME CANADA Steve Baker: ‘Up here in Canada a recent poll by a reputable monthly magazine (Maclean’s Canada’s answer to Time) showed 85% would not vote for Bush (if Canadians had a say). This is the overwhelming opinion of your largest trading partner. The same partner, who might not like having its health care system attacked by senior cabinet minister Secretary of Health & Human services Tommy Thompson who went on CNBC and proclaimed that the Canadian drug supply was unsafe and that was why the US wouldn’t allow re-importation from Canada. ISN’T THAT SPECIAL? It probably had nothing to do with the fact that Bush’s campaign sold out to big pharma. ‘These dolts can’t appreciate that the drugs are manufactured by multinational drug companies, and the Canadian supply comes from the same plant – these companies didn’t set up separate plants to service the Canadian demand. Never mind that there have been no reported cases of people in Canada getting sick due to inferior quality medication (the only thing that is different-to be sold in Canada the labels have to be in both English & French). At the same time, Bush passes a drug plan that prohibits bulk pricing for the states or federal government.’ THE GREEN PARTY Dan Stone: ‘GREEN is actually an acronym for Get Republicans Elected Every November. How can they live with themselves?’ THIS WOULD DRIVE THEM INSANE Speculating on Kerry running mates in the New York Times yesterday, NYU Law Professor Stephen Gillers asks, why not Bill Clinton? ‘The first objection, the constitutional one,’ he writes, ‘can be disposed of easily. The Constitution does not prevent Mr. Clinton from running for vice president. The 22nd Amendment, which became effective in 1951, begins: ‘No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice.’ ‘No problem. Bill Clinton would be running for vice president, not president. Scholars and judges can debate how loosely constitutional language should be interpreted, but one need not be a strict constructionist to find this language clear beyond dispute. Bill Clinton cannot be elected president, but nothing stops him from being elected vice president.’ And, he argues, Gillers, if Kerry couldn’t complete his term, ‘Mr. Clinton would succeed Mr. Kerry not by election, which the amendment forbids, but through Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which provides that if a president dies, resigns or is removed from office, his powers ‘shall devolve on the vice president.’ The 22nd Amendment would not prevent this succession.’ ☞ No, it’s not going to happen. But wouldn’t it be fun?
Polyamorous Mutual Funds March 3, 2004February 24, 2017 SHORT PUTNAM, BUY SPIDERS? Katya Dolginova: ‘It is well-known that 80% of managed mutual funds underperform the indexes, net of fees, on average. This seems to suggest a hedging strategy – short the mutual funds, and buy the S&P index (in the form of SPDRs), for a ‘guaranteed’ profit. OK, so you can’t short open-ended mutual funds, but can you do it with closed ones? or do they not follow the same pattern?’ ☞ Ha! Well, it’s a clever, if rotten, idea. Over time you would hope to come out perhaps 1% or 2% a year ahead, except that you’d be tying up a lot of capital to do it (why limit your expected investing success to 2%?). And you’d be taking a good bit of risk. (What if you accidentally did this with a fund that just happens to have a good streak?). Also, closed-end funds frequently sell at a discount to net asset value, so you may have to pay only 90 cents (say) to own $1 worth of stock. One reason for this discount is that the market, in refusing to pay full price, is in effect compensating for the drag of the fund’s expenses. POLYGAMY For those of you who may think gay marriage is not a fit topic for a financial journal, please note last week’s cover story of THE ECONOMIST (The Economist, for crying out loud!): The Case for Gay Marriage. Seems they first made the case in 1996, and, eight years later, they are sticking to it. (‘So at last it is official: George Bush is in favour of unequal rights, big-government intrusiveness and federal power,’ the story begins.) Michael Axelrod: ‘I don’t understand your argument against polygamy. Why would you object to (say) three people forming a legally sanctioned union? After all polygamy has precedent in history, and some countries still allow it. What fundamental principle dictates that a marriage must be limited to only two people? Why can’t polygamists also demand equal protection under the law as gays have?’ ☞ They can, but so far as I know, they generally don’t. Perhaps more to the point, they are not discriminated against based on something they have no control over – their skin color, their sex, their sexual orientation, their ancestry. That said, if they did sue for this right, and a state supreme court found in their favor, I would certainly have to be open to the court’s logic. Presumably, it would have something to do with promoting a social good. I don’t know what social good polygamy promotes, but I do know that allowing gay marriage encourages stable families, discourages promiscuity, and protects children, especially should one parent die. Don’t many polygamists seem to have a lot of 16-year-old wives? Why is there a compelling social interest to encourage this? If you find one, I would listen with an open mind. John Stone: ‘I would think the key is the basic phrase ‘consenting adults.’ Children and animals can’t really give a considered consent but if three or more adults want to commit to each other, why not? After all we already have multiple spouses getting Social Security thanks to our hypocritical standards for divorce and so-called ‘serial monogamy.’ Dan: ‘I’m not taking a position on polygamy, but if the law permitted only heterosexual polygamy, then I would call that discrimination.’ Rick Neville: ‘I have no problem with gay marriage and I don’t really understand those that are so threatened by the idea. It seems to me, though, that much of the opposition is against calling it ‘marriage’ and not so much against granting all of the legal rights that married status provides. Would it be so bad to have all of the legal rights of marriage but simply call it a legal union? I mean, if the battle is won, why keep fighting over what seems to be a matter of semantics that is really meaningless but is so polarizing?’ ☞ Well, this makes a lot of sense, except for two things. First, imagine how you’d feel if whites and Asians still could not get married in the United States, even though a way had been found to provide the same rights via Interracial Union. Hmmm. Second, so many hundreds of thousand of laws have been written with these specific legal terms, ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse,’ that it would be a monumental task to get them all changed. John Stevens: ‘I’m a hetero who is in full support of gay marriage. In my view all people are supposed to be equal as guaranteed by the Constitution. If gays are not allowed to marry and enjoy these rights/privileges then no married people should enjoy them. You could still have religious marriage but it would have no legal bearing. There would be no death benefits, no tax advantages, no shared healthcare for anyone. We would all be equal. The sanctity of marriage would be protected as the ‘evil homosexuals’ still wouldn’t be allowed religious marriage under many denominations. For some reason the folks trying to protect the sanctity of marriage don’t like this argument. Maybe it points out just how unfair they are being to their fellow Americans.’ Tom Limoncelli: ‘The problem is that polygamy is the sexist institution of one man dominating many women. When the relationships are equal, and power is shared, and there are more than 2 adults involved, whether 3 people or 6, it’s called polyamory. There is a growing movement. (And by ‘movement,’ I mean there are organizations (polyamory.com, tristatepoly.com), conferences (lovethatworks.org), culture (polyamory.org) and institutions (lovemore.com). Of course, I feel that these groups are about 50 years ahead of themselves in terms of legal rights, etc.’ Martha: ‘You might enjoy this article, How Bush Helped My Marriage.’