When the minimum wage was stagnant for decades and the Gringrich Republicans stopped health care reform for the nation, unions continued to fight for a living wage and appropriate benefits for working people. It's not that auto workers are OVER paid today; it's that the rest of working people are UNDER paid!

That said, I'm still ambivalent about the proposed bailout, even if TARP funds are used. I look at it this way: If we have $15 billion (or $25 or $35 billion) to inject into the economy to protect real people's jobs and businesses, what is the best way to spend it? Maybe it shouldn't be spent saving the Big 3, given their abismal track record. A few billion (billion! I still can't believe we're talking about billions) to support and develop 21st century industries, another few billion for education and training for workers for these new industries, and another few billion for health care would, it stands to reasons, go a long way toward stabilizing the economy and helping real people. We have never spent billions on any of these things. What would happen if we did?

there's no reason to keep same-sex couples from marrying. The history of "marriage" shows it to be an adaptable, ever-changing thing. When women and infants commonly died in childbirth, polygamy was common. When orderly property succession could best be ensured through inheritance, arranged marriages were common. In this country, when African-Americans were considered property, they were not permitted to marry. When women were not considered full citzens, their persons merged with the person of their husband in marriage. Before there were such things as paternity and DNA tests, all children of a married couple were considered children of their marriage. And marriage as we define it today -- always licensed by the state, but not always solemnized by the church -- is not the way most people in human history have gotten married. Throughout most of human history, couples have married simply by declaring to their group that they are married. There is no question that same-sex couples have lived as "married" couples throughout human history.

As our civil society has evolved, the traditional functions of marriage -- to protect procreation and succession -- have diminished. With reliable monetary systems and Registries of Deeds, property can change hands freely and reliably. With better medical care, fewer women and infants die in childbirth. With increasing recognition of every human being's individual dignity and worth, marriage rights have gradually extended to previously excluded groups, and the rights of married women to own property, enter into contracts, and be free from battering and rape by their husbands -- all things definitely NOT included in the "traditional" definition of marriage -- are now taken for granted.

And so today the only requirement for CIVIL marriage -- getting that license from the state -- is being competent opposite-sex adults over the age of 18. Complete strangers can get married, so long as they are of the opposite sex. The Supreme Court has ruled that a convited murderer serving a life sentence with no possibility of parole has the right to marry a woman he will never live with or have children with. Individuals get to decide for themselves who their spouse will be; the state doesn't.

I think Warren knows full well what he's doing when he purposefully missrepresents the known historic record on marriage, because if you look at the truth about what civil marriage has been and what it is today, there is no reason on god's green earth to deny same-sex couples marriage equality. You can only keep oppressing us if you lie about us (where did that 2% number come from anyway?) and about the "institution" of civil marriage itself.

Here's an idea: no stimulus money for new roads or bridges or upgrades of existing roads or bridges without adding or improving mass transit at the same time. I'll never forget my taxi ride to the airport outside Paris. As we were stalled in traffic, the light rail train zipped by on the tracks built alongside the highway and beat us to the airport at a fraction of the cost. Not every new or improved road would have to have light rail or subways -- a dedicated bike path would also qualify.

This is how the Americans With Disabilities Act is being implemented -- new buildings have to comply with accessibility standards, but older buildings are exempt unless and until major rennovations are undertaken, and then the building has to be made accessible. What a different world we would live in had mass transit been required to be part of such things as NYC's parkway system and Boston's Big Dig.

what was the last "massive female giveaway"? I seem to have missed it and lord knows, having earned a woman's wage my whole life, I could use it!