ok ... i'm not an economist ... but it seems to me that our country's economics *require* growing markets. ceo's are rewarded for stock growth, retirement funds that invest in these companies push for returns, most (or many) benefit from this in some ways (growing 401(k)'s. except when we all work for these companies ... are pressured to produce more, sell more, create more. maybe we see our kids less than we want. maybe the stress and pressure to keep our jobs affects our health. our marriage. *maybe* we happen to work as mortgage brokers. maybe we are greedy sob's ... but maybe we're not. maybe we're just trying to get by. (btw ... i am not in the mortgage industry). expanding markets ... to me ... means expanding demand. that's why we export american corporations to china, to india, to the middle east. some people in these places hate this so much that they want to kill americans. some people in this country hate this so much they ban starbucks from main st. obviously this isn't the same thing, but maybe this expanding markets notion is flawed. "uncle government" comes in to bail things out, because this whole thing is a huge house of cards ... i believe. if an auto company tanks, or a bank goes belly up, or an airline closes ... the shock-waves can cause an economic tsunami. something more foundational about how we do things around here must be different … or pretty soon we’re all going to be working 80 hours a week and the top 1% will own 99% of the world. revolutions are born out of situations like this. i think our economy ... and the work that we're all responsible for ... need to be re-tooled in a fairly radical way. i think of this as an economic global warming issue. now, it's true ... some republican or libertarian ideology is sound. if fluid markets can naturally adjust ... there will be entrepreneurs who can create jobs, wealth, and security better than any government program. but ... my point is this ... there is a human cost to this. people kill themselves because they are freaked out about their mortgage. or because they think they need to have a 5 bedroom house to make the wife happy, or to look good (or better) than their friends. this may sound extreme, but i know firsthand as a psychotherapist about this. this is a country generally of freaked out, over-extended, good & capable people who do not always realize that the path the happiness that is marketed to us (so that the markets always expand) is ... perhaps ... flat out wrong. i believe that barack obama speaks with insight and knowledge about some of these things that need to change. and they sound theoretical because the change may be radical, and the steps may be large or small ... depending on our country's willingness to endure the pain of change. many people agree that burning fossil fuels will result in polar ice melting permanently. is the next step outlawing all cars? no. but there are steps in that direction that will cause some people to fret ... as being too big a step, or too small a step. i believe obama’s letter is a signal that something is not working, and that there are steps to take ... by a real leader with insight and vision ... to move towards change.

this is the best broadsheet blog i've ever read (and i haven't read loads, but i get around). i appreciate ms. traister's ability to probe many sides of a complicated issue. this is helpful and inspiring to all of us who have differing opinions. trumpeting more "standard" rhetoric one can often find here ... name it as you might ... becomes boring, at least for me. well done, and thank you!

I think this is an illuminating summary of recent strange Republican behavior. But the truth is, this kind of ego defense ... having such an internal conflict about one's "true" nature, that one adopts advocacy for it's opposite ... is well established in the psychotherapeutic community ... and relatively common. It's called a "reaction formation" and it's a "defense mechanism" ... similar to more commonly known ones like projection, repression, or denial ... or the seemingly more innocuous ones like intellectualization or humor.

More is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_formation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_mechanism

My point is ... most everyone has some version of this going on, if you buy into the whole notion of unconscious processes. It's easy to be angry when the people exhibiting these defenses are elected leaders ... whose wackiness can show up through advocating social policy that is detrimental to the LGBT community. I get angry about this, and there is a part of me that enjoys their exposure and the re-alignment of "truth."

On the other hand, though, these are probably fairly disturbed and possibly pathetic individuals. Not insane, but can you imagine living one moment of their closeted lives? It sounds like torture, and I feel compassion for them. Who among us isn't, at some level, hypocritical? And I might posit that those of us who vehemently seek to expose this hypocrisy might, perhaps, be exhibiting this same reaction formation they are uncovering. None of the players here … the exposed or the exposers … are “bad” people. We all share some things in common and deserve a kind ear. This doesn't excuse poor or even illegal behavior ... but let's me clear (and this article does not make as much differentiation as it should for this): being a republican closeted homosexual who wants to fuck men is not the same thing as being a republican closeted homosexual who wants to fuck boys. I honestly find it offensive that this list throws all into the same bucket.

war crimes

you are a total stud!

(no sarcasm)

i really appreciate what you do.