The government shutdown is now entering its third week with no end in sight. And as it continues to drag on, one thing has become abundantly clear: Our current political system is broken beyond repair.
Polls continue to show that the Republican Party is taking the brunt of the blame for this mess. And frankly, that's the way it should be. But the Democrats, despite their efforts to portray themselves as the adults in the room, are hardly blameless. The truth is, both parties share the blame for the gridlock in Congress because both parties have gotten away from what made them viable parties to begin with.
The Republican Party of today is NOT the same Republican Party I grew up with. When I was a child, the Republicans were the party of smaller government and lower taxes. They spoke for the wealthy and for big business. And they were in favor of personal responsibility and less government in our personal lives. In short, they represented traditional conservative values.
Somewhere along the way, though, that all changed. In the 1980s, the Republican Party hitched its wagon and its future fortunes to the ascendant Moral Majority led by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. They forged an alliance, for better or worse, with the Religious Right and everything changed. Instead of talking about cutting taxes and reducing the size of government, we began to hear more about the evils of abortion and gay marriage. Instead of trying to keep government out of our personal lives, the new Republican Party began to try and legislate morality by passing laws that, among other things, made it harder for women to obtain birth control if dispensing it conflicted with the pharmacist's personal religious beliefs. The new Republicans -- the neocons, if you will -- even invaded our classrooms by trying to legalize the teaching of creationism as science under the guise of "intelligent design."
These neocons are xenophobic. They want to round up every illegal immigrant and send them home, and they blame them for the problems with our economy. They are radical theocrats who believe fervently that America was founded as a Christian nation, even though many of our founders were Deists who believed only in a higher power, but not a specific one. They would like nothing better than to turn our nation into a Christian theocracy, totally ignoring the concept of religious liberty that our founders prized highly enough to put in the First Amendment to the Constitution. For them, it's religious freedom for Christians and no one else.
Today's Republicans like to invoke the name of Ronald Reagan. Since leaving office a quarter century ago, he has become almost a patron saint for today's GOP. And it's no wonder. Reagan was the last great Republican president we've had. He was the last one to espouse purely traditional conservative values. I have wondered from time to time what he would think of what has become of his party. I don't think he would be happy.
Before this turns into a "Let's bash the Republicans" piece though, let me say that the Democratic Party has itself undergone a seismic shift in recent decades. The Democratic Party of my youth was "the people's party." They were the party that represented the working people and the middle class. They were the party that created and served as protectors of Medicare and Social Security and other aspects of our social safety net. They were the party that was pushed to make sure the minimum wage kept up with inflation.
To be fair, you still hear strains of some of these themes from today's Democrats. But in large part, they have abandoned their principles in the name of power -- both gaining it and keeping it. Sure, the Republicans are taking it on the chin for wasting time trying to dismantle the Affordable Care Act instead of passing a budget. But let's be truthful. We haven't had a real budget in this country since 1997, and despite Republican dominance of government for large swaths of that time, Democrats controlled Congress for at least part of it, and still they failed to get a budget passed. And when's the last time the Democrats did anything that truly helped the working poor in this country?
The truth is, both parties have abandoned their principles to the point where there is little, if any difference between the two of them anymore. Yes, the Republicans have become hopelessly paranoid, believing that President Barack Obama is a "closet Muslim" who is leading this country down the path to socialism (and presumably Communism, eventually). But neither party is what it once was, and I see no hope that either will reclaim its principles anytime soon. Both parties are broken beyond repair.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Monday, October 7, 2013
GOP will pay ultimate price for shutdown
The partial government shutdown is now entering its second week, and if you listen to the political pundits, there's plenty of blame to go around for the mess we find ourselves in. I agree. Both parties share the blame for this mess. But in the long run, I believe it is the GOP that will pay the ultimate price.
To be fair, this budget fight is nothing new. In fact, according to the American Prospect, the last time this nation had a real budget passed by Congress and signed by the president was in 1997, at the beginning of former President Bill Clinton's second term. Since then, our government has been surviving on a series of "continuing budget resolutions." They have become the new normal. The closest thing we've managed to passing a real budget in recent years was a gargantuan "omnibus" spending bill in 2009. So a budget impasse is nothing new. What IS new this time around is the GOP's decision to hold government hostage by forcing a shutdown until they can wring some concessions from the Democrats -- principally the defunding or complete dismantling of the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare. This is where the GOP is making a huge strategic blunder.
If today's GOP leaders in the House had bothered to study their recent history -- especially in the past 20 years -- they would know that government shutdowns almost never work well for the GOP. The last time the government shut down, 17 years ago, the GOP was blamed. The end result was a strong reelection victory for Clinton in the November election. And it looks like the same thing is beginning to happen now. According to a CNN/ORC poll released today (Monday), 63 percent of respondents are angry at Republicans for the way they are handling the shutdown. I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd say we could safely predict that the GOP will lose control of the House in the 2014 midterms and likely see the Democratic majority in the Senate grow, possibly to a filibuster-proof 60-plus seats. The sad part is, this didn't have to happen.
Republicans can try to pin this shutdown on President Obama and the Democrats as much as they want. They can point out until they're blue in the face that they sent numerous budget proposals over to the Senate in the days preceding the shutdown. But each of those proposals included language that would have permanently defunded or otherwise dismantled Obamacare. They knew those proposals stood no chance of passing the Senate. The Affordable Care Act stands as Obama's singular and most significant achievement. It was unrealistic to think that either the president or his party would do anything to undermine that accomplishment, especially since it had been upheld by a conservative U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year. Nor should they have had to.
Imagine if the roles were reversed. Imagine that a Democratic House had sent the Senate a budget that defunded or dismantled No Child Left Behind, or refused to fund the War on Terror. Does anyone think Republicans would have agreed to those terms? Of course not. And the same principle applies here. The truth is, Congress has had months to pass a budget. Instead of acknowledging defeat on the Obamacare front and actually doing their jobs, House Republicans, led mainly by the Tea Party fringe, have dug in their heels and tried more than 40 times to repeal Obamacare. To make matters worse, the dim bulbs in the House made sure that when the government shut down, THEY would still receive THEIR paychecks. Way to share the suffering with your constituents, fellas.
Maybe the Democrats in the Senate should have been more willing to compromise. Maybe they should have stood above the gamesmanship being played in the House and not engaged in the back and forth with the GOP in an effort to score political points. But when it comes right down to it, it is the GOP that will bear the brunt of the public's wrath for the latest government shutdown and the damage it is doing to our economy, and it is hard to see how it should be any other way. They brought it on themselves.
To be fair, this budget fight is nothing new. In fact, according to the American Prospect, the last time this nation had a real budget passed by Congress and signed by the president was in 1997, at the beginning of former President Bill Clinton's second term. Since then, our government has been surviving on a series of "continuing budget resolutions." They have become the new normal. The closest thing we've managed to passing a real budget in recent years was a gargantuan "omnibus" spending bill in 2009. So a budget impasse is nothing new. What IS new this time around is the GOP's decision to hold government hostage by forcing a shutdown until they can wring some concessions from the Democrats -- principally the defunding or complete dismantling of the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare. This is where the GOP is making a huge strategic blunder.
If today's GOP leaders in the House had bothered to study their recent history -- especially in the past 20 years -- they would know that government shutdowns almost never work well for the GOP. The last time the government shut down, 17 years ago, the GOP was blamed. The end result was a strong reelection victory for Clinton in the November election. And it looks like the same thing is beginning to happen now. According to a CNN/ORC poll released today (Monday), 63 percent of respondents are angry at Republicans for the way they are handling the shutdown. I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd say we could safely predict that the GOP will lose control of the House in the 2014 midterms and likely see the Democratic majority in the Senate grow, possibly to a filibuster-proof 60-plus seats. The sad part is, this didn't have to happen.
Republicans can try to pin this shutdown on President Obama and the Democrats as much as they want. They can point out until they're blue in the face that they sent numerous budget proposals over to the Senate in the days preceding the shutdown. But each of those proposals included language that would have permanently defunded or otherwise dismantled Obamacare. They knew those proposals stood no chance of passing the Senate. The Affordable Care Act stands as Obama's singular and most significant achievement. It was unrealistic to think that either the president or his party would do anything to undermine that accomplishment, especially since it had been upheld by a conservative U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year. Nor should they have had to.
Imagine if the roles were reversed. Imagine that a Democratic House had sent the Senate a budget that defunded or dismantled No Child Left Behind, or refused to fund the War on Terror. Does anyone think Republicans would have agreed to those terms? Of course not. And the same principle applies here. The truth is, Congress has had months to pass a budget. Instead of acknowledging defeat on the Obamacare front and actually doing their jobs, House Republicans, led mainly by the Tea Party fringe, have dug in their heels and tried more than 40 times to repeal Obamacare. To make matters worse, the dim bulbs in the House made sure that when the government shut down, THEY would still receive THEIR paychecks. Way to share the suffering with your constituents, fellas.
Maybe the Democrats in the Senate should have been more willing to compromise. Maybe they should have stood above the gamesmanship being played in the House and not engaged in the back and forth with the GOP in an effort to score political points. But when it comes right down to it, it is the GOP that will bear the brunt of the public's wrath for the latest government shutdown and the damage it is doing to our economy, and it is hard to see how it should be any other way. They brought it on themselves.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
A day to remember
Today marks the 12th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center's Twin Towers and the Pentagon. For many born after the attacks, Sept. 11 has already become part of history. For others, including me and countless others, it was a day that changed America, and the world forever. It was a singular moment that defined a generation. In years to come, it will become the kind of moment where everyone who was alive and conscious will remember where they were and what they were doing on the day the Towers fell. For Generation X'ers, Sept. 11, 2001 was the equivalent of the Kennedy assassination in 1963, or the Challenger explosion.
I remember exactly where I was on that tragic Tuesday morning. I had gotten up early to have breakfast in downtown Jackson, TN, with my best friend, Steve Taranto. At his request, I was walking the final two blocks to work when I saw a coworker, Todd Kleffman, hurrying toward me. He stopped me and told me that I needed to get to work immediately, since an airliner had just hit one of the Twin Towers. I remember my first thought was, "Todd, I haven't had enough caffeine yet. It's too damn early to be joking about stuff like this." Unfortunately, he wasn't joking. When I got to work and walked into the newsroom, I saw every reporter frozen and staring open mouthed at the TV, which was tuned to the "Today" show. On the screen was a picture of the Twin Towers billowing black smoke from two gaping holes -- one in each tower. My executive editor, Dick Schneider, was standing in the middle of the room screaming, "Where are all my fucking reporters? It's 9 o'clock in the fucking morning!" When he caught a glimpse of me, he threw a roster at me and told me to call everyone on the list and "get them here!" So began the most surreal day of my life, professional or otherwise.
In years past, I have attempted on this anniversary to bring some meaning to this tragedy, to try and discern what could be learned from the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil. I don't want to do that today. Today, I think I'd rather take a look back on how Sept. 11, 2001, changed both America and the world.
I think the biggest change wrought by the Sept. 11 attacks is that it forever shattered the illusion that America was somehow immune to terrorism, I can remember, when I was growing up, seeing news stories about suicide bombings in far-flung places like Beirut and hijackings of cruise ships such as the Achille Lauro. I remember the tragedy of Pan Am Flight 103, which was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. All of these were tragic, yes, and I was both shocked and saddened by the senseless loss of life in each case. But each of these incidents happened somewhere else, far away from the safety of our own shores. And after a bit, they each faded from memory. Life continued on. Even close calls such as the attempted bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and direct attacks such as the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya failed to shake the illusion for me, and many others, that it could never happen here. I remember telling a friend that "no one would dare attack America on our own shores." Sept. 11, 2001 changed all that and destroyed our naivete. Not only would they attack us, but they could succeed in doing so.
Sept. 11 also served as a wakeup call as to how our country is perceived by the world. Growing up, I, and many others, bought into former President Ronald Reagan's vision of America as a "shining city on a hill." We were raised to believe that America was the world's knight on a white horse. We were always on the right side of history. We were the good guys. Sept. 11 proved that not everyone in the world thinks that way. There are nations out there who hate us, and whose people would literally die to hurt us. In the Arab world, far from being the "knight on the white horse," we are "The Great Satan."
Sept. 11, 2001, introduced us to new concepts that were old hat to the rest of the world. For the first time, we heard about "Terrorism alerts" and experienced heightened security and armed soldiers standing guard at airports. For the first time, my generation tasted real war, the kind that couldn't be watched on TV, first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq. We saw soldiers being deployed for lengthy deployments. And we began to see our soldiers die.
Sept. 11 shook our nation to its core. It made us question previously held assumptions, and it raised serious questions about how far we were willing to go to protect ourselves. In the months and years following the attack, we ceded unprecedented power to the government with the PATRIOT Act. We began to disturbing reports about our government wiretapping civilians and stories about the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Terms such as "waterboarding" became part of the common lexicon.
And yet, for all that Sept. 11 did to shatter our illusions, some things never changed. The attacks brought us together as a nation in a way that only a national tragedy could. We saw a resurgence in patriotism and a reordering of our priorities. For a while, we tried to bridge the partisan divide. And we saw a renewed appreciation for our police, firefighters, first responders and members of our military.
Sept. 11 tested our nation's resolve, and in the decade-plus since, it has shown us that we are a resilient people. We have rebuilt. Soon, a new Twin Towers will once again grace the Manhattan skyline. We have moved on with our lives, and today, are as prosperous as we've ever been. What I hope we don't do on this somber anniversary and in days to follow is forget. Already, we have a generation of children who have no direct memory of Sept. 11, 2001. To them, it's become part of history. But let's not allow them to forget about those who died, and about the brave emergency personnel -- police, fire, paramedics, first responders all -- who sacrificed and saved untold lives that day. Let's not let them forget about the brave soldiers who fought -- and in some cases died -- in the defense of freedom. Let's not let them forget the hard lessons taught by the tragedy -- primarily that we do not exist in a vacuum are not immune to terrorism. And let them not forget that we are a resilient nation, capable of surviving even the most horrific tragedy. If we can pass those lessons on to future generations, and if we can continue to remember those lessons ourselves, those who died will not have done so in vain.
I remember exactly where I was on that tragic Tuesday morning. I had gotten up early to have breakfast in downtown Jackson, TN, with my best friend, Steve Taranto. At his request, I was walking the final two blocks to work when I saw a coworker, Todd Kleffman, hurrying toward me. He stopped me and told me that I needed to get to work immediately, since an airliner had just hit one of the Twin Towers. I remember my first thought was, "Todd, I haven't had enough caffeine yet. It's too damn early to be joking about stuff like this." Unfortunately, he wasn't joking. When I got to work and walked into the newsroom, I saw every reporter frozen and staring open mouthed at the TV, which was tuned to the "Today" show. On the screen was a picture of the Twin Towers billowing black smoke from two gaping holes -- one in each tower. My executive editor, Dick Schneider, was standing in the middle of the room screaming, "Where are all my fucking reporters? It's 9 o'clock in the fucking morning!" When he caught a glimpse of me, he threw a roster at me and told me to call everyone on the list and "get them here!" So began the most surreal day of my life, professional or otherwise.
In years past, I have attempted on this anniversary to bring some meaning to this tragedy, to try and discern what could be learned from the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil. I don't want to do that today. Today, I think I'd rather take a look back on how Sept. 11, 2001, changed both America and the world.
I think the biggest change wrought by the Sept. 11 attacks is that it forever shattered the illusion that America was somehow immune to terrorism, I can remember, when I was growing up, seeing news stories about suicide bombings in far-flung places like Beirut and hijackings of cruise ships such as the Achille Lauro. I remember the tragedy of Pan Am Flight 103, which was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. All of these were tragic, yes, and I was both shocked and saddened by the senseless loss of life in each case. But each of these incidents happened somewhere else, far away from the safety of our own shores. And after a bit, they each faded from memory. Life continued on. Even close calls such as the attempted bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and direct attacks such as the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya failed to shake the illusion for me, and many others, that it could never happen here. I remember telling a friend that "no one would dare attack America on our own shores." Sept. 11, 2001 changed all that and destroyed our naivete. Not only would they attack us, but they could succeed in doing so.
Sept. 11 also served as a wakeup call as to how our country is perceived by the world. Growing up, I, and many others, bought into former President Ronald Reagan's vision of America as a "shining city on a hill." We were raised to believe that America was the world's knight on a white horse. We were always on the right side of history. We were the good guys. Sept. 11 proved that not everyone in the world thinks that way. There are nations out there who hate us, and whose people would literally die to hurt us. In the Arab world, far from being the "knight on the white horse," we are "The Great Satan."
Sept. 11, 2001, introduced us to new concepts that were old hat to the rest of the world. For the first time, we heard about "Terrorism alerts" and experienced heightened security and armed soldiers standing guard at airports. For the first time, my generation tasted real war, the kind that couldn't be watched on TV, first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq. We saw soldiers being deployed for lengthy deployments. And we began to see our soldiers die.
Sept. 11 shook our nation to its core. It made us question previously held assumptions, and it raised serious questions about how far we were willing to go to protect ourselves. In the months and years following the attack, we ceded unprecedented power to the government with the PATRIOT Act. We began to disturbing reports about our government wiretapping civilians and stories about the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Terms such as "waterboarding" became part of the common lexicon.
And yet, for all that Sept. 11 did to shatter our illusions, some things never changed. The attacks brought us together as a nation in a way that only a national tragedy could. We saw a resurgence in patriotism and a reordering of our priorities. For a while, we tried to bridge the partisan divide. And we saw a renewed appreciation for our police, firefighters, first responders and members of our military.
Sept. 11 tested our nation's resolve, and in the decade-plus since, it has shown us that we are a resilient people. We have rebuilt. Soon, a new Twin Towers will once again grace the Manhattan skyline. We have moved on with our lives, and today, are as prosperous as we've ever been. What I hope we don't do on this somber anniversary and in days to follow is forget. Already, we have a generation of children who have no direct memory of Sept. 11, 2001. To them, it's become part of history. But let's not allow them to forget about those who died, and about the brave emergency personnel -- police, fire, paramedics, first responders all -- who sacrificed and saved untold lives that day. Let's not let them forget about the brave soldiers who fought -- and in some cases died -- in the defense of freedom. Let's not let them forget the hard lessons taught by the tragedy -- primarily that we do not exist in a vacuum are not immune to terrorism. And let them not forget that we are a resilient nation, capable of surviving even the most horrific tragedy. If we can pass those lessons on to future generations, and if we can continue to remember those lessons ourselves, those who died will not have done so in vain.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Despite progress, King's dream not yet fully realized
Fifty years ago today, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech to a throng of 250,000 people gathered on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. It is perhaps the finest speech ever given, especially when you consider that the famous "I have a dream" refrain was improvised on the spot. There's no doubt that the speech galvanized the civil rights movement. Less than a year after King spoke at the March on Washington, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, which once and for all outlawed racial discrimination in this country. And a year after that, the Voting Rights Act became law. Clearly, King's speech made a lasting difference. But 50 years later, I think it's fair to ask if King's dream -- an inspiring vision of racial harmony and equality -- has yet been fully realized. Sadly, I think the answer is still "no."
A lot has changed for the better in the past half century. Today, blacks and other minorities enjoy opportunities undreamed of by their parents and grandparents. Today, every American, regardless of race, has a chance to receive a quality education. Universities and other institutions of higher learning that once were closed to everyone but whites are now open to everyone. Today, blacks and other minorities serve in all levels of government -- something unheard of a half century ago. In 2008, our nation celebrated a milestone by electing our first black president in Barack Obama. That's something that many Americans -- including me -- never thought we'd see in our lifetimes.
Today, anyone with a dream and the drive to make it happen can succeed, if only they take advantage of the myriad opportunities available to them. Still, as much as things have changed for the better in the past 50 years, now is no time to become complacent. A lot has been accomplished, yes. But we still have a long way to go to fully realize King's vision.
We know we still have a long way to go when we have those who would rather sit on their front porch drinking their beer and blaming "the system" for keeping them down and in poverty instead of getting up and taking advantage of the opportunities that their parents and grandparents fought to provide them. We know we still have a long way to go when the prevailing attitudes in some communities is that becoming educated is "too white," and therefore a bad thing. We know we still have a long way to go when racial profiling is still a problem and innocent young black men such as Trayvon Martin can't walk down the street without fearing for their lives. And we know we still have a long way to go when the U.S. Supreme Court blindly assumes that time alone has healed the racial divide in America and guts the Voting Rights Act. Still need proof that "the dream" is not yet fully realized? Consider what happened after the Court announced its ruling on the Voting Rights Act. Texas, and a handful of other states immediately began enacting laws that had once been rejected by the Justice Department which will have the effect of disenfranchising a large number of minority voters.
Don't misunderstand me. A lot has been accomplished since that hot August day in 1963. And we owe a huge debt of gratitude to those brave civil rights warriors who fought, sometimes even died, to ensure a better future for themselves, their children and their children's children. But if we think that King's dream has been accomplished because of a handful of laws and because we finally elected a black president, we are only fooling ourselves.
King's dream can never be fully realized until every last vestige of racism has been stamped out of the minds and the hearts of every American. Until we can stop looking at each other with fear and suspicion, King's dream must live on. Until we can learn to learn to look at each other honestly -- not as black, white, Asian, Hispanic or Native American, but as people -- King's dream must live on. Until we can divest ourselves of hatred and finally put to rest the stereotypes that divide us, King's dream must live on. In short, until we can "judge each other, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character," we cannot honestly say that King's dream has been fully realized.
A lot has changed for the better in the past half century. Today, blacks and other minorities enjoy opportunities undreamed of by their parents and grandparents. Today, every American, regardless of race, has a chance to receive a quality education. Universities and other institutions of higher learning that once were closed to everyone but whites are now open to everyone. Today, blacks and other minorities serve in all levels of government -- something unheard of a half century ago. In 2008, our nation celebrated a milestone by electing our first black president in Barack Obama. That's something that many Americans -- including me -- never thought we'd see in our lifetimes.
Today, anyone with a dream and the drive to make it happen can succeed, if only they take advantage of the myriad opportunities available to them. Still, as much as things have changed for the better in the past 50 years, now is no time to become complacent. A lot has been accomplished, yes. But we still have a long way to go to fully realize King's vision.
We know we still have a long way to go when we have those who would rather sit on their front porch drinking their beer and blaming "the system" for keeping them down and in poverty instead of getting up and taking advantage of the opportunities that their parents and grandparents fought to provide them. We know we still have a long way to go when the prevailing attitudes in some communities is that becoming educated is "too white," and therefore a bad thing. We know we still have a long way to go when racial profiling is still a problem and innocent young black men such as Trayvon Martin can't walk down the street without fearing for their lives. And we know we still have a long way to go when the U.S. Supreme Court blindly assumes that time alone has healed the racial divide in America and guts the Voting Rights Act. Still need proof that "the dream" is not yet fully realized? Consider what happened after the Court announced its ruling on the Voting Rights Act. Texas, and a handful of other states immediately began enacting laws that had once been rejected by the Justice Department which will have the effect of disenfranchising a large number of minority voters.
Don't misunderstand me. A lot has been accomplished since that hot August day in 1963. And we owe a huge debt of gratitude to those brave civil rights warriors who fought, sometimes even died, to ensure a better future for themselves, their children and their children's children. But if we think that King's dream has been accomplished because of a handful of laws and because we finally elected a black president, we are only fooling ourselves.
King's dream can never be fully realized until every last vestige of racism has been stamped out of the minds and the hearts of every American. Until we can stop looking at each other with fear and suspicion, King's dream must live on. Until we can learn to learn to look at each other honestly -- not as black, white, Asian, Hispanic or Native American, but as people -- King's dream must live on. Until we can divest ourselves of hatred and finally put to rest the stereotypes that divide us, King's dream must live on. In short, until we can "judge each other, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character," we cannot honestly say that King's dream has been fully realized.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
'One-size-fits-all' justice not appropriate in every case
The news has been all awash this week with news about baseball's Biogenesis scandal, and, in particular, Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez. Major League Baseball has been fighting for a decade now to rid itself of the taint of performance-enhancing drugs, and Monday, MLB Commissioner Bud Selig took a major step in the right direction when he lowered the boom on 13 players, including All-Stars Nelson Cruz of the Texas Rangers and Jhonny Peralta of the Detroit Tigers. Twelve players received suspensions of 50 games. And Rodriguez? He was hit with the stiffest penalty since Pete Rose accepted a lifetime ban from the game two decades ago after it was found he bet on baseball while managing the Cincinnati Reds. Rodriguez was suspended for 211 games -- the remainder of this season and all of next year. He's appealing, refusing to admit he did anything wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. In my mind, he needs to shut up and go away. The more he talks, the more he's hurting the game he claims to love so much. But I guess we shouldn't be surprised by Rodriguez' actions. He is, after all, the most selfish player of his generation.
One of the interesting debates that has arisen out of the Biogenesis mess is the role our professional athletes play in our society as role models to today's youth. There are many who feel that Rodriguez deserved a lifetime ban from baseball. I agree, but it isn't just because he cheated by using performance-enhancing drugs. Rodriguez deserved a lifetime ban because he's a repeat offender. He admitted he used PEDs between 2001-2003 while a member of the Texas Rangers. At the time he finally came clean about that, he promised that he would steer clear of PEDs from then on. As we now know, he lied.
Rodriguez also deserves a lifetime ban because he lied to investigators after MLB began looking into allegations surrounding Biogenesis in January. Worse, according to the commissioner's office, he actively sought to hinder the investigation. Rodriguez is a selfish, self-centered narcissist. Through his words, and more important, through his actions, he has shown himself unworthy to play baseball. He should be banned, and every one of his records, including his 647 home runs should be stricken from the record books.
Unfortunately, not every case is as clear-cut as Rodriguez'. There are many who believe that the only way to clean up the game is for MLB to adopt a "zero tolerance" policy -- one time getting caught using PEDs or other illegal substances and you're automatically gone for life. While that sounds good in theory, I don't think a "one-size-fits-all" approach to justice works here.
To begin with, baseball's history is littered with big names that probably would never have seen the light of day in today's game. Babe Ruth, besides being one of the greatest home run hitters ever, was a known drunk womanizer and carouser. Ty Cobb, though he didn't start drinking until after his playing days, was allegedly a violent racist. More recently, Steve Howe violated MLB's anti-drug policy seven times while fighting a cocaine addiction. And both Dwight "Doc" Gooden and Darryl Strawberry -- two of the most famous players of modern times -- have struggled with addiction issues for years. Should these players have been banned for life because of their personal demons? That depends.
I understand, and fundamentally agree with the idea that professional athletes -- because they're in the public eye and make so much money -- should be held to a higher standard. Professional athletes DO need to understand that with their fame comes the responsibility of being role models to millions of impressionable youths. I also agree that today's youth need to be made to understand that bad choices have real consequences.
But those who are focused only on the punishment aspect of the Biogenesis case are missing the other valuable lesson that can come out of this mess: The power of forgiveness and redemption. Yes, young people do need to be taught that their actions have consequences. And athletes who transgress by using illegal substances such as cocaine SHOULD be punished. But here's the truth: Athletes, for all their otherworldly skills, are human. And as humans, they make mistakes, just like the rest of us. If we are going to expect perfection from our athletes with a "zero tolerance" policy, it won't be long before there are very few professional athletes left.
A better approach would be to judge each case on an individual basis. If you have an athlete that tests positive for cocaine, for instance, offer that player a chance to get treatment at MLB's expense. If he accepts, send him to treatment and when he returns, drug test him regularly and require that he attend counseling. On a second offense, again extend the olive branch of treatment, but this time, tack on a suspension of a minimum 100 games. When he returns, double the frequency of drug testing and continue with the counseling. On his third offense, ban him for life. This approach not only recognizes that a player has a real, definable illness, but puts the responsibility for getting better and continuing his career squarely on the player's shoulders, where it belongs. In my mind, it is the right mix of compassion and consequences.
As for those caught using PEDs, again each case should be judged individually and on its own merits. In this case, it all revolves around a player's intent. If a player tests positive for steroids, but can show a legitimate reason for the positive test -- receiving a steroid shot as part of a legitimate medical treatment, for instance -- then no foul. If, however, it can be conclusively shown that the player took PEDs to try and gain an unfair competitive advantage -- as in Rodriguez' case, then ban them for life and wipe any records they might have set from the record books.
Alex Rodriguez is a cheater and a disgrace to the game of baseball. He has more than earned his suspension, and I sincerely hope it puts and end to his career and keeps him from ever getting into the Hall of Fame. But for every Rodriguez, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, there are plenty of great players who are struggling with their personal demons. Those people deserve punishment for their transgressions, yes, but they also are deserving of our compassion and an opportunity to get their lives and career back on track.
It's that sense of compassion that I hope doesn't get lost in all the controversy surrounding Biogenesis and Rodriguez. Yes, those who got caught deserve to be punished, even to be banned for life. But as important as it is to teach the next generation that actions have consequences, it's equally important to teach them that one mistake doesn't have to define your entire life. It's important to teach them that forgiveness, and even redemption, is possible.
One of the interesting debates that has arisen out of the Biogenesis mess is the role our professional athletes play in our society as role models to today's youth. There are many who feel that Rodriguez deserved a lifetime ban from baseball. I agree, but it isn't just because he cheated by using performance-enhancing drugs. Rodriguez deserved a lifetime ban because he's a repeat offender. He admitted he used PEDs between 2001-2003 while a member of the Texas Rangers. At the time he finally came clean about that, he promised that he would steer clear of PEDs from then on. As we now know, he lied.
Rodriguez also deserves a lifetime ban because he lied to investigators after MLB began looking into allegations surrounding Biogenesis in January. Worse, according to the commissioner's office, he actively sought to hinder the investigation. Rodriguez is a selfish, self-centered narcissist. Through his words, and more important, through his actions, he has shown himself unworthy to play baseball. He should be banned, and every one of his records, including his 647 home runs should be stricken from the record books.
Unfortunately, not every case is as clear-cut as Rodriguez'. There are many who believe that the only way to clean up the game is for MLB to adopt a "zero tolerance" policy -- one time getting caught using PEDs or other illegal substances and you're automatically gone for life. While that sounds good in theory, I don't think a "one-size-fits-all" approach to justice works here.
To begin with, baseball's history is littered with big names that probably would never have seen the light of day in today's game. Babe Ruth, besides being one of the greatest home run hitters ever, was a known drunk womanizer and carouser. Ty Cobb, though he didn't start drinking until after his playing days, was allegedly a violent racist. More recently, Steve Howe violated MLB's anti-drug policy seven times while fighting a cocaine addiction. And both Dwight "Doc" Gooden and Darryl Strawberry -- two of the most famous players of modern times -- have struggled with addiction issues for years. Should these players have been banned for life because of their personal demons? That depends.
I understand, and fundamentally agree with the idea that professional athletes -- because they're in the public eye and make so much money -- should be held to a higher standard. Professional athletes DO need to understand that with their fame comes the responsibility of being role models to millions of impressionable youths. I also agree that today's youth need to be made to understand that bad choices have real consequences.
But those who are focused only on the punishment aspect of the Biogenesis case are missing the other valuable lesson that can come out of this mess: The power of forgiveness and redemption. Yes, young people do need to be taught that their actions have consequences. And athletes who transgress by using illegal substances such as cocaine SHOULD be punished. But here's the truth: Athletes, for all their otherworldly skills, are human. And as humans, they make mistakes, just like the rest of us. If we are going to expect perfection from our athletes with a "zero tolerance" policy, it won't be long before there are very few professional athletes left.
A better approach would be to judge each case on an individual basis. If you have an athlete that tests positive for cocaine, for instance, offer that player a chance to get treatment at MLB's expense. If he accepts, send him to treatment and when he returns, drug test him regularly and require that he attend counseling. On a second offense, again extend the olive branch of treatment, but this time, tack on a suspension of a minimum 100 games. When he returns, double the frequency of drug testing and continue with the counseling. On his third offense, ban him for life. This approach not only recognizes that a player has a real, definable illness, but puts the responsibility for getting better and continuing his career squarely on the player's shoulders, where it belongs. In my mind, it is the right mix of compassion and consequences.
As for those caught using PEDs, again each case should be judged individually and on its own merits. In this case, it all revolves around a player's intent. If a player tests positive for steroids, but can show a legitimate reason for the positive test -- receiving a steroid shot as part of a legitimate medical treatment, for instance -- then no foul. If, however, it can be conclusively shown that the player took PEDs to try and gain an unfair competitive advantage -- as in Rodriguez' case, then ban them for life and wipe any records they might have set from the record books.
Alex Rodriguez is a cheater and a disgrace to the game of baseball. He has more than earned his suspension, and I sincerely hope it puts and end to his career and keeps him from ever getting into the Hall of Fame. But for every Rodriguez, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, there are plenty of great players who are struggling with their personal demons. Those people deserve punishment for their transgressions, yes, but they also are deserving of our compassion and an opportunity to get their lives and career back on track.
It's that sense of compassion that I hope doesn't get lost in all the controversy surrounding Biogenesis and Rodriguez. Yes, those who got caught deserve to be punished, even to be banned for life. But as important as it is to teach the next generation that actions have consequences, it's equally important to teach them that one mistake doesn't have to define your entire life. It's important to teach them that forgiveness, and even redemption, is possible.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Is Bradley Manning a traitor?
Yesterday, a verdict finally came down in the trial of Pfc, Bradley Manning, who stood accused of releasing thousands of pages of classified documents to WikiLeaks, a Web site dedicated to exposing government secrets. Not surprisingly, Manning was acquitted of the most serious charge, aiding the enemy -- after all, it's impossible to get inside his head and know for certain what his intent was in leaking the documents -- but he still faces up to 136 years in prison on a host of other charges, including espionage and theft. The verdict, though not the potential sentence, seems fair to me. After all, it is indisputable that Manning did steal classified documents. He admitted as much himself. It's also indisputable that some of what he released did end up on a laptop used by former al-Qaida mastermind Osama bin Laden.
It's too early to tell what impact Manning's actions will ultimately have on our national security, yet many Americans have already branded Manning a traitor. Is Manning a traitor? Or is he, as some claim, a folk hero, a martyr who is paying the price for exposing government corruption? That's an interesting question for which there are no easy answers.
On the one hand, we are a nation of laws, and it's clear, by his own admission, that Manning knowingly and willfully broke those laws. He knew the risk involved in taking and releasing those documents and he chose to do it anyway. In the vast majority of cases, the Espionage Act under which he was tried serves to protect sensitive government secrets from falling into the hands of those who wish to harm us.
But Manning's case is anything but typical. He claimed that his motives were altruistic, that he was acting as a patriot in exposing wrongdoing by our government. If this is, in fact, the case -- and who's to say it's not, since we can't get inside his head and ever really know his motives -- is he still a traitor?
Our history is replete with instances of well-meaning, patriotic Americans risking everything to expose government corruption. There's Edward Snowden, the so-called "NSA leaker," who earlier this year revealed that the government had programs in place to spy on average Americans and, in fact, had been doing so. In the 1970s, you had Daniel Ellsberg, who released classified documents, collectively known as "The Pentagon Papers" showing that the Kennedy and Johnson administrations knew early on that the Vietnam War was likely a lost cause, and that it would involve far greater casualties than they ever admitted publicly. Those papers also showed conclusively that President Lyndon Baines Johnson lied not only to Congress, but also to the American people. And now you have Bradley Manning. So is Manning a traitor? That depends on how you interpret his actions.
If you take a strict "law and order" approach in viewing Manning's actions, then he is, without question a traitor who wrongly stole classified documents and released them without permission, But just as in most things in life, this is hardly a "black and white" issue. Manning claims he had altruistic motives for his actions, a claim bolstered by two now-famous video clips which show two different mistaken attacks on civilians by U.S. forces. Experts claim that Manning's actions helped lead to the "Arab Spring" uprisings in 2011, which, among other things, led to the overthrow of dictators Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Muammar Gaddafi in Libya and Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen, So if something good came out of Manning's actions, and since we can't disprove his claims of altruism as his motive, is Manning a traitor? The short answer, I think, is, "It depends."
I think it is impossible to apply a uniform standard of justice to each and every espionage case. In most cases, where the mole is seeking only to enrich himself at the expense of our national security, then the harsh penalties prescribed under the Espionage Act are justified. In cases like Manning's, though, where undeniable good came from his actions, it's harder to judge. Should the government be able to hide the fact that it mistakenly attacked two different groups of civilians? Or does the public have a right to know? Snowden's disclosures exposed a government so riddled with paranoia that it was spying on its own citizens in the name of national security. It smacks a little too much of Communist Russia and other dictatorships throughout history for my taste, and should never happen in a free society. And Ellsberg? By releasing the Pentagon Papers, he helped bring an end to our ill-advised involvement in the Vietnam War and saved countless American lives. It's a conflict we should never have gotten involved with in the first place.
In short, I don't think every case of "espionage" can be judged by the same uniform standard. While some, who are just in it for themselves and what they can get out of it, deserve the full wrath of the law thrown at them, I believe "whistleblowers" such as Ellsberg, Snowden, and yes, Manning, have a place, heck are even essential, in a free, democratic society. The material released by these men might make us uncomfortable. It might embarrass others. But having men and women who are brave enough to expose government lies and corruption is an important part of holding our leaders accountable. Is Bradley Manning a traitor? For my money, the answer is no. In fact, I admire his willingness to stand up and pull back the curtain, even just a little, on the clandestine goings on in our government. He stood on a principle, and now, it has likely cost him the rest of his life in prison. Far from being a traitor, he is someone to be admired, someone who had the courage of his convictions and was willing to pay the price for them. We should all have such strength of conviction. If we did, and were willing to go to the mat doing what was right, our country, if not the entire world, would be a better place.
It's too early to tell what impact Manning's actions will ultimately have on our national security, yet many Americans have already branded Manning a traitor. Is Manning a traitor? Or is he, as some claim, a folk hero, a martyr who is paying the price for exposing government corruption? That's an interesting question for which there are no easy answers.
On the one hand, we are a nation of laws, and it's clear, by his own admission, that Manning knowingly and willfully broke those laws. He knew the risk involved in taking and releasing those documents and he chose to do it anyway. In the vast majority of cases, the Espionage Act under which he was tried serves to protect sensitive government secrets from falling into the hands of those who wish to harm us.
But Manning's case is anything but typical. He claimed that his motives were altruistic, that he was acting as a patriot in exposing wrongdoing by our government. If this is, in fact, the case -- and who's to say it's not, since we can't get inside his head and ever really know his motives -- is he still a traitor?
Our history is replete with instances of well-meaning, patriotic Americans risking everything to expose government corruption. There's Edward Snowden, the so-called "NSA leaker," who earlier this year revealed that the government had programs in place to spy on average Americans and, in fact, had been doing so. In the 1970s, you had Daniel Ellsberg, who released classified documents, collectively known as "The Pentagon Papers" showing that the Kennedy and Johnson administrations knew early on that the Vietnam War was likely a lost cause, and that it would involve far greater casualties than they ever admitted publicly. Those papers also showed conclusively that President Lyndon Baines Johnson lied not only to Congress, but also to the American people. And now you have Bradley Manning. So is Manning a traitor? That depends on how you interpret his actions.
If you take a strict "law and order" approach in viewing Manning's actions, then he is, without question a traitor who wrongly stole classified documents and released them without permission, But just as in most things in life, this is hardly a "black and white" issue. Manning claims he had altruistic motives for his actions, a claim bolstered by two now-famous video clips which show two different mistaken attacks on civilians by U.S. forces. Experts claim that Manning's actions helped lead to the "Arab Spring" uprisings in 2011, which, among other things, led to the overthrow of dictators Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Muammar Gaddafi in Libya and Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen, So if something good came out of Manning's actions, and since we can't disprove his claims of altruism as his motive, is Manning a traitor? The short answer, I think, is, "It depends."
I think it is impossible to apply a uniform standard of justice to each and every espionage case. In most cases, where the mole is seeking only to enrich himself at the expense of our national security, then the harsh penalties prescribed under the Espionage Act are justified. In cases like Manning's, though, where undeniable good came from his actions, it's harder to judge. Should the government be able to hide the fact that it mistakenly attacked two different groups of civilians? Or does the public have a right to know? Snowden's disclosures exposed a government so riddled with paranoia that it was spying on its own citizens in the name of national security. It smacks a little too much of Communist Russia and other dictatorships throughout history for my taste, and should never happen in a free society. And Ellsberg? By releasing the Pentagon Papers, he helped bring an end to our ill-advised involvement in the Vietnam War and saved countless American lives. It's a conflict we should never have gotten involved with in the first place.
In short, I don't think every case of "espionage" can be judged by the same uniform standard. While some, who are just in it for themselves and what they can get out of it, deserve the full wrath of the law thrown at them, I believe "whistleblowers" such as Ellsberg, Snowden, and yes, Manning, have a place, heck are even essential, in a free, democratic society. The material released by these men might make us uncomfortable. It might embarrass others. But having men and women who are brave enough to expose government lies and corruption is an important part of holding our leaders accountable. Is Bradley Manning a traitor? For my money, the answer is no. In fact, I admire his willingness to stand up and pull back the curtain, even just a little, on the clandestine goings on in our government. He stood on a principle, and now, it has likely cost him the rest of his life in prison. Far from being a traitor, he is someone to be admired, someone who had the courage of his convictions and was willing to pay the price for them. We should all have such strength of conviction. If we did, and were willing to go to the mat doing what was right, our country, if not the entire world, would be a better place.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Zimmerman travesty shows we have a long way still to go
I was shocked and angered Saturday night by the "not guilty" verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman, who stood accused of killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin 18 months ago. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Zimmerman got away with murder. His claims of self-defense are laughable, at best. At the very least, he should have been convicted of manslaughter. As it stands now, an innocent 17-year-old is dead, and there's no justice for his family, who now has to watch his killer walk free. It's a tragedy. No, it's a travesty.
For those few who hadn't been keeping up with the sensational case, George Zimmerman is a Hispanic neighborhood watch captain from Sanford, Fla. One night, in February 2012, he spotted Martin walking home from a snack run. He was dressed in a hoodie and walking through an exclusive gated community, where he happened to be staying, so Zimmerman decided he was up to no good and started following him. This is where it gets hazy. After confronting Martin, Zimmerman says the teen attacked him, so he shot him to save his own life. However, there was some dispute during the trial over who could be heard screaming for help on the recording of the 911 call. Martin's family says it was Trayvon, while Zimmerman's family claims it was Zimmerman. Either way, in the end, Martin ended up dead. And now his admitted killer walks free.
Some people would like to pretend that this case had nothing to do with race. According to this narrative, which was advanced by Zimmerman's defense team, he was simply "standing his ground," as allowed under Florida's ill-advised "Stand Your Ground" law. According to this narrative, Zimmerman was simply defending himself from a menacing black teen. That's hogwash. Here's the harsh truth. Trayvon Martin was killed for one reason and one reason only: He was a young black male walking through the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time.
Here's some more truth. Martin was an honor student with no prior criminal history. At the time of his murder, he was "armed" with nothing more menacing than a bag of Skittles and a can or Arizona watermelon iced tea. At no time during the five-week trial was there any evidence presented that Martin was a thug. Nor was there any evidence presented suggesting a motive for the supposed attack. So how does this qualify as self-defense? Answer: It doesn't. The truth is, Martin is dead because Zimmerman was afraid of him. He wrongly profiled Martin, assuming that because of the way he was dressed and where he was, he was "up to no good." He acted on that fear, and now an innocent young man is dead.
Zimmerman's supporters like to say that because the jury found him innocent, he did nothing wrong. They like to say that because the jury said so, Martin's death wasn't murder, but self-defense. Those people are wrong, just as the jury was wrong in its verdict. Juries are fallible. They make mistakes, and in this case it appears they simply ignored the evidence in coming to the wrong conclusion.
Under our justice system, Zimmerman is a free man. Because of double jeopardy, he can't be retried on criminal charges, even if new evidence came to light that proved conclusively it was murder. So what happens now? Should we simply move on? Should we simply turn our attention to the next sensational trial to come down the pike? For our sake, I hope we don't. I hope we take the time to digest what has happened and try to learn something from the tragedy of Martin's untimely death.
I hope this tragedy, once and for all, shatters the illusion that we are living in a "post-racial era." Have we made progress since the time of "Jim Crow?" Of course we have. We have made giant strides. Today, our schools are no longer "separate but equal." Public facilities are no longer segregated. Today, minorities are serving in every level of government. In 2008, our nation elected its first black president. That's something I never thought I'd see in my lifetime. Today, blacks and other minorities have more opportunity to succeed than their parents and grandparents could have dreamed of. And yet, if we say that we have overcome racism, that it no longer exists and is no longer a problem, we are only fooling ourselves.
The one thing that the Trayvon Martin case should make crystal clear is that, despite all the advances minorities have made in the last half century, racist attitudes still persist. I'm not talking about the overtly racist attitudes of years past, either -- the idea that minorities are inferior, even subhuman, for instance. I'm talking about the more subtle racist attitudes: The idea that all young black males are beer-guzzling, lazy, promiscuous ne'er-do-wells. The idea that young black males are inherently dangerous and we should lock our doors or keep our hands on our wallets when they walk by. Or, as in this case, the idea that a young black male in a hoodie is automatically a thug.
How do we begin to change those attitudes? It has to begin at home with parents. Parents have to teach their children not to judge others based solely on race or appearance. Teach them instead to judge others based on their actions, and even then only after getting to know that person.
Another way to change our racist attitudes -- and make no mistake, we all have biases -- is through exposure. In other words, we need to get out of our comfort zone and seek out friends from different races, ethnicities, sexual orientations and backgrounds. I know it's easier and more comfortable, even natural, to gravitate to those who look like us or who come from similar backgrounds. But if we only associate with those who look like us, who think like us, we will never understand why people in other groups think as they do. We will never understand why they do what they do. Our understanding will only be informed by what we're told by others. It's that kind of ignorance that breeds fear, and it's that type of fear that ultimately cost Trayvon Martin his life.
For those few who hadn't been keeping up with the sensational case, George Zimmerman is a Hispanic neighborhood watch captain from Sanford, Fla. One night, in February 2012, he spotted Martin walking home from a snack run. He was dressed in a hoodie and walking through an exclusive gated community, where he happened to be staying, so Zimmerman decided he was up to no good and started following him. This is where it gets hazy. After confronting Martin, Zimmerman says the teen attacked him, so he shot him to save his own life. However, there was some dispute during the trial over who could be heard screaming for help on the recording of the 911 call. Martin's family says it was Trayvon, while Zimmerman's family claims it was Zimmerman. Either way, in the end, Martin ended up dead. And now his admitted killer walks free.
Some people would like to pretend that this case had nothing to do with race. According to this narrative, which was advanced by Zimmerman's defense team, he was simply "standing his ground," as allowed under Florida's ill-advised "Stand Your Ground" law. According to this narrative, Zimmerman was simply defending himself from a menacing black teen. That's hogwash. Here's the harsh truth. Trayvon Martin was killed for one reason and one reason only: He was a young black male walking through the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time.
Here's some more truth. Martin was an honor student with no prior criminal history. At the time of his murder, he was "armed" with nothing more menacing than a bag of Skittles and a can or Arizona watermelon iced tea. At no time during the five-week trial was there any evidence presented that Martin was a thug. Nor was there any evidence presented suggesting a motive for the supposed attack. So how does this qualify as self-defense? Answer: It doesn't. The truth is, Martin is dead because Zimmerman was afraid of him. He wrongly profiled Martin, assuming that because of the way he was dressed and where he was, he was "up to no good." He acted on that fear, and now an innocent young man is dead.
Zimmerman's supporters like to say that because the jury found him innocent, he did nothing wrong. They like to say that because the jury said so, Martin's death wasn't murder, but self-defense. Those people are wrong, just as the jury was wrong in its verdict. Juries are fallible. They make mistakes, and in this case it appears they simply ignored the evidence in coming to the wrong conclusion.
Under our justice system, Zimmerman is a free man. Because of double jeopardy, he can't be retried on criminal charges, even if new evidence came to light that proved conclusively it was murder. So what happens now? Should we simply move on? Should we simply turn our attention to the next sensational trial to come down the pike? For our sake, I hope we don't. I hope we take the time to digest what has happened and try to learn something from the tragedy of Martin's untimely death.
I hope this tragedy, once and for all, shatters the illusion that we are living in a "post-racial era." Have we made progress since the time of "Jim Crow?" Of course we have. We have made giant strides. Today, our schools are no longer "separate but equal." Public facilities are no longer segregated. Today, minorities are serving in every level of government. In 2008, our nation elected its first black president. That's something I never thought I'd see in my lifetime. Today, blacks and other minorities have more opportunity to succeed than their parents and grandparents could have dreamed of. And yet, if we say that we have overcome racism, that it no longer exists and is no longer a problem, we are only fooling ourselves.
The one thing that the Trayvon Martin case should make crystal clear is that, despite all the advances minorities have made in the last half century, racist attitudes still persist. I'm not talking about the overtly racist attitudes of years past, either -- the idea that minorities are inferior, even subhuman, for instance. I'm talking about the more subtle racist attitudes: The idea that all young black males are beer-guzzling, lazy, promiscuous ne'er-do-wells. The idea that young black males are inherently dangerous and we should lock our doors or keep our hands on our wallets when they walk by. Or, as in this case, the idea that a young black male in a hoodie is automatically a thug.
How do we begin to change those attitudes? It has to begin at home with parents. Parents have to teach their children not to judge others based solely on race or appearance. Teach them instead to judge others based on their actions, and even then only after getting to know that person.
Another way to change our racist attitudes -- and make no mistake, we all have biases -- is through exposure. In other words, we need to get out of our comfort zone and seek out friends from different races, ethnicities, sexual orientations and backgrounds. I know it's easier and more comfortable, even natural, to gravitate to those who look like us or who come from similar backgrounds. But if we only associate with those who look like us, who think like us, we will never understand why people in other groups think as they do. We will never understand why they do what they do. Our understanding will only be informed by what we're told by others. It's that kind of ignorance that breeds fear, and it's that type of fear that ultimately cost Trayvon Martin his life.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Supreme Court did right thing for nation's gay community
The U.S. Supreme Court ended its latest session with a bang on Wednesday with a pair of landmark rulings that finally did the right thing for this nation's gay community.
In a pair of 5-4 rulings, justices overturned a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act signed by former President Bill Clinton in 1996 which denied federal benefits to same-sex couples. Justices also ruled the plaintiffs in California's Prop 8 case lacked the standing to appeal the lower court's ruling. That got justices off the hook from having to rule on the controversial issue, but it also had the effect of sending the case back to California. Both the trial courts and the appeals courts there, even the state Supreme Court, had ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional. That opens the door for gay marriages to resume for the first time since 2008.
To me, these decisions represented a pair of no-brainers for the Court. Should gay couples have the right to commit their lives to each other, to leave property to each other if one of them dies or to visit each other in the hospital if one of them is gravely ill? Of course they should. Should they be able to file taxes jointly, or collect their partner's Social Security if they die? Of course. Like I said, this is a no-brainer for any fair-minded, compassionate person. Still, I was surprised that these decisions came from this largely conservative court at this time. Frankly, I never thought it would happen in my lifetime. I'm glad I was wrong.
Of course, not everyone is happy with the Court's ruling. Opponents of gay marriage -- mostly religious fundamentalists and members of this nation's Religious Right, view the rulings as the latest sign of our nation's moral decay. They see granting equality to gay couples as "redefining marriage," or undercutting the very moral foundation of our nation. These people need to take a deep breath and calm down. Let me point out a couple of things.
First, gay marriage will have absolutely no effect on heterosexual marriages at all. Heterosexuals will still be able to get married and start families, just as they always have. In granting marriage rights to gays, the definition of marriage hasn't been "redefined." It's simply been expanded to include a group of people who should always have been included to begin with.
Second, if you want to talk about which group has done more harm to the institution of marriage, we need look no further than heterosexuals. Today, about half of straight marriages end in divorce. Compare that to the gay community, which is filled with couples who have been in committed relationships for years, even decades. So which group is it again that understands the meaning of commitment? (Hint: It's NOT the straight community.)
The problem in discussing gay marriage is that people too often let their religious beliefs get tangled up in the discussion. They look at gay marriage as "an abomination," or otherwise sinful. They actually think that people CHOOSE whether or not to be gay. If you believe that, no wonder you are opposed to gay marriage. Here's the truth.
Homosexuality isn't a choice. This isn't just my opinion, either. There's a growing body of evidence showing that there are real, discernible differences between the brains of gay people and straight people. There's a growing body of evidence that our sexual orientation is hardwired, that it's genetic. In religious terms, homosexuality is just one more bit of diversity in God's amazing, breathtaking creation. In simplest terms, ask yourself: "What person in his or her right mind would wake up one morning and just decide to be gay? What person would knowingly make themselves part of a group that is so hated and misunderstood?" Right. No logical person would.
Once you look at homosexuality that way; once you realize that gay people are normal, with one tiny difference, it's easy to see that the issue isn't about religion. Nor is it an issue of morality. The issue decided by the court was one of basic fairness and equality. The Court's decision might not be popular with all groups, but justices undeniably made the right decision. They made the only decision they could, and our entire nation will benefit from that far-reaching vision.
In a pair of 5-4 rulings, justices overturned a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act signed by former President Bill Clinton in 1996 which denied federal benefits to same-sex couples. Justices also ruled the plaintiffs in California's Prop 8 case lacked the standing to appeal the lower court's ruling. That got justices off the hook from having to rule on the controversial issue, but it also had the effect of sending the case back to California. Both the trial courts and the appeals courts there, even the state Supreme Court, had ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional. That opens the door for gay marriages to resume for the first time since 2008.
To me, these decisions represented a pair of no-brainers for the Court. Should gay couples have the right to commit their lives to each other, to leave property to each other if one of them dies or to visit each other in the hospital if one of them is gravely ill? Of course they should. Should they be able to file taxes jointly, or collect their partner's Social Security if they die? Of course. Like I said, this is a no-brainer for any fair-minded, compassionate person. Still, I was surprised that these decisions came from this largely conservative court at this time. Frankly, I never thought it would happen in my lifetime. I'm glad I was wrong.
Of course, not everyone is happy with the Court's ruling. Opponents of gay marriage -- mostly religious fundamentalists and members of this nation's Religious Right, view the rulings as the latest sign of our nation's moral decay. They see granting equality to gay couples as "redefining marriage," or undercutting the very moral foundation of our nation. These people need to take a deep breath and calm down. Let me point out a couple of things.
First, gay marriage will have absolutely no effect on heterosexual marriages at all. Heterosexuals will still be able to get married and start families, just as they always have. In granting marriage rights to gays, the definition of marriage hasn't been "redefined." It's simply been expanded to include a group of people who should always have been included to begin with.
Second, if you want to talk about which group has done more harm to the institution of marriage, we need look no further than heterosexuals. Today, about half of straight marriages end in divorce. Compare that to the gay community, which is filled with couples who have been in committed relationships for years, even decades. So which group is it again that understands the meaning of commitment? (Hint: It's NOT the straight community.)
The problem in discussing gay marriage is that people too often let their religious beliefs get tangled up in the discussion. They look at gay marriage as "an abomination," or otherwise sinful. They actually think that people CHOOSE whether or not to be gay. If you believe that, no wonder you are opposed to gay marriage. Here's the truth.
Homosexuality isn't a choice. This isn't just my opinion, either. There's a growing body of evidence showing that there are real, discernible differences between the brains of gay people and straight people. There's a growing body of evidence that our sexual orientation is hardwired, that it's genetic. In religious terms, homosexuality is just one more bit of diversity in God's amazing, breathtaking creation. In simplest terms, ask yourself: "What person in his or her right mind would wake up one morning and just decide to be gay? What person would knowingly make themselves part of a group that is so hated and misunderstood?" Right. No logical person would.
Once you look at homosexuality that way; once you realize that gay people are normal, with one tiny difference, it's easy to see that the issue isn't about religion. Nor is it an issue of morality. The issue decided by the court was one of basic fairness and equality. The Court's decision might not be popular with all groups, but justices undeniably made the right decision. They made the only decision they could, and our entire nation will benefit from that far-reaching vision.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Paula Deen, affirmative action and other major happenings
It's been a busy time for those of us who enjoy observing American politics. Far from the summer doldrums, this summer season has been bursting with interesting stories, ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous. There's so much going on, in fact, that I couldn't limit myself to just one topic in my latest post. Instead, I'll touch on each topic, giving my thoughts on each.
The NSA and Edward Snowden: This summer kicked off with a bit of intrigue worthy of a James Bond movie. Earlier this month, it was revealed that Edward Snowden, a 30-year-old former contractor with the National Security Administration had revealed to the public that the government was spying on its citizens through a pair of clandestine programs that tracked both citizens' phone calls and their private e-mails. He did it, he said, to "inform the public of that which is done in their name, and that is which is done against them." Last week, it was revealed that Snowden had landed the job with the NSA with the specific intent of gathering information about the spying programs and revealing it to the public.
The Obama administration, of course, is furious, claiming that Snowden's actions have done serious harm to our national security. In their own defense, they admit to the programs' existence, but insist that the content of those e-mails and phone calls were never being scrutinized. Currently, authorities are engaged in a global game of "Where's Waldo," trying to capture Snowden, who faces espionage charges if apprehended. To date, he has managed to stay one step ahead by nation-hopping to countries that have a strained, at best, relationship with the U.S.
To some, Edward Snowden is clearly a traitor. They defend the government's spying by pointing out that the programs have helped foil dozens of potential terrorist plots. To others, Snowden is a patriot being wrongly persecuted by a nefarious government. To this group, he is this generation's Daniel Ellsburg. Just as Ellsburg's disclosure of the "Pentagon Papers" revealed the truth about U.S. policy in Vietnam and helped bring an end to our involvement there, Snoweden's disclosures have revealed that Obama has continued with, and even expanded, the very Bush-era programs that he decried as a candidate in 2008.
So is Edward Snowden a patriot or a traitor? Well, as easy as it might be to excuse the government's spying on us in the name of national security, I can't help but ask myself, "do the ends justify the means in this case?" The administration claims that the content of the tracked calls and e-mails was never scrutinized, that citizens' privacy was protected. But that doesn't make sense, at least on its surface. And even if the government is telling us the truth, how can we trust them? They lied to us about the continued existence of the programs. And what's to keep them from prying into our personal communications and beginning to scrutinize that content? Having the ability to track Americans' e-mails and phone calls gives the government almost unlimited power over our personal lives, and as a wise man once noted, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Some may disagree with Snowden's methods, but I think in the long run, he will be proven a hero for exposing the government's duplicity. For those who call him a traitor, who are willing to tolerate being spied on so they can feel safe, I would remind them of Benjamin Franklin's famous observation that still holds true today: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
The U.S. Supreme Court and affirmative action: This is the first of a pair of major rulings that have come down from the Court this week. In this case, justices held that affirmative action is still constitutional, but they put strict new limits on its use, saying essentially that colleges and universities now have to exhaust every other avenue for creating a diverse student body before affirmative action can be used.
In my mind, this ruling just made sense. Justices stopped just short of overturning affirmative action. Instead, they are demanding that schools think outside the box and find new ways to ensure diversity before falling back on the easy solution of affirmative action. With this ruling, they also are raising the very real question of whether after four decades of affirmative action, it has actually worked as intended. That's a legitimate question that demands an answer.
I believe scrapping affirmative action at this point would be a mistake. We have come a long way since the 1960s, when the integration of our public universities had to be forced, literally at the point of a gun. Children of my generation and younger went to school with blacks and students of other races. In large part, the prejudices that defined earlier generations no longer dominate the discussion. In fact, many of today's students wonder what the big deal is. That's progress. But racism, sadly has not disappeared completely. As long as it exists, we need tools to keep us from giving in to our baser instincts, to ensure that students of all races and backgrounds have an equal opportunity at higher education.
Justices are right that we cannot continue to move forward blindly with affirmative action without making sure it has worked as intended. Perhaps we do need to find new ways to create diversity in our public colleges and universities. But while the need for affirmative action isn't as urgent as it once was, we have not yet reached the point where it is no longer needed. The justices got it right in this case.
The U.S. Supreme Court and the Voting Rights Act: In perhaps the biggest case to come out of the Supreme Court this session, a 5-4 court on Tuesday struck down Section 5 of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. That key section, often called the "backbone" of the Voting Rights Act, required states included in the act -- nine states and parts of six others , mostly in the South -- get federal approval before making any changes to their voting practices. On Tuesday, justices said that requirement was based on an outdated formula -- it was last updated in 1972 -- that failed to take into account the seismic shift that had taken place on the civil rights front in the last 50 years. Although the Court left the door open for Congress to update the formula and restore federal oversight, even congressional supporters of the act say passing new legislation is a very long shot, at best.
This decision should come as no surprise to anyone who has watched the Court in recent years. They have been moving this way incrementally for a long time, and today's ruling was the climax of the court packing that took place under former President George W. Bush.
It strikes me as odd that the same Court that just the day before allowed affirmative action to stand, although with new limits, would take such radical action when it comes to voting rights. The same court that still sees the need for affirmative action (though in a reduced role) to ensure diversity in higher education is going to trust states -- especially states with long histories of voter discrimination -- to regulate their own affairs when it comes to voting? Odd.
It's true that this country has come a long way in terms of civil rights since the Voting Rights Act was first enacted. But what proof do we have that giving these states back the right to regulate their own voting won't result in the clock being turned back 50 years now that no one's watching?
I understand justices' logic in saying the formula behind the provision should have been updated to reflect current realities. But it seems to me that a more prudent approach would have been to wean the affected states of federal supervision over a number of years instead of removing it all at once. Let them prove they are committed to voter equality before giving them back full control. As it now stands, it will be almost impossible for the federal government to reassert control now that it's gone. And while we may, indeed, be ready to run our own affairs in the South, I believe the Court acted very prematurely in this case.
Paula Deen: This may be the most ridiculous story that has gained traction in the last couple of weeks. The celebrity chef is in hot water because she admitted during a recent deposition that she had uttered "the N word" in the past. Deen is being sued by one her former restaurant managers for fostering a hostile work environment, where, she says, racial epithets and sexual harassment were commonplace. So far, despite repeated apologies, Deen's admission that she used the word in the past has cost her her contract with Food Network and an endorsement deal with Smithfield Hams.
To be clear, I do not approve of "the N word," and I don't approve of its use in any situation. I don't even approve of its use when it's used by the black community in an attempt to "rob it of its power." It's a bad, offensive word that should never be used by anyone. Ever.
That being said, I find this whole controversy surrounding Deen to be patently ridiculous. In the first place, what we haven't been told is how long ago she used "the N word." Was it a week ago? Six months ago? A year ago? 20 years ago? Was it used one time? Or did she have a pattern of using it? We all have said things that we regretted. If it was used recently, that's one thing. If she used it one time 20 years ago, then why are we even talking about this? It's irrelevant to who she is now.
The other thing that people aren't taking into account is Deen's age. She's 66, and the South she was raised in was very different than the South she lives in today. Deen was raised in a time when it was acceptable, even commonplace, for blacks to be referred to as "coloreds," "Negroes," and yes, even the "N word." As a young woman, she would have seen nothing wrong with using these terms. In fact, chances are good that she did use these terms at one time or another.
Does her age excuse her word of the "N word"? Of course not, though as my mom used to tell me about my grandmother, who used them freely, "old habits are hard to break." If Deen hasn't learned the evils of that term, if she still uses the "N word" freely today, then she deserves to lose her empire. If, however, she is being persecuted for something she said years ago and she no longer uses the word, then she should get an apology and the lawsuit should be dropped. Either way, it's time to quell this tempest in a teapot and move on.
The NSA and Edward Snowden: This summer kicked off with a bit of intrigue worthy of a James Bond movie. Earlier this month, it was revealed that Edward Snowden, a 30-year-old former contractor with the National Security Administration had revealed to the public that the government was spying on its citizens through a pair of clandestine programs that tracked both citizens' phone calls and their private e-mails. He did it, he said, to "inform the public of that which is done in their name, and that is which is done against them." Last week, it was revealed that Snowden had landed the job with the NSA with the specific intent of gathering information about the spying programs and revealing it to the public.
The Obama administration, of course, is furious, claiming that Snowden's actions have done serious harm to our national security. In their own defense, they admit to the programs' existence, but insist that the content of those e-mails and phone calls were never being scrutinized. Currently, authorities are engaged in a global game of "Where's Waldo," trying to capture Snowden, who faces espionage charges if apprehended. To date, he has managed to stay one step ahead by nation-hopping to countries that have a strained, at best, relationship with the U.S.
To some, Edward Snowden is clearly a traitor. They defend the government's spying by pointing out that the programs have helped foil dozens of potential terrorist plots. To others, Snowden is a patriot being wrongly persecuted by a nefarious government. To this group, he is this generation's Daniel Ellsburg. Just as Ellsburg's disclosure of the "Pentagon Papers" revealed the truth about U.S. policy in Vietnam and helped bring an end to our involvement there, Snoweden's disclosures have revealed that Obama has continued with, and even expanded, the very Bush-era programs that he decried as a candidate in 2008.
So is Edward Snowden a patriot or a traitor? Well, as easy as it might be to excuse the government's spying on us in the name of national security, I can't help but ask myself, "do the ends justify the means in this case?" The administration claims that the content of the tracked calls and e-mails was never scrutinized, that citizens' privacy was protected. But that doesn't make sense, at least on its surface. And even if the government is telling us the truth, how can we trust them? They lied to us about the continued existence of the programs. And what's to keep them from prying into our personal communications and beginning to scrutinize that content? Having the ability to track Americans' e-mails and phone calls gives the government almost unlimited power over our personal lives, and as a wise man once noted, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Some may disagree with Snowden's methods, but I think in the long run, he will be proven a hero for exposing the government's duplicity. For those who call him a traitor, who are willing to tolerate being spied on so they can feel safe, I would remind them of Benjamin Franklin's famous observation that still holds true today: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
The U.S. Supreme Court and affirmative action: This is the first of a pair of major rulings that have come down from the Court this week. In this case, justices held that affirmative action is still constitutional, but they put strict new limits on its use, saying essentially that colleges and universities now have to exhaust every other avenue for creating a diverse student body before affirmative action can be used.
In my mind, this ruling just made sense. Justices stopped just short of overturning affirmative action. Instead, they are demanding that schools think outside the box and find new ways to ensure diversity before falling back on the easy solution of affirmative action. With this ruling, they also are raising the very real question of whether after four decades of affirmative action, it has actually worked as intended. That's a legitimate question that demands an answer.
I believe scrapping affirmative action at this point would be a mistake. We have come a long way since the 1960s, when the integration of our public universities had to be forced, literally at the point of a gun. Children of my generation and younger went to school with blacks and students of other races. In large part, the prejudices that defined earlier generations no longer dominate the discussion. In fact, many of today's students wonder what the big deal is. That's progress. But racism, sadly has not disappeared completely. As long as it exists, we need tools to keep us from giving in to our baser instincts, to ensure that students of all races and backgrounds have an equal opportunity at higher education.
Justices are right that we cannot continue to move forward blindly with affirmative action without making sure it has worked as intended. Perhaps we do need to find new ways to create diversity in our public colleges and universities. But while the need for affirmative action isn't as urgent as it once was, we have not yet reached the point where it is no longer needed. The justices got it right in this case.
The U.S. Supreme Court and the Voting Rights Act: In perhaps the biggest case to come out of the Supreme Court this session, a 5-4 court on Tuesday struck down Section 5 of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. That key section, often called the "backbone" of the Voting Rights Act, required states included in the act -- nine states and parts of six others , mostly in the South -- get federal approval before making any changes to their voting practices. On Tuesday, justices said that requirement was based on an outdated formula -- it was last updated in 1972 -- that failed to take into account the seismic shift that had taken place on the civil rights front in the last 50 years. Although the Court left the door open for Congress to update the formula and restore federal oversight, even congressional supporters of the act say passing new legislation is a very long shot, at best.
This decision should come as no surprise to anyone who has watched the Court in recent years. They have been moving this way incrementally for a long time, and today's ruling was the climax of the court packing that took place under former President George W. Bush.
It strikes me as odd that the same Court that just the day before allowed affirmative action to stand, although with new limits, would take such radical action when it comes to voting rights. The same court that still sees the need for affirmative action (though in a reduced role) to ensure diversity in higher education is going to trust states -- especially states with long histories of voter discrimination -- to regulate their own affairs when it comes to voting? Odd.
It's true that this country has come a long way in terms of civil rights since the Voting Rights Act was first enacted. But what proof do we have that giving these states back the right to regulate their own voting won't result in the clock being turned back 50 years now that no one's watching?
I understand justices' logic in saying the formula behind the provision should have been updated to reflect current realities. But it seems to me that a more prudent approach would have been to wean the affected states of federal supervision over a number of years instead of removing it all at once. Let them prove they are committed to voter equality before giving them back full control. As it now stands, it will be almost impossible for the federal government to reassert control now that it's gone. And while we may, indeed, be ready to run our own affairs in the South, I believe the Court acted very prematurely in this case.
Paula Deen: This may be the most ridiculous story that has gained traction in the last couple of weeks. The celebrity chef is in hot water because she admitted during a recent deposition that she had uttered "the N word" in the past. Deen is being sued by one her former restaurant managers for fostering a hostile work environment, where, she says, racial epithets and sexual harassment were commonplace. So far, despite repeated apologies, Deen's admission that she used the word in the past has cost her her contract with Food Network and an endorsement deal with Smithfield Hams.
To be clear, I do not approve of "the N word," and I don't approve of its use in any situation. I don't even approve of its use when it's used by the black community in an attempt to "rob it of its power." It's a bad, offensive word that should never be used by anyone. Ever.
That being said, I find this whole controversy surrounding Deen to be patently ridiculous. In the first place, what we haven't been told is how long ago she used "the N word." Was it a week ago? Six months ago? A year ago? 20 years ago? Was it used one time? Or did she have a pattern of using it? We all have said things that we regretted. If it was used recently, that's one thing. If she used it one time 20 years ago, then why are we even talking about this? It's irrelevant to who she is now.
The other thing that people aren't taking into account is Deen's age. She's 66, and the South she was raised in was very different than the South she lives in today. Deen was raised in a time when it was acceptable, even commonplace, for blacks to be referred to as "coloreds," "Negroes," and yes, even the "N word." As a young woman, she would have seen nothing wrong with using these terms. In fact, chances are good that she did use these terms at one time or another.
Does her age excuse her word of the "N word"? Of course not, though as my mom used to tell me about my grandmother, who used them freely, "old habits are hard to break." If Deen hasn't learned the evils of that term, if she still uses the "N word" freely today, then she deserves to lose her empire. If, however, she is being persecuted for something she said years ago and she no longer uses the word, then she should get an apology and the lawsuit should be dropped. Either way, it's time to quell this tempest in a teapot and move on.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Is the government really out to get us?
A lot of the political news this week seems to revolve around one central question: Is the government REALLY out to get us?
Republicans are all in a snit over the growing Benghazi scandal. That attack, on Sept. 11, 2012, resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, and according to the Republican narrative, the fault for those deaths lies not with the terrorists who attacked the embassy, but with President Barack Obama. According the Republican version of events, Obama not only knew of the likelihood of an attack, but he refused to provide adequate security to prevent it, despite repeated requests. To make matters worse, once the attack was under way, he refused to send help to stop it, even telling one special forces unit in the area to "stand down." And after the attack? Well, he lied to the American people about its origins, first blaming it on an obscure anti-Muslim film and resulting riots, then refusing to call it a terrorist attack, instead calling it "an act of terror." And the reason for all this? Why, to help himself get re-elected, of course!
If that's not evil enough for you, Republicans also upset over a recent admission by the Internal Revenue Service that some lower-level agents were targeting conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status for extra scrutiny. Attorney General Eric Holder has launched an investigation into the affair, and President Obama has called it "unacceptable," vowing "It will never happen again." So where do we begin in extricating ourselves from all this muck?
In my opinion, the Benghazi probe is little more than a partisan witch hunt. It is a tragedy that has been blown completely out of proportion by desperate Republicans trying to bring down a president that has been more successful than they had hoped. This isn't to say that an investigation into the attack isn't warranted. There are legitimate questions that need to be answered about how the attackers were able to succeed and what steps can be taken to improve security and thwart future attacks. But to suggest that the president knew the attack was imminent and did nothing to prevent it; to suggest that he intentionally withheld help that could have saved American lives; to suggest that he lied to the American people about the attack to help improve his own chances for reelection is ludicrous. It's fantasy. It suggests that not only is our president incompetent, but he's a criminal.
Here's a dose of reality. Obama's reaction in the first days following the attack isn't out of the ordinary. To suggest that the attack was spurred by an anti-Muslim film that had gone viral on the Internet wasn't out of the realm of possibility. There WERE protests going on over the film, and violence has erupted over something as simple as a cartoon depicting the prophet Muhammad. Of course, it turned out that the Benghazi attack had nothing to do with the film, but it wasn't unreasonable to think that they might be connected.
As for the president's early refusal to label the attack as terrorism, I don't see this as evidence of a coverup. Rather, it seems to me it was a case of Obama acting prudently instead of automatically jumping to the conclusion that it was terrorism, especially before all the facts had been established. That's the sign of a good leader, someone who gets his facts in order before unnecessarily alarming the public.
Of course, not everything can be explained away so easily. There apparently was intelligence warning that some type of attack was imminent in the region. And there is conflicting testimony as to whether it was possible to send help and whether U.S. forces were told to "stand down." The truth is, we may never know what exactly happened that night, what orders were given and by whom. And while it's clear mistakes were made, nothing I've seen suggests that there was any kind of pre-meditation on the government's part or any kind of coverup. There certainly is nothing there that rises to the level of Watergate, no matter how much Republicans want to make the connection. Watergate was about a president knowing about criminal activity and actively covering it up. Obama might have made mistakes in the hours and days following the Benghazi attack, but nothing he did rises to the level of criminal.
Switching gears to the mess at the IRS, Republicans are outraged, and rightfully so, that conservative groups were targeted for extra scrutiny when seeking tax-exempt status. There's no denying that was wrong, but their outrage rings a little hollow when you consider all the outrageous things the GOP has given tacit approval to over the years. Consider:
It was a GOP-led Congress that passed the PATRIOT Act -- possibly the worst piece of legislation ever conceived -- in the fevered days immediately following 9/11. That one piece of legislation gave the federal government almost unlimited power to prosecute a mythical "War on Terror," including the power to wiretap the phones of ordinary Americans.
It was a Republican administration under George W. Bush that gave tacit approval to the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" (torture) for high-level terror suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay.
It was the Republican administration of George W. Bush that introduced the idea of "enemy combatants," which has resulted in dozens of prisoners at Guantanamo being held indefinitely without charges and without hope of ever going to trial.
And now Republicans are upset because some flunkies at the IRS decided to take it upon themselves to give conservative groups a little extra scrutiny? Don't get me wrong. What those employees at the IRS did was wrong, and they should pay with their jobs. But for Republicans to react with such righteous indignation over such a trivial offense seems a tad hypocritical when compared to the true outrages that they have been willing to look the other way on.
And so, to answer the question I posed at the beginning of this post: Is the government really out to get us? My answer? I don't think so. I believe, by and large, those who work in government are good, earnest people committed to helping their fellow citizens. And I believe government, in its purest form, is committed to the idea of helping those who can't help themselves and protecting our freedoms. Does that mean there aren't abuses in government? Of course not. But I think it grossly unfair to judge the entire body by the mistakes and abuses of a few.
Republicans are all in a snit over the growing Benghazi scandal. That attack, on Sept. 11, 2012, resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, and according to the Republican narrative, the fault for those deaths lies not with the terrorists who attacked the embassy, but with President Barack Obama. According the Republican version of events, Obama not only knew of the likelihood of an attack, but he refused to provide adequate security to prevent it, despite repeated requests. To make matters worse, once the attack was under way, he refused to send help to stop it, even telling one special forces unit in the area to "stand down." And after the attack? Well, he lied to the American people about its origins, first blaming it on an obscure anti-Muslim film and resulting riots, then refusing to call it a terrorist attack, instead calling it "an act of terror." And the reason for all this? Why, to help himself get re-elected, of course!
If that's not evil enough for you, Republicans also upset over a recent admission by the Internal Revenue Service that some lower-level agents were targeting conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status for extra scrutiny. Attorney General Eric Holder has launched an investigation into the affair, and President Obama has called it "unacceptable," vowing "It will never happen again." So where do we begin in extricating ourselves from all this muck?
In my opinion, the Benghazi probe is little more than a partisan witch hunt. It is a tragedy that has been blown completely out of proportion by desperate Republicans trying to bring down a president that has been more successful than they had hoped. This isn't to say that an investigation into the attack isn't warranted. There are legitimate questions that need to be answered about how the attackers were able to succeed and what steps can be taken to improve security and thwart future attacks. But to suggest that the president knew the attack was imminent and did nothing to prevent it; to suggest that he intentionally withheld help that could have saved American lives; to suggest that he lied to the American people about the attack to help improve his own chances for reelection is ludicrous. It's fantasy. It suggests that not only is our president incompetent, but he's a criminal.
Here's a dose of reality. Obama's reaction in the first days following the attack isn't out of the ordinary. To suggest that the attack was spurred by an anti-Muslim film that had gone viral on the Internet wasn't out of the realm of possibility. There WERE protests going on over the film, and violence has erupted over something as simple as a cartoon depicting the prophet Muhammad. Of course, it turned out that the Benghazi attack had nothing to do with the film, but it wasn't unreasonable to think that they might be connected.
As for the president's early refusal to label the attack as terrorism, I don't see this as evidence of a coverup. Rather, it seems to me it was a case of Obama acting prudently instead of automatically jumping to the conclusion that it was terrorism, especially before all the facts had been established. That's the sign of a good leader, someone who gets his facts in order before unnecessarily alarming the public.
Of course, not everything can be explained away so easily. There apparently was intelligence warning that some type of attack was imminent in the region. And there is conflicting testimony as to whether it was possible to send help and whether U.S. forces were told to "stand down." The truth is, we may never know what exactly happened that night, what orders were given and by whom. And while it's clear mistakes were made, nothing I've seen suggests that there was any kind of pre-meditation on the government's part or any kind of coverup. There certainly is nothing there that rises to the level of Watergate, no matter how much Republicans want to make the connection. Watergate was about a president knowing about criminal activity and actively covering it up. Obama might have made mistakes in the hours and days following the Benghazi attack, but nothing he did rises to the level of criminal.
Switching gears to the mess at the IRS, Republicans are outraged, and rightfully so, that conservative groups were targeted for extra scrutiny when seeking tax-exempt status. There's no denying that was wrong, but their outrage rings a little hollow when you consider all the outrageous things the GOP has given tacit approval to over the years. Consider:
It was a GOP-led Congress that passed the PATRIOT Act -- possibly the worst piece of legislation ever conceived -- in the fevered days immediately following 9/11. That one piece of legislation gave the federal government almost unlimited power to prosecute a mythical "War on Terror," including the power to wiretap the phones of ordinary Americans.
It was a Republican administration under George W. Bush that gave tacit approval to the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" (torture) for high-level terror suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay.
It was the Republican administration of George W. Bush that introduced the idea of "enemy combatants," which has resulted in dozens of prisoners at Guantanamo being held indefinitely without charges and without hope of ever going to trial.
And now Republicans are upset because some flunkies at the IRS decided to take it upon themselves to give conservative groups a little extra scrutiny? Don't get me wrong. What those employees at the IRS did was wrong, and they should pay with their jobs. But for Republicans to react with such righteous indignation over such a trivial offense seems a tad hypocritical when compared to the true outrages that they have been willing to look the other way on.
And so, to answer the question I posed at the beginning of this post: Is the government really out to get us? My answer? I don't think so. I believe, by and large, those who work in government are good, earnest people committed to helping their fellow citizens. And I believe government, in its purest form, is committed to the idea of helping those who can't help themselves and protecting our freedoms. Does that mean there aren't abuses in government? Of course not. But I think it grossly unfair to judge the entire body by the mistakes and abuses of a few.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
A tough week in America
It's been a tough week in America. On Monday, for the first time in more than a decade, the spectre of terrorism raised its ugly head when two bombs made from ordinary, everyday pressure cookers exploded at the annual running of the Boston Marathon, killing three and injuring 170, many seriously. A day after that tragedy, it was reported that two letters laced with the toxin ricin had been sent to Mississippi Congressman Roger Wicker and President Barack Obama. And on Wednesday, an explosion at a fertilizer plant in West, Texas, near Waco killed 14 and devastated the town. It's been a tough week, indeed.
Fortunately, by the end of the week, two of the cases had been resolved. On Wednesday, authorities arrested a Mississippi man, Paul Kevin Curtis, in the ricin case. And on Friday, after Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick ordered an area wide lockdown in Boston and surrounding suburbs, authorities cornered bombing suspects Tameralan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Tamerlan was killed in the resulting firefight with authorities, but as of Friday night, Dzhokhar was in custody. As for the tragedy in West, at least two people remain missing.
It's unfortunate, but not surprising, that in the wake of Monday terrorist attack -- and that's undoubtedly what it was -- the tragedy in Texas has been pushed to the back burner of the nation's consciousness. For many Americans, Monday's attack brought back unwelcome memories of Sept.11, 2001. It was a stark reminder that no matter how much time passes and how much we want to believe differently, our nation is still vulnerable to terrorist attack. It was a reminder that we can no longer take comfort in believing that terrorism is something that happens to other people in other parts of the world. As Monday's tragedy showed, it can, and does happen here. And it was a reminder that our world has permanently changed. As much as we would like to go back to the world as it existed on Sept. 10, 2001, that world is gone, and it's not coming back.
In the hours and days following the Boston bombings, President Obama sounded all the right notes. He reached out to a shocked and grieving nation offering what scant comfort he could. He promised that a reason would be found for the attacks and that those responsible would be brought to justice. And, just as his predecessor did following Sept. 11, he urged Americans to be more vigilant and to act if they see something suspicious. That's good advice. My hope is that in heeding it, we don't make the same mistakes we made following Sept. 11.
I hope we don't see innocent American Muslims or American Arabs unfairly singled out in airports, bus or train stations for "extra security" strictly because of their religion or because they choose to speak Arabic among themselves. I hope we don't see neighbor turning on neighbor, as we did in those first days after the Sept 11 attacks. And most of all, I hope we don't see terrified Americans willingly giving up their freedoms in return for a false security. As Benjamin Franklin once wisely observed: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Here are some facts that I hope don't get lost in the coming days. First, Islam is not a violent religion. Fact is, less than 1 percent of Muslims could be considered "radical." The vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving people who abhor the violence committed in the name of their religion. If you want to talk about violent religions, what about Christianity? Have we forgotten the Inquisition? Have we forgotten the Crusades? Millions have been killed in the name of Christian orthodoxy. As a religion, Christianity is just as blood-soaked as Islam. And we have our share of radicals (Westboro Baptist Church, anyone?). Yet no one would consider Christianity a violent religion just because a tiny minority take Jesus' teachings and misapply them. Why is it fair, then, to assume that Islam is a violent religion because a few followers are misguided? Put simply, it's not.
Second, we cannot protect ourselves from terrorism by willingly giving up our freedoms. In the days following Sept. 11, the Bush administration quickly passed the PATRIOT Act giving the government unprecedented power to interrogate suspects and monitor Americans through things such as civilian wiretaps. While a heightened awareness of terrorism has resulted in many plots being discovered before they could be executed, Monday's attack proved the folly of giving up those freedoms. The truth is, if someone wants to attack us, they can always find a way to succeed. And no amount of illicit monitoring or "enhanced interrogation" can prevent it. As the old saying goes, "We have to be right 100 percent of the time. They only have to be right once."
Finally, the "War on Terror" declared by President George W. Bush following Sept. 11 is a farce. Terrorism is a philosophy, not a flesh and blood enemy as in traditional wars. For every terrorist we kill, there will always be 10 more ready to step forward and take their place. It is an endless war that we cannot hope to win. If we hope to stop terrorism, we have to start by taking away their moral imperative to fight. And we do that by taking an honest look at our country and the impact of our foreign policy. The truth is, our unabashed, unwavering support of Israel over the past 65 years, no matter what they do, has earned us hatred throughout the Middle East and in many other parts of the world.
In a nutshell, that's why we were attacked on Sept. 11. And even that may not be enough to explain every attack. The Boston bombers hardly fit the profile of your average terrorist. Yes, they were Muslim, but they weren't Arab. They were Chechen immigrants who, by all accounts, had fully acclimated to America and were your typical, All-American kids. We don't yet know their motive for the bombings, and if the surviving bomber dies, we may never know. But if we are to have any hope of finding out, we cannot afford to allow our anger and grief to push us into making the same mistakes we made after Sept. 11. If we react in fear and start lashing out at Arabs and Muslims, if we allow our freedoms to be abrogated in pursuit of a false security, then we will have learned nothing and those who died will have done so in vain.
Fortunately, by the end of the week, two of the cases had been resolved. On Wednesday, authorities arrested a Mississippi man, Paul Kevin Curtis, in the ricin case. And on Friday, after Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick ordered an area wide lockdown in Boston and surrounding suburbs, authorities cornered bombing suspects Tameralan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Tamerlan was killed in the resulting firefight with authorities, but as of Friday night, Dzhokhar was in custody. As for the tragedy in West, at least two people remain missing.
It's unfortunate, but not surprising, that in the wake of Monday terrorist attack -- and that's undoubtedly what it was -- the tragedy in Texas has been pushed to the back burner of the nation's consciousness. For many Americans, Monday's attack brought back unwelcome memories of Sept.11, 2001. It was a stark reminder that no matter how much time passes and how much we want to believe differently, our nation is still vulnerable to terrorist attack. It was a reminder that we can no longer take comfort in believing that terrorism is something that happens to other people in other parts of the world. As Monday's tragedy showed, it can, and does happen here. And it was a reminder that our world has permanently changed. As much as we would like to go back to the world as it existed on Sept. 10, 2001, that world is gone, and it's not coming back.
In the hours and days following the Boston bombings, President Obama sounded all the right notes. He reached out to a shocked and grieving nation offering what scant comfort he could. He promised that a reason would be found for the attacks and that those responsible would be brought to justice. And, just as his predecessor did following Sept. 11, he urged Americans to be more vigilant and to act if they see something suspicious. That's good advice. My hope is that in heeding it, we don't make the same mistakes we made following Sept. 11.
I hope we don't see innocent American Muslims or American Arabs unfairly singled out in airports, bus or train stations for "extra security" strictly because of their religion or because they choose to speak Arabic among themselves. I hope we don't see neighbor turning on neighbor, as we did in those first days after the Sept 11 attacks. And most of all, I hope we don't see terrified Americans willingly giving up their freedoms in return for a false security. As Benjamin Franklin once wisely observed: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Here are some facts that I hope don't get lost in the coming days. First, Islam is not a violent religion. Fact is, less than 1 percent of Muslims could be considered "radical." The vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving people who abhor the violence committed in the name of their religion. If you want to talk about violent religions, what about Christianity? Have we forgotten the Inquisition? Have we forgotten the Crusades? Millions have been killed in the name of Christian orthodoxy. As a religion, Christianity is just as blood-soaked as Islam. And we have our share of radicals (Westboro Baptist Church, anyone?). Yet no one would consider Christianity a violent religion just because a tiny minority take Jesus' teachings and misapply them. Why is it fair, then, to assume that Islam is a violent religion because a few followers are misguided? Put simply, it's not.
Second, we cannot protect ourselves from terrorism by willingly giving up our freedoms. In the days following Sept. 11, the Bush administration quickly passed the PATRIOT Act giving the government unprecedented power to interrogate suspects and monitor Americans through things such as civilian wiretaps. While a heightened awareness of terrorism has resulted in many plots being discovered before they could be executed, Monday's attack proved the folly of giving up those freedoms. The truth is, if someone wants to attack us, they can always find a way to succeed. And no amount of illicit monitoring or "enhanced interrogation" can prevent it. As the old saying goes, "We have to be right 100 percent of the time. They only have to be right once."
Finally, the "War on Terror" declared by President George W. Bush following Sept. 11 is a farce. Terrorism is a philosophy, not a flesh and blood enemy as in traditional wars. For every terrorist we kill, there will always be 10 more ready to step forward and take their place. It is an endless war that we cannot hope to win. If we hope to stop terrorism, we have to start by taking away their moral imperative to fight. And we do that by taking an honest look at our country and the impact of our foreign policy. The truth is, our unabashed, unwavering support of Israel over the past 65 years, no matter what they do, has earned us hatred throughout the Middle East and in many other parts of the world.
In a nutshell, that's why we were attacked on Sept. 11. And even that may not be enough to explain every attack. The Boston bombers hardly fit the profile of your average terrorist. Yes, they were Muslim, but they weren't Arab. They were Chechen immigrants who, by all accounts, had fully acclimated to America and were your typical, All-American kids. We don't yet know their motive for the bombings, and if the surviving bomber dies, we may never know. But if we are to have any hope of finding out, we cannot afford to allow our anger and grief to push us into making the same mistakes we made after Sept. 11. If we react in fear and start lashing out at Arabs and Muslims, if we allow our freedoms to be abrogated in pursuit of a false security, then we will have learned nothing and those who died will have done so in vain.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Mississippi's religious liberty bill only protects freedom for a few
Christians all over Mississippi surely are celebrating the passage of the Schoolchildrens' Religious Liberties Act by the state legislature. While the two existing versions of the bill must be reconciled into one bill before it can be sent to Republican Gov. Phil Bryant, I would say supporters' excitement is premature, at best. The bill, as it's written, is blatantly unconstitutional and is likely to face a court challenge as soon as it's signed. Chances are, it will never actually be enforceable. It's just another waste of time by fundamentalists desperate to insert school-sanctioned prayers back into Mississippi's classrooms.
The Schoolchildrens' Religious Liberty Act is being sponsored by state Republican Rep. Mark Formby, who has introduced a similar bill every year since 2009. He says his bill is intended to clarify existing law and to dispel confusion about whether students are allowed to discuss religious themes in their school work or wear religious clothing at school. Both concerns are currently protected under federal law. Supporters of the law say it will protect students' religious freedoms, ensure that students can talk about spiritual beliefs and guarantee that they aren't deprived of their rights.
Under the bill, gatherings such as graduations, football games, and even mornng announcements, would be defined as "limited public forums." Under the bill, certain groups of students, such as those who won honors, would be allowed to speak during those occasions. The bill specifies that the school won't dictate the message and will publish a disclaimer sayng that they are not sponsoring prayer. The school will be responsible for prohibiting vulgarity and making sure the message is appropriate to the occasion.
I don't know Mark Formby. I don't live in Mississippi. And while I'm sure he's earnest about wanting to "clarify" his state's law regarding students' religious rights, his proposal contains many pitfalls and unintended consequences.
Formby says his law is intended to "clarify" existing law, to make sure that students have the right speak openly about their spiritual beliefs. A noble goal, for sure. But the reality is, it will only serve to open events such as graduation ceremonies and Friday night football games to student-led (and presumably, school-santioned) prayers. That, in turn, will open school systems up to time-consuming and costly litigation. It's just not worth the risk.
The problem with the Schoolchildrens' Religious Liberties Act, as with every law that seeks to "protect" students' religius rights, lies not with the stated intent, but with how the law will realistically be applied. Does anyone really believe that students of differing faiths, such as Muslims, Hindus, Jews, or even atheists, will be given the same freedom to speak about their spiritual beliefs as their Christian counterparts? That's not likely, without a great deal of protest from offended parents. How about students who follow lesser known faiths such as Rastafarianism, or even Satanism? Both are recognized religions, and both would have the right to ask that their views be heard under this bill. But it will never happen.
The truth is, the Schoolchildren's Religious Liberties Act is intended to protect only one type of religous expression: Christian. It is a thinly veiled attempt to allow Christian students to preach to their contemporaries, who in effect, become a captive audience. That's not fair, and it goes against both the spirit and the intent of our nation's founders.
When James Madison and the other constitutional delegates guaranteed religious freedom, they did not, as some believe, intend to create a Christian nation. Most of them, in fact, were not what you would call traditional Christians, but Deists. Our founders wanted to protect us from the tyranny of a state religion. In fact, they wanted government to stay completely out of the debate. To Madison and his contemporaries, freedom of (and from) religion should be a private matter of conscience for each individual. They wanted each person to have the right to believe and worship as he or she chose, not have one set of beliefs shoved down our throats at the exclusion of all others.
It really is this simple. If supporters of the Schoolchildrens' Religious Liberty Act want to do the right thing, they would make sure that students of all faiths -- not just Christians -- and students of no faith have an equal opportunity to be heard. Open the floor to all, or ban religious expressions of all kinds. Simple.
Our founders never intended America to be a theocracy. And it's not freedom if students are only allowed to be exposed to one point of view. Do we want to protect students' religious freedoms? Then, allow them to be exposed to various religous viewpoints and ideas and let them choose for themselves. That is what freedom means, and it's what our founders intended.
The Schoolchildrens' Religious Liberty Act is being sponsored by state Republican Rep. Mark Formby, who has introduced a similar bill every year since 2009. He says his bill is intended to clarify existing law and to dispel confusion about whether students are allowed to discuss religious themes in their school work or wear religious clothing at school. Both concerns are currently protected under federal law. Supporters of the law say it will protect students' religious freedoms, ensure that students can talk about spiritual beliefs and guarantee that they aren't deprived of their rights.
Under the bill, gatherings such as graduations, football games, and even mornng announcements, would be defined as "limited public forums." Under the bill, certain groups of students, such as those who won honors, would be allowed to speak during those occasions. The bill specifies that the school won't dictate the message and will publish a disclaimer sayng that they are not sponsoring prayer. The school will be responsible for prohibiting vulgarity and making sure the message is appropriate to the occasion.
I don't know Mark Formby. I don't live in Mississippi. And while I'm sure he's earnest about wanting to "clarify" his state's law regarding students' religious rights, his proposal contains many pitfalls and unintended consequences.
Formby says his law is intended to "clarify" existing law, to make sure that students have the right speak openly about their spiritual beliefs. A noble goal, for sure. But the reality is, it will only serve to open events such as graduation ceremonies and Friday night football games to student-led (and presumably, school-santioned) prayers. That, in turn, will open school systems up to time-consuming and costly litigation. It's just not worth the risk.
The problem with the Schoolchildrens' Religious Liberties Act, as with every law that seeks to "protect" students' religius rights, lies not with the stated intent, but with how the law will realistically be applied. Does anyone really believe that students of differing faiths, such as Muslims, Hindus, Jews, or even atheists, will be given the same freedom to speak about their spiritual beliefs as their Christian counterparts? That's not likely, without a great deal of protest from offended parents. How about students who follow lesser known faiths such as Rastafarianism, or even Satanism? Both are recognized religions, and both would have the right to ask that their views be heard under this bill. But it will never happen.
The truth is, the Schoolchildren's Religious Liberties Act is intended to protect only one type of religous expression: Christian. It is a thinly veiled attempt to allow Christian students to preach to their contemporaries, who in effect, become a captive audience. That's not fair, and it goes against both the spirit and the intent of our nation's founders.
When James Madison and the other constitutional delegates guaranteed religious freedom, they did not, as some believe, intend to create a Christian nation. Most of them, in fact, were not what you would call traditional Christians, but Deists. Our founders wanted to protect us from the tyranny of a state religion. In fact, they wanted government to stay completely out of the debate. To Madison and his contemporaries, freedom of (and from) religion should be a private matter of conscience for each individual. They wanted each person to have the right to believe and worship as he or she chose, not have one set of beliefs shoved down our throats at the exclusion of all others.
It really is this simple. If supporters of the Schoolchildrens' Religious Liberty Act want to do the right thing, they would make sure that students of all faiths -- not just Christians -- and students of no faith have an equal opportunity to be heard. Open the floor to all, or ban religious expressions of all kinds. Simple.
Our founders never intended America to be a theocracy. And it's not freedom if students are only allowed to be exposed to one point of view. Do we want to protect students' religious freedoms? Then, allow them to be exposed to various religous viewpoints and ideas and let them choose for themselves. That is what freedom means, and it's what our founders intended.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Boy Scouts make right move by lifting ban on gays
I was pleasantly surprised on Monday (Jan. 28) when the Boy Scouts of America announced that, after 102 years, they had finally decided to lift the ban on gay Scouts and Scout leaders. To be clear, this is not a wholesale reversal of position after decades of opposition. I doubt we'll ever see the BSA advertising openly to attract gay Scouts and leaders. But what the new policy does do is leave the decision of how to deal with the issue to the individual councils. Personally, I don't think the new policy goes far enough. I'd like to see the ban completely thrown out so that all boys, gay and straight, can reap the benefits of Scouting. But it is a stunning step forward after decades of opposition, and it is long overdue.
I have always loved Scouting. I joined at age 8 (this is well before the creation of Tiger Cubs. Back then, you just joined the closest Cub den.) after weeks of bugging my parents incessantly to sign me up. I had heard great stories from my friends about the adventures they were having, and I wanted to be part of it.
Scouting was always great fun for me. Not only did I get to hang out with my friends, but we got to do cool things together. We learned archery. We took tours of cool places such as newspapers and police stations and fire houses. In fact, I can honestly say that the tour we took of my local newspaper helped pique my future interest in journalism. As I got older, we started camping on weekends and going to "Camporees," a gathering of local and area Scout troops. All in all, it was great fun.
But all fun aside, I loved (and still love) Scouting because it helped reinforce what my parents were teaching me at home. Scouting teaches honesty and loyalty. It teaches boys the importance of service, and encourages members to help other people (the Scouts' slogan is "Do a Good Turn Daily"). And it instills a sense of patriotism. All are great things to teach the next generations of boys. So why should the fun and those great life lessons be limited only to heterosexuals?
For years, the BSA has argued that homosexuality, in essence, went against the traditional morals it was trying to instill in its members. The Scouts also argued that, as a private organization, it had a right to discriminate. That position was affirmed by the U.S Supreme Court in 2000 in the landmark case Boy Scouts of America et al v. Dale. Still, I always thought it was short-sighted and silly to kick a good Scout out or to expel a popular troop leader just because of his sexual orientation -- something he has absolutely no control over.
I believe a good portion of the reason the BSA has been slow to embrace gay Scouts and Scout leaders is simple fear fueled by ignorance, Back in 1910, when Robert Baden Powell founded the Scouting movement in his home country of Great Britain, homosexuality was largely unheard of. It was certainly never discussed or acknowledged in polite company, though everyone knew it existed. For many decades, until the 1970s, in fact, homosexuality was widely considered a mental illness. No wonder the BSA didn't want gay Scouts in its ranks or gay leaders influencing boys.
Times have changed, though. Today we understand that homosexuality is not a choice. Our sexual orientation -- gay, straight or bisexual -- is genetically predetermined. Today, more and more states are legalizing gay marriage and recognizing the equal rights of homosexuals. So why shouldn't the BSA finally recognize that a gay boy can be just as good a Scout as his straight counterpart? Why shouldn't the BSA recognize that gay men are fully capable of leading troops, just like straight men? Right. It just doesn't make sense to differently.
When I was in Scouting, one of the biggest fears I heard expressed about allowing gays in the ranks is that they would molest boys, or worse, try to "convert" them to the "gay lifestyle." Well, the BSA itself has taken steps to make sure this doesn't happen. Every Scoutmaster and assistant Scoutmaster is required to receive training in how to recognize sexual abuse and what to do if a boy comes to them with charges of inappropriate contact with a leader. The same is true of camp counselors. There are strict rules in place which dictate showering times when camping. Boys don't shower with adults. Ever. No leader is allowed to be alone with boys without at least one other adult present. That's called the "two-deep leadership rule," and it's been in place for at least two decades.
As for the idea that gay leaders will molest boys, we're talking about two different issues here. Gay men aren't attracted to every man or boy they see. They're not interested in "converting" anyone. And the problem of sexual abuse isn't about orientation, anyway. It's an issue of power. It's true that some gay men do molest boys. But they don't do it because they're gay. And the truth is, statistics (and the Scouts' own files) have shown that straight men are far more likely to be molesters than gay men are.
The BSA's new policy is likely to have very little discernible effect in the short term. Councils in the South and other reliably conservative parts of the country will continue to ban gay Scouts and Scout leaders, just as they always have. That's their right under the new policy, which wisely steers clear of laying the law down to civic, religious and educational institutions which may be opposed to homosexuality on religious or moral grounds. If we see changes, expect to see them in the areas where you would expect to -- the coasts and up in the Northeast.
The Boy Scouts have taken a giant step forward with this policy change. Eventually (and sooner rather than later), I'd like to see them take the final step and throw the organization open to all boys, gay or straight, without fear, without reservations and without conditions. I'd like to see them use their massive influence with boys to teach not only honesty, service and patriotism, but also tolerance
and respect for others' differences. When that happens, and I believe it will, our society will be better for it.
I have always loved Scouting. I joined at age 8 (this is well before the creation of Tiger Cubs. Back then, you just joined the closest Cub den.) after weeks of bugging my parents incessantly to sign me up. I had heard great stories from my friends about the adventures they were having, and I wanted to be part of it.
Scouting was always great fun for me. Not only did I get to hang out with my friends, but we got to do cool things together. We learned archery. We took tours of cool places such as newspapers and police stations and fire houses. In fact, I can honestly say that the tour we took of my local newspaper helped pique my future interest in journalism. As I got older, we started camping on weekends and going to "Camporees," a gathering of local and area Scout troops. All in all, it was great fun.
But all fun aside, I loved (and still love) Scouting because it helped reinforce what my parents were teaching me at home. Scouting teaches honesty and loyalty. It teaches boys the importance of service, and encourages members to help other people (the Scouts' slogan is "Do a Good Turn Daily"). And it instills a sense of patriotism. All are great things to teach the next generations of boys. So why should the fun and those great life lessons be limited only to heterosexuals?
For years, the BSA has argued that homosexuality, in essence, went against the traditional morals it was trying to instill in its members. The Scouts also argued that, as a private organization, it had a right to discriminate. That position was affirmed by the U.S Supreme Court in 2000 in the landmark case Boy Scouts of America et al v. Dale. Still, I always thought it was short-sighted and silly to kick a good Scout out or to expel a popular troop leader just because of his sexual orientation -- something he has absolutely no control over.
I believe a good portion of the reason the BSA has been slow to embrace gay Scouts and Scout leaders is simple fear fueled by ignorance, Back in 1910, when Robert Baden Powell founded the Scouting movement in his home country of Great Britain, homosexuality was largely unheard of. It was certainly never discussed or acknowledged in polite company, though everyone knew it existed. For many decades, until the 1970s, in fact, homosexuality was widely considered a mental illness. No wonder the BSA didn't want gay Scouts in its ranks or gay leaders influencing boys.
Times have changed, though. Today we understand that homosexuality is not a choice. Our sexual orientation -- gay, straight or bisexual -- is genetically predetermined. Today, more and more states are legalizing gay marriage and recognizing the equal rights of homosexuals. So why shouldn't the BSA finally recognize that a gay boy can be just as good a Scout as his straight counterpart? Why shouldn't the BSA recognize that gay men are fully capable of leading troops, just like straight men? Right. It just doesn't make sense to differently.
When I was in Scouting, one of the biggest fears I heard expressed about allowing gays in the ranks is that they would molest boys, or worse, try to "convert" them to the "gay lifestyle." Well, the BSA itself has taken steps to make sure this doesn't happen. Every Scoutmaster and assistant Scoutmaster is required to receive training in how to recognize sexual abuse and what to do if a boy comes to them with charges of inappropriate contact with a leader. The same is true of camp counselors. There are strict rules in place which dictate showering times when camping. Boys don't shower with adults. Ever. No leader is allowed to be alone with boys without at least one other adult present. That's called the "two-deep leadership rule," and it's been in place for at least two decades.
As for the idea that gay leaders will molest boys, we're talking about two different issues here. Gay men aren't attracted to every man or boy they see. They're not interested in "converting" anyone. And the problem of sexual abuse isn't about orientation, anyway. It's an issue of power. It's true that some gay men do molest boys. But they don't do it because they're gay. And the truth is, statistics (and the Scouts' own files) have shown that straight men are far more likely to be molesters than gay men are.
The BSA's new policy is likely to have very little discernible effect in the short term. Councils in the South and other reliably conservative parts of the country will continue to ban gay Scouts and Scout leaders, just as they always have. That's their right under the new policy, which wisely steers clear of laying the law down to civic, religious and educational institutions which may be opposed to homosexuality on religious or moral grounds. If we see changes, expect to see them in the areas where you would expect to -- the coasts and up in the Northeast.
The Boy Scouts have taken a giant step forward with this policy change. Eventually (and sooner rather than later), I'd like to see them take the final step and throw the organization open to all boys, gay or straight, without fear, without reservations and without conditions. I'd like to see them use their massive influence with boys to teach not only honesty, service and patriotism, but also tolerance
and respect for others' differences. When that happens, and I believe it will, our society will be better for it.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Some thoughts on Obama's second inauguration
Like a lot of Americans, I took time out on Monday to sit and watch President Barack Obama's inauguration festivities. Since this blog basically began five years ago with my thoughts on his first inauguration, I thought I would take time today to give my impressions on his second.
1. This inauguration, though it had much of the same pageantry as Obama's first celebration four years ago, was missing something. Four years ago, there was a sense of excitement in the air, a feeling that we were witnessing something historic with the inauguration of this nation's first black president. Four years ago, there was a feeling of hope, a fundamental belief that things were going to get better. Today, that hope has largely been dashed against the rocks of harsh reality.
While the stock market continues to set new five-year highs, millions of people remain unemployed and uninsured. Instead of coming together as a nation to address our problems, we remain a nation divided along party lines, more interested in being right and gaining power than in addressing our very real, very serious problems. That initial sense of hope we felt with Obama's inauguration four years ago has largely been replaced with disappointment, if not outright disillusionment.
2. Obama has aged some since he took office in 2009. He's a little grayer. Still, I thought he looked remarkable when compared to how George W. Bush looked as he left Washington at the end of his second term. The presidency has traditionally been unkind to those who hold the office. It ages a person, being the most powerful person on Earth and having the weight of the world squarely on your shoulders. When last we saw the younger Bush four years ago, he looked ancient. He looked completely wrung out by the pressures of the job.
By contrast, Obama looks relatively fresh. He looks like he still has a bit of spring left in his step. The question is, will he be able to handle the pressures of the next four years? Or will the job age him, just as it has done for just about every one of his predecessors?
3. Former President Bill Clinton was clearly in his element on Monday. He looked like he was having a ball. And why not? Clinton is clearly the most powerful, influential person in his party, as well as the most popular. He is a modern-day "king maker." Without Clinton, Obama would have lost the general election. The truth is, he was floundering until the Democratic Convention, when Clinton, with one speech, did a better job of making the case for Obama's reelection than the candidate himself had done up to that point.
A lot of Americans don't like Clinton. A lot of us remember the absolute sewer the presidency was dragged through because of his affair with Monica Lewinsky and the ensuing impeachment. But it cannot be denied that the man is a brilliant politician. He is arguably the most gifted politician this country has seen in the past half century. And it cannot be denied that without his endorsement, this election would have had a very different outcome.
4. I thought Obama's inaugural address was brilliant. A lot of people in the last couple days have criticized the president for the political nature of his speech. But I liked how he focused on the need for bipartisanship and the necessity of us all working together to address our problems. I was also quite pleasantly surprised that he put the spotlight on the issue of equality for ALL Americans, especially for gay Americans. It was a bold move made by a president who is clearly looking at his legacy.
Personally, I think the criticism that Obama's speech was too political is disingenuous. Presidents, from the beginning, have used inaugural addresses to lay out their agenda for the next four years, and Obama is no different. I thought his speech struck the perfect balance between pragmatic (this is what I'm going to do) and statesman-like. No complaints from me.
5. The whole controversy over whether singer Beyonce sang the national anthem live or used a pre-recorded track is ridiculous, and it has gotten entirely too much coverage in the media. Look, we all know the woman can sing. She's been in the spotlight since she was a child.
This is not a repeat of the Milli Vanilli scandal, where the two singers not only DIDN'T sing their own music, but COULDN'T sing, and still sold millions of records, even winning a Grammy. So what if she used a pre-recorded track? It was her voice doing the singing. She's not the first to do it (assuming she did), and she won't be the last. And really, considering that she was singing in front of not only a nationwide, but a worldwide audience, can any of us really blame her if she wanted perfection?
Whether she was live or Memorex, the continued focus on this only shows how obsessed our nation has become with frivolous entertainment. We have real, serious problems in this country. To spend so much time worrying about whether Beyonce sang live or not only shows how skewed our priorities have become as a nation. How sad.
1. This inauguration, though it had much of the same pageantry as Obama's first celebration four years ago, was missing something. Four years ago, there was a sense of excitement in the air, a feeling that we were witnessing something historic with the inauguration of this nation's first black president. Four years ago, there was a feeling of hope, a fundamental belief that things were going to get better. Today, that hope has largely been dashed against the rocks of harsh reality.
While the stock market continues to set new five-year highs, millions of people remain unemployed and uninsured. Instead of coming together as a nation to address our problems, we remain a nation divided along party lines, more interested in being right and gaining power than in addressing our very real, very serious problems. That initial sense of hope we felt with Obama's inauguration four years ago has largely been replaced with disappointment, if not outright disillusionment.
2. Obama has aged some since he took office in 2009. He's a little grayer. Still, I thought he looked remarkable when compared to how George W. Bush looked as he left Washington at the end of his second term. The presidency has traditionally been unkind to those who hold the office. It ages a person, being the most powerful person on Earth and having the weight of the world squarely on your shoulders. When last we saw the younger Bush four years ago, he looked ancient. He looked completely wrung out by the pressures of the job.
By contrast, Obama looks relatively fresh. He looks like he still has a bit of spring left in his step. The question is, will he be able to handle the pressures of the next four years? Or will the job age him, just as it has done for just about every one of his predecessors?
3. Former President Bill Clinton was clearly in his element on Monday. He looked like he was having a ball. And why not? Clinton is clearly the most powerful, influential person in his party, as well as the most popular. He is a modern-day "king maker." Without Clinton, Obama would have lost the general election. The truth is, he was floundering until the Democratic Convention, when Clinton, with one speech, did a better job of making the case for Obama's reelection than the candidate himself had done up to that point.
A lot of Americans don't like Clinton. A lot of us remember the absolute sewer the presidency was dragged through because of his affair with Monica Lewinsky and the ensuing impeachment. But it cannot be denied that the man is a brilliant politician. He is arguably the most gifted politician this country has seen in the past half century. And it cannot be denied that without his endorsement, this election would have had a very different outcome.
4. I thought Obama's inaugural address was brilliant. A lot of people in the last couple days have criticized the president for the political nature of his speech. But I liked how he focused on the need for bipartisanship and the necessity of us all working together to address our problems. I was also quite pleasantly surprised that he put the spotlight on the issue of equality for ALL Americans, especially for gay Americans. It was a bold move made by a president who is clearly looking at his legacy.
Personally, I think the criticism that Obama's speech was too political is disingenuous. Presidents, from the beginning, have used inaugural addresses to lay out their agenda for the next four years, and Obama is no different. I thought his speech struck the perfect balance between pragmatic (this is what I'm going to do) and statesman-like. No complaints from me.
5. The whole controversy over whether singer Beyonce sang the national anthem live or used a pre-recorded track is ridiculous, and it has gotten entirely too much coverage in the media. Look, we all know the woman can sing. She's been in the spotlight since she was a child.
This is not a repeat of the Milli Vanilli scandal, where the two singers not only DIDN'T sing their own music, but COULDN'T sing, and still sold millions of records, even winning a Grammy. So what if she used a pre-recorded track? It was her voice doing the singing. She's not the first to do it (assuming she did), and she won't be the last. And really, considering that she was singing in front of not only a nationwide, but a worldwide audience, can any of us really blame her if she wanted perfection?
Whether she was live or Memorex, the continued focus on this only shows how obsessed our nation has become with frivolous entertainment. We have real, serious problems in this country. To spend so much time worrying about whether Beyonce sang live or not only shows how skewed our priorities have become as a nation. How sad.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Fixing our violent culture begins with us
It was shocking, even to a nation that has grown numb to school shootings and acts of senseless public violence. Three days before the Newtown, Conn., shootings, a lone gunman walked through a shopping mall, killing two people and then himself, but that hardly caused a ripple in the public consciousness compared to the Newtown massacre that occurred just days later. Newtown stood out, even in a violence-soaked culture that has seen similar shootings at places as diverse as Columbine, Pearl, Miss., and Virginia Tech. Maybe it was the sheer number of casualties -- 27 dead, including 20 children. More likely, it was because of the age of the victims. They were elementary-aged children, some as young as kindergarten. Whatever the cause, the tragedy in Newtown caught this nation's attention, and it has kept it.
In response to the shooting, President Barack Obama vowed to take "meaningful action" to make sure tragedies like this never happen again, although what that means is yet to be determined. On the other side of the aisle, the National Rifle Association has come forth with a proposal to turn every school in America into an armed fortress under the mistaken assumption that "the best solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
It seems clear that America is finally ready to take a hard look at our violent culture. It's a discussion that is long overdue. But as the initial shock wears off, the question remains: What's the best way to reduce the violence in our society, to put an end to these random bloodbaths?
Whatever path we take, I think it's clear that the solution has to begin by taking a look at our current gun laws. Let me be clear. I am not suggesting that we go door to door confiscating people's weapons. But it's clear that even though we are the most armed nation on earth, we still have a violence problem. When we have 11 mass shootings in our nation over a two-year span, we have a problem. When it remains easier for criminals to get their hands on weapons -- even through legal means -- than law-abiding citizens, it's clear that we have a problem and that the status-quo is no longer working. So what should we do about it?
I would start by establishing a national database for the mentally ill. I know. This isn't as easy as it sounds, thanks to medical privacy laws. So why not make it easy? Start with the names of those people already in prison who have been diagnosed with a serious mental illness. That information should be available through public records. How about inserting an exemption in existing medical privacy laws allowing mental health professionals to submit to the database the names of those they believe to be a danger to themselves or others? We're not talking about your everyday, garden-variety mental illness such as depression or obsessive-compulsive disorder. We're talking about people with schizophrenia or borderline personality disorder, those illnesses where a person's view of reality is compromised, or where they could conceivably become violent. Establishing this database might seem like an unforgivable invasion of personal privacy, but think about how many lives could have been saved at Virginia Tech if the shooter, who had a long history of serious mental illness, had been flagged and kept from getting his hands on a gun. Think about all the lives that might have been saved over the past 20 years if such a database had existed to help keep guns out of the wrong hands. We have already established a database for convicted sex offenders. Why not do the same for the seriously mentally ill?
Along the same lines, I believe it is time we took a serious look at our mental health care system in this country. We need to look at how easy and affordable it is to screen for mental illness. And we need to look at what it costs to treat, both in terms of therapy and in terms of medication. President Obama already has taken an important step in his health care reform law that prohibits people from being denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Now, we need to look at capping the prices that can be charged for medications, especially psychiatric drugs. After all, what's the point of having an easy, affordable diagnosis if you can't afford the medicines to treat the illness?
In terms of new gun laws, I don't believe many changes need to be made, although we DO need to do a better job in enforcing the existing laws. Two changes I WOULD like to see, though, are the return of the Clinton-era ban on assault weapons and the closing of the "gun show loophole." That loophole allows the ownership of a weapon to be transferred without the benefit of a background check. Given recent events, and the number of mass shootings over the past couple of years, that just seems like common sense.
Perhaps the biggest change we can make in changing our violent culture doesn't lie in any piece of legislation. It lies with each of us. Specifically, it lies with how today's children are being raised. To put it bluntly, we have raised a generation of heathens. We have abdicated our responsibility as parents and as a society in making sure our children are equipped with the basics, what my parents used to call "home training." A majority of kids today aren't being raised with a sense of respect, or even basic manners. Many parents (but certainly not all) are so interested in being their child's "friend," that they forget to instill in that child a sense of right and wrong, a basic moral compass. Many parents today are so busy chasing after money and possessions that they don't have time to spend with their kids. Instead, they turn them over to the "electronic babysitter" -- TV, computers and video games -- and go on their merry way. And without proper parental supervision, what are our children gravitating toward? Shows like "Jersey Shore. " Violent games like "Need for Speed" and "Call of Duty," which glorify killing. And who knows what on the largely unregulated Wild West frontier of the Internet. We allow our children to be exposed to these violent influences unsupervised for hours each day. We fail to teach them basic respect or manners. We fail to instill in them a sense of basic right and wrong, and then we wonder why we have raised a selfish, self-centered generation with no conscience?
Tragedies like Newtown are horrific, and I sincerely hope that some good does come out of the tragedy in the form of a much-needed national dialogue about our violent culture. I hope our gun laws are tweaked in ways that get assault weapons off the streets and make it harder for the mentally ill and the criminal to get guns. But if we really want to change our culture, talking isn't enough. New laws aren't enough. Change will only happen when we take an honest look at ourselves and how we're raising the next generation. Only by changing ourselves, by returning to the basic standards of decency and morality, can we have hope of making our culture less violent.
In response to the shooting, President Barack Obama vowed to take "meaningful action" to make sure tragedies like this never happen again, although what that means is yet to be determined. On the other side of the aisle, the National Rifle Association has come forth with a proposal to turn every school in America into an armed fortress under the mistaken assumption that "the best solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
It seems clear that America is finally ready to take a hard look at our violent culture. It's a discussion that is long overdue. But as the initial shock wears off, the question remains: What's the best way to reduce the violence in our society, to put an end to these random bloodbaths?
Whatever path we take, I think it's clear that the solution has to begin by taking a look at our current gun laws. Let me be clear. I am not suggesting that we go door to door confiscating people's weapons. But it's clear that even though we are the most armed nation on earth, we still have a violence problem. When we have 11 mass shootings in our nation over a two-year span, we have a problem. When it remains easier for criminals to get their hands on weapons -- even through legal means -- than law-abiding citizens, it's clear that we have a problem and that the status-quo is no longer working. So what should we do about it?
I would start by establishing a national database for the mentally ill. I know. This isn't as easy as it sounds, thanks to medical privacy laws. So why not make it easy? Start with the names of those people already in prison who have been diagnosed with a serious mental illness. That information should be available through public records. How about inserting an exemption in existing medical privacy laws allowing mental health professionals to submit to the database the names of those they believe to be a danger to themselves or others? We're not talking about your everyday, garden-variety mental illness such as depression or obsessive-compulsive disorder. We're talking about people with schizophrenia or borderline personality disorder, those illnesses where a person's view of reality is compromised, or where they could conceivably become violent. Establishing this database might seem like an unforgivable invasion of personal privacy, but think about how many lives could have been saved at Virginia Tech if the shooter, who had a long history of serious mental illness, had been flagged and kept from getting his hands on a gun. Think about all the lives that might have been saved over the past 20 years if such a database had existed to help keep guns out of the wrong hands. We have already established a database for convicted sex offenders. Why not do the same for the seriously mentally ill?
Along the same lines, I believe it is time we took a serious look at our mental health care system in this country. We need to look at how easy and affordable it is to screen for mental illness. And we need to look at what it costs to treat, both in terms of therapy and in terms of medication. President Obama already has taken an important step in his health care reform law that prohibits people from being denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Now, we need to look at capping the prices that can be charged for medications, especially psychiatric drugs. After all, what's the point of having an easy, affordable diagnosis if you can't afford the medicines to treat the illness?
In terms of new gun laws, I don't believe many changes need to be made, although we DO need to do a better job in enforcing the existing laws. Two changes I WOULD like to see, though, are the return of the Clinton-era ban on assault weapons and the closing of the "gun show loophole." That loophole allows the ownership of a weapon to be transferred without the benefit of a background check. Given recent events, and the number of mass shootings over the past couple of years, that just seems like common sense.
Perhaps the biggest change we can make in changing our violent culture doesn't lie in any piece of legislation. It lies with each of us. Specifically, it lies with how today's children are being raised. To put it bluntly, we have raised a generation of heathens. We have abdicated our responsibility as parents and as a society in making sure our children are equipped with the basics, what my parents used to call "home training." A majority of kids today aren't being raised with a sense of respect, or even basic manners. Many parents (but certainly not all) are so interested in being their child's "friend," that they forget to instill in that child a sense of right and wrong, a basic moral compass. Many parents today are so busy chasing after money and possessions that they don't have time to spend with their kids. Instead, they turn them over to the "electronic babysitter" -- TV, computers and video games -- and go on their merry way. And without proper parental supervision, what are our children gravitating toward? Shows like "Jersey Shore. " Violent games like "Need for Speed" and "Call of Duty," which glorify killing. And who knows what on the largely unregulated Wild West frontier of the Internet. We allow our children to be exposed to these violent influences unsupervised for hours each day. We fail to teach them basic respect or manners. We fail to instill in them a sense of basic right and wrong, and then we wonder why we have raised a selfish, self-centered generation with no conscience?
Tragedies like Newtown are horrific, and I sincerely hope that some good does come out of the tragedy in the form of a much-needed national dialogue about our violent culture. I hope our gun laws are tweaked in ways that get assault weapons off the streets and make it harder for the mentally ill and the criminal to get guns. But if we really want to change our culture, talking isn't enough. New laws aren't enough. Change will only happen when we take an honest look at ourselves and how we're raising the next generation. Only by changing ourselves, by returning to the basic standards of decency and morality, can we have hope of making our culture less violent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)