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.
Monday, January 28, 2013
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)