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.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)