Anti-intellectualism cracks its knuckles and steps out of the shadows

Recently, a local online news source reported that California colleges affirmed their commitment to diversity and inclusion. Along with this, the local JC offered a 2 1/2 hour session this Monday as a "safe space" for students, faculty, staff, and others to gather and discuss their concerns.

This is exactly the role a community college should play. Colleges are places for expanding horizons, learning new things, and discussing different opinions. I think it's great that DVC is offering this. I hope students and others of all backgrounds attend and listen at least.

Then I read the comments on the article above. And on the facebook post of the article.

Most were mean-spirited attacks on the idea of a "safe space."

Liberals, please, quell your fears! You will likely still be able to receive welfare. You will likely still be able to live in your parent’s basements.

Oh goody! A communtiy college cry-in!

OK, now everyone just remember the upside here. These snowflakes, will never be able to hold a job. So the rest of us will be able to get and keep one regardless of their whining.

Bed-wetters and save space kids the election's over if you don't know what the hell happened take a civics class and learn something about how things work in our government if you're confused. ......

I embrace diversity. I frequent Taco Bell and Panda Express.

Ok cupcakes. Dont forget your safety pins

And on and on it went. This is in the San Francisco Bay Area, one of the bluest regions of the country. I can't imagine the commentary in deeply red areas. Those who tried to defend the colleges were, of course, attacked for being libtards.

What I saw most among these comments, besides the frequent references to special snowflakes and bedwetting, was an undeniable undercurrent of anti-intellectualism. Aggressive anti-intellectualism. A sense that if you go to college, you're weak and worthless.

This is Trump's America. Where ignorance and whiteness are to be celebrated, and knowledge and diversity are to be ridiculed. Where a white thug with a mohawk and camo pants feels like a success by insulting college kids. I know these white thugs won't show up at the discussion, either to share their feelings or to cause trouble. They're just punks posting shit online. And it's their right to do so.

But this is not the direction America should go. If we don't fight against this surge of white power and anti-intellectualism now, we're going to slip deeper into a dark future.

Yes, I realize you are not Archie Bunker. You're still racist.

People who voted for Trump are screaming "I'm not a racist" all over the Internet. Liberal whites are saying, "Trump voters aren't racist, but Trump says racist things."

I'm saying that yes, you are racist, Trump voter.

Our popular understanding of racism is a white hood and a burning cross lighting up a dark lawn. Or a white guy with a buzz-cut shouting spittle and venom at young black students getting off a school bus. Or a white kid fire-bombing a black church.

Our popular understanding of racism is Archie Bunker, a caricature spewing derogatory epithets so profoundly ridiculous that it becomes comedy.

Trump is Archie Bunker. Trump voters are not.

But Archie Bunker racism is not the racism I'm talking about. Racism is insidious and subtle. It is the undertow that drags us out to sea with a silent stealth until we can't make it back to shore no matter how hard we swim. It's the soft-foam mattress that feels so comfortable but is slowly killing us with cancerous chemicals. Racism is inside, and it's impossible for the racist to see or sense.

Trump supporters, I've noticed, use phrases like "I love people of all races."

I want them to stop saying that. I want them to say instead, "People of all races are equal to me. Children of all races are equal to my children."

Because racism isn't about your failure to love. Racism is about your failure to accept someone as an equal.

White Americans, especially Trump Americans, do not understand that they are members of a white culture. They consider themselves simply "Americans" or just normal people. Black people have culture. Native Americans have culture. Hispanics have culture. Asians have culture. But not me; I'm just a normal person, a normal American. I have American culture.

They think of America like they think of Disney World--there's Disney World, and within there's Epcot where all the other cultures can be viewed, interacted with, enjoyed, and learned from. They are neatly contained, well presented, and well behaved. But they're kept in their place. No need for them to be integrated into the rest of the park, which has always been perfectly fine.

This is how racism manifests in America. As long as other cultures are securely contained, well behaved, and not interfering with "my way of life," then we white people love them. We love all of them.

But that's not equality. That's exclusion. We allow other races into white culture if they act, sound, and dress white. And that's what Trump voters are really saying. "We exclude you unless you act, sound, and look like us. Because we are America, and you are something less." This is racism. Classism. Sexism. Religious discrimination. At its core it is exclusionary.

Build a bridge, or build a wall? Public works projects in the age of regression

On the second dawn of the Age of Regression, I am still struggling with a friend's suggestion that now is the time for me to "build bridges to the people who voted for Trump."

They feel forgotten. Left behind. Unheard. Their election of Trump was not, he said, a vote for misogyny or racism or trickle-down. It was a scream of frustration with the Establishment.

But it's impossible to build a bridge to someone who is busy building a wall. Their vote for Trump wasn't just a scream of frustration that needs to be heard by lefty liberals like me. Their vote for Trump was a vote for regression. It was a vote against diversity. A vote against globalization. A vote against women's empowerment.

As a straight white cis male from an educated middle-class background, I have all the advantages in the USA. All the advantages. This is true no matter where I live. Apart from those places no one of any background wants to walk at night, I can travel anywhere without fear of discrimination, without fear of being profiled by police, without fear of being raped, without fear of being assaulted for my gender identity or sexual orientation. I could probably find some kind of work anywhere, at least enough to get by.

In theory, I should be eager to reach out to these downtrodden rural Americans, to hear their story, to extend an olive branch and really understand why they hurt so much that they could elect a narcissistic con man who is no more qualified to be President than I am.

But I won't. The people who voted for Trump spent the last eight years fighting progress tooth and nail. They never wanted a black President, and when they got one they rejected him. They rejected his ideas and his attempts at collaboration and his compromises. They rejected diversification then, and the election of Trump is their crowning victory in this fight they've waged for eight years.

I read a great opinion piece on America's problem with women today in the New York Times. Then I read the first comment, which essentially said that liberals like me have it all wrong. The comment included this:

American (sic) are for the most part practical common sense people. We welcome the idea of a multi-cultural melting pot, and we welcome the best ideas other cultures have to offer.

Sounds great, and it's entirely true. Up to a point.

Middle America, the salt of the Earth, the practical common sense people who work their land and don't want government interference... these people, they do welcome diversity. But they welcome it like they welcome it in their television and movies.

Diversity is welcome as long as it's a secondary character in the white male narrative.

Diversity is welcome as a witty sidekick, or as a friend there always ready to lend a hand.

Diversity is welcome as a vehicle for allegory, a way for the white main character to learn something.

Diversity is welcome as a provider of ideas and cultural curiosity.

But diversity is not welcome as an equal. Not in middle America. Not where practical common sense Trump voters work the land and decry government interference.

I can already feel the hashtags swelling up: #NotAllTrumpVoters, #NotAllWhites, #NotAllMen.

But you'll get no sympathy from me. If you voted for Trump, you didn't just scream in frustration about an economic malaise covering rural America. You didn't just protest against a societal trend of liberals forcing you to change your ways of life. You were never really that concerned about emails or charitable foundations.

You voted for regression. You voted for suppression of women. You voted for suppression of minorities. You voted to persecute people based on their chosen faith. You voted to cut yourselves off from a changing world. Maybe fifty years ago that could work. But the internet exists, and walls can't hold out ideas or culture. Your only path forward is to open your mind and learn to live as equals with other people. Your privilege is being eroded by time, just as mountains flatten over eons.

Build a bridge? That's not worth my time because you don't want a bridge. You want a wall. I'm just trying to decide if I should spend the next four years trying to tear down your wall, or helping you build it higher and thicker from this side.

We all had a bunny named Cutie at one point

This is not a blog post about how heinous and atrocious the bigoted, fearful, anti-humanist religious right is in America. There's enough said about that, and their moral wrongness is self evident.

Today I read that the EU has condemned HB 2 for violating a UN treaty that the US signed on to in 1966. In response, the North Carolina governor's office quipped that "we relinquished our adherence to the British crown and European powers over 200 years ago," and another North Carolina Republican said that Democrats want to "install European socialist policies ... that are an affront to the common sense traditions of North Carolina and America."

Shortly after I read that piece, I walked by an essay one of my wife's younger writing students had written. It started

My bunny Cutie is very important to me, and in this essay I will tell you why my bunny Cutie is very important to me.

The handwriting looped with cheerful swoops and innocent smoothness. It wasn't hurried. There was no anger or bitterness in this kid's writing. It was simply a happy exposition on how much they loved their cute little bunny.

I try hard to remember that at some point in our lives, all of us (or nearly so) had a cute little bunny named Cutie, and that we all loved that cute little bunny.

I'll willing to bet that even people as cynical and hate-filled as NC Governor Pat McRory once had his own version of a pet bunny Cutie.

I wondered, as I thought about the two pieces of writing I had just read, how an innocent child who has a little bunny named Cutie, becomes trained into a person who thinks it's not only okay to discriminate against another individual, but to demonize a whole class of people and whip up hatred and fear about them. What skews that all-loving, all-accepting little soul into a prejudiced, bigoted zealot?

I think if everyone forgot about genitals, gender, sexual orientation, skin color, religious choice, and everything else, and if we all thought of each other as once being a little kid who had a bunny named Cutie, the world would be a far, far better place.

Even Governor McCrory appears to love animals. I wonder why he can't love people anymore.

Please stop calling it a gender pay gap. Because it's not.

I just read yet ANOTHER article about the "gender pay gap" in soccer. The following comma splice in particular caught my attention:

Women’s teams play just as hard on the pitch as men’s teams, they should be receiving equal reward for their hard earned victory.

That is fallacious logic. A job's pay is not set by the effort a person puts in; it is set by the market value of what that job produces. This is why actors who perform in local theater don't get paid the same as actors who perform on Broadway, even though they may produce similar quality and work equally hard. Also, this is why male soccer players in MLS do not get paid the same as male soccer players in most European leagues, even though they play just as hard on the pitch.

Fairness and gender equity are noble causes. I support equal pay for equal work. But come on. The outrage flying around the internet this week is misplaced.

The outrage should be that a jersey that sells for $80 is sewn by someone who gets paid pennies a day. The outrage should be that billions are spent on stadiums that crumble into decay after the tournament is over, built by laborers who can't afford to buy a ticket to a game played there.

Can we stop talking about this as gender inequity, please? Because it's not, and calling it so undermines the real issue of gender pay gaps.

If you showed me a woman creating ads for the World Cup who makes 70% of what a man making ads for the same World Cup makes, then I'd feel the outrage.

THAT would be a gender pay inequity. Equal pay for equal work is not the same as equal pay for equal effort. Is the discrepancy in payment from the men's and women's World Cups unfair? Possibly. Should it be "corrected" by a new rule to ensure a "fair" or "equitable" situation?

No.

Well, I could imagine a scenario where you reduce payments to men's teams so they are equal to payments made to women's teams. Spend the savings on community improvement, education, and health care in the places where the laborers live.

If you want to talk about equity and injustice, let's start from there.

(The photos are just ones I took of soccer related stuff. They don't actually relate to the text except that they are soccer, and I took them.)

The privilege of driving a stick shift in suburbia, and being able to laugh about it

My younger son recently got his learner's permit, and he's been eager to get out and drive as often as possible. He's only had four hours behind the wheel, and he's already almost--not quite, but almost--mastered the stick shift.

This is the car.

Last night he took me out for a practice drive. Fifteen minutes of warmup through our suburban neighborhood with broad, sparsely trafficked streets; gentle curves with good visibility and a few stop signs; and the mildest of hills. Christmas lights ranged from simple elegance to the most garish displays of electrical overindulgence I've seen anywhere. He almost missed one stop sign. Almost.

After the warmup, we went out on the bigger streets. Multiple turn lanes at stoplights, crossing major intersections, a lot more traffic. He was nervous but had done this once before and handled the vehicle well. Another stint through another suburban neighborhood... then:

He made a good start from a stop sign into a tight left turn despite the headlights of an SUV close behind. He got into second gear, then went to shift into third but missed and hit first again.

Have you ever accidentally downshifted when you meant to shift up? The car bucks like crazy, the engine fighting against momentum and slowing like you slammed the brakes. To his credit, he got it back to neutral and then found third gear almost immediately. He was flustered but not panicked.

Until the SUV behind us turned on its red and blue flashing lights. Yup, a cop. A cop at 9:30 p.m. on a Thursday night during the height of holiday party season. My son smoothly glided to a stop on the shoulder with a little coaching from me. The cop pulled up behind. My son was now very flustered as I retrieved his permit from the glove box and handed it over.

"Can I see your license, please?" The cop shined his flashlight into the car but stood behind the driver's window. I couldn't see him. My son handed out the permit, and I leaned forward into the light and asked if he wanted my license, too.

The cop's face broke into a big, knowing smile when he looked at the permit. "That explains it," he said. He said he was just making sure "we got home safely because from the sudden deceleration in the middle of the street, he wasn't sure we would." I.e. he though he'd spied a drunk driver. But it was just a kid, learning to drive a stick shift. A few more seconds of kind and gentle banter between us, with my son explaining the mis-shift, and he went on his way. My son did an excellent job of recovering, pulling away cleanly, and finishing the last 20 minutes of our drive without any mistakes.

For me, that is a great story, a funny anecdote, a memory I'll enjoy for decades. For my son, it's a great learning experience.

It wasn't until this morning that I realized it could have been a very different kind of story, a very different kind of learning experience.

If we hadn't been white.

I don't know the officer we met, and he was absolutely right to stop us to check us out. And he was right to be cautious as he approached the car. Once he saw us, though, everything changed. If we hadn't been white, would he have so easily dropped his caution? Maybe he would have. Maybe another guy wouldn't. With us, he was professional, kind, understanding, and efficient. If we'd been black, would we have gotten the same quick and cheerful dismissal?

I like to think in our town, yes. I like to think that our town is somehow more enlightened about diversity than the towns we've read about so often in the news recently. But I don't know. That's probably what the white people who live in those towns like to think, too.

For me, this is still a great story, a funny anecdote, a memory I'll enjoy for decades. And for my son, it's still a great learning experience. For him, the lesson is that he doesn't have to fear cops or be nervous if he ever gets pulled over again.

I wish that were the lesson that all 15 year old boys could get when pulled over for a simple shifting mistake while out learning to drive with their dads.

But I understand that's not the case.

Yet.

Some day. Some day.

Health can't be measured by a bathroom scale

About eight weeks ago I sprained my MCL, and I haven't been able to play soccer since. And ever since summer, I've skipped my early morning gym time, choosing instead to work on the third novel in my Semper - Forsada - To-be-titled series.

This means I haven't seriously exercised in a long, long time. But I know I'm still in great shape because the bathroom scale says I've only gained a pound or two in all those months. Right?

Actually, that's a pretty stupid conclusion. It would be like saying the economy is strong because the stock market is high.

Truth is, I am still reasonably fit, and if I only look at one indicator (the bathroom scale), then I think things are going great. But to judge my real health, I have to look at many other indicators and all the things that go into health--diet, activity, stress, etc. Same thing with the health of any complex system. I've blogged about this in my day job. You can't take one indicator, as important as it may be, and understand the full health of a complex system like a human body, a workforce, an educational system, a government, or an economy.

In the USA, we have a addiction to primary indicators. By that I mean we obsess over the one magical number we can use to grade everyone and everything. We see it in our obsession with the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which leads every business news report but really doesn't tell us very much about the health of the economy overall. We see it in standardized test scores like the SAT, which determines so much about a student's college admission but really doesn't test education or ability; it only grades whether the child has the prepared to take the SAT. We see it in consumption, where price alone drives so many of our purchases.

Take, for example, the omnipresent fast food "meal deal." Most places offer options to upsize your meal, and the price delta is minuscule compared to the base price. Pay $6 for the regular, $6.70 for the medium, or $7.15 for the large. Or, "add chips and a drink" for just two bucks. Notice they call it a "meal," not "the healthy addition."

The American psyche looks at that and quickly calculates that the price per increase is negligible compared to the initial buy-in. Virtually no thought is given to how hungry the person is; the only indicator that matters is price. So naturally, most people size up. Best decision? Probably not, even though it might seem to make economic sense to get a lot more of something for just a little extra spent.

Because that makes it really hard to keep the bathroom scale steady.

You got me all wrong. See? I have an earring. (blog post)

Today is my birthday, and I am very disappointed in you all. I only wanted one thing for my birthday. Just one thing. And you couldn't find it within yourself to do that one little thing? Just look:

See that? It says 44 reviews. All I wanted was 50 reviews by my birthday. Was that so hard to do? I gave you more than two months. But I won't hold it against you. I know you're busy. It's the thought that counts, right? I'll just keep telling myself that.

OK, sorry. Maybe I'm just cranky because I reluctantly joined a new demographic today. No, it has nothing to do with the Supreme Court's smack-down of DOMA and Prop 8... I'm still married to my wife of 23 years. Instead, it has to do with turning 46 years old. Most surveys that ask your age, I've noticed, use these categories: under 25, 26-35, 36-45, and "really old." I might have to stop taking online surveys.

Yes, recently I started wearing a diamond stud in my left ear after letting it sit in a drawer for 20 years. (The earring, I mean, not the ear.) I am here to tell you that my new old earring is not a response to a midlife crisis. Some people might think that I'm desperately trying to recreate my past in a pathetic attempt to stay young. While this may be true, it is not a midlife crisis. It's a statement of individuality.

How long are you going to make me wait before you stop laughing?

Seriously. This one little thing might make someone question their first impression of me. Balding, middle aged, straight, white male working for a Big Bank and wearing a pinstripe suit to a city department board meeting. Any guesses what that guy's political leanings are?

Now add an earring. See? It makes all the difference, doesn't it? Okay, maybe not, but at least now you're wondering if the guy is gay because you can't remember if left ear means "gay" or "behind the times." (But of course he's not gay because look at those awful shoes.)

So really it's all about breaking down stereotypes and disassociating myself from what is coming to be the common portrayal of my demographic: misogynistic, homophobic, racist, aristocratic hypocrites. I mean that's the portrayal these days. It's not my actual demographic. I'm none of those things, and I hate that people who don't know me might assume it.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

And because I feel like including a few links:
CHALUPA!
Still mad as hell
Also, a vampire.

And just in case you feel like giving me a nice birthday present after all:

Just click here to write your review now.

Congressional art contest draws a crowd

Artistic talent skips a generation. My father-in-law was a graphic designer by profession, and pretty good at it. His daughter once drew an owl which looked exactly like a Mr. Coffee. (She was 24 at the time.)

Mr. Coffee

Owl that looks like Mr. Coffee

Then along comes our son, who must have inherited all the talent that skipped our generation. Because he has some mad talent with a pencil. Check out this drawing he submitted to our Congressional representative's art competition recently:

The original is 18 inches by 24 inches, I think. Something like that. It's all in pencil. He wanted to do a drawing that included aircraft from all four military services. I always get this wrong, but I'll try anyway: A Marines Harrier is on top, with an Air Force F-16 on the left and a Navy F-18 on the right, with an Army Cobra helicopter at the bottom.

He entered two contests. One is the Congressional contest where a panel of judges will select the winner from all the entrants, and the winning artwork will hang in Congress along with all the other winners from around the country.

The second contest is our rep's "viewers choice" contest. And the beauty here is YOU CAN VOTE.

HOW YOU CAN VOTE
To vote for Ethan's drawing, go to this page (a facebook page) and "like" the photo. That's it. None of those "this app wants permission to post on your wall" crap. Just a simple "like." Then you can browse through all the other entries, some of which are quite good.

He's pretty talented, no? Sometimes I wish he'd expand his subject matter (he only draws airplanes, focusing on military in particular), but it's art. The artist has to do what the artist is called to do, right?

Boy Scouts: Going from wrong to still just as wrong

Me when I used
to wear the uniform
of a Scout leader.

On Friday an email from Diversity, Inc hit my inbox with an exciting subject line. Because of my display settings, the ending was cut off, so I saw this:

BREAKING NEWS: Boy Scouts to End Gay Ban for...

Even though I was already a couple minutes late to a lunch meeting, in excitement I opened the email, only to find the rest of the sentence:

... Members, Not Leaders

Essentially, gay boys can participate in Boy Scouts, but gay and lesbian adults cannot. (The Board of BSA still needs to vote on this new change.) This makes no sense. None whatsoever. Go ahead, I dare you to try to make a rational argument that convinces me this makes sense from any perspective. Any perspective at all.

"A step in the right direction?" I guess. But this paragraph in the above linked article gives me pause:

In making its announcement, Boy Scouts spokesperson Deron Smith said the decision would be that “no youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference.” The choice of language alone indicates the cultural disconnect of the Boy Scouts: The term “preference” is anathema to the LGBT community, since it indicates that being LGBT is a choice, which it is not. Even mainstream media organizations like the Associated Press and the New York Times no longer use the term “preference” in relation to orientation.

I wonder how "equal" a gay boy's membership will be in many troops. Also, it's unclear whether individual troops will have the ability to keep a boy out, simply shunting him over to a different troop.

But yes, a step in the right direction. At least BSA is no longer saying that being gay is inherently morally wrong.

Oh, wait, yes, they are.

Still hiking, camping,
and all that as a dad but
not as an ASM.

By keeping gay and lesbian adults from participating as scout leaders, BSA is perpetuating their paranoid bigotry. The message is that a gay adult is somehow a danger to the boys in the troop. How could a gay father or a lesbian mother be a danger to boys in the troop? Being gay does not make someone a pedophile. Gay people don't try to recruit children into being gay. Being gay does not mean you have a harder time with camping, tying knots, building fires, or any other activity I've been trained to do as an Assistant Scoutmaster.

This compromise makes no logical sense. I don't see how the religious conservatives will be okay with it. And I don't see how anti-discrimination groups will be okay with it. I certainly am not.

From a funding standpoint, BSA must have cleared this with the Mormon and Catholic churches. They can't afford to lose that revenue without gaining corporate donations, and I can't imagine any corporation that currently does not give to Boy Scouts changing their policy based on this.

BSA is still discriminating. They're still wrong.

And I'm still not wearing the uniform.

#BSA should follow this council's lead. THANK YOU @bsamdsc (blog post)

I never actually formally resigned my status as an Assistant Scout Master; I just stopped wearing the uniform and fulfilling the duties. I am not sure if it was just laziness on my part, or if it was my innate optimism causing me to believe that things would change soon at BSA, and when they did I would probably step up as a leader once more.

Last month, our local council (Mount Diablo Silverado) sent out a survey to over 5,000 stakeholders--scout leaders, registered adult volunteers, scouts, and scout parents--and got a 42% response rate. The survey was specifically about BSA's national "membership standards," which is the official term for BSA's policy of discriminating against gay people.

Earlier, our council was at the center of a media firestorm about BSA's policy. That drove me bananas and made me embarrassed to be a part of this organization. Today, I have tremendous hope because our council executed this survey and is completely transparent with the results and is taking action. The membership of our council spoke loudly and clearly.

Now, I'm a data wonk for sure. I love analyzing survey data, especially trying to mix in various dimensions to see what the data is really telling us. Back when I wrote a weekly college football column, I based nearly all my analysis on stats, and the more obscure patterns I could see, the more fun I had with it.

No such super-deep analysis is needed with this survey. The results pretty overwhelmingly say three things:

1. The vast majority of our council membership want the policy changed, and most want it changed at the national level (none of this "each group can decide to be homophobic if they want to" stuff).
2. Scouts in particular (the youth in the organization) want the policy changed.
3. People who are prejudiced are really prejudiced. People who like the policy as it is say they would be even less likely to recommend scouting if it's changed. (Fortunately, some day, these people will die off. But that's my independent prediction; the survey doesn't actually say they'll die off.)

I took this survey, and I took the time to fill out every text box that was available to me. Apparently, quite a few others did, too, and some day I hope to see the verbatim responses which are not published in the web-accessible version of the report (which, I must say, makes total sense). The council called such responses "quite helpful and in many cases inspiring."

But what really has me feeling good today is the action our council has taken. I hope they don't mind me quoting it here--it's publicly viewable as section 5 of the survey results, and I think they should be commended for not only taking action based on the survey results but for being thoughtful about the right action to take and going that extra step. I actually got chills reading this, which is rare for me. It gives me hope amid all the prejudice and political bullshit that goes on in the world (Congress, I'm looking at you).

LIFTED VERBATIM FROM THE REPORT
5. Recommendations
Given that the national board may evolve their view on this matter, our committee does not believe that the MDSC board should vote on the current proposed changes to national BSA’s membership standard. Rather we believe the MDSC board should vote to support a set of principles that represent the views of the majority of our members. Further, we believe our board should vote to advocate for these principles. Finally we believe our board should vote to encourage our national board representatives to vote in a manner consistent with these principles.

5.1 Membership Standard Principles that represent the majority opinion of the MDSCGiven the work of the committee, the findings from our survey, and our debates and discussions, we recommend the adoption of the following principles:

A. Scouts and Scouters should be judged by their conduct, their actions, and their character, consistent with the Scout Oath and Scout Law, not by stereotypes or group related prejudices.
B. The Scout Oath and the Scout Law are foundational ideas that every person should be exposed to so that all people can benefit from the Scouting movement’s principles, ideals, and values.
C. Regardless of sexual orientation, sexual topics and conduct, which include pointing out another individual’s sexual orientation, are not part of the Scouting movement and should not be tolerated. Further, the Scouting movement should not permit its organization to be used as a vehicle to promote any personal, political, social or other objective that is inconsistent with the Scout Oath and Scout Law.
D. The results of the MDSC Membership Standards Survey and the discussions of our committee have reaffirmed the role that the Scouting Movement has had and can continue to have in shaping the lives and values of young people. However the current BSA membership policy clearly excludes an entire group based on a presumption of behavior rather than on the actions of individuals. Excluding an entire group of people based on stereotypes and prejudices is inconsistent with the Scout Oath and Scout Law. The current membership policy is of deep concern to many in the Mt. Diablo Silverado Council for its potential to undermine the future vitality of the Scouting movement.
E. Chartered Organizations have always and will continue to create Scouting Units that are consistent with their organizational faiths, standards and deeply held beliefs. However, we believe that the national BSA board should not pass this important decision from BSA’s governing body to Chartered Organizations. Rather, we believe that the national board should adopt a standard policy, consistent with the Scout Oath, Scout Law, and the principles documented within this report, which ends the isolation and exclusion of LGBT individuals.

... and it leads to action

Thank you, MDSC, for asking us, listening to us, and taking action. Even better is this nugget from the newsletter that I got from the council and included in the survey's summary on the MDSC web site:

On Saturday March 16th at our Annual Business meeting the Committee’s recommendations (Section 5) were adopted and are now the guiding principles for the Mount Diablo Silverado Council.

It may have been a long time in coming, but the council has done this in such a way that it's based on facts and on the whole membership's beliefs. Hopefully the national BSA board will come around as well and stop basing their policy on the very loud voices and deep pockets of a prejudiced, fearful minority.

A view from Mt. Diablo overlooking our council's territory. Our mountain has one of the largest viewsheds in the western United States. No wonder our council takes a broad view of this issue and is taking inclusive action.

people come to me when seeking stimulation and porn star (blog)

Periodically I remember that Google Analytics exists and knows things about my blog that I don't. It also knows many things about you that I don't. Which can be fun.

For instance, the #1 search term that brings people to my blog is porn star. Now, I'm not letting that go to my head because I'm guessing that's the #1 search term for every single blog on the planet. But the #4 search is stimulation and the #10 search is porno stars. Coincidence? Trend? New career opportunity? You tell me. You're the one searching for those things.

Stormy Daniels, candidate

I do know something about you that Google Analytics does not, however. You are likely to arrive here flush with the excitement of the chase and the anticipation of titillation. But you are even more likely to click away disappointed.

Did you come here looking for Stormy Daniels? Or information about an actual corner kick? Bounce rate for "corner kick" is 100%. I am unsure of Stormy's bounce rate, but I would be willing to volunteer to measure it.

Speaking of that, I'm not sure what it means that stimulation has the lowest bounce rate. If you come here looking for stimulation, you apparently bounce less frequently. I will have to keep that in mind the next time I encounter someone seeking stimulation.

BOUNCE RATE (bounces per day?)

But most troubling is the fact that elbow shows up in three of the top ten searches leading to my blog. Maybe because 50% of my family have broken an elbow in the past five years, according to Google Analytics. And most amusing to me is that someone actually searched for the term bottom of boobs.

And ended up at my blog.

That tickles me. (Besides, "Bottom of Boobs" would be a great name for a band.)

PS: Big thanks to Joni for being my #1 referrer during the last [mumble] days! According to Google Analytics.

election and politics

This political season (in the US), my politics thoughts have gone mostly to Facebook or Twitter, not here. But it's been such a big part of 2012 that I have to post something.

Y'all probably already know I lean liberal and identify Democrat despite being a balding white male living in a wealthy suburb and working at a big bank. (Turns out these characteristics do not cause a spectacular explosion like mixing matter and anti-matter.) I am very happy Obama won and very sat Prop 8 has not yet been relegated to the political garbage heap of history. In case you were wondering.

Today I had a chance to listen in on a private analysis of the election by a non-partisan, independent and unbiased party. (Yes, really. It was not on the news. It was not over a beer. It was a real pollster from a real polling organization.) The analysis only scratched the surface, and the phrase "emerging wisdom" was used frequently (i.e. the wisdom from this election has not yet fully emerged despite what many tweeters and some cable TV people seem to think). Here are some of the things I took away from this discussion:

• Obama's approval rating was 52% running up to the election.
  This is quite high for an incumbent running for reelection. Since Richard Nixon's 56% approval rating 40 years ago, only Reagan and Clinton had higher ratings in their reelection years.
• This election was the most polarized since this organization started measuring this particular data point. Among Democrats, Obama had a 90% approval rating; among Republicans, only 8% (an 82 point gap). Even W had a higher opposition approval rating at 12%, resulting in an 80 point gap.
• The electorate is divided starkly along racial lines. Obama won over 75% of the vote of people who identify themselves as non-white. Among those identifying as white, Obama won such categories as people with post-graduate education, nonmarried women, and non-religious people.
• In general, national polls were correct throughout the campaign, within a 2-3 point margin of error. They all pretty much said it was too close to call, and it was.
• Historically, Republicans are much more likely to vote. The Obama campaign's Get Out The Vote efforts likely had a big effect on the outcome. (One of those pieces of emerging wisdom.)
• When asked, "Is it more important to stick to your beliefs or to reach compromises," 40% of conservatives said stick to beliefs even if it means nothing gets done, while 60%+ of moderates said compromise, as did 60%+ of liberals. Which, when you think about the meaning of the word "conservative," makes total sense.
• A majority of the population thinks government should do less, not more, to solve the country's problems. Also, a majority think that people rely too much on the federal government. (I have no idea what people mean by that in real terms. But it's interesting that Romney had that going for him in a significant way, yet he was unable to capitalize.)

There were quite a number of other interesting observations, but ultimately this call left me with the impression that our country is very starkly divided, with only a very small number of people truly in the middle. This is not a shocking conclusion to anyone who has paid attention over the past 12 years, but what I did not realize is how starkly divided we are along racial lines.

As the country's population darkens (and it is getting less white, which I think is a good thing), Republicans will have to deal with the problems facing those demographics if they want to continue to be elected. Circling the wagons around a right-wing, Christian, morals-based agenda and calling it a "big tent" is unlikely to win over the non-white votes they already don't have. (The linked FOX news article talks about "all slices" of the "big tent" Republican pie on display at this year's convention: fiscal conservatism, Ron Paul supporters, and right-to-life. Yup. HUGE tent there.) At some point, the Republicans will have to put forth candidates that can legitimately speak to and deal with the issues facing the non-whites in this country.

Even so, Obama's 2-point popular vote advantage illustrates how evenly divided this country is. Neither side can ever claim a "mandate" in any kind of a win. The only mandate the elected have is to make progress on solving this nation's problems. Unemployment, an education system in free fall, an aging Boomer population, dependence on foreign oil, the insane costs of health care, etc.

People can disagree on how to solve those problems, but obstructionist politics designed to wall off one side from the other will never solve any of them. Hopefully, all our elected politicians will refocus on progress.

We will see. I am glad Obama was reelected. Not because I want to "tax the rich and feed the poor until there are no rich no more" but because Obama's is a message of inclusion. Ensure every voice is heard and respected. Listen to opposing viewpoints and try to find solutions. The Republicans have hunkered down in the bunker of obstructionism for so long, I wonder if they will be able to participate, or if they will continue to kick and scream while our country falls apart around them.

And there, that's my political post for this presidential election cycle. We now return you to your regular programming.

NaNoWriMo Update
Another 1900 words today, which puts me over 20,000 and on pace for over 65,000 by month end. If I keep up my pace, which seems unlikely. Especially since I've gotten to that point in my story where I don't know exactly what happens next, and usually I have to let things simmer for a week or two before moving on. Not this time. This time, I have to turn up the heat to boil and keep rolling.

The uniform comes off: @BoyScouts and @bsamdsc, you got this WRONG.

Sometimes an event happens that clarifies a difficult, murky situation. Such an event happened today. I got an email. That in itself is not unusual. This email came from our local Boy Scouts council leadership. That is a little unusual, but not terribly. But when I received this particular email, I swear I could actually hear that other shoe hitting the floor.

My last blog post was about BSA's national anti-gay policy. That post focused on the meaning of leadership. How can BSA profess to teach young men to become effective leaders when they're saying that roughly one in every ten boys (or one in every twenty-five, depending on which experts you believe) need to be excluded?

I think BSA's policy is morally wrong, ethically wrong, and also wrong-headed. It's ass backwards from a leadership perspective, from an American perspective, and from a management perspective. Why are gays excluded? Gay does not equal pedophile. Gay equals gay. Pedophile equals pedophile. BSA's history is littered with documented cases of covered-up child molestation. The anti-gay policy didn't do any good then in protecting the boys. Only in the past few years has BSA put in place strong policies to protect boys from predators, including background checks, biannual youth protection training, no solitary one-on-one contact, etc. Had those policies been in place, policies that protect against pedophiles, then maybe that abuse could have been prevented.

But that's not my point. My point is the email I got today. You may have read about that boy in a town nearby who is a shining example of all things Boy Scouts. Oh, wait, sorry. There's this one thing. He's openly gay. And for that, he was denied his Eagle rank, for which he accomplished all the requirements. The Scoutmaster of his troop refused to sign off on the boy's excellent Eagle project. And now, in this email I've received, the Council stands behind the Scoutmaster's decision.

I've heard this argument made before. We were just following orders. People might disagree about the policy, but there's nothing we can do. Our hands our tied. It was a "good faith" effort. (Which is an odd use of the phrase here since faith (in the religious sense) is typically correlated with gay discrimination (see: reasons Prop 8 passed).)

Anyway, this email hit my inbox hard. I'd imagined the policy to be a result of BSA being headquartered in Texas. Everyone in California knows that Texas is a wacko tea party Bible Belt kind of place, right? That could never actually happen in the Bay Area. (Ooh! Ironic prejudice alert!)

Well, it did. It happened here. In my own council. And they aren't standing up for the scout. They're backing the adult leader. Which is what has happened for decades. Too bad for the 17 year old boy who did everything right and trusted the adults around him. Too bad they are kicking him to the curb. But the adults, they made a good faith effort, you know?

No more for me. I cannot wear the uniform any longer. I cannot hold an official position in the BSA organization, no matter how puny and insignificant my role as Assistant Scoutmaster of a troop of 35 boys is. When a boy as courageous and upstanding and model as that boy is (according to what I've read... I do not know the family personally) is crushed just for being who he is, it's wrong. As an organization, we should be celebrating his leadership and accomplishments. As a society, we should be congratulating him for overcoming the bullying he's experienced.

In Michigan, an unpopular girl is made fun of by her peers, and she gets a huge rally of support from her community. This boy accomplishes all he has done, and the adults around him tsk-tsk and suppress him further, rallying around the poor Scoutmaster who was put "in a difficult position."

It's all so backwards and wrong. It makes me really sad. Shame on you, BSA. Shame on you, Mount Diablo Silverado Council. I know you will grow up and change one day. But today? Today's a bad day.

DC mini travelogue - with photos!

The first time we took my older son, Ethan, to Washington, DC, he was less than a year old and it was a week before Clinton's second inauguration. The weather was like ten degrees out. Kelvin. We saw a few monuments but not much.

The most recent time we took him was last week. He turned 16 while we were there, and the weather was like 102 degrees. Celsius.

No, seriously, it was hot. And humid. Hotter and more humid than the jungle in Nepal.

This time, though, we saw tons of stuff. Way more than we expected, and everything was awesome. And accessible by Metro.

We did the basics like the Capitol tour (disappointing; we saw only three rooms and didn't see either chamber of Congress, which I'd hoped to see) and the Air and Space Museum.

 That's the Capitol. I have better pictures, but I'm not authorized to show them because the person in them doesn't like the way she looks even though the rest of us think she looks beautiful.

It's actually shocking how few photos I have from the Air & Space Museum, given how totally freakin' awesome it is and how enthralled all us boys were the whole time.

We also saw a few unexpected gems, though. The US Postal Service Museum, for example. Free and shockingly interesting. Cool exhibit about the Pony Express, a very interesting look at the automation and logistics of this enormous organization, and a stuffed dog. No, really. A taxidermy-stuffed dog.

Another unexpected gem was Newseum. I'd never heard of this before, and it's not free like the Smithsonian museums, but I could have spent a week there. They have some awesome displays of original documents from the last three hundred years, a big section of the Berlin Wall, a neat video analysis of political campaign ads through the years, the most incredible gallery of Pulitzer Prize winning photographs, and a moving 9/11 exhibit, among other things. Well worth the time and money spent.

Plus, they have this awesome patio looking at the Capitol building. You can't tell it's 95 degrees, can you?

My favorite of the week, I think, was the Library of Congress. What a gorgeous building, and all devoted to books and history and learning and creativity and culture. It's a true monument to the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. We had a fun docent and got a great tour. I like this place so much I would consider moving to the Capitol Hill area of DC just to live in walking distance of the reading room.

The front of the Library of Congress.

Our tour guide, Robert, asking Sam some questions.

Me in a not so great picture with the archway behind me.

The Library from across the street as we left the Capitol building.

Since we were in Washington, DC on July 4th, we thought we should see the fireworks over the Mall. Although it was insanely muggy and kind of hot, we went anyway, and I'm glad we did. Fortunately, the fireworks were awesome and lasted more than fifteen seconds.

Where we almost stopped to watch them, but I don't think we'd have seen anything here.

Waiting patiently, with iPod Touch in hand.

Cool to see the fireworks with the Washington Monument in the background.

We also visited the National Institutes of Health where my brother cures cancer for a living. We saw his lab late at night when we wouldn't bother any of the workers. Security was impressive at the gate, but they let us in even when they learned he was my brother. Here's Dr. Dudley showing Sam how to use the microscope:

Fortunately, he keeps his lab cleaner than he kept our shared bedroom when we were growing up.

We also saw many other things, some of which we photographed and some we did not. For example, the Holocaust Museum was astonishing and gut-wrenching and beautiful. The International Spy Museum (privately run) was fun and interesting, but I might have preferred watching a marathon of History Channel specials on espionage and spies from WW II and the cold war. And some photos from other places we visited:

The Supreme Court. No oral arguments were being heard while we were there, but we got to see the courtroom, and the building and hallway exhibits are interesting in their own right. It was neat being there only a few days after the big Obamacare decision.

The Hirshhorn modern art museum was far more interesting than I expected. We only breezed through a small portion of it, but it was interesting and fun. I generally am bored by modern art, but this was well put together.

We walked through most of the monuments on our last full day, Monday, July 9th. The great thing about this was that the heat broke, so it was only about 90 degrees. It felt quite comfortable. This photo is from the Korean War monument. We also visited Lincoln, MLK, Vietnam War, and World War II (below).

I can't believe it took me 45 years to see these things. Even though the weather was terrible (if you ever go, try to go during the cherry blossom season even though I think it gets insanely crowded), every museum and monument we visited was beautiful and very well done. Be prepared to have water and food taken away (every museum had a security checkpoint), and be prepared to spend $15 a person on a meager lunch. But also be prepared to be amazed and inspired by the history on display and the grandeur of the experience. Simply amazing.

Independence Day

Today in the United States we celebrate not only these words but the spirit behind them.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

And that's about all that most Americans have ever heard (if that much) of the Declaration. But the men that rose up against the English king in the 1770s weren't simple rabble rousers out to take power for themselves. Some no doubt met that description, but most did not. Many turned to Independence reluctantly, and they were careful to outline their grievances. But even in the Declaration they hinted at the thinking that led to the form of government we have now.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Today we change our government every few years, or at least the people who are governing. While this has solved many of the problems of a monarchy, it has not been flawless.

Today we do not celebrate our government, our elected officials, our troops, the Revolution, or the fact that we won it. Today we celebrate the courage and wisdom of the people (men and women) who stood up for their liberty against tyranny. They risked their lives and livelihoods for their ideals.

Sometimes it's very difficult to tell the difference between insurgents and freedom fighters. On July 4th every year, and indeed on every day of the year, Americans should seek the wisdom to be able to tell the difference, and to take the side of liberty rather than the side of tyranny in the world's conflicts.

Read the Declaration recently? If not, find it here.

the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug

I attended a portion of the Black Economic Council's conference in Oakland today. Specifically, the keynote luncheon and awards presentation. My boss won the "mensch" award (because he's a really great guy), and a coworker was given the "transformation" award (because he's a cousin of Optimus Prime). Anyway, one of the other award winners gave an awesome acceptance speech that, in the great tradition of awesome acceptance speeches, went on WAY too long.

But something he said hit home with me as a writer, especially given the recent flap over the idiot who's releasing a version of Huck Finn with a certain word changed.

The background: this award winner met a man whose mother was the granddaughter of a slave. It's striking to think how little removed we are from that culture, though it seems like ancient history. This man held the hand of a woman who held the hand of a slave.  That's how he put it. Just one touch away. Not so distant after all.

As part of this story, the man was corrected by a wiser man nearby. "Don't say she was a slave," this wise man said. "Say instead that she was enslaved."

The difference between the right word and the wrong word is the difference between the lighting and the lightning bug.

To say someone "is a slave" is to blame them for their condition. It's what they are, that phrase says. No big deal. She's a slave. She's five feet tall. She's brown-eyed. That's who she is. That's who she'll always be. You can't change her eye color. You can't change her being a slave.

To say someone "is enslaved" is to illuminate that they are a victim of someone else's inhumanity. This is a big deal. She's enslaved (by someone else). She's repressed (by someone else). She's beaten (by someone else). Being enslaved is a condition that can be changed... by changing that someone else.

Think on that a while. And pay attention to the way simple phrases and images appear in the media, and in casual conversation. Notice those places where a bias has crept in without looking like any bias at all. Understand how words affect us on deeper levels. I'm no fan of political correctness--that overt, childish mockery of language that creates whole new doublespeak and which inhibits the free exchange of ideas. But we all need to be aware of how the words we use affect others. And ourselves.

What did we expect?

By now, everyone knows about the terrorist attack in Tucson that killed six and critically wounded a member of the US Congress.  And everyone has been reminded of Sarah Palin's hit list.

At the time the hit list was originally posted, I found it in extremely poor taste and wondered how Palin or her supporters could find it acceptable.  We were in a state of war, for one thing.  We had soldiers dying overseas.  It seemed to border on reckless, but the country took it as just another bit of Palin's over-the-top political rabble rousing.  "It's only Sarah," we said.  We'd come to expect that from her.

Worse, we'd come to expect it from that side of the aisle.  Months before Palin posted her map, a few zealots showed up at a political fundraiser in Phoenix with handguns. One carried an assault rifle.  They weren't breaking any law; they were simply exercising their first and second amendment rights.

At some point, an invisible line was crossed.  Civility, reason, and graciousness were tossed out as unnecessary trappings of the weak.  Intelligence and education were deemed luxuries of the elite.  "Real Americans" no longer needed to respect or listen to people who disagreed with them.  Real Americans were going to take back their country.  Ready, aim...

If I, or anyone I know, had posted a hit list map with gunsight crosshairs on it in March of 2010, we'd be behind bars, under severe interrogation, and charged with serious crimes within days.  Hours, perhaps.  And I don't necessarily disagree with that.

Why, then, did the country shake our heads and shrug when Palin did it?  What did we expect would come of it?