Those who have read my posts and considered my basic political philosophy can probably figure out my views on whether or not the Boy Scouts should admit openly gay youths — and scoutmasters.

As a private organization, they have the right to determine the qualifications for membership and leadership.  The state should stay out of it.  That said, I believe they should allow gay people to participate.

Now, to be sure, given the scandals in the Catholic Church (where most of the victims have been teenage boys), I can understand why they might be wary of having gay (male) scoutmasters.  But, there are ways to screen their leaders to make sure they don’t bring on men who would abuse boys. Most (but alas not all) gay men would never even consider taking advantage of teenagers, particularly those in their charge.

That said, I just don’t get why they would bar lesbians from being scoutmasters.  Lesbians tend not to be interested in boys and would not definitely molest them.  Thus, I was struck earlier today when HotAir linked this New York Times story, featuring a picture of a mother ousted as a “scout leader because she is a lesbian.”

The leadership of the Boy Scouts should make the decision on allowing openly gay members and scoutmasters.  And I would like to see them change their policy.

NB:   (more…)

“WHILE BLOOMBERG’S BEEN FOCUSING ON GUNS AND BIG GULPS“, Glenn Reynolds quips today on Instapundit, “New York City seeing spike in anti-gay crime, officials say.”

And Mr. Bloomberg has grandstanded repeatedly on limiting the ability of all citizens, including gay men and lesbians, to defend themselves against attack.

Perhaps if New York made it easier for law-abiding citizens to get concealed carry permits, bashers would be warier of confronting gay people knowing they could be armed.

NICK ADDS: As I’ve often said, the best way to fight “hate crimes” is for people to arm themselves. And as my buddies over at Reason.com have noted, for some in Seattle, “[i]t’s clearly inconceivable that anybody could actually hold in his or her mind, simultaneously, a regard for the right of people to love who they want and respect for the right of self-defense”

Jeff adds: Nick, good one! Following your link, I surfed on through Oleg Volk’s website to www.a-human-right.com, which has some of the best pro-gun posters I’ve seen, starting here.

Here’s a sample of their wares, with more below the fold:

(more…)

Last night, I had a pleasant dinner, spontaneously arranged, with one of my closest friends in LA.  He and I had met about six years via an online dating service.  We didn’t feel much romantic chemistry, but did enjoy each other’s company and became friends.

as we occasionally do, we shared our stories about online dating, he kvetching about a man who didn’t call when he promised, but who subsequently kept pestering him with texts, I sharing stories about a number of decent dates I had with guys whose profiles presented a pretty accurate portrait of their personality, profession and passions.

And then we fell to talking about guys who misrepresented themselves on line, with both of us recalling dates with men who just didn’t look like their pictures.  I related a tale about a guy I met depicted as thin in his online pictures, but who in person, suffered from a severe shall we say, a severe absence of thin.  (After our coffee date, I went back home and checked his profile and ascertained that that was clearly the guy depicted online, but the pictures were at least ten years old.)

And we wondered last night, my friend and I, we wondered what these men thought when they posted these pictures, that their scintillating personalities would make up for the difference in appearance?  Didn’t it occur to them that men who responded to the ad would be attracted to that picture and expect to meet someone who looked like the guy in the picture? Or did they believe that the picture merely served to draw the potential date to the profile and that the qualities delineated therein constituted the real nature of said date’s interest?

Or did they believe their own propaganda, that they actually looked today like they did ten years ago, despite the fact that ten years ago, they exercised regularly whereas today they’re making plans to exercise next week? (more…)

“Liberal activists,” Kyle Smith writes in the New York Post, “unable to win the argument against Rush Limbaugh, try to silence him instead.” (H/t HotAir headlines.)

Wonder if that is what the IRS was trying to do with the Tea Party.

What if instead of going around the country giving speeches on gun control, President Obama met privately with Senators and Members of Congress to solicit their views on reasonable firearms regulations — and to lobby them personally on expanding federal background checks.

Or would that strategy have defeated his real purpose in pushing the issue?

Your thoughts?

‘Obamacare’ Poll Finds 42% of Americans Unaware It’s Law

In many ways, George W. Bush was the kind of president Barack Obama, in his 2008 campaign (at least rhetorically), aspired to be, an individual who would transcend partisan acrimony and speak in unifying terms to the nation.  And while that Democrat may have promised a new kind of politics, he delivered the same old/same old with the addition of a full measure of the tricks he learned working his way up in the Chicago machine.

Last week, with his temper tantrum after the defeat of gun control legislation in the Senate, the Democrat demonstrated (once again) that he would rather demonize his political (and partisan) adversaries than engage them in debate and discussion.  Instead of acknowledging the arguments (of those opposing gun control), Obama claimed they had none (“no coherent arguments” were his exact words) and accused them of lying (without providing any specific examples of their dishonesty).

Can George W. Bush’s critics (or anyone for that matter) provide one single example of that good man accusing his domestic political opponents of lacking arguments or engaging in deceitful practices?  Did he lash out at Democrats when they obstructed his attempts to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or at liberal special interest groups who helped scuttle his efforts to reform Social Security?

Did that Republican accuse good-faith Democratic efforts to control federal spending as “thinly veiled social Darwinism“?  (Did Democrats, in the Bush Era, even make any good faith efforts to balance the budget even as they faulted the Republican for his deficit spending?)

Maybe had the 2000 election not been so close and, thanks, in large part, to Al Gore’s decision to delay his concession, controversial, would people have appreciated George W. Bush for what he was, a good man who respected his ideological adversaries and political opponents, and was acting in what, he believed to be, the national interest.

SORT OF RELATED: Bush is back

DEFINITELY RELATED:  ”Bush’s policies aside,” writes Guy Benson, “those who know him best have always been struck by his kindness, integrity and humanity.  Who among us wouldn’t be proud of such a legacy?”

Last week, on National Review’s Corner, Andrew Stiles reported that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan hadn’t “heard from President Obama since their lunch meeting in early March“:

“Not that I know of,” Ryan said when asked if the president had made any effort to follow up on their meeting, which he noted was “the first time we ever had a conversation” since Obama took office. “I don’t really know him very well.”

Similarly, the president hasn’t made much of an effort to reach out to Senators and federal Representatives after deciding last fall to make a push for gun control.  He seems to think it suffices for him to make a public appearance, give a speech and expect Congress to accept his arguments and act on proposals in line with said arguments.

Yet, just as his speeches don’t seem to persuade the American people of the wisdom of his approach, they also don’t seem to sway Congress.  Despite his push for gun control legislation, few Americans share his priorities:

Few Americans mention guns or immigration as the most important problems facing the nation today, despite the current attention lawmakers in Washington are giving to these issues. The economy still dominates as the top concern, followed by jobs and dissatisfaction with the general way in which Congress and the government work.

Just 4% see guns/gun control as the “most important problem facing this country today”.

Wonder if Obama might be more effective as a leader if instead of trying to demagogue certain issues, he focused on the issues of concern to the American voter.

And maybe he’s been so angry of late because while he has climbed far based on his persona, he hasn’t been able to translate his personal appeal into real accomplishments.

VERY RELATED: America’s Just Not That into Obama

* (more…)

Remember when President Obama told Jay Leno that one thing he wanted to do as the nation’s chief executive was “to break is a pattern in Washington where everybody is always looking for somebody else to blame.”

Doesn’t seem the Democrat has put his money where his mouth was.  According to Mark Felsenthal and Steve Holland of Reuters, Obama blames “shameful” politics for defeat of gun measure:

President Barack Obama, his gun control legislation falling to defeat, lashed out at the U.S. Congress in unusually tough terms on Wednesday as he came to grips with the loss of a key priority after spending months fighting for it.

“There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn’t do this. It came down to politics,” Obama said after the Senate failed to muster enough votes to expand background checks for firearms purchases.

Obama accused those opposed to the legislation he supports of being liars, saying, “The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill“.

Do wonder how many Senators Mr. Obama called or otherwise buttonholed to ask for their support on this issue he made a “key priority” only after willing reelection last fall.

—-

*Or did he just give speeches?

Jennifer Rubin how the media would cover the story had a right-wing group surreptitiously recorded a meeting of a Democratic Senator’s reelection team as the left-wing “Kentucky Progress” did of Senator McConnell’s staff:

If this were a right-wing plot against a top Democrat there would be wall-to-wall coverage on the cable networks and front-page coverage with the magazine involved taking a beating, but don’t expect too much coverage from the MSM or commentary or much of anything from the lefty pundits, who were only interested in the tape’s contents. Like Benghazi, Libya, in their minds’ if they don’t cover it, it’s not news. Gee, you’d think the “media critics” would notice that egregious bias.

It seems Todd Akin’s 6-second crazy gaffe about rape get more coverage than this left-wing dirty trick against the Senate Republican leader.

I’m wondering how the media would be covering the economy if we saw a surging stock market and sluggish job growth during a Republican administration, particularly as gas prices were climbing and incomes stagnant. In the Obama economy, it seems big corporations and the wealthiest Americans are doing quite well as the New York Times reported last September:

The income gap between the wealthiest 20 percent of American households and the rest of the country grew sharply in 2011, the Census Bureau reported, as an overwhelming majority of Americans saw no gains from a weak economic recovery in its second full year.

Shouldn’t there be some stories about how Obama’s policies favor the wealthy?

Just wondering.

As we all know, language undergoes change over time, especially idioms. I remember when “The mother of all X” became a popular U.S. English idiom (to mean “The greatest of all X”, as distinct from its earlier usage, “The origin of all X”). It was a little over 20 years ago, the time of the first Gulf War. Saddam Hussein promised us “The mother of all battles”, and it sounded humorously strange. Today, it’s a cliche.

One idiom I see becoming widespread is the use of “It begs the question…”, to mean “It raises the question…”

As with “The mother of all X…”, begging the question has a different, earlier usage. It meant an argument whose outcome you rigged, by simply assuming the conclusion (what you wanted to prove) as one of your argument’s premises. But I see ever more people using the phrase in a different sense, like this:

With the markets breaking all-time highs last week, it begs the question of just how high they can go.

To me, that’s a misuse. No, it doesn’t “beg” the question. It POSES the question. It RAISES the question. Unless the idiom has changed, and I’m just being cranky about it.

Which RAISES (!) the question: When do idioms change? What bell is rung? How much must an idiom be misused, before the grating mis-usage should be accepted as the new, correct usage? Or should some of us just keep pointing out how uneducated people sound, when they misuse it?

Maybe it doesn’t matter that the debate on gay marriage has been (on the whole) so pathetic. Maybe we don’t need a national conversation on the meaning of marriage. Maybe it’s those myriad private conversations that are really making the difference.

Or maybe not even conversations. Interactions. When people see gay couples living together and fulfilling the responsibilities that inhere in a relationship, they understood that gay men and women are capable of marriage. They don’t need words to convince them; they have evidence.

Writing yesterday about the shifting consensus on gay marriage, Jennifer Rubin observed:

As more gay and lesbian Americans came out to friends, family and co-workers, the anti-gay-marriage voices were handicapped; they argued against an issue in the abstract while gay-marriage proponents could argue that Mike and Sam down the street or Sue and Ann at the office shouldn’t be denied the right to marry.

In the past few weeks, two Democratic Senators came out for gay marriage, both following the lead of their Republican colleague from the Buckeye State, Rob Portman, who changed his position on the issue after his son had come out to him.

Were the Democrats inspired by the Republican’s example?  Would the Republican have changed his mind without dealing with the flesh-and-blood experiences of his son?

A college classmate recently posted on Facebook about gay marriage.  And when I found myself weighing in, I offered a response a bit longer than I had anticipated.  It’s organized as are most of my post, more in the form of random thoughts, but since I took some time crafting it, I thought I would share with with you, slightly amended with links added:

As perhaps the only gay person on this thread, I must note that I have long been decidedly ambivalent on gay marriage, in part because many gay marriage advocates seem more interested in winning the culture wars than in promoting the institution and in part because of my studies of myth, psychology and anthropology and the longstanding human recognition of the importance of sex difference.  And marriage rituals of every culture (see van Gennep) are based upon bringing together individuals from different groups.

In my grad school paper for my Native American class, I researched the legends of the berdache, or two-spirit.  Many cite the berdacge tradition as an example of cultures which accept and embrace homosexuality and same-sex relationships.  And while many American Indian tribes recognized same-sex marriages, they all required one partner in such a union to live in the guise of the other sex.  Thus, if one man married another man, one would wear men’s clothes and go hunting with the “braves” while the other would have to wear women’s clothes and live as a “squaw.”  The one who lived as a woman could not go hunting with his same-sex peers nor could he participate in activities, rituals etc reserved for his biological sex.

Sex difference in short has long been inherent to the notion of marriage.

That said, I believe, states should — at minimum — recognize gay relationships as civil unions.  And perhaps the ideal would be for the state to simply call monogamous relationships “civil unions” (for all people) and let churches, synagogues, private individuals, etc. call them marriage — or whatever they want. (more…)

A post (and the ensuing comment thread) my friend David Boaz linked today on Facebook reminded me why I have been so reluctant in recent days to re-enter the gay marriage fray.

For many years, particularly when I was in college and law school and working in Washington, D.C.’s public policy sector, I read widely about a great variety of issues, including social issues like marriage and child-rearing.  Conservative organizations presented much solid research on the social benefits of traditional marriage and the damaging effects of divorce.

I had always wondered why so few advocates of gay marriage looked at that research on traditional marriage in order to suggest that it could be applied to same-sex unions as well.  I am only aware of one group which has done so and blogged about it here.

In the current debate, instead of acknowledging the social conservatives’ broader point, all too many advocates merely repeat their slogans about “fairness” and “equality” while badmouthing anyone who would dare disagree with them, calling them “haters” –even going so far as to label hateful those who, like James Taranto, believe the Supreme Court should uphold “Proposition 8 and leave . . . the matter for the states to decide.”

And whereas the gay left have engaged in name-calling (if you don’t believe me, just check your Facebook feed), the social conservative opponents of gay marriage have been little better.  Which brings me to David’s link, leading to his own post where he takes aim at “Jim DeMint, former senator and future president of the Heritage Foundation” for attempting in a USA Today op-ed to link “family breakdown” and “welfare spending” to state recognition of gay marriage.

Yes, there is considerable evidence that welfare spending undermines the family unit  – and is bad for children.  And there is also considerable evidence that divorce is bad for children.  But, Mr. DeMint, like many social conservatives making similar arguments, fails to show how state recognition of gay marriage is bad for children.  Or for society.  The former Senator, as David puts it, just makes his case “with a sleight of hand.” (more…)

I had hoped today to post something about gay marriage, given the oral arguments before the Supreme Court. I had even outlined the piece I’d like to write, addressing the issue of jurisdiction, believing, as I do, that this is an issue best left to the legislatures, but recognizing some of the constitutional concerns (i.e., standing) which could lead the court to overturning Prop 8 without granting a federal “right” to state recognition of same-sex marriage.

And I wanted to distinguish the liberty issue from the state recognition issue.  If the California constitutional provision (in question) deprived individuals of the freedom to marry rather than just one of state recognition of those unions, the court should strike down the law.  But, marriage can exists (indeed, long has existed) independently of the state.  And individuals can and do live as married couples without state recognition.  Indeed, in California, many gay couples call themselves married and live freely even without the state sanctioning their unions.

All that said, this are issues which I would rather address in a more thoughtful manner.  And since I have made writing my epic my top priority, I chose to work on that before turning to the blog.  That effort today was a bit more challenging than I had anticipated.  And I had to struggle with one section.  And I have a sense that this part may require significant revision–and perhaps a few changes in story line.

The point being that writing-wise, now I feel completely drained (even more so than I have on previous days when I put in a similar effort on the book).  And now I have to start preparing for a Seder tonight, so lack the time to give this issue the attention it deserves.  Will share with you though an exchange I just had with a Facebook friend when I replied a posting he offered just as I started writing this:

HE: Marriage equality [sic] seems pretty popular. Why wasn’t Prop 8 repeal on the ballot way back in 2012?
Unlike · · 17 minutes ago ·
You like this.

ME: My point exactly, well, except for calling it “marriage equality.”

ME: Even if the Court upholds Prop 8, [California] voters will overturn it in 2014. And it won’t even be close.

In other words, the state of California will recognize same-sex marriages, either in 2013 by judicial fiat — or, in 2014 via popular initiative.

As our readers surely have guessed, I would prefer the latter.

It seems that on one day for each of the past six or seven weeks, I have become convinced that I will return to my old dissertation return and start blogging more. I’ll scribble some notes, as I did yesterday, for a few blog posts, save a few links and consider a few titles.

But, then, I’ll find as soon as I start writing, the words that come out are not those for the blog, but from the novel. I’ve been sensing for a couple months now that I’ll have to devote even more time to the book than I have since I started writing seriously in December — and realized that this weekend when I, having committed to sharing Chapter Twelve with a friend who was coming over at 3:30 Sunday afternoon, devoted nearly every minute of my free time to editing that chapter, wanting to get it right even as I knew I’d have to revise it yet again when I finish the first draft of the book.

And starting tonight, I expect to begin my studies of the Basque language, given its similarities to Old Dwarvish. In short, I am just not finding the time to blog as I had hoped I would. I am beginning to wonder if this is more draining than writing a dissertation because it involves more creative energy. And if it takes more out of me when I dip into my own memory to pull out images and ideas which have been simmering there since even before I began graduate school. I made my first stab at writing this six months before I submitted my application.

It’s not so much that I’ve forgotten about politics, but perhaps that I recognize that politics is not the be-all and the end-all. It is not the reason for living, but for creating an environment where we can live freely and in (relative) harmony with our fellows.

Wonder why Yahoo! chose to include a photo of Speaker Boehner to accompany this headline.

Perhaps to imply that Republicans are responsible for the absence of breakthrough?

How, may I ask, can a charm offensive work when your team continues to attack those you are trying to charm.  It might be possible for the parties to achieve a breakthrough if one side (that would be the party attempting to charm) brought a concrete proposal to the table.

Otherwise it’s just charm for the sake of charm.  That’s kind of like a certain “celebrity” I ran into last weekend outsider Canter’s, a woman famous for the sake of being famous.

* (more…)

I had thought that once I found my stride writing this novel, I would start blogging once again, perhaps not at the pace I did during the election, but at least more often than once every blue moon.

And yet, finding my stride (again) as a writer of fiction has changed me in ways that I had not even anticipated when I started writing.  I find that certain things, don’t bother me as once as they used to.  I take them more in stride.

Except when I feel the bite of bad government policies, I don’t feel the same rage at the arrogance of the liberal elites as I normally do, those who would dictate to us how we run our own lives.

Perhaps this is because for those of a truly conservative disposition, politics is not the primary focus of our lives.  By and large, we don’t see it as a source of meaning.  We find meanings in other endeavors.  We understand that government should serve, as Mr. Jefferson understood, to protect certain inalienable rights.

We often regret that we have to get involved in the messy business of politics to block policies which infringe upon our liberties and our ability to pursue happiness.

More on this anon.  Perhaps.

When a friend linked an article recently on the world’s happiness countries, I wondered about the study’s metrics.  Can people in one country really be happier than those in another, provided each allow its citizens an adequate amount of freedom — and security?

That study linked Ireland and number 10, yet when I traveled in Europe, the Irish were clearly happier than the Swiss (ranked ninth) and those in Finland and the Scandinavian countries, all nations ranked higher than the Emerald Isle.  And the Portuguese (not on the list) seemed almost as happy as the Irish.

This article, interestingly, did link happiness to the free market:

Happiness means having opportunity – to get an education, to be an entrepreneur. What’s more satisfying than having a big idea and turning it into a thriving business, knowing all the way that the harder you work, the more reward you can expect?

It does seem there is a link between hard work and happiness.  I find that the days I work the hardest, particularly on a project I enjoy, are the days I am the happiest.

On Sunday, on blog talk radio, blogress Amy Alkon featured Dr. Sonja Lyubomirsky, who has just published a book, The Myths of Happiness: What Should Make You Happy, but Doesn’t, What Shouldn’t Make You Happy, but Does.  It does sometimes seem that what we think will make us happy doesn’t, but what shouldn’t does.

There is a definitely a link between work which leads to accomplishment and/or reward and happiness.  And some lazy people I know do seem very unhappy.

Perhaps, it’s that I have not spent as much time as I normally do reading blogs and considering political posts on Facebook, but when I have done, I have seen a lot of anger — on both side of the political aisle.

What strikes me, however, is not the anger on the right — for that has cooled considerably since the debacle, but that on the left, all too many still fuming against Republicans, few showing any confidence in Obama’s agenda.  They talk more about GOP obstruction than they do about Democratic policies.  (As if they take for granted that Republicans will obstruct anything merely because Democrats propose it.)

Maybe it’s just my imagination, but save for talk about increased firearms regulation, I’m not seeing Democrats and other Obama allies talking much about their agenda.

And I see a lot of Facebook posts not just attacking Republican ideas, but also conservative individuals.

Just an observation.