Memories and Emotions

This morning I had set up a "smart" playlist from my "acoustic" directory. Just random songs from different artists from Carol King to The Best of MTV Unplugged. An old protest song from the 70's came on from the Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young "4 Way Street" album "Ohio". I still marvel at the power music has to generate emotion and recall events from our past. I was a whole 13 years old when it happened. I recall being absolutely shocked that something like that could happen in America and I remember being tragically sad. I could not have understood all the philosophical, economic and political elements at the age of 13, but I remember hiding in my room because I was crying and didn't want to be teased.
As I grew older, I recognized that emotions created by the even covered a large spectrum of human feeling. A lot of people were angry. That seemed to be the most common. I remember that because I became very cautious and afraid. I was afraid of angry people, I couldn't predict their behavior. Anger is still the emotion that causes immense distress for me, whether it be my own or someone else's.

The real coincidence is that yesterday I was talking with a friend and we were discussing the differences between Kent State and Tienanmen Square. The more we tried to contrast them, the more we found similarities:

• Both were instances when the country's military was used against unarmed civilian citizens
• Both were the result of protest rallies
• Both countries justified their action because the protest demonstration was illegal
• Both included in their list of casualties spectators and passers by who just happened to be in the wrong place at the time
• Members of both military forces fired over the heads of the crowd to avoid killing a protester
• Both countries were under the control of a minority who considered themselves elite and above the law
• Both claimed it was none of the world's business what happened in their "internal affairs"

and fortunately:

• Both of them created a situation where the government was forced to evolve into a more democratic, representative authority

There are differences in the number of people killed: in Ohio it was exactly 4, in China the estimate ranges from 200 (PRC Government) to 3000 (Red Cross). The acceptable number for something like this is ZERO. I don't care if you're a hooligan in Boston or screaming communist in Ohio or even a jihadist throwing stones in your neighborhood in Babylon, the killing of unarmed civilians by military is not acceptable. Even in those few examples I find myself agreeing with some of the principled beliefs of both parties and sympathy for both sides of the battle. Significant differences create this result. The National Guard was not allowed access to tanks and the eight round M1Garand is no match for an AK47with a 30 round magazine.

When I was young, I was fortunate to have a big sister who would beat up anybody who picked on me. I discovered I was incapable of physical violence no matter the consequence, and if it hadn't been for Karen the consequences would have been much greater. But I knew something that prevented many a fight from ever taking place: Don't be in the same place as your antagonist! I also learned this was easy to accomplish without great effort or making it obvious you were avoiding conflict. Another think I learned is that if you are faced with a situation that is likely to turn out bad, run away! This has worked for me from the playground to a first date that was going someplace I didn't want to go.

We could argue the positions of protagonists and antagonists in these situations, but I don't believe any point of view ends with "we better shoot at these civilians" as a successful solution. For one thing, a lot of your friends get angry with you when you shoot their neighbors whether you like them or not.

We live in a great country. It is a country that has done many, many wonderful things that have benefited the world. America has even done things when there was no tangible benefit to us. Sincere leaders have chosen to do the right thing just because their hearts have led them to the right action.

The secret to becoming a better country is to learn our weaknesses, admit our faults and take the often painful steps to correct them. As I watch another political battle for the White House taking place, we are so busy advertising what the others are doing wrong that we have no resources left to discover what we are doing wrong which leaves us powerless to correct it. The consequence is that we can't even be sure of what we are doing right. We continue to amplify and justify the differences and don't seem to acknowledge where we agree. We are, it appears, becoming more and more subject to extinction.

Think Out Loud

There was a time when people believed that knowledge and discovery should be shared. Two companies that had pioneered technology, IBM and Bell Labs, had thousands of patents to their name. Included were things like transistors (those are the elements of a CPU or any solid state physics) and LASER (called MASER originally). They shared all existing patents issued through January 14, 1956 for FREE. Unlimited licenses to anyone and everyone. All future patents they agreed to share for a pittance of cost.

There is a philosophy that nothing is really invented, it is just discovered. Bell Labs didn't invent the solar cell, they just discovered that light hitting a silicon sandwich hit a natural n p n layer and released a flow of electrons (they'd already done that with selenium, but selenium was expensive and didn't generate much electricity). William Shockley, John Bardeen, and Walter Brattain claimed that had they not DISCOVERED the transistor in 1947, somebody else would have because several teams were working on the same semi-conductor physics at that time. The patent idea is sort of like the Puritans saying "We saw Cape Cod first so it belongs to us" to the Italians while the Native Americans are saying "We've been here forever." Both the Native Americans and Italians ended up paying money to Puritans to occupy Cape Cod.

A company's wealth came from innovation. Innovation was defined as "working with a new discovery to create products that were in daily use". Microsoft copied ideas and software from IBM and innovated MS-DOS which they got from Digital Research. Apple copied IBM, Microsoft and XEROX to innovate the Mac. Microsoft copied Apple and IBM and got Windows NT. History is littered with errors of who thought of something first.

Creation isn't making something from nothing; creation is organizing things in a way that is novel and different. How you implement that is innovation and if you do it well it doesn't matter if someone else copies your "invention" as long as you implement it better than anyone else.

Apple didn't invent home computing. Google didn't invent the internet. I have yet to see a media company create anything, they just try to control the source of media. In the past they earned money by innovating and facilitating the dispersion of that media through capture and play technologies. Now their function is to PREVENT the dispersion of that media unless they get paid for it.

If we allow things to continue on their current course, the big companies will hold copyrights and patents on everything that creates a sound and anything that manages a photon. We will have to pay a license fee to think out loud.

Having It All

They who believe they have it all probably have nothing worth having AT all.

This post was triggered by an article  that appeared in the July 2012 edition of The Atlantic titled "Why Women Still Can't Have It All".

Ms. Slaughter is absolutely right in her observation. And any feminist or chauvinist who teaches otherwise is doing their student a disservice. If you set unattainable expectations, you are destroying a spirit.

The great realization everyone needs to arrive at is that NOBODY can have it all. It just isn't possible. There is not enough time.As a man I gave up the opportunity to be with my children and worked very hard to "provide" which means bring an income to the household. I (mistakenly) believed that generating more income and providing more opportunity was better for my wife and children than providing more of my time. The results are obvious. I still struggle to change a diaper on a grandchild. I don't know nearly as many "inside jokes" with my children as my wife does. But I have a long list of exceptional people I worked with that I really never care to see ever again. Most of them, like me worked 15 hour days six plus days a week. The reality for a successful entrepreneur or executive who prefers a glass floor to ceiling is that you are always, always, always at work. Everything you do impacts in some way your work and you try to evaluate that impact before choosing to do it. 

I believe this is what Ms Slaughter intends by her observation that women think about what is going on with those incredible humans we have stewardship over all the time. The point of view is not how family affects their work, but how work might affect their family. For instance, Lauren has a concert at school at 10 on Wednesday. I think, "I hope I can schedule so-and-so later so I can be there or I may have to tell Lauren that I won't be able to come to this concert". My wife's perception would be "I have to be at the concert at 10 so I'll do so-and-so later, OR, IF NEED BE, DECLINE TO DO IT AND GIVE UP THAT INCOME".

One comment that may be misleading is the observation that "all the men on the Supreme Court are family men while only one of the women has a family". Trust me, these men do not "have a family" in the way their wive's have a family. Ask the "brethren" how many times they had an intimate moment while changing a diaper. How many bath games do they know? How many skinned knees did they bandage? How many tears did they dry? If they are anything like the men I worked with, they may actually be able to answer this question. Do you think most mothers, even career mothers could even provide a ballpark guess? Of course, this is changing with smartphone apps that journal every diaper, meal, nap or event, but that's for the future.

When my children visited a few weeks ago I considered it the ultimate compliment when they left their sons in my care for the better part of a day. I did not have an agenda for the day. There was no list of tasks, goals and milestones to guide our time together. I admit I faced the day with a bit of anxiety about what I would do. It probably took a big step of faith for my children to leave their children with me (probably more faith in their children being able to keep granddaddy out of trouble than the inverse). I must say we had a ball not accomplishing any goals, completing any tasks or celebrating any milestones. It also challenged me physically, intellectually and emotionally to be able to keep up with them and when possible, a little ahead. Anyone who thinks that raising children is easy and mind numbing just try to explain why pink isn't blue to a three year old. Convince the one year old that the apple sauce should go down, not out.

As to my choice to dedicate so much of time to my career instead of being in attendance at home, I want a do over.

So why so much opposition to Mormonism?

I was raised as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Different times in my life I have chosen not to follow all the precepts of my faith, but I have always felt an overwhelming reliance that the doctrine and concepts are correct and beneficial to anyone who wishes to experience joy and freedom in this life. What I'm saying is that when I've knocked, the door has been opened and I have always felt that the door would be opened if I chose to knock. Throughout the times when I was not obedient to the commandments as described in Church doctrine, I have always experienced a nagging that prevented me from fully enjoying my sin, but I certainly gave it my best effort!

The thing that I find most puzzling, though, is why so many people are so vehement in criticizing Mormonism. Only a very small percentage of the population belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. An even smaller group shows up to worship on Sundays and tries to follow the teachings to some degree of faithfulness. But just do a little Googling and you should be impressed with the number of hits you will find with anti Mormon material. Many of the sites attempt to look objective with titles like "LDS Teachings" or "Mormon Doctrine", but once you read a few words they are undeniably subjective and destructive in their words. There is no attempt at all to honestly explore any argument against their opinion (which is the hallmark of any scholarly treatment) and total negligence of the facts and opinions that contrary to their own. As I read, I find they can't even agree on how to be contrary.

Whenever I see such irrational exuberance opposing something, especially when the argument is emotional rather than scholarly, it just seems that this something is worth investigating. There is usually a concept or ethic in it that is honest and praiseworthy, but inconvenient for the pleasures or profits others are finding in living contrary to its principles. In my lifetime, some of these popular movements have been:

·         Promoting the use of recreational drugs in general and LSD specifically. Remember “turn on, tune in and drop out”? I agree with Bonnie Raitt that Stevie Ray Vaughan really hit his pinnacle after he cleaned up and I would argue that drugs did NOT enhance the abilities of Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison or Kurt Cobain, but we will never be able to prove that one way or another. This is, I believe, the use of drugs that DID play a part in us losing them and preventing us from knowing.

·         Free love. Remember when the big fear of promiscuity was herpes? STD s have far greater impact on women than men. Alarming trends indicate that younger women in poverty or without a good education suffer the most. Additionally, we have discovered that HPV is the source of almost all cervical cancers. Women contract HPV from sex with men who have been more free with their "love".

·         Separate but equal. We are finally realizing through genetic research, specifically DNA study, that racial bias has absolutely no justification in science. Remember eugenics?

Certainly the Mormon Church has experienced interpretations of scripture and revelation that I do not feel reflected the final word of God on the matter. I think the prejudices of people in general and Brigham Young in particular led to the unfortunate practice of relegating African Americans to a lower rung just as almost all other churches did at the time (Kudos to the Catholics). Again, the founder of the Church, Joseph Smith, never said or did anything to justify this action. I also believe that it is the faith in a modern prophet that allowed the Church to change its practices on this matter. We also believe that all men are imperfect and subject to fallibility.

Many charismatic Christians use the standing of the Church in its position on the Bible as fuel for their dissent and criticism. The Church does not believe the Bible to be absolutely correct or the word of God in all instances. There is a teaching and understanding that the Bible we use today is the work of imperfect men and more imperfect committees of men. Any open minded study of the Bible immediately reveals that the inclusion and exclusion of certain codices and texts was somewhat arbitrary. There are many contradictions in any translation of the Bible that you may select. Some writings were obviously meant to be metaphorical and fictional. Some telescope history and assign roles to people who either never existed on other records, or are known to have lived centuries earlier or later than recounted by the Prophets.

I have found that much of the criticism of the LDS Church has come from those who have apostatized and been excommunicated from the congregations due to some behavior or demonstration so contrary to Church doctrine or flagrantly and openly oppositional to leadership that they no longer regard the institution as inspired and legitimately fulfilling God's will. In doing so they have cut themselves off from the communication or the Church. This is what ex-communication means. It seems to me that these individuals have been formally released from any expectation to behave in ways supporting Church doctrine. Why, then, are they so vehement in opposing those beliefs? No Church action is being taken by membership or authorities to “reform” them or force compliance. Mormons believe that “Agency” is the first principle of our existence, that it is through the exercise of “agency” that we work out our acceptance of atoning salvation.

Most of the time when I encounter someone who is opposed to the Church, it is because of a misunderstanding of a particular doctrine or practice. Usually, this understanding has been developed through research of material published by those in opposition to the faith. I have learned a great deal more about Islam through study of the Qur’an than I might have by reading Salman Rushdie.
My father once told me that even if one did not believe in God, was agnostic or atheist, if they lived according to the principles taught in the Mormon faith, they had a great possibility of being happy and successful. Just to list a few of these off the top of my head we have:

·         Faith that anything can be made right through study, effort and humility. The key is humility which forces you to accept that you might be wrong and that you can always and eternally learn things to help you be more right.

·         Families are sacred. All of us want to be respected, taught and loved. Families and the principles that families stand for are the best structure to bring this to pass. Fidelity breeds trust and security which allows us to stretch beyond what is comfortable to become wiser, stronger and nobler.

·         Hard work is essential. The easiest path to riches is to take them from somebody else. This is the principle behind charging fees without providing a commensurate or equally valuable service or goods. Most millions are made by people who figure out how to get some of somebody elses money through commissions, interest or cornering a market. The moral of the story of Cain is that if you kill people, you can take their stuff. Civilization has developed many ways to kill people without taking their lives.

·         Give some of what you have away. Make the amount significant enough that you feel the sacrifice. If you aren’t giving anything up to make someone else richer (in happiness, knowledge or property), you have only opened your wallet, not your heart. Opening the wallet is easy.

·         Share the knowledge and wisdom you have that brings you joy. This does not mean to force it on someone else (remember agency?), but be willing to share. This includes the not terribly fun act of going door-to-door offering to teach others what you believe. We believe what we have can make you happier. We're willing to risk harsh treatment in its offer to accomplish this. We do NOT put a foot in the door or charge over an open threshold. We try teach and share mostly through example, but expect ourselves to be able to teach in whatever manner might be effective.

·         God loves you just as much as me. I do not get preferential treatment because I say or do some things that you may not say or do. Love is unconditional, complete and equal. Joy is the consequence of choices made and activities practiced, not favoritism on God’s part. 

(For a better account of LDS beliefs, read the letter Joseph Smith wrote to John Wentworth. Here you can read the publication and interpretation of it by the Church. Here you can read its treatment on Wikipedia. Wikipedia emphasizes that changes have been made to the original text. Note that the  principle of refining and evolving doctrine is the cornerstone of our faith - prophecy. These changes help us with a better interpretation and communication of messages through time of what was intended.)

It requires great pride and self-deception to believe you are so right about something, that you oppose something or someone that is doing you absolutely no harm, and do so vociferously. What an ego one must have to think they are going to save others from themselves by belittling them, mocking them and taking actions to prevent them from asserting their agency and following their conscience. Hypocrisy is expressed by someone demonstrates against and debases someone else practicing their first amendment rights, then justifying it as "only practicing their own first amendment rights. When this leads to trespassing, vandalizing property along with verbal and physical assault they have traveled well beyond their Constitutional privileges. It is incomprehensible to me how someone would find happiness in doing this. What inspires such behavior? From my study it certainly is not part of any Christian belief, or even that of another faith. Nor is it Social Contract doctrine.  History is full of examples of those whose pride and greed has led them to dominate, subjugate and exploit. The verdict on all of them has not been favorable.

NOT A Musician

Actually, this is not something I learned today, but something that has been learned in stronger and stronger terms to the point that my blood pressure may go down by venting.

The common simple definition of a musician is one “who  composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental music.” This begs the question, “What is music?” I won’t bore you with more definitions, but I would emphasize that my definition excludes much of what is currently “performed”.

Recently, I watched a fantastic documentary, “Before the Music Dies”. It does not pretend to be a scholarly work or the ultimate judgment of music evolution. It was made by a few talented people who love music, but have no connection to the business of music. It validated my opinion about a lot of what is now played on the radio, television and iPods everywhere. Here is the test:

·        List your favorite 10 songs you’ve been singing in the last six months.

·        List all of those from question 1 that do NOT have an accompanying video.

For all those not listed, there is a strong chance that the performer is not what I would classify as a musician. Rather, they are entertainers, performers that act like some perception of what a musician might be. They are actors.

Technology has allowed anyone with a few thousand dollars to create a professional quality music studio to record, edit and publish music. Products like Garage Band, Acid Music Studio, Magix Samplitude and Cakewalk have the ability to do what it took millions of dollars to do just twenty years ago. Then there are the plug-ins. If that A₄ drifting between 430Hz and 450Hz it can be automatically detected recorded at the perfect 440Hz. This allows people who cannot sing or play on pitch sound like disciplined, trained musicians. The plug-ins that work in the studio also work on the concert tour. This may account in part for the small number of performers that play acoustic and sing without a mic.

Modern music has become a commodity. Maybe it always was and only a few talented individuals in the past (Haydn,  Gershwin, Led Zeppelin, Dave Matthews) were good enough to remember. The rest of the songs were composed, sung and forgotten along with their composers. The business of music is to create a brand (Lady GaGa), manufacture a product (Poker Face) and release several purchasable packages of that same product (original, remixes, live performances)  and when sales start dropping introduce a new product to replace it (when was the last time you heard Poker Face?).

The product is put together by people who may have never played in the same room or even the same state. The guitar riff was laid down in LA, someone in Detroit sold the beat and the backup vocals are recorded by studio musicians after the star is done and gone. Writers, composers and performers are often different people. You Were Meant for Me, Jewel’s first hit, was written by Steve Poltz, a prolific song writer who was 45 when he penned it. To be fair, Jewel was present. The two were vacationing in Mexico. Poltz didn’t feel the song would work for him so he offered it to Jewel. I was 45 too when it aired and really liked the song. I even bought the CD. I haven’t played it in 8 years, but it is still on my shelf with hundreds more dusty jewel cases.

Performing still requires a lot of hours in the studio; just not the sound studio. The real work and rehearsal takes place in the dance studio. Generally, a professional choreographer works with the performer to create some brand steps. Their personal trainer makes sure his health (and washboard abs) holds up. The cosmetic “enhancers” (surgeons, estheticians, fashion designers and more) make sure the product is wrapped properly.

I believe real musicians still exist. I discover them all the time. Many of them make sure that new performers will have branded material. Some struggle to introduce music to high school students who felt Chorale was an easy A. But the business of music is controlled by a very few powerful people in a very few powerful companies. They create performers that may act musically. On the other side is the internet where I discover a new musician at least once a week.

When I see a beautiful woman displaying most of herself with perfect curves wearing stilettos, my first impression is not “this is going to be a great musician”. This does not mean that you have to be ugly to be a musician, although many of my favorites look much better on the stereo than they do on the home theater. It is physically impossible to perform some of the stunts in a typical show while singing evenly. Still, I appreciate their agility, sense of rhythm and physical conditioning. Then remember the sound system is there to produce that A₄ at a perfect 440Hz when something migrating toward G₃ being sung by the performer. A similar thing from my history might be Ian Anderson, the famous flautist of Jethro Tull who played a substantial part of the time while balancing and bouncing on one foot. Jimi Hendrix using his teeth to play Hey Joe on his Strat was impressive even with your eyes closed. I consider both to be good performers…and great musicians.

To really match the characters of today from my music history, I would select Tiny Tim. People watched Tiny Tim. It was the way he dressed, the things he said, how he acted that entertained. I don’t know of anyone who would pull out their Tiny Tim cassette today to listen to a once famous musician.

e-Receipts

Who is going to be the first major retailer to allow you to enter the barcode on a receipt and download a file of what was purchased?

My wife and I are constantly digging through the receipts as we do our budget. This is NOT something that’s been procrastinated and done in a flurry of worry, but an effort to categorize what we spend throughout the month. Obviously one cannot just take the receipt from Kroger and say, “Oh, groceries: $83.49” because on that receipt are paper products, greeting cards, shoe strings, cleaning supplies and those kitchen tools that had to be replaced. We also like to be able to substantiate our gut feeling of what we buy regularly. We have a good idea: so much toilet paper every two months, x rolls of paper towels, so many cans of corn, bags of pasta and so on. Wouldn’t it be great to know exactly what our consumption is and manage our purchases?

In a perfect world you would have several columns that would include:

1.  the date of the transaction
2.  the item description
3.  the amount you purchased (in units that are appropriate for the item)
4. the price per unit
5. the amount paid
6. its ANSI classification (at least the major classification)

Most retailers already have this information readily available. When you take your receipt to customer service, they enter the bar code and voilà your purchase details appear in front of them.

Sears has already taken the first step; you can ask for an electronic receipt of the detail which will show up in your email while all you take with you is a piece of paper with the total paid and your source of funds. It’s still a little messy parsing this into Excel, but even I can do it. Amazon allows me to download a file with most of this information (they don’t include the ANSI classification) and this has been a tremendous influence in where I buy things.

I generally buy groceries as Fred Meyer (Kroger), Safeway and Albertson’s. Whichever retailer gets there first will bias my shopping habits in their favor.

The Reactionary Impulse and Scouting

Note: This was triggered as a response to a woman's distressed choice to deny her six year old son membership in the Boy Scouts. I would note that the information she used as the basis of her decision did NOT come from the Boy Scouts of America, but a Boy Scout bashing organization doing all they could to make their web presence appear to be official BSA.

As a parent of four I recognize the agony that comes with teaching our children. At the age of six, I'm sure I made most of the decisions for them still. By the age of 10, I would probably have weighed the alternatives in a decision such as this and allowed them to choose for themselves. By age 16 I tried to be able to assume the role of "adviser" only, but I'm sure there were times I might have leaned very hard. Some of those times choices were made contrary to that advice.

There is no organization that agrees with and reinforces all the values I feel are important. Organizations that I support all teach or do something that is contrary to my values. The other things they do and promote coincide with my opinions and merit my support. And through that support I have had much more influence than I would have through boycott.

There is no organization that doesn't promote some value or cause that I am against. It is abhorrent to me that the public schools still teach the myth of the "empty continents" about the Americas when it is now apparent that European  diseases preceded colonial Europeans by enough years to have decimated up to 100% of the natives present before their "discovery". Even at that, is it OK to take someone’s property if you kill them by pathogens instead of guns? Movies teach my children that the "normal, accepted" level of violence is much higher than data bear out. The rudeness and anti-social behavior (like the "zingers") in TV promote behavior at which I shudder. I have allowed my children the opportunity to make these choices, while acknowledging my responsibility to teach correct principles in my home and the added burden that popular society places on me by portraying my opposition in the media.

I was a Boy Scout of America. I also was an employee in men's retail. One group did not permit the practice of homosexual behavior in its organization. In the other I was constantly persuaded, even pressured to explore sex with other males. Boy Scouts taught me innumerable things. They taught me treat all life and all people with respect. There was never any gay bashing and certainly no gay violence. I have an overwhelming tendency to be heterosexual. I tactfully rebuff the approaches of the men that flirt with me. That does not make me a homophobe. I also rebuff the approaches of women who are not my wife who come on to me. That does not make me a misogynist. My experience is that the men will persevere and even pressure much more than the women. I certainly have never been groped inappropriately by women the way I have been by men.

In the Boy Scout Oath, the word “straight” refers to personal integrity, not sexual preference .The Boy Scouts of America does not extend membership to males who live a gay lifestyle. Any private organization has the right to include whoever it will as its member. The Girl Scouts does not allow males who “live a male lifestyle” into its ranks. That is their right. There are people who will politicize buying Girl Scout Cookies based on that organization’s practices with a male living a female lifestyle. In my opinion, it is their loss as these girls learn much more than sexual identification from scouting.

In Scouting I learned how to repair a faucet, navigate the Boston MTA and gained many other skills of merit. More importantly, I learned how to set a goal and define the tasks to achieve it. I learned to monitor my progress with objective, empirical guidelines. At work I learned the merits of fabric and weave, how color and patterns work and how to select and tailor a suit so it flatters the wearer. I was not “poisoned” by the lack of gay men in Boy Scouts. I was not “poisoned” by the lack of hetero men in retail.

It is your right, even your duty as a parent to guide your child through the learning years. What choices you make for them will influence choices they make later on. I do not discount beneficent ideas and actions a person or organization because they don’t include gay men. When you reject a beneficent experience because of some attribute that earns your “veto”, your parental responsibility to provide the good experiences and education lost is implicit. How will you accomplish that?

 Your son would not be ruined by the lack of exposure to gay men in Scouting. Despite the rules and stories, he will encounter gay men and boys in Scouting and learn to treat them with respect. He will not ever hear derision or taunting of ANY person in Scouting. It simply isn’t tolerated by BSA charters and executives.  He will encounter the same expressions he will in 1^st grade, and I’m guessing you will allow him to go to school.

It is currently fashionable to deride Boy Scouts of America for their policy excluding gay men. What I have learned from this is that many people are willing to ignore the good of something, even forbid it if the organization’s or person’s ideas are different on some subject than their own. I am satisfied that my values in the home were much more influential than those of any group to which they belonged.

These are the subsequent posts in response. I felt I should include them as nobody has responded here:
 

08:44 PM on 04/18/201

by Nick Franco:

Gay is not a lifestyle. -the American Psychological Association. The Scouts -- and you? -- should really catch up with (already outdated) expert medical opinion. 

Me:
“I use the term "lifestyle" to mean any collection attributes or characteristics that can be defined and grouped. I would therefore also refer to a "heterosexual lifestyle", a "promiscuous lifestyle", a "rational lifestyle" and so on. If you are offended by the word "lifestyle" substitute whatever word you are comfortable with, then put forth your point.

As for catching up on the "expert" medical opinion, I've found that the level of expertise is generally decided by how much one agrees with what we want to see as results from any tested hypothesis. I haven't read a single scientific paper yet discussing the subject of sexual preference or sexual orientation that hasn't been countered by another study or criticized as flawed in methodology. The beauty of science is that every "decision" is open to opposing views. This continues until overwhelming evidence has been accumulated. I have no bias either way for sexual preference or orientation (substitute any word you feel comfortable with as being current). I have never judged any group of humans defined by some variable one way or another. I take people one at a time. My judgment so far is that I've encountered very few that I didn't like and admire in some way.

In fine, this forum is not discussing whether homosexual behavior is good or bad (which seems like a silly waste of effort anyway). This discussion is whether the lack of gay men in scouting would bias a person's attitude and negate the beneficial experiences.”

Neither "hetero lifestyle" nor "promiscuous lifestyle" nor "rational lifestyle" are terms used to pathologize/demonize an entire group of people. The so-called "homosexual lifestyle" is. How you personally use the term matters little in comparison to how the term is used in the public discourse.


Nick Franco:
Overwhelming evidence has accumulated that says homosexuality is natural. Period.


My final post on this issue:

Every 112 days I go to the Red Cross and make what is known as a "double red" donation. They actually take two units of red blood cells from me and give me 500 ml of saline to recover the fluid volume lost.

One of the questions I have to answer every time I donate is, "Have you ever had sexual contact with another male, even once?" Sexual contact is then defined as any exchange by any part of the body of bodily fluids. An affirmative answer to that question disqualifies a blood donor. The American Red Cross simply will not take your blood if you are a male homosexual.

Is your position that because the American Red Cross does not admit male homosexual donors that I should choose not to carry their card and participate in the national blood supply? Their reasons are decided upon and enforced by their charter. They do not publish data as why that restriction is in their policies.