Friday, March 1, 2013

Ending the Sequester

I've been following the sequester issue and discussing it with some of my Republican friends.  I don't have access to the data that are available to Washington insiders, but here is my lay-person's assessment of the situation:
  • The Sequester was originally agreed upon by both parties in 2011 as a way of forcing them to take action regarding the deficit by today.
  • According to the Congressional Budget Office, here's how the whole thing nets out with regard to 2013 budget cuts:
    • Defense cuts: $42.7 billion
    • Medicare cuts: $9.9 billion
    • Cuts to other domestic programs: $32.7 billion
  • Other programs, such as Social Security, cannot be cut without additional legislation being enacted.
  • If, for some reason, the sequester were to continue, it would mandate $109 billion in cuts per year for the next nine years.
When I listen to many Republicans, they ask, "Why is it so hard to cut 3% waste from the national budget this year?  If Obama viewed his job like the CEO of a company, he should be able to do that."  This argument contains massive issues, such as:
  • The national budget has very little in common with that of a corporation, in that many programs (such as Social Security) cannot be cut at all without legislation, which may take months or years to enact.  If you eliminate the items that cannot be cut, it means you are asking the president to cut 6-7% of expenditures, primarily to defense and domestic programs.
  • Republicans reject most defense cuts, so the majority of the cuts they are asking the president to make are to domestic programs such as education, immigration reform (on which the Republicans insist), housing, health, and public safety (including airport security).
  • "Waste" is often synonymous with "employees," meaning that the Republicans would suggest putting hundreds of thousands of people out of their jobs in the fields I listed above.  This would not only hurt the economy, but affect the well-being of many in our society who need the most help.
The president has already said he is willing to cut 1-2% from many of these programs, but he is asking for additional tax revenue as well.  The Republicans view this as "raising taxes," to which they are staunchly (and somewhat understandably) opposed.  However, most of the president's revenue requests are not about "raising taxes."  Rather, they only eliminate the tax cuts for the very wealthy that were enacted during the Bush administration.  Elimination of these tax breaks, and other loopholes that enable wealthy citizens to skirt their tax obligations, would account for most of the additional revenue the president is requesting.

Republicans claim that such moves would hurt the economy, but from what I understand, dropping the Bush-era tax cuts would merely return the country to the tax levels that existed during the Clinton administration.  I don't remember too many people complaining about the economy during that time, and let's not forget that Clinton left office with a balanced budget (in fact, there was a budget surplus).

I just watched President Obama's news conference in which he asked for compromise on this issue; he is willing to cut some money from social programs and even open the dialogue around Social Security reform, if the Republicans are willing to reduce or eliminate the Bush-era tax cuts and eliminate some loopholes that benefit the wealthy.   THIS IS NOT RAISING TAXES.

I, as one small voice, ask congressional leaders to put the needs of the country, and of the people it serves, ahead of the interests of their wealthy donors.  Why?  I know this sounds corny (all hail Frank Capra) but they should do it because it's the right thing to do.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Ted's Oscar Rant

I've been something of a fan of Seth MacFarlane's show, "Family Guy" for years, so I was hopeful when he was picked to host the Oscars.  However, that hope turned to grim shock the other night when I heard MacFarlane's movie character, "Ted," use what should have been a light, comic moment to rale against the perceived power of Jews in Hollywood.

Perhaps MacFarlane has been slighted by Jewish producers over the years, but this was neither the time nor the place to vent those feelings.  Aside from the fact that the bit wasn't funny (no one in the audience laughed), it was potentially damaging to Jews worldwide.  The Oscars telecast is watched in every part of the world, and that five-minute bit only helped to reinforce negative stereotypes of Jews while providing fodder for anti-Semitic thought.

I have always watched the Academy Awards, but if MacFarlane hosts again, I will likely pass.

Sunday, February 17, 2013

Reid's Oscar Preview

Every year, the Boston Globe critics preview the Academy Awards, using 4 categories:  “Will Win,” “Should Win,” “Shouldn’t Be Here,” and “Was Robbed.”  They follow each with a paragraph about the races.

While I often disagree with their selections, I like the format, so I will use it this year to preview eight categories of the 2013 Academy Awards (movies from 2012).

Best Picture

Will Win: “Lincoln”
Should Win: “Lincoln”
Shouldn’t Be Here: “Django Unchained”
Was Robbed:  “Moonrise Kingdom”

Everyone keeps saying that “Argo” will win, but that was a predictable, Hollywood movie.  It was a good movie, but it didn’t move me the way “Lincoln” did, so I’m hoping that enough Academy voters were also moved to vote for “Lincoln.”  As far as “Django Unchained” is concerned, the first hour was brilliant, but then it dissolved into stupid, needless violence without any redeeming value, so I’m surprised the Academy has loved it so much.  Moonrise Kingdom is a gem that was hurt by being released so early in the year.
 

Best Actor

Will Win: Daniel Day Lewis
Should Win: Daniel Day Lewis
Shouldn’t Be Here: none
Was Robbed:  Joseph Gordon-Levitt in “Looper” and John Hawkes in “The Sessions”

Daniel Day Lewis is one of the best living screen actors.  The craft he brings to each role is flawless and inspirational, and “Lincoln” was no exception.  One example is that all historical reports of Abraham Lincoln say that he had a higher voice, despite most movie portrayals of him.  As we all know from “There Will Be Blood,” Lewis’s voice tends to be lower, but for “Lincoln,” he actually raised it an octave just to be genuine.  That level of commitment is rare in modern acting, and it’s just one example of what makes this performance so compelling.  While all five actors deserve to be in the category, I wish there was room for more nominees, so the Academy could recognize Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s outstanding performance in “Looper” and John Hawkes’s excellent work in “The Sessions.”
 

Best Actress

Will Win: Jennifer Lawrence
Should Win: Jennifer Lawrence
Shouldn’t Be Here: none
Was Robbed:  none

The five actresses selected were the right five, and Jennifer Lawrence, at 22 years of age, delivered a tour de force as a young woman battling a myriad of psychological issues in what was the year’s most surprising movie—“Silver Linings Playbook.”
 

Best Director

Will Win: Steven Spielberg for “Lincoln”
Should Win: Steven Spielberg for “Lincoln”
Shouldn’t Be Here: Ang Lee for “Life of Pi”
Was Robbed:  Andy and Lana Wachowski for “Cloud Atlas”

Movies don’t direct themselves, so I find it very surprising when the Best Picture winner does not also win Best Director, but it happens often.  I believe that the Academy will do the right thing and award Spielberg his third Oscar in this category.  Ang Lee’s film, “Life of Pi,” should win a number of technical awards, but he should not be in this category.   Finally, the Wachowskis deserve credit for financing, producing, writing, and directing the year’s most ambitious movie, “Cloud Atlas.”

 

Best Supporting Actor

Will Win: Christoph Waltz
Should Win: Tommy Lee Jones
Shouldn’t Be Here: none
Was Robbed:  William H. Macy for "The Sessions"

Once again, the Academy nominated five very good performances, and this is the toughest category to pick, because all of the performances were, in some way, Oscar-worthy.  Most people are predicting that DeNiro will win for his outstanding performance in “Silver Linings Playbook,”  but I believe that Christoph Waltz will win for being the best thing about “Django Unchained.”  And while Tommy Lee Jones’s performance in “Lincoln” was flawless, his well-documented snarling at the Golden Globes probably cost him any chance at the Oscar.  However, I would not be upset if any of those men took home this award.  This is another category in which I wish there were six nominees, because I loved the performance of William H. Macy as the priest in "The Sessions."

 

Best Supporting Actress

Will Win: Anne Hathaway
Should Win: Anne Hathaway
Shouldn’t Be Here: Jacki Weaver
Was Robbed:  Xun Zhou

If you saw “Les Miserables” and you were not moved by Anne Hathaway’s performance, you should stop going to the movies.  Hathaway has been on the cusp of greatness for the past few years, and achieved it with this role.  And while Jacki Weaver is an outstanding actress (I loved her in “Animal Kingdom”), she did not do enough in Silver Linings Playbook to warrant this nomination.  A better choice would have been China’s best young actress, Xun Zhou, who was outstanding as Yoona-939 in a futuristic sequence in “Cloud Atlas.”

 

Best Adapted Screenplay

Will Win: Tony Kushner for “Lincoln”
Should Win: Tony Kushner for “Lincoln”
Shouldn’t Be Here: David Magee for “Life of Pi”
Was Robbed:  Ben Lewin for "The Sessions" and Simon Beaufoy for “Salmon Fishing in the Yemen”

One of the great, modern American playwrights, Tony Kushner developed an amazingly inspirational script for “Lincoln,” and he deserves to be recognized for it.  Not so for David Magee and “Life of Pi.” However, Simon Beaufoy deserves a nod for his delightful adaptation of “Salmon Fishing in the Yemen,” based on the book by Paul Torday, as does Ben Lewin for his brilliant screenplay for "The Sessions," based on an article by Mark O'Brien.

 

Best Original Screenplay

Will Win: Quentin Tarantino for “Django Unchained”
Should Win: Wes Anderson and Roman Coppola for “Moonrise Kingdom”
Shouldn’t Be Here: John Gaines for “Flight”
Was Robbed:  Joss Weedon and Drew Goddard for “Cabin in the Woods”

If the award were for Most Words or Most Use of the “N” Word, then Tarantino would be the clear-cut winner, but although his screenplay was at times delightful, it did not match the quirky brilliance of “Moonrise Kingdom.”  Overall, I believe that Gaines (“Flight”) doesn’t belong in this category, but Weedon and Goddard do for creating one of the most inventive and original horror films of all time—“Cabin in the Woods.”

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Best Movies of 2012

As I watched the Golden Globes this year, I realize how much I disagree with the choices of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, but their agenda is to award people they know and like, while mine is to list movies that in some way entertained me this year.  At this point, I have seen most of the Oscar contenders, and there were a few that I intentionally left off this list (including "Amour," "Django Unchained," and "Life of Pi").  Also, I also don’t include documentaries, because comparing them to scripted and acted films is like the proverbial “apples to oranges.”  
 
Maybe it’s because I’m a guy, or maybe it’s because there were so few good dramas this year, but a number of films on my list were action-oriented, or at least contained action scenes.  So, here it is—my list of the Best Movies of 2012, in inverse order.
 
21.    Prometheus
This was Ridley Scott’s prequel to “Alien,” and while it at times lacks energy and/or strains disbelief (hey, it is at the bottom of the list), it is nevertheless entertaining.  Also, the story is constructed in a way that explains many of the plot concepts of the “Alien” movies, and it features good performances by Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, and Charlize Theron.
 
20.    Battleship
This is a movie I was surprised to like—I rented it thinking it was a stupid action film based on an old board game.  Fortunately, I was wrong; it is much better than that, in part because of Peter Berg’s deft direction and decent acting by Liam Neeson, Alexander Skarsgård, and Taylor Kitsch.  Granted, it’s not the best alien invasion movie ever made, but it is definitely an entertaining 2+ hours.
 
19.    The Hunger Games
Just because something is popular with teenage girls doesn’t mean it’s not good…OK, well most of the time it means that (the “Twilight” series), but this time, there is enough real story and talent involved that the movie is actually worth watching.  That talent includes director/co-writer Gary Ross and a cast including Stanley Tucci, Wes Bentley, Woody Harrelson, and of course Jennifer Lawrence, who seems to shine in every role she accepts.
 
18.    Magic Mike
This is actually the second of two, very good movies that Steven Soderbergh released in 2012, and it tells the sometimes shady story of a male stripper, played by Channing Tatum in a somewhat autobiographical role, who is performing in an act run by a character played by Matthew McConaughey.  Unlike other movies about similar themes, the various characters in this film are multi-dimensional, rather than just being blatantly sleazy, and the lead character shows significant growth from the beginning until the film’s ending.
 
17.    Men in Black 3
If you enjoyed the previous “Men in Black” movies, you’ll really like this one, if for no other reason than the fun of seeing (and hearing) Josh Brolin as a young version of the Tommy Lee Jones character.  Of course, Jones himself is also in the movie, as are Will Smith, Emma Thompson, and a variety of entertaining, computer-generated aliens.  Barry Sonnenfeld seems to have as much fun making these movies as I do watching them.
 
16.    The Avengers
I grew up reading the Avengers comic books and reveling in the adventures of Captain America, Thor, the Hulk, Iron Man, and the other characters who comprised the Avengers.  So when I heard that Joss Whedon would direct the film, I was very excited.  And while the results were somewhat mixed, I still totally enjoyed watching my childhood superheroes come to life.  This is a good action movie with enough human interaction to make it very watchable.
 
15.    Salmon Fishing in the Yemen
Yeah, it sounds stupid, which is what makes this film so appealing, not to mention terrific acting by Ewan McGregor, Emily Blunt, and Kristin Scott Thomas.  But it’s the thoughtful and honestly heartfelt direction of Lasse Hallström, who seems to bring a high level of quality to every film he directs, that makes this film special.
 
14.    Haywire
This Steven Soderbergh film was officially released in 2011, but did not appear in theaters until late January of 2012.  It stars Gina Carano and Ewan McGregor, with supporting roles by Michael Douglas and Channing Tatum, and it is a taut, well-acted spy-action movie that keeps you interested and involved from start to finish.
 
13.    The Dark Knight Rises
While this is the weakest movie of the new Batman series, it is still very good.  Christopher Nolan’s direction is sharp and insightful, and the addition of characters played by Anne Hathaway, Marion Cotillard, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Matthew Modine to a cast that already included Christian Bale, Morgan Freeman, and Michael Caine makes this film a must-see.
 
12.    Skyfall
I’m not a huge James Bond fan, considering most of the movies to be action fluff.  But this one has a major difference from the others in that it’s directed by Sam Mendes, whose films are rarely vapid or light.  The other difference is Daniel Craig, who has brought a new depth to the Bond franchise.  And despite Javier Bardem’s hammy overacting, the supporting cast that includes Judi Dench and Ralph Fiennes is very strong.  This Bond is worth seeing.
 
11.    Zero Dark Thirty
I was somewhat disappointed by this film, which was all plot and very little character development, but director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal told a very interesting and at times riveting tale.  Jessica Chastain did a good job as the woman behind the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, but most of the other characters were seriously underdeveloped.  Despite those shortcomings, the movie is worth seeing for the way it builds as you watch the clues unfold and the plans being developed and carried out.
 
10.    The Sessions
Starting with a great script by director Ben Lewin based on the writings of Mark O'Brien (the actual person about whom the movie is based), this is a wonderfully touching film about a 38-year-old polio victim, who can only control the movements of his head and who is mostly confined to an iron lung, and his efforts to lose his virginity and find requited love.  John Hawkes and Helen Hunt are outstanding in the lead roles, as are the supporting performances by William H. Macy and Moon Bloodgood.  This could have been depressing, but instead was remarkably humorous and uplifting.

9.      Argo
Ben Affleck directs and stars in this film about a CIA operative who hatches an inventive scheme to rescue a group of Americans from revolutionary Iran.  The story is interestingly told, and my favorite aspect involves the characters played by Alan Arkin and John Goodman as the “producers” of the phony movie that forms the basis of the rescue plans.  With this film, Affleck has established himself as an A-list director, and although the ending is a bit Hollywood-ized, it is still very involving.
 
8.      Beasts of the Southern Wild
Wow, where did this come from?  It was actually the product of two Wesleyan graduates—producer Michael Gottwald (whom I actually saw perform in a play with Alex) and director/co-writer Benh Zeitlin.  This was a fascinating movie about a group of characters barely surviving in “the Bathtub”—a southern Delta community at the edge of the world.  But the revelation is the performance of 6-year-old Quvenzhané Wallis, who stars as the film’s central character, known as Hushpuppy.  This is an outstanding and beautiful film that demonstrates the triumph of the spirit over seemingly invincible odds.
 
7.      Looper
This was a very intelligent film about a futuristic society where when the mob wants someone killed, they send that person 30 years into the past where someone else is waiting to gun them down…that way, there is no body to dispose of.  The plot turns when the person being sent back is an older version of the person expected to kill him. Director/writer Rian Johnson was the mastermind behind this very complex movie, which features Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, Paul Dano, and an outstanding performance by Joseph Gordon-Levitt.  Some people may be turned off by the violence, but it is central to the plot (unlike “Django Unchained”), and this film’s ending is haunting and thought-provoking.
 
6.      Cabin in the Woods
This may be the smartest horror film I’ve ever seen.  Director Drew Goddard shares writing credits with Joss Whedon for a script full of dark humor an unforeseen plot twists.  I can’t say any more without giving away those twists.  All I will say is that what you’re seeing may not actually be what is occurring.  If you like horror films, you should definitely see this one.
 
5.      Moonrise Kingdom
I’ve never been a fan of Wes Anderson’s movies, usually considering them to be smarmy and unlikeable, but this one is completely different.  It’s a delightful fable about young love and the adults who are preventing it, and it’s told in a quirky style that made me smile throughout.  It also features actors including Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Frances McDormand, Bill Murray, and Tilda Swinton.  But the real stars are the brave children, played by Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward, as well as the peculiar script by Wes Anderson and Roman Coppola.
 
4.      Cloud Atlas
If nothing else, this is the year’s most ambitious film, spanning centuries, and placing several actors in multiple roles in varying time periods, only to eventually tie together their stories.  I totally enjoyed most of those stories, while understanding that some segments worked better than others.  Based on the novel by David Mitchell and co-directed by Tom Twyker, Andy Wachowski, and Lana Wachowski (the Wachowskis also directed “The Matrix” trilogy), this movie’s cast includes Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Hugh Grant, Susan Sarandon, Xun Zhou, and Jim Sturgess.  Overall, it worked far more often than it stumbled.
 
3.      Les Miserables
As with most movies, it all begins with the source material—in this case, the spectacular musical version of Victor Hugo’s most famous novel.  I’ve read several movie reviewers who clearly don’t like the musical itself…so they naturally dislike the movie of it.  Personally, I’ve seen the musical performed on stage four times, and I enjoyed each production…so here’s my review of the movie version.  (1) I loved the idea of singing it live while filming it, unlike most movie musicals which record the score separately in a studio.  Given that the entire musical is sung (they spoke a few lines in the movie), it would have been silly to re-record the entire soundtrack.  (2) I liked a lot of director Tom Hooper’s close-ups…I just think he used them a little too much.  (3) The cast was generally very good, with Hugh Jackman starting slow but  improving as the film went along, and Anne Hathaway, Samantha Barks, Eddie Redmayne, and Aaron Tveit submitting the best performances.  (4) The casting of Russell Crowe as Javert was a disaster, and having him sing “Stars,” which is among the best songs ever written for the stage, is equivalent to casting Roseanne Barr to play Grizabella (who sings “Memory”) in “Cats.”  Crowe’s voice has no quality or nuance, and his acting wasn’t much better.  I still enjoyed the movie, but it should have been the year’s best film, and in a stronger year, it might not have even made my top five.
 
2.      Silver Linings Playbook
A dramedy about mental illness should not be this enjoyable, but in the hands of a director as talented as David O. Russell, it is.  Jennifer Lawrence submits an Oscar-worthy performance as the female lead, playing opposite Bradley Cooper, who showed more talent in this movie than in all of his previous roles combined.  Set in Philadelphia, the movie explores the relationship between the two leads, who have each been ostracized by friends and family due to their bouts with different mental issues.  Add in excellent supporting roles by Jacki Weaver and Robert DeNiro, whose character’s own mental issues are displayed with increasing frequency, and you have a movie that is alternatively difficult and enjoyable.  Although the plot becomes slightly predictable, the strength of the characters carries this movie and makes it one of the year’s very best films.
 
1.      Lincoln
If you’re expecting a major biopic about the life and times of Abraham Lincoln, you will be disappointed.  This is not a big movie.  Rather, the outstanding script by Tony Kushner, based in part on a book by Doris Kearns Goodwin, tells the story of a short period at the beginning of Lincoln’s second term when he does everything in his power to pass the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery.  This is a beautiful and elegant film, directed by Steven Spielberg, starring Daniel Day Lewis, and featuring supporting performances by Tommy Lee Jones, Sally Field, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and a wealth of other excellent actors.  It presents a picture of a president who is tortured by his own personal situation and seemingly aware that he is running out of time to accomplish the crowning glory of his legacy.  It also shows Lincoln to be the conniving politician that he was, who used homespun humor and stories to disarm his adversaries while promoting a humanist agenda that was far ahead of its time.  Unlike other Spielberg movies, the beauty of this film lies in its small and personal nature, in a world where great strides can be accomplished with a handshake, a promise, or in some cases, a deceit.  It is a complex story of a complex man, told eloquently and succinctly, and it is the year’s best film.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Save Us, Mr. Kraft

Last year, when the NFL underwent a lockout that threatened to close down the season, Patriots owner Robert Kraft, even while dealing with his wife's terminal illness, stepped in and engineered an agreement.  So, here we have the NFL in 2012, and the referees cannot come to an agreement with the league, which has gone out and hired the worst group of replacement referees imaginable, from Division 2 and 3 college programs.

They don't know the rules, they are heavily influenced by the coaches and the crowds, and they blow about 50% of the calls--that is no exaggeration.  Either that or they make no calls, allowing the games to more resemble hockey than football, with repeated fights breaking out.

We're three weeks into the season, and I've watched too many of these games.  It is painful...I'd rather they stopped playing altogether than continue with this farce.  I'm begging you, Mr. Kraft, to work your magic again and get the NFL refs back to work.  Otherwise, I will stop watching, as will millions of other viewers who feel ripped off by a sport which the league is allowing to fall apart.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Message for a Post-9/11 World

For the past 10 years, I've included a message in our Passover seders about 9/11, and I figured that today is a good day to post a version of it on my blog, so here it is:

September 11th.  The image of large planes crashing into giant buildings leaps into our collective visual memory.

That a few lost lunatics could have such a dour impact on the world is almost unfathomable.  It sickens us, it scares us, and it makes us wonder what kind of hold a belief can have on people’s minds to cause them to have so little regard for the lives of themselves and others.

We have no answers.  We don’t even know what question to ask.  Because by asking the question, we admit that it’s possi­ble for humankind to be so wrong.  Maybe we thought it ended with the Ice Age or the Dark Ages.  Perhaps we assumed it had been killed with Hitler in the bunker.  But the dominant feature is its resiliency.  Evil waits for its moment.

That’s why it's important to remember where we came from and understand each other.  The true message of any religion is the impor­tance of spirituality in our lives.  Without it, we are little more than soulless mammals on the cool wet surface of a massive ball of molten lava.  With it, we can all be angels, basking in the glow of tolerance and peace.

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Letter to the Boy Scouts

David Steakley and his family have been like our extended family for the past 26 years, since shortly after we moved to Framingham.  We have watched Dave grow up, and we attended his Eagle Scout ceremony, as well as several other events, including his wedding last year.

Recently, Dave wrote an amazing letter to the Boy Scouts of America, and he gave me permission to post it on this blog.  I hope it impresses you as much as it does me.  Feel free to share it with your friends, because it carries a message that we should not ignore.

July 24, 2012

Boy Scouts of America
1325 Walnut Hill Lane
P.O. Box 152079
Irving, TX 75015-2079

To Bob Mazzuca, Wayne Brock and the Board of Directors of the National Council of the Boy Scouts of America,

My name is David Steakley and I am writing to implore that you to reconsider your recent decision to continue to ban the participation of gay youth and adult leaders from Scouting.

I earned the rank of Eagle Scout in 2003 with Troop 78 in Framingham, Massachusetts and the Knox Trail Council. I was a member of the Order of the Arrow, worked as a counselor for numerous summers at my council’s summer camp, and was a very active scout for a number of years. Scouting still occupies a cherished space in my life and I hope someday to participate in scouting with my own children.

I am not gay, but I am deeply troubled that an organization that acts as a force for good in the lives of so many young men can actively choose to continue a punitive and discriminatory policy. My experiences as a scout were some of the most important moments in my life. These experiences helped to mold me into the confident, productive adult and citizen of the community, the nation and the world that I am today. Above all, I learned that hard work and difficult tasks in service of others is a noble goal, and that boys and men must lead by example to make their communities a better place for everyone.

For these reasons, I cannot understand BSA’s decision to deny these opportunities to boys and families solely based on their sexual orientation. The BSA promotes diversity and makes space for everyone in all other areas; why not this one? Every merit badge book inclusively pictures boys of every race. It would be laughable to exclude boys or their families based on race or religion. It is similarly absurd to exclude them based on whom they love.

The BSA prides itself on fostering the ethic of service for the good of the community. What better example could the adult men in charge of the BSA demonstrate then by making the hard choice of helping these boys and their families find acceptance in the same way as everyone else? Certain members of the community will not be comfortable with this policy change, but change and personal growth are often uncomfortable. The results, however, are worth it. The Scout Oath says, “On my honor I will do my best …to help other people at all times”. Scouting should act as a leader encouraging its participants to become better people and to grow, not allow them to hide behind an institutional policy that discriminates against its own members to escape that growth. If this policy were to change tomorrow a new generation of boys would grow up to learn that gay men and women are no different than their peers. The BSA could again be a driver of meaningful social change in America.

In taking a pragmatic approach, I pose these questions: Will the BSA find itself on the right side of history with this choice? How will you reflect on this policy in 15 or 20 years? Will you be proud that you stood in the way of social progress and made the lives of these boys and their families more difficult than they already were? It is obvious that with time the public will rightly come to accept that gay people deserve to be treated with equity. Rather than standing in the way of this change why not embrace it and be on the morally just side of history and known as an organization that can be counted on for true social leadership. The real morally straight position on this issue is to affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every person, regardless of sexual orientation.

Please do the right thing and reevaluate this policy as scouts, adults, and leaders of boys.

With hope for change,
David Steakley