after this week's events - the discharge of an accomplished Army Captain from service and the resignation of one of West Point's top 10 cadets on the basis of their respective sexual orientations - i feel compelled to 'weigh' in on the subject (pun very much intended). rachel maddow's candid and incisive analysis of this issue (http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/08/12/4873685-maddow-to-president-stand-up-for-what-is-right-because-you-know-it-is-right) is even more powerful for its truth. President Obama has two options for ending the policy, with or without the support of Congress or the Joint Chiefs: executive order, as used by Truman to desegregate the armed forces (against all indications from 'studies' conducted by specialists to assess the effect of such an action on morale, effectiveness, etc); or the 'stop-loss' doctrine (which essentially gives the Commander-in-Chief the ability to suspend any law or regulation relating to promotion/separation of any personnel whose service he considers to be vital to the national security of the United States). Both of these options are enforceable by the President and he doesn't need approval from anyone to make them the law of the land.
very few would argue that desegregation of the armed forces was a bad idea, especially now. maybe the 93% of soldiers 'interviewed' for the 1947 study (presented to Truman before he issued Executive Order 9981) who said they opposed desegregation would say otherwise, but the evidence simply states otherwise. as such, it really bothers me that President Obama doesn't seem to have the guts to take a stand on the issue, even though i can identify the source of his reluctance. with mid-term elections coming up, he doesn't want to endanger the campaigns of those members of Congress to whom he is beholden for pushing through some of the most ambitious pieces of legislation any President's first term (not to mention first two years) has ever seen. because those legislative victories have far-reaching benefits for people i care about, i am glad of the ambition that got them signed into law; however, i feel that ending the DADT policy is actually less of a gamble than the Wall Street reform, healthcare plan, and (despite its incredible impact on my personal future) the new student loan policies put together. there is no evidence to indicate that LGBT personnel serving in the military is detrimental to morale - on the contrary, more cases are coming to light every week of gay and lesbian soldiers serving openly within their units, with the result of increased cohesion and trust within those ranks. with such clear proof in favor of ending the policy, forgive me for considering it a no-brainer.
remarkably, this actually leads me to my purpose for posting today. the trend of childhood obesity in the United States is 'deeply troubling' to almost anyone you ask - who can see the overweight children in our elementary schools struggling to run a lap around a gym, or watch the new reality show 'Too Fat for 15' and not be moved? yes, starting the fight against childhood obesity at the federal level is another no-brainer. as one who used to be an overweight child, i respectfully submit that there is even less ambition required to enact solid policies to protect the next generation against the currently inevitable future they face. the behaviors i learned as a child - whether taught by the 3-times-a-week pizza with fries served in my school's lunchroom or the seven soda machines located in my high school - helped guide me to my current situation. thankfully, i had the resources to change my direction before my youth could no longer protect me. as you might imagine, that won't be the case for the millions of children suffering from obesity right now. therefore, my proposal is simple and twofold: overhaul the school-lunch program (relatively easy to do) and implement a positive-body-image program for kids, beginning in kindergarten.
we've all been there: the playground at school during recess, where, inevitably, some poor individual known to his classmates simply as 'the fat kid,' is relentlessly teased and mocked because of his (or her) size. i can personally attest to the results of this particular brand of cruelty - it leads to the belief that you'll never be good enough, and subconsciously, you start to self-insulate. it's a simple psychological phenomenon: the child uses uses food to create a perceived physical barrier to any type of threat they might encounter in the world that has told them they are less. a textbook self-fulfilling prophecy. that's what happened to me, and it's happening to kids everywhere. please understand, i'm not advocating a nationwide 'you're OK no matter what you look like' campaign. i'm advocating a 'you are valuable to yourself and the world, and we want you to be around for a long, long time so you can contribute your unique gifts' campaign, because that's what every kid (and most adults, though a lot of them wouldn't admit it to you) needs to hear. it's not enough to tell kids that they should be healthy by showing them what 'healthy people' look like. they need to know that you want them to lead a healthy life because they have something that's all their own to share with the world. kids need to understand that personal value is not inversely proportional to one's clothes size (i.e., the higher the size, the lower a person's worth).
as i consider the journey before me, i find myself walking a little taller - i've lost more than 20 lbs so far, and i feel great. i've always been comfortable in my own skin, for the most part, but coupled with that comfort was a sort of complacency about what i'd be able to accomplish. i believe that i have something great that i can do in this world, and i may even be around long enough to to see it. every kid should be able to look into their future and see the same thing.
Well-said, all of it.
ReplyDelete