A Decent Politician

[JerryBaumchen 1,080]

Hi folks,

IMO Mark Hatfield ( R-OR ) was the best US senator this state ever had.  I did not always agree with him but I always voted for him.

these words of Sen. Hatfield: ‘All of us need each other; all of us must lift and pull others as we rise; all of us must rise together – powerful, free, one self-determined people.’

Mark Hatfield - Wikipedia

Mark Hatfield centennial celebration, with root-beer floats and former governors, takes over historical society - oregonlive.com

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  He was nine days younger than my mother.

Edited July 12, 2022 by JerryBaumchen

[airdvr 200]

I agree but we've been fractured into so many special interest groups I fear we may never get as close as we once were.

[JerryBaumchen 1,080]

47 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I agree but we've been fractured into so many special interest groups I fear we may never get as close as we once were.

Hi airdvr,

Just what is the era that you say we once were?

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I do hope you do not mean when:

- LBGTQA people could not come out of the closet

- When abortions were done in back alleys with coat hangars

- When a black woman could not marry a white man

I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

 

[billvon 2,471]

4 hours ago, airdvr said:

I agree but we've been fractured into so many special interest groups I fear we may never get as close as we once were.

We always were fractured.  Media has just made the fractures more obvious.

In the 1980s and 1990s if a woman was raped she kept quiet.  That's not a good thing, even if it made everyone feel closer and less guilty.  Now that they are freer to speak out, we see more "fractures" between women's groups and everyone else - women demanding more of a voice and the other side, the #notallmen and red pills and incels.  Media has made them more obvious.   But they were always there.

In the 1970's if you were gay or trans you kept your mouth shut and only came out with people you knew were safe - because if others found out you'd be fired, banned from schools, arrested and even killed.  Now those people are demanding the same rights as everyone else and the intolerant are recoiling in horror, banning math textbooks and cancelling Disney and whatnot.  Another fracture.  But again always there.  It was just better hidden.

In the 1960's if you were not Christian you kept it to yourself.  There was still friction between Christians and all those "other" people but the non-Christians knew it was in their best interest to keep things under wraps.  In 2001 that became impossible and those fractures came back into very clear focus.  It's actually gotten better since then, but is by no means fixed.

Those "fractures" and "special interest groups" are disagreements among different groups of Americans - many serious, some not so serious.  Given that this country was MADE of immigrants with different cultures, different religions, different customs and even different languages, those special interest groups were always there.  Nowadays people use the term "special interest group" to make them seem less like people and more like some sort of shadowy political operation driven by evil agendas.  But they are just people, like they always have been.  And the fractures are bad, but covering them up (telling a woman to shut up and not destroy some promising young man's future, telling gays to stay in the closet, telling parents they are child abusers if they support a trans child) is far worse.

[JoeWeber 2,348]

4 hours ago, airdvr said:

I agree but we've been fractured into so many special interest groups I fear we may never get as close as we once were.

airdvr, please read closely both Jerry's and Bill's replies. If you are honest in your appraisals you'll have to agree it is the conservative groups and actors who are largely responsible for the divisions. We liberals are all too happy to bring whomever into the tent. 

[ryoder 1,410]

"..but we don't want the Irish!"

[airdvr 200]

I had a feeling I might trigger some responses.  Do you really believe we're closer now than in the past?  As I get older I know I look back with some blinders but this quote sounds like some sort of kumbaya chant.

You think it was just the conservatives?  I think some of you are wearing blinders as well.  You have this idealistic viewpoint that perfection is within our grasp and the liberals and the government can make that happen.  Sorry to disappoint you.

I have a client, an Asian gentleman.  His online cover is calling himself John Chapman.  He's afraid to let people know his ethnicity for fear of discrimination.

I see people online who say shit they would never say in person.

I see people who love to flaunt their affluent lifestyle online.  It makes those who have less restless, angry, and jealous.

No...it was better before.

 

 

[wmw999 2,171]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

I had a feeling I might trigger some responses.  Do you really believe we're closer now than in the past?  As I get older I know I look back with some blinders but this quote sounds like some sort of kumbaya chant.

You think it was just the conservatives?  I think some of you are wearing blinders as well.  You have this idealistic viewpoint that perfection is within our grasp and the liberals and the government can make that happen.  Sorry to disappoint you.

I have a client, an Asian gentleman.  His online cover is calling himself John Chapman.  He's afraid to let people know his ethnicity for fear of discrimination.

I see people online who say shit they would never say in person.

I see people who love to flaunt their affluent lifestyle online.  It makes those who have less restless, angry, and jealous.

No...it was better before.

There are plenty of holier-than-thou liberals, just the same as conservatives. They’re just “superior” about different things.

Something to consider on the Asian gentleman — 40 years ago, it was perfectly OK in many circles for people simply not to do business with him as well. I’m not sure that’s a result of wokeism. And a shitload of people of many ilks say shit online they’d never say in person. Like my old Texas skydiving buddies who talk about shooting liberals being a good start (but I’m taking it too personally when I ask if that includes me), just like a cousin who’d like to round up all the gun owners.

Everything that you just know is someone blowing off steam — maybe that liberal is also blowing off steam.

40 years ago, I couldn’t get a promotion in my Dun and Bradstreet office because I wasn’t the type to be a manager’s girlfriend, and I wasn’t a man. 48 years ago, I wasn’t allowed to even interview for newspaper delivery, because a woman would inhibit the conversation. 45 years ago, I was interviewed for a position as a rigger at NASA that the friend who already worked there had asked me to interview for — they wanted women. Only to find out later they only had to interview the woman, and decided ahead of time that a woman wouldn’t be hired. Instead they waited a couple of months to hire a suitable man.

Those were personal experiences. It’s not a complete list. And I’m an intelligent, educated, good-looking (in those days at least) woman. Imagine if I were a minority of some variety.

Its not perfect now, but the discomfort is spread around more, and people who used to not have to put up with discomfort of some kinds now have to. But some of that discomfort comes from putting up with stuff that others had to all along

As far as crowing about affluent lifestyle, lots of people do it, even here. Consider the people who post all about their big boat, or their airplane, or vacations. Sometimes it’s topical, sometimes it’s bragging. In America, people are too often judged by their material success — these are people who feel they need that kind of validation. That all started with Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, and previously with movie star adoration. Liberals didn’t invent that — mass communication just made it ubiquitous.

Now I went and ranted, sorry. It’s not perfect now, and there are things that were better — but a lot of that perception is because of how much more news of everything there is now. TV has “breaking news” from 2000 miles away, because it sells. That used to be reserved for real news (Three Mile Island, eg), otherwise it was stuff more from where you lived.

Wendy P. 

[airdvr 200]

23 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

40 years ago, I couldn’t get a promotion in my Dun and Bradstreet office because I wasn’t the type to be a manager’s girlfriend, and I wasn’t a man. 48 years ago, I wasn’t allowed to even interview for newspaper delivery, because a woman would inhibit the conversation. 45 years ago, I was interviewed for a position as a rigger at NASA that the friend who already worked there had asked me to interview for — they wanted women. Only to find out later they only had to interview the woman, and decided ahead of time that a woman wouldn’t be hired. Instead they waited a couple of months to hire a suitable man.

I'll submit that this still happens to women.  Just more cloaked.  

[JoeWeber 2,348]

26 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

There are plenty of holier-than-thou liberals, just the same as conservatives. They’re just “superior” about different things.

Something to consider on the Asian gentleman — 40 years ago, it was perfectly OK in many circles for people simply not to do business with him as well. I’m not sure that’s a result of wokeism. And a shitload of people of many ilks say shit online they’d never say in person. Like my old Texas skydiving buddies who talk about shooting liberals being a good start (but I’m taking it too personally when I ask if that includes me), just like a cousin who’d like to round up all the gun owners.

Everything that you just know is someone blowing off steam — maybe that liberal is also blowing off steam.

40 years ago, I couldn’t get a promotion in my Dun and Bradstreet office because I wasn’t the type to be a manager’s girlfriend, and I wasn’t a man. 48 years ago, I wasn’t allowed to even interview for newspaper delivery, because a woman would inhibit the conversation. 45 years ago, I was interviewed for a position as a rigger at NASA that the friend who already worked there had asked me to interview for — they wanted women. Only to find out later they only had to interview the woman, and decided ahead of time that a woman wouldn’t be hired. Instead they waited a couple of months to hire a suitable man.

Those were personal experiences. It’s not a complete list. And I’m an intelligent, educated, good-looking (in those days at least) woman. Imagine if I were a minority of some variety.

Its not perfect now, but the discomfort is spread around more, and people who used to not have to put up with discomfort of some kinds now have to. But some of that discomfort comes from putting up with stuff that others had to all along

As far as crowing about affluent lifestyle, lots of people do it, even here. Consider the people who post all about their big boat, or their airplane, or vacations. Sometimes it’s topical, sometimes it’s bragging. In America, people are too often judged by their material success — these are people who feel they need that kind of validation. That all started with Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, and previously with movie star adoration. Liberals didn’t invent that — mass communication just made it ubiquitous.

Now I went and ranted, sorry. It’s not perfect now, and there are things that were better — but a lot of that perception is because of how much more news of everything there is now. TV has “breaking news” from 2000 miles away, because it sells. That used to be reserved for real news (Three Mile Island, eg), otherwise it was stuff more from where you lived.

Wendy P. 

The facts are that the world is going to hell in a hand basket and all evidence points to an inexorable decline from here.  We're sort of like the people who made it to base camp but needed to turn around and head down. It sucks, but we gave it our best go. The good news is that another species should be around in a couple million years, so there is hope.

[JoeWeber 2,348]

6 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I'll submit that this still happens to women

I'm guessing you don't get how funny that is.

[airdvr 200]

Just now, JoeWeber said:

I'm guessing you don't get how funny that is.

I'm not the one arguing that things are better...

[wmw999 2,171]

18 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I'll submit that this still happens to women.  Just more cloaked.  

Things are better, just as they're better for minorities in the US. It'll never be perfect, because there will always be assholes, and there will always be entitled assholes. Some of them will always be smart enough to get away with it.

But "fuck it if it can't be perfect" isn't a great approach.

Wendy P.

[wolfriverjoe 1,368]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

I had a feeling I might trigger some responses.  Do you really believe we're closer now than in the past?  As I get older I know I look back with some blinders but this quote sounds like some sort of kumbaya chant...

 

...No...it was better before.

Better for whom?

Affluent white men?

You betcha.

Minorities? Women? LBGTQ?

Not so much.

[TriGirl 278]

And back to the topic at hand...

Evan McMullin was on Chuck Todd's podcast last week.  If anyone has heard him discuss issues, can you imagine him in an election debate with Pete Buttigieg?  [sigh]

[JoeWeber 2,348]

6 minutes ago, TriGirl said:

And back to the topic at hand...

Are you new? The purpose of any original post is to surface deeply repressed emotions so as to begin travel down that long road to understanding. Unfortunately we need to explore several cul-de-sac's along the way but eventually, and after many struggles, we somehow arrive at our destination just before the thread is locked. It's a beautiful thing.

[TriGirl 278]

26 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Are you new? The purpose of any original post is to surface deeply repressed emotions so as to begin travel down that long road to understanding. Unfortunately we need to explore several cul-de-sac's along the way but eventually, and after many struggles, we somehow arrive at our destination just before the thread is locked. It's a beautiful thing.

Yeah, I know.  The thread was just about to hit that terminal drift before being locked!

[billvon 2,471]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

I had a feeling I might trigger some responses.  Do you really believe we're closer now than in the past? 

Closer?  No.  Farther apart?  No.  

But have we gotten more basic rights for people?  Yes.

Today we have 'woke madness' fighting bigotry.  (Or awareness of injustice fighting people who want to keep old values, depending on whether you have to sell papers or not.)

Today there's a lot of friction over politics.  It is not worse than what McCarthy was doing to "communists" (like Lucille Ball) in America.  There's a lot of friction over LGBT vs conservatives. It is not worse than what the UK did to Alan Turing.

Quote

You think it was just the conservatives?

Of course not.

Quote

You have this idealistic viewpoint that perfection is within our grasp and the liberals and the government can make that happen.  Sorry to disappoint you.

Perfection is not within our grasp and it never will be, because we are fallible humans.  Sorry to disappoint you.

But we are getting better.  We ended the laws against marrying "outside your race."  We let women vote.  We let gays marry.  We let women have control over their own bodies.  (That one just took a hit.)  We told women they didn't have to let their husbands rape them.

All of those came from those liberals you disparage all the time.

In time, conservatives come to support those new values as well.  Today most conservatives support interracial marriage, and that's been true for about 40 years now.  Today most conservatives support gay marriage - and that only changed last year.

So no, it's not just one side.  Given time conservatives support all the same rights liberals do.  But it does take time.

And this is not a "one side is better" argument.  This is the definition of the words themselves.  Conservatives prefer traditional values/mores/laws/societal norms by definition.  Thus enough time has to go by for gay marriage to be part of their history and experience, for example.

Liberals (and progressives, a word that Ron often uses as a pejorative) are defined by promoting individual rights over collective rights, being open to new ideas and promoting social reforms in the name of greater individual rights.

Now of course not all liberals or conservatives live up to these definitions.  I know several conservatives who are very accepting of trans people (for example) and I know several liberals who are intolerant of any ideas outside their narrow view of the world.  But those are exceptions that prove the rule; they are noticeable specifically because they are bucking the trend of mainstream liberalism/conservativism.

Quote

I have a client, an Asian gentleman.  His online cover is calling himself John Chapman.  He's afraid to let people know his ethnicity for fear of discrimination.

Great example!  And I know of women who have named their daughters names that aren't obviously female (like Devi) so they won't be discriminated against.  That is bad.  We should work to fix that.

But keep in mind that 80 years ago your Asian friend might well have been in an American internment camp to "protect" America from him.  And going from internment to being online (albeit with a different name) is a huge step forward.  All we have to do is keep going in that direction.

Quote

I see people online who say shit they would never say in person.

I think that's a different issue.  EVERYONE, no matter what side of the political fence they are on, does that.  It's a way to yell anonymously.  In the olden timey days the only way you could do that was being in a crowd (or a mob) and rely on the anonoymity of crowds to protect you.  And only 100 years ago, a white mob attacked a black neighborhood in Oklahoma, relying on that anonymity.  They burned 35 blocks, killed 26 blacks, and put 800 blacks in the hospital.  And as a result - they jailed 6000 blacks "for their own protection."

That doesn't happen any more.  That's progress. (I mean we still have Charlottesville and Jan 6th - but there is far less violence in those mobs, and our response to them is far better.)

Now we have the Internet to replace those anonymous mobs.  People feel protected when they are posting, so they yell and scream as much as they like.  It would sure be better if they could communicate more effectively, but that is vastly better than doing the same thing in the form of an armed and angry mob.

Quote

I see people who love to flaunt their affluent lifestyle online.  It makes those who have less restless, angry, and jealous.

Definitely agreed there.  And that's nothing new - flaunting has been a way of life since the robber barons of the late 1800's.  The two things that HAVE changed are that 1) the disparity between rich and poor is larger than it's ever been, and is widening and 2) electronic media makes it far easier to flaunt than ever.  In the 1890's you had to go out into society to flaunt.  In the 1920's newspapers covered the lifestyles of the rich and famous.  Now reality TV and a constant barrage of media about your favorite rich-n-famous character means you can't get away from it (unless you want to, which people don't.)

Quote

No...it was better before.

I see a lot of things better today than they've ever been.  We've had a black president.  Gay people can marry.  White people can marry black people.  Women have more rights than they ever had.  (Again, up until a few weeks ago at least.)  In terms of overall rights we are in a better place.  In terms of strife, we SEE a lot more of it because of the ubiquity and aggression of the media - but in terms of what matters (actual rights) we are headed in the right direction.
 

[wmw999 2,171]

5 hours ago, airdvr said:

No...it was better before.

Maybe it was better before because your parents protected you from the uglier side of things. That's what parents do, after all.

Wendy P.

[jakee 1,279]

3 hours ago, airdvr said:

I'm not the one arguing that things are better...

No, you’re arguing that something can’t be better unless it’s perfect.

[jakee 1,279]

19 hours ago, airdvr said:

I agree but we've been fractured into so many special interest groups I fear we may never get as close as we once were.

Here’s the thing. You only believe we’ve been fractured into ‘special interest’ groups now because you can see them, and because the people opposed to them are louder now that it’s all in the open. Before, the people opposed to them were so powerful the ‘special interest’ groups were forced underground and out of view.

Hell, I remember the days on this forum (so hardly the mists of time) when any discussion that involved gay rights would have multiple people proudly claiming ‘I have no problem with gay people, I just don’t want them shoving it down my throat’. When what ‘shoving it down my throat’ really meant was any public display of same sex affection. You know, the stuff that all straight people do all the time. Now, hardly anyone says that anymore because they’ve realised they were wrong. The people who still say it are even more loud and angry because they’ve realised they’re losing. But despite them being so loud and angry, at ground level society is better and is less divided now - at least on that subject and many other similar ones.

 

 

By the way, without you being any more specific I assume that the ‘special interest’ groups you’re talking about are simply people who want to live their life how they want. Or in other words, people.

[JerryBaumchen 1,080]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Closer?  No.  Farther apart?  No.  

But have we gotten more basic rights for people?  Yes.

Today we have 'woke madness' fighting bigotry.  (Or awareness of injustice fighting people who want to keep old values, depending on whether you have to sell papers or not.)

Today there's a lot of friction over politics.  It is not worse than what McCarthy was doing to "communists" (like Lucille Ball) in America.  There's a lot of friction over LGBT vs conservatives. It is not worse than what the UK did to Alan Turing.

Of course not.

Perfection is not within our grasp and it never will be, because we are fallible humans.  Sorry to disappoint you.

But we are getting better.  We ended the laws against marrying "outside your race."  We let women vote.  We let gays marry.  We let women have control over their own bodies.  (That one just took a hit.)  We told women they didn't have to let their husbands rape them.

All of those came from those liberals you disparage all the time.

In time, conservatives come to support those new values as well.  Today most conservatives support interracial marriage, and that's been true for about 40 years now.  Today most conservatives support gay marriage - and that only changed last year.

So no, it's not just one side.  Given time conservatives support all the same rights liberals do.  But it does take time.

And this is not a "one side is better" argument.  This is the definition of the words themselves.  Conservatives prefer traditional values/mores/laws/societal norms by definition.  Thus enough time has to go by for gay marriage to be part of their history and experience, for example.

Liberals (and progressives, a word that Ron often uses as a pejorative) are defined by promoting individual rights over collective rights, being open to new ideas and promoting social reforms in the name of greater individual rights.

Now of course not all liberals or conservatives live up to these definitions.  I know several conservatives who are very accepting of trans people (for example) and I know several liberals who are intolerant of any ideas outside their narrow view of the world.  But those are exceptions that prove the rule; they are noticeable specifically because they are bucking the trend of mainstream liberalism/conservativism.

Great example!  And I know of women who have named their daughters names that aren't obviously female (like Devi) so they won't be discriminated against.  That is bad.  We should work to fix that.

But keep in mind that 80 years ago your Asian friend might well have been in an American internment camp to "protect" America from him.  And going from internment to being online (albeit with a different name) is a huge step forward.  All we have to do is keep going in that direction.

I think that's a different issue.  EVERYONE, no matter what side of the political fence they are on, does that.  It's a way to yell anonymously.  In the olden timey days the only way you could do that was being in a crowd (or a mob) and rely on the anonoymity of crowds to protect you.  And only 100 years ago, a white mob attacked a black neighborhood in Oklahoma, relying on that anonymity.  They burned 35 blocks, killed 26 blacks, and put 800 blacks in the hospital.  And as a result - they jailed 6000 blacks "for their own protection."

That doesn't happen any more.  That's progress. (I mean we still have Charlottesville and Jan 6th - but there is far less violence in those mobs, and our response to them is far better.)

Now we have the Internet to replace those anonymous mobs.  People feel protected when they are posting, so they yell and scream as much as they like.  It would sure be better if they could communicate more effectively, but that is vastly better than doing the same thing in the form of an armed and angry mob.

Definitely agreed there.  And that's nothing new - flaunting has been a way of life since the robber barons of the late 1800's.  The two things that HAVE changed are that 1) the disparity between rich and poor is larger than it's ever been, and is widening and 2) electronic media makes it far easier to flaunt than ever.  In the 1890's you had to go out into society to flaunt.  In the 1920's newspapers covered the lifestyles of the rich and famous.  Now reality TV and a constant barrage of media about your favorite rich-n-famous character means you can't get away from it (unless you want to, which people don't.)

I see a lot of things better today than they've ever been.  We've had a black president.  Gay people can marry.  White people can marry black people.  Women have more rights than they ever had.  (Again, up until a few weeks ago at least.)  In terms of overall rights we are in a better place.  In terms of strife, we SEE a lot more of it because of the ubiquity and aggression of the media - but in terms of what matters (actual rights) we are headed in the right direction.
 

Hi Bill,

Re:   All we have to do is keep going in that direction.

This - a thousand times this.

We are never going back; with the exception of a little pothole in the road due to the Dobbs decision [ anti-Roe v Wade ].

I mean, other than some scared, old, white men, who would want to go back? 

Certainly, not me.  And, I'm an old, white man.

Jerry Baumchen