OT – GOP is being carried to the extreme

[picpoule]

When I hear that the GOP is being taken over by radicals I have to ask — seriously? The problem with the GOP in D.C is that it’s not even conservative. If you think it’s being taken over by “radicals,” then I don’t think you understand what a conservative is. This is probably because you don’t know any conservatives, never talk to any conservatives, have never read any conservative books or publications and are so left on the political spectrum that anyone really conservative seems like an extremist to you. Respectfully, I think it shows a deep misapprehension of what it means to be a conservative. Being a conservative means believing in small federal government, respecting individual rights and freedoms, free markets, originalism, federal fiscal responsibility and respecting the concept of federalism. It can also mean respecting traditional values, but this probably goes under the respecting federalism heading. There are not many elected officials in the GOP in Congress or Senate who can satisfy the definition of true “conservative.”

[briansd1]

Oath Keeper organizer is unemployed. I wonder what he’ll do when his health insurance runs out and his wife has cancer.

Stupid as stupid can be. I don’t think that it’s elitist to point that out.

————–
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oath-keepers18-2009sep18,0,6253659,full.story

The family’s health insurance runs out at the one-year anniversary of his layoff from Alcoa. He said he would keep looking for a new job with benefits. But he won’t be looking for some big solution from Washington. “Socialized healthcare . . . It’s not the government’s responsibility to ensure that I’m insured.”

[briansd1]

Oath Keeper organizer is unemployed. I wonder what he’ll do when his health insurance runs out and his wife has cancer.

Stupid as stupid can be. I don’t think that it’s elitist to point that out.

————–
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oath-keepers18-2009sep18,0,6253659,full.story

The family’s health insurance runs out at the one-year anniversary of his layoff from Alcoa. He said he would keep looking for a new job with benefits. But he won’t be looking for some big solution from Washington. “Socialized healthcare . . . It’s not the government’s responsibility to ensure that I’m insured.”

[briansd1]

Oath Keeper organizer is unemployed. I wonder what he’ll do when his health insurance runs out and his wife has cancer.

Stupid as stupid can be. I don’t think that it’s elitist to point that out.

————–
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oath-keepers18-2009sep18,0,6253659,full.story

The family’s health insurance runs out at the one-year anniversary of his layoff from Alcoa. He said he would keep looking for a new job with benefits. But he won’t be looking for some big solution from Washington. “Socialized healthcare . . . It’s not the government’s responsibility to ensure that I’m insured.”

[briansd1]

Oath Keeper organizer is unemployed. I wonder what he’ll do when his health insurance runs out and his wife has cancer.

Stupid as stupid can be. I don’t think that it’s elitist to point that out.

————–
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oath-keepers18-2009sep18,0,6253659,full.story

The family’s health insurance runs out at the one-year anniversary of his layoff from Alcoa. He said he would keep looking for a new job with benefits. But he won’t be looking for some big solution from Washington. “Socialized healthcare . . . It’s not the government’s responsibility to ensure that I’m insured.”

[briansd1]

Oath Keeper organizer is unemployed. I wonder what he’ll do when his health insurance runs out and his wife has cancer.

Stupid as stupid can be. I don’t think that it’s elitist to point that out.

————–
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oath-keepers18-2009sep18,0,6253659,full.story

The family’s health insurance runs out at the one-year anniversary of his layoff from Alcoa. He said he would keep looking for a new job with benefits. But he won’t be looking for some big solution from Washington. “Socialized healthcare . . . It’s not the government’s responsibility to ensure that I’m insured.”

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Aecetia]Allan,

What say you about the Poland Czechoslovakia issue regarding saving money at their expense. Shades of Chamberlain, hailed as bringing “peace to Europe” after signing a non-aggression pact with Germany. So we piss a bunch of money away on bail outs for contributors to his campaign like Deutsche Bank, BOA, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Bros., Credit Suisse, J.P. Morgan, Fannie Mae, et al. and betray our allies. I think this is cowardly.[/quote]

Aecetia: I agree. Putin’s concerns about NATO’s encroachment into “Greater Russia’s” sphere of influence are well known, as is his desire to see Russia return to her former glory. Between his bullying of Western Europe economically (through fuel/energy supplies and control of the distribution and pipelines) and politically (saber rattling over NATO, “undue” US influence, etc) and his handling of the Ukrainian and Georgian situations, he’s made it abundantly clear he wants the US out of Eastern Europe and for good.

Given what the US represents to these former Soviet satellites, its morally reprehensible for us to cut and run. And, for those advocates that are saying that this is simply us choosing better, more advanced systems: Hooey. This is the US giving ourselves the bum’s rush. All you need to do is watch Russia’s reaction over this to get a feel for what really happened.

Shades of Chamberlain, indeed. Here we have a bully who traffics in Russian cultural iconography and uses language that recalls the specter of Stalinism, but its now recast in a heroic light (a new Russian law makes it a crime to disparage Stalin and his acts during his reign of terror; the “new” story is that Stalin was a hero and the acts committed during his time saved Russia. Imagine how the Poles, Latvians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Estonians feel about that, as well as the Finns, Chechens, Ingush, etc, etc, etc).

Do you sincerely believe that the craven Western European countries like Germany, France and Italy are going to do anything about a resurgent Russia? Nope. They’re too dependent on Russia energy supplies and their military forces, especially those engaged in Afghanistan, have shown themselves to be a paper tiger. Obama is simply joining a club of cowards pretending to be diplomats.

What was that chant from 1938? “Don’t be vague, ask for Prague”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Aecetia]Allan,

What say you about the Poland Czechoslovakia issue regarding saving money at their expense. Shades of Chamberlain, hailed as bringing “peace to Europe” after signing a non-aggression pact with Germany. So we piss a bunch of money away on bail outs for contributors to his campaign like Deutsche Bank, BOA, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Bros., Credit Suisse, J.P. Morgan, Fannie Mae, et al. and betray our allies. I think this is cowardly.[/quote]

Aecetia: I agree. Putin’s concerns about NATO’s encroachment into “Greater Russia’s” sphere of influence are well known, as is his desire to see Russia return to her former glory. Between his bullying of Western Europe economically (through fuel/energy supplies and control of the distribution and pipelines) and politically (saber rattling over NATO, “undue” US influence, etc) and his handling of the Ukrainian and Georgian situations, he’s made it abundantly clear he wants the US out of Eastern Europe and for good.

Given what the US represents to these former Soviet satellites, its morally reprehensible for us to cut and run. And, for those advocates that are saying that this is simply us choosing better, more advanced systems: Hooey. This is the US giving ourselves the bum’s rush. All you need to do is watch Russia’s reaction over this to get a feel for what really happened.

Shades of Chamberlain, indeed. Here we have a bully who traffics in Russian cultural iconography and uses language that recalls the specter of Stalinism, but its now recast in a heroic light (a new Russian law makes it a crime to disparage Stalin and his acts during his reign of terror; the “new” story is that Stalin was a hero and the acts committed during his time saved Russia. Imagine how the Poles, Latvians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Estonians feel about that, as well as the Finns, Chechens, Ingush, etc, etc, etc).

Do you sincerely believe that the craven Western European countries like Germany, France and Italy are going to do anything about a resurgent Russia? Nope. They’re too dependent on Russia energy supplies and their military forces, especially those engaged in Afghanistan, have shown themselves to be a paper tiger. Obama is simply joining a club of cowards pretending to be diplomats.

What was that chant from 1938? “Don’t be vague, ask for Prague”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Aecetia]Allan,

What say you about the Poland Czechoslovakia issue regarding saving money at their expense. Shades of Chamberlain, hailed as bringing “peace to Europe” after signing a non-aggression pact with Germany. So we piss a bunch of money away on bail outs for contributors to his campaign like Deutsche Bank, BOA, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Bros., Credit Suisse, J.P. Morgan, Fannie Mae, et al. and betray our allies. I think this is cowardly.[/quote]

Aecetia: I agree. Putin’s concerns about NATO’s encroachment into “Greater Russia’s” sphere of influence are well known, as is his desire to see Russia return to her former glory. Between his bullying of Western Europe economically (through fuel/energy supplies and control of the distribution and pipelines) and politically (saber rattling over NATO, “undue” US influence, etc) and his handling of the Ukrainian and Georgian situations, he’s made it abundantly clear he wants the US out of Eastern Europe and for good.

Given what the US represents to these former Soviet satellites, its morally reprehensible for us to cut and run. And, for those advocates that are saying that this is simply us choosing better, more advanced systems: Hooey. This is the US giving ourselves the bum’s rush. All you need to do is watch Russia’s reaction over this to get a feel for what really happened.

Shades of Chamberlain, indeed. Here we have a bully who traffics in Russian cultural iconography and uses language that recalls the specter of Stalinism, but its now recast in a heroic light (a new Russian law makes it a crime to disparage Stalin and his acts during his reign of terror; the “new” story is that Stalin was a hero and the acts committed during his time saved Russia. Imagine how the Poles, Latvians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Estonians feel about that, as well as the Finns, Chechens, Ingush, etc, etc, etc).

Do you sincerely believe that the craven Western European countries like Germany, France and Italy are going to do anything about a resurgent Russia? Nope. They’re too dependent on Russia energy supplies and their military forces, especially those engaged in Afghanistan, have shown themselves to be a paper tiger. Obama is simply joining a club of cowards pretending to be diplomats.

What was that chant from 1938? “Don’t be vague, ask for Prague”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Aecetia]Allan,

What say you about the Poland Czechoslovakia issue regarding saving money at their expense. Shades of Chamberlain, hailed as bringing “peace to Europe” after signing a non-aggression pact with Germany. So we piss a bunch of money away on bail outs for contributors to his campaign like Deutsche Bank, BOA, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Bros., Credit Suisse, J.P. Morgan, Fannie Mae, et al. and betray our allies. I think this is cowardly.[/quote]

Aecetia: I agree. Putin’s concerns about NATO’s encroachment into “Greater Russia’s” sphere of influence are well known, as is his desire to see Russia return to her former glory. Between his bullying of Western Europe economically (through fuel/energy supplies and control of the distribution and pipelines) and politically (saber rattling over NATO, “undue” US influence, etc) and his handling of the Ukrainian and Georgian situations, he’s made it abundantly clear he wants the US out of Eastern Europe and for good.

Given what the US represents to these former Soviet satellites, its morally reprehensible for us to cut and run. And, for those advocates that are saying that this is simply us choosing better, more advanced systems: Hooey. This is the US giving ourselves the bum’s rush. All you need to do is watch Russia’s reaction over this to get a feel for what really happened.

Shades of Chamberlain, indeed. Here we have a bully who traffics in Russian cultural iconography and uses language that recalls the specter of Stalinism, but its now recast in a heroic light (a new Russian law makes it a crime to disparage Stalin and his acts during his reign of terror; the “new” story is that Stalin was a hero and the acts committed during his time saved Russia. Imagine how the Poles, Latvians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Estonians feel about that, as well as the Finns, Chechens, Ingush, etc, etc, etc).

Do you sincerely believe that the craven Western European countries like Germany, France and Italy are going to do anything about a resurgent Russia? Nope. They’re too dependent on Russia energy supplies and their military forces, especially those engaged in Afghanistan, have shown themselves to be a paper tiger. Obama is simply joining a club of cowards pretending to be diplomats.

What was that chant from 1938? “Don’t be vague, ask for Prague”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Aecetia]Allan,

What say you about the Poland Czechoslovakia issue regarding saving money at their expense. Shades of Chamberlain, hailed as bringing “peace to Europe” after signing a non-aggression pact with Germany. So we piss a bunch of money away on bail outs for contributors to his campaign like Deutsche Bank, BOA, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Bros., Credit Suisse, J.P. Morgan, Fannie Mae, et al. and betray our allies. I think this is cowardly.[/quote]

Aecetia: I agree. Putin’s concerns about NATO’s encroachment into “Greater Russia’s” sphere of influence are well known, as is his desire to see Russia return to her former glory. Between his bullying of Western Europe economically (through fuel/energy supplies and control of the distribution and pipelines) and politically (saber rattling over NATO, “undue” US influence, etc) and his handling of the Ukrainian and Georgian situations, he’s made it abundantly clear he wants the US out of Eastern Europe and for good.

Given what the US represents to these former Soviet satellites, its morally reprehensible for us to cut and run. And, for those advocates that are saying that this is simply us choosing better, more advanced systems: Hooey. This is the US giving ourselves the bum’s rush. All you need to do is watch Russia’s reaction over this to get a feel for what really happened.

Shades of Chamberlain, indeed. Here we have a bully who traffics in Russian cultural iconography and uses language that recalls the specter of Stalinism, but its now recast in a heroic light (a new Russian law makes it a crime to disparage Stalin and his acts during his reign of terror; the “new” story is that Stalin was a hero and the acts committed during his time saved Russia. Imagine how the Poles, Latvians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Estonians feel about that, as well as the Finns, Chechens, Ingush, etc, etc, etc).

Do you sincerely believe that the craven Western European countries like Germany, France and Italy are going to do anything about a resurgent Russia? Nope. They’re too dependent on Russia energy supplies and their military forces, especially those engaged in Afghanistan, have shown themselves to be a paper tiger. Obama is simply joining a club of cowards pretending to be diplomats.

What was that chant from 1938? “Don’t be vague, ask for Prague”.

[briansd1]

[quote=CricketOnTheHearth]A most enjoyable discussion.

I have to agree with earlier comments by both sdgrrl and Zeitgeist– in ways, society has gotten both nicer and less polite. I guess I should put it, common courtesy, at least among whites, has waned while egalitarianism has greatly improved.

In my childhood in a white surburb in first half of the 60’s, there was indeed that civility. Teenagers always said “ma’am” and “sir” to adults, there was a dress code, and there was a place for everything (and everyone). It actually seemed rather stultifying in some ways. If you were a white male it was probably pretty nice, but as a white female child I realized pretty quick that a lot of doors were closed to me. I asked my parents at a pretty early age, “where are the women scientists?” and the only example they could come up with was Marie Curie. I can only imagine (I’ve heard stories) of what life was like for black and brown people of all origins at that time.

Then after 1965 things started opening up. In my school in the 2nd grade they allowed girls to wear pants for the first time, and suddenly I had full run of the playground equipment without having to worry about an embarassing “accidental revelation”. Dr. Leakey sicced his four women grad students on the four different great apes, and soon documentaries about Jane Goodall and Diane Fossey began to land on the TV. The Civil Rights Act was passed, the voting age lowered to 18, and many other changes that gave many more opportunities to those who had not had them before.

Speaking of “radicals”, in my childhood the following ideas were considered radical:
-women being able to apply to Yale and Harvard and be considered on their merits;
-women being allowed to run the Boston Marathon;
-a talented black tennis player;
-women and/or black newscasters;
-women and/or black judges, doctors, lawyers, scientists, veterinarians, Congresspeople, mayors, etc;
-girls’ sports covered in the newspapers at all, let alone with pictures;
-sports for girls beside cheerleading and tennis, period;
-and too many more to list here

For my growing-up years, it seemed like the doors opened just as I reached them. I would not have wanted to have been born even a year earlier than I was. Thank God for the feminists, civil rights activists, and all the others who forced those doors open.

At the same time, people also threw off some of the “chains” of politeness, and swear words, rudeness, and “acting out” became much more common. At first it seemed like a liberation from stultifying authoritarianism, but by now the flailing crass language about, overbearingness on the road, etc just seems needless and overdone to me.

The sexual revolution involved some badly-needed dialogue about family planning, compassionate sexual relations, rape, child molestation, etc… but also over-swung into heedless and careless promiscuity, the latter resulting in upswings in STDs, not to mention the spread of AIDS.

The ’80’s seemed to be a backlash, not just against the excesses, but also against the worthy gains of the 60’s and 70’s, with many propaganda efforts to push women back into the kitchen, etc. The ’90’s and ’00’s, thankfully, seem to have wrung most of the anti-egalitarian sentiment out of our culture.

Still, I did not believe that I would see so soon a solid female or solid black candidate for president, who had a credible chance of winning, let alone both at the same time. Even in 1990 Hillary would have been generally laughed off the playing field, as Geraldine Ferraro was in the ’80’s. So to see this election, and especially the primary, was absolutely brilliant to me. I had favored a different candidate, but still, watching the battle between Hillary and Obama was one of the sweetest times of my life, for what it meant– a woman and a black man competing, and being judged by, the content of their character.[/quote]

Thank for a good summary of the changes of the last few decades.

I think that it’s really cute when kids call their parents sir and ma’am. That’s the way it ought to be.

I don’t believe that politeness among whites has waned. As you point out, egalitarianism increased, so previously lower class kids made it into the middle class and higher. Go back 2 generations and you’ll probably see a lower class background in most the people that you know.

In the last couple decades, popular culture influenced by black rap and urban grunge made it cool to be rough around the edges. Didn’t Jerry Fallwell predict that rap would result in the decay of Judeo-Christian society?

It’s now cool for white men to high-five, greet their friends with “yo man”, etc..

So many people now eat their food while sitting in front of the TV. It didn’t used to be that way in families where the wife’s job was to keep a good household and prepare sit-down dinners.

We now have better French and Asia Pacific fusion influenced cuisine but mostly at the restaurants. The housewives still can’t cook. I wouldn’t want them back in the kitchen unless they got some Cordon Bleu training first. 😉

[briansd1]

[quote=CricketOnTheHearth]A most enjoyable discussion.

I have to agree with earlier comments by both sdgrrl and Zeitgeist– in ways, society has gotten both nicer and less polite. I guess I should put it, common courtesy, at least among whites, has waned while egalitarianism has greatly improved.

In my childhood in a white surburb in first half of the 60’s, there was indeed that civility. Teenagers always said “ma’am” and “sir” to adults, there was a dress code, and there was a place for everything (and everyone). It actually seemed rather stultifying in some ways. If you were a white male it was probably pretty nice, but as a white female child I realized pretty quick that a lot of doors were closed to me. I asked my parents at a pretty early age, “where are the women scientists?” and the only example they could come up with was Marie Curie. I can only imagine (I’ve heard stories) of what life was like for black and brown people of all origins at that time.

Then after 1965 things started opening up. In my school in the 2nd grade they allowed girls to wear pants for the first time, and suddenly I had full run of the playground equipment without having to worry about an embarassing “accidental revelation”. Dr. Leakey sicced his four women grad students on the four different great apes, and soon documentaries about Jane Goodall and Diane Fossey began to land on the TV. The Civil Rights Act was passed, the voting age lowered to 18, and many other changes that gave many more opportunities to those who had not had them before.

Speaking of “radicals”, in my childhood the following ideas were considered radical:
-women being able to apply to Yale and Harvard and be considered on their merits;
-women being allowed to run the Boston Marathon;
-a talented black tennis player;
-women and/or black newscasters;
-women and/or black judges, doctors, lawyers, scientists, veterinarians, Congresspeople, mayors, etc;
-girls’ sports covered in the newspapers at all, let alone with pictures;
-sports for girls beside cheerleading and tennis, period;
-and too many more to list here

For my growing-up years, it seemed like the doors opened just as I reached them. I would not have wanted to have been born even a year earlier than I was. Thank God for the feminists, civil rights activists, and all the others who forced those doors open.

At the same time, people also threw off some of the “chains” of politeness, and swear words, rudeness, and “acting out” became much more common. At first it seemed like a liberation from stultifying authoritarianism, but by now the flailing crass language about, overbearingness on the road, etc just seems needless and overdone to me.

The sexual revolution involved some badly-needed dialogue about family planning, compassionate sexual relations, rape, child molestation, etc… but also over-swung into heedless and careless promiscuity, the latter resulting in upswings in STDs, not to mention the spread of AIDS.

The ’80’s seemed to be a backlash, not just against the excesses, but also against the worthy gains of the 60’s and 70’s, with many propaganda efforts to push women back into the kitchen, etc. The ’90’s and ’00’s, thankfully, seem to have wrung most of the anti-egalitarian sentiment out of our culture.

Still, I did not believe that I would see so soon a solid female or solid black candidate for president, who had a credible chance of winning, let alone both at the same time. Even in 1990 Hillary would have been generally laughed off the playing field, as Geraldine Ferraro was in the ’80’s. So to see this election, and especially the primary, was absolutely brilliant to me. I had favored a different candidate, but still, watching the battle between Hillary and Obama was one of the sweetest times of my life, for what it meant– a woman and a black man competing, and being judged by, the content of their character.[/quote]

Thank for a good summary of the changes of the last few decades.

I think that it’s really cute when kids call their parents sir and ma’am. That’s the way it ought to be.

I don’t believe that politeness among whites has waned. As you point out, egalitarianism increased, so previously lower class kids made it into the middle class and higher. Go back 2 generations and you’ll probably see a lower class background in most the people that you know.

In the last couple decades, popular culture influenced by black rap and urban grunge made it cool to be rough around the edges. Didn’t Jerry Fallwell predict that rap would result in the decay of Judeo-Christian society?

It’s now cool for white men to high-five, greet their friends with “yo man”, etc..

So many people now eat their food while sitting in front of the TV. It didn’t used to be that way in families where the wife’s job was to keep a good household and prepare sit-down dinners.

We now have better French and Asia Pacific fusion influenced cuisine but mostly at the restaurants. The housewives still can’t cook. I wouldn’t want them back in the kitchen unless they got some Cordon Bleu training first. 😉

[briansd1]

[quote=CricketOnTheHearth]A most enjoyable discussion.

I have to agree with earlier comments by both sdgrrl and Zeitgeist– in ways, society has gotten both nicer and less polite. I guess I should put it, common courtesy, at least among whites, has waned while egalitarianism has greatly improved.

In my childhood in a white surburb in first half of the 60’s, there was indeed that civility. Teenagers always said “ma’am” and “sir” to adults, there was a dress code, and there was a place for everything (and everyone). It actually seemed rather stultifying in some ways. If you were a white male it was probably pretty nice, but as a white female child I realized pretty quick that a lot of doors were closed to me. I asked my parents at a pretty early age, “where are the women scientists?” and the only example they could come up with was Marie Curie. I can only imagine (I’ve heard stories) of what life was like for black and brown people of all origins at that time.

Then after 1965 things started opening up. In my school in the 2nd grade they allowed girls to wear pants for the first time, and suddenly I had full run of the playground equipment without having to worry about an embarassing “accidental revelation”. Dr. Leakey sicced his four women grad students on the four different great apes, and soon documentaries about Jane Goodall and Diane Fossey began to land on the TV. The Civil Rights Act was passed, the voting age lowered to 18, and many other changes that gave many more opportunities to those who had not had them before.

Speaking of “radicals”, in my childhood the following ideas were considered radical:
-women being able to apply to Yale and Harvard and be considered on their merits;
-women being allowed to run the Boston Marathon;
-a talented black tennis player;
-women and/or black newscasters;
-women and/or black judges, doctors, lawyers, scientists, veterinarians, Congresspeople, mayors, etc;
-girls’ sports covered in the newspapers at all, let alone with pictures;
-sports for girls beside cheerleading and tennis, period;
-and too many more to list here

For my growing-up years, it seemed like the doors opened just as I reached them. I would not have wanted to have been born even a year earlier than I was. Thank God for the feminists, civil rights activists, and all the others who forced those doors open.

At the same time, people also threw off some of the “chains” of politeness, and swear words, rudeness, and “acting out” became much more common. At first it seemed like a liberation from stultifying authoritarianism, but by now the flailing crass language about, overbearingness on the road, etc just seems needless and overdone to me.

The sexual revolution involved some badly-needed dialogue about family planning, compassionate sexual relations, rape, child molestation, etc… but also over-swung into heedless and careless promiscuity, the latter resulting in upswings in STDs, not to mention the spread of AIDS.

The ’80’s seemed to be a backlash, not just against the excesses, but also against the worthy gains of the 60’s and 70’s, with many propaganda efforts to push women back into the kitchen, etc. The ’90’s and ’00’s, thankfully, seem to have wrung most of the anti-egalitarian sentiment out of our culture.

Still, I did not believe that I would see so soon a solid female or solid black candidate for president, who had a credible chance of winning, let alone both at the same time. Even in 1990 Hillary would have been generally laughed off the playing field, as Geraldine Ferraro was in the ’80’s. So to see this election, and especially the primary, was absolutely brilliant to me. I had favored a different candidate, but still, watching the battle between Hillary and Obama was one of the sweetest times of my life, for what it meant– a woman and a black man competing, and being judged by, the content of their character.[/quote]

Thank for a good summary of the changes of the last few decades.

I think that it’s really cute when kids call their parents sir and ma’am. That’s the way it ought to be.

I don’t believe that politeness among whites has waned. As you point out, egalitarianism increased, so previously lower class kids made it into the middle class and higher. Go back 2 generations and you’ll probably see a lower class background in most the people that you know.

In the last couple decades, popular culture influenced by black rap and urban grunge made it cool to be rough around the edges. Didn’t Jerry Fallwell predict that rap would result in the decay of Judeo-Christian society?

It’s now cool for white men to high-five, greet their friends with “yo man”, etc..

So many people now eat their food while sitting in front of the TV. It didn’t used to be that way in families where the wife’s job was to keep a good household and prepare sit-down dinners.

We now have better French and Asia Pacific fusion influenced cuisine but mostly at the restaurants. The housewives still can’t cook. I wouldn’t want them back in the kitchen unless they got some Cordon Bleu training first. 😉

[briansd1]

[quote=CricketOnTheHearth]A most enjoyable discussion.

I have to agree with earlier comments by both sdgrrl and Zeitgeist– in ways, society has gotten both nicer and less polite. I guess I should put it, common courtesy, at least among whites, has waned while egalitarianism has greatly improved.

In my childhood in a white surburb in first half of the 60’s, there was indeed that civility. Teenagers always said “ma’am” and “sir” to adults, there was a dress code, and there was a place for everything (and everyone). It actually seemed rather stultifying in some ways. If you were a white male it was probably pretty nice, but as a white female child I realized pretty quick that a lot of doors were closed to me. I asked my parents at a pretty early age, “where are the women scientists?” and the only example they could come up with was Marie Curie. I can only imagine (I’ve heard stories) of what life was like for black and brown people of all origins at that time.

Then after 1965 things started opening up. In my school in the 2nd grade they allowed girls to wear pants for the first time, and suddenly I had full run of the playground equipment without having to worry about an embarassing “accidental revelation”. Dr. Leakey sicced his four women grad students on the four different great apes, and soon documentaries about Jane Goodall and Diane Fossey began to land on the TV. The Civil Rights Act was passed, the voting age lowered to 18, and many other changes that gave many more opportunities to those who had not had them before.

Speaking of “radicals”, in my childhood the following ideas were considered radical:
-women being able to apply to Yale and Harvard and be considered on their merits;
-women being allowed to run the Boston Marathon;
-a talented black tennis player;
-women and/or black newscasters;
-women and/or black judges, doctors, lawyers, scientists, veterinarians, Congresspeople, mayors, etc;
-girls’ sports covered in the newspapers at all, let alone with pictures;
-sports for girls beside cheerleading and tennis, period;
-and too many more to list here

For my growing-up years, it seemed like the doors opened just as I reached them. I would not have wanted to have been born even a year earlier than I was. Thank God for the feminists, civil rights activists, and all the others who forced those doors open.

At the same time, people also threw off some of the “chains” of politeness, and swear words, rudeness, and “acting out” became much more common. At first it seemed like a liberation from stultifying authoritarianism, but by now the flailing crass language about, overbearingness on the road, etc just seems needless and overdone to me.

The sexual revolution involved some badly-needed dialogue about family planning, compassionate sexual relations, rape, child molestation, etc… but also over-swung into heedless and careless promiscuity, the latter resulting in upswings in STDs, not to mention the spread of AIDS.

The ’80’s seemed to be a backlash, not just against the excesses, but also against the worthy gains of the 60’s and 70’s, with many propaganda efforts to push women back into the kitchen, etc. The ’90’s and ’00’s, thankfully, seem to have wrung most of the anti-egalitarian sentiment out of our culture.

Still, I did not believe that I would see so soon a solid female or solid black candidate for president, who had a credible chance of winning, let alone both at the same time. Even in 1990 Hillary would have been generally laughed off the playing field, as Geraldine Ferraro was in the ’80’s. So to see this election, and especially the primary, was absolutely brilliant to me. I had favored a different candidate, but still, watching the battle between Hillary and Obama was one of the sweetest times of my life, for what it meant– a woman and a black man competing, and being judged by, the content of their character.[/quote]

Thank for a good summary of the changes of the last few decades.

I think that it’s really cute when kids call their parents sir and ma’am. That’s the way it ought to be.

I don’t believe that politeness among whites has waned. As you point out, egalitarianism increased, so previously lower class kids made it into the middle class and higher. Go back 2 generations and you’ll probably see a lower class background in most the people that you know.

In the last couple decades, popular culture influenced by black rap and urban grunge made it cool to be rough around the edges. Didn’t Jerry Fallwell predict that rap would result in the decay of Judeo-Christian society?

It’s now cool for white men to high-five, greet their friends with “yo man”, etc..

So many people now eat their food while sitting in front of the TV. It didn’t used to be that way in families where the wife’s job was to keep a good household and prepare sit-down dinners.

We now have better French and Asia Pacific fusion influenced cuisine but mostly at the restaurants. The housewives still can’t cook. I wouldn’t want them back in the kitchen unless they got some Cordon Bleu training first. 😉

[Author]

Posts