OT – GOP is being carried to the extreme

[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. 😉

[svelte]

I lived in middle-class neighborhoods all over the US when I was young (1960s and 1970s), and I don’t recall ever hearing neighbor kids using the words ‘mam’ or ‘sir’ at all.

And I have to tell you, the kids in the middle-class neighborhood I live in now, and my last neighborhood, are the nicest, polite-est, most courteous kids you could ask for. But they still don’t call me ‘sir’. 🙂

I personally don’t think kids have changed much.

[svelte]

I lived in middle-class neighborhoods all over the US when I was young (1960s and 1970s), and I don’t recall ever hearing neighbor kids using the words ‘mam’ or ‘sir’ at all.

And I have to tell you, the kids in the middle-class neighborhood I live in now, and my last neighborhood, are the nicest, polite-est, most courteous kids you could ask for. But they still don’t call me ‘sir’. 🙂

I personally don’t think kids have changed much.

[svelte]

I lived in middle-class neighborhoods all over the US when I was young (1960s and 1970s), and I don’t recall ever hearing neighbor kids using the words ‘mam’ or ‘sir’ at all.

And I have to tell you, the kids in the middle-class neighborhood I live in now, and my last neighborhood, are the nicest, polite-est, most courteous kids you could ask for. But they still don’t call me ‘sir’. 🙂

I personally don’t think kids have changed much.

[svelte]

I lived in middle-class neighborhoods all over the US when I was young (1960s and 1970s), and I don’t recall ever hearing neighbor kids using the words ‘mam’ or ‘sir’ at all.

And I have to tell you, the kids in the middle-class neighborhood I live in now, and my last neighborhood, are the nicest, polite-est, most courteous kids you could ask for. But they still don’t call me ‘sir’. 🙂

I personally don’t think kids have changed much.

[svelte]

I lived in middle-class neighborhoods all over the US when I was young (1960s and 1970s), and I don’t recall ever hearing neighbor kids using the words ‘mam’ or ‘sir’ at all.

And I have to tell you, the kids in the middle-class neighborhood I live in now, and my last neighborhood, are the nicest, polite-est, most courteous kids you could ask for. But they still don’t call me ‘sir’. 🙂

I personally don’t think kids have changed much.

[briansd1]

Allan and Aecetia, aren’t “true” conservatives supposed to stay out of nation building and interfering in the affairs of other countries?

Isn’t the Federal government supposed to stay out of the states’ business?

Isn’t it not our job to be the world’s policeman?

I believe that spreading democracy and freedom and advancing human rights around the world is a progressive rather than conservative concept.

[briansd1]

Allan and Aecetia, aren’t “true” conservatives supposed to stay out of nation building and interfering in the affairs of other countries?

Isn’t the Federal government supposed to stay out of the states’ business?

Isn’t it not our job to be the world’s policeman?

I believe that spreading democracy and freedom and advancing human rights around the world is a progressive rather than conservative concept.

[briansd1]

Allan and Aecetia, aren’t “true” conservatives supposed to stay out of nation building and interfering in the affairs of other countries?

Isn’t the Federal government supposed to stay out of the states’ business?

Isn’t it not our job to be the world’s policeman?

I believe that spreading democracy and freedom and advancing human rights around the world is a progressive rather than conservative concept.

[briansd1]

Allan and Aecetia, aren’t “true” conservatives supposed to stay out of nation building and interfering in the affairs of other countries?

Isn’t the Federal government supposed to stay out of the states’ business?

Isn’t it not our job to be the world’s policeman?

I believe that spreading democracy and freedom and advancing human rights around the world is a progressive rather than conservative concept.

[briansd1]

Allan and Aecetia, aren’t “true” conservatives supposed to stay out of nation building and interfering in the affairs of other countries?

Isn’t the Federal government supposed to stay out of the states’ business?

Isn’t it not our job to be the world’s policeman?

I believe that spreading democracy and freedom and advancing human rights around the world is a progressive rather than conservative concept.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan and Aecetia, aren’t “true” conservatives supposed to stay out of nation building and interfering in the affairs of other countries?

Isn’t the Federal government supposed to stay out of the states’ business?

Isn’t it not our job to be the world’s policeman?

I believe that spreading democracy and freedom and advancing human rights around the world is a progressive rather than conservative concept.[/quote]

Brian: Here’s something for you to consider: In 1938, the Czechoslovakians had one of Europe’s strongest and best trained militaries. It is entirely possible, had Germany invaded in 1938, that Germany would have been defeated. At a minimum, the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe (German army and air force) would have been badly mauled and, most likely, either unprepared or unwilling to invade Poland in 1939. However, Britain and France acceded to German pressure and surrendered Czechoslovakia to Hitler without a shot being fired.

In 1940, prior to Germany invading, France enjoyed both qualitative and quantitative superiority of arms over Germany. However, German soldiers and officers displayed greater elan, aggressiveness and initiative than their French (and British) opponents and thus prevailed, entailing the fall of France.

The point? That none of what is going on with Russia at present has dick to do with nation building and if the French or British had displayed even one nut (let alone both balls) in the face of German aggression in either 1938 or 1940, we could have possibly avoided what Winston Churchill referred to as the “unnecessary war” (WWII); a war that cost in excess of 50MM lives.

So, rather than bandy semantics with you, I’ll refer to the eminent George Santayana and his quote: Those that don’t remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Yeah, I would do a little “nation building” or “world policing (America, fuck yeah!)” if it would spare 50MM lives. I’d even tolerate being called a progressive in the bargain.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan and Aecetia, aren’t “true” conservatives supposed to stay out of nation building and interfering in the affairs of other countries?

Isn’t the Federal government supposed to stay out of the states’ business?

Isn’t it not our job to be the world’s policeman?

I believe that spreading democracy and freedom and advancing human rights around the world is a progressive rather than conservative concept.[/quote]

Brian: Here’s something for you to consider: In 1938, the Czechoslovakians had one of Europe’s strongest and best trained militaries. It is entirely possible, had Germany invaded in 1938, that Germany would have been defeated. At a minimum, the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe (German army and air force) would have been badly mauled and, most likely, either unprepared or unwilling to invade Poland in 1939. However, Britain and France acceded to German pressure and surrendered Czechoslovakia to Hitler without a shot being fired.

In 1940, prior to Germany invading, France enjoyed both qualitative and quantitative superiority of arms over Germany. However, German soldiers and officers displayed greater elan, aggressiveness and initiative than their French (and British) opponents and thus prevailed, entailing the fall of France.

The point? That none of what is going on with Russia at present has dick to do with nation building and if the French or British had displayed even one nut (let alone both balls) in the face of German aggression in either 1938 or 1940, we could have possibly avoided what Winston Churchill referred to as the “unnecessary war” (WWII); a war that cost in excess of 50MM lives.

So, rather than bandy semantics with you, I’ll refer to the eminent George Santayana and his quote: Those that don’t remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Yeah, I would do a little “nation building” or “world policing (America, fuck yeah!)” if it would spare 50MM lives. I’d even tolerate being called a progressive in the bargain.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan and Aecetia, aren’t “true” conservatives supposed to stay out of nation building and interfering in the affairs of other countries?

Isn’t the Federal government supposed to stay out of the states’ business?

Isn’t it not our job to be the world’s policeman?

I believe that spreading democracy and freedom and advancing human rights around the world is a progressive rather than conservative concept.[/quote]

Brian: Here’s something for you to consider: In 1938, the Czechoslovakians had one of Europe’s strongest and best trained militaries. It is entirely possible, had Germany invaded in 1938, that Germany would have been defeated. At a minimum, the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe (German army and air force) would have been badly mauled and, most likely, either unprepared or unwilling to invade Poland in 1939. However, Britain and France acceded to German pressure and surrendered Czechoslovakia to Hitler without a shot being fired.

In 1940, prior to Germany invading, France enjoyed both qualitative and quantitative superiority of arms over Germany. However, German soldiers and officers displayed greater elan, aggressiveness and initiative than their French (and British) opponents and thus prevailed, entailing the fall of France.

The point? That none of what is going on with Russia at present has dick to do with nation building and if the French or British had displayed even one nut (let alone both balls) in the face of German aggression in either 1938 or 1940, we could have possibly avoided what Winston Churchill referred to as the “unnecessary war” (WWII); a war that cost in excess of 50MM lives.

So, rather than bandy semantics with you, I’ll refer to the eminent George Santayana and his quote: Those that don’t remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Yeah, I would do a little “nation building” or “world policing (America, fuck yeah!)” if it would spare 50MM lives. I’d even tolerate being called a progressive in the bargain.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan and Aecetia, aren’t “true” conservatives supposed to stay out of nation building and interfering in the affairs of other countries?

Isn’t the Federal government supposed to stay out of the states’ business?

Isn’t it not our job to be the world’s policeman?

I believe that spreading democracy and freedom and advancing human rights around the world is a progressive rather than conservative concept.[/quote]

Brian: Here’s something for you to consider: In 1938, the Czechoslovakians had one of Europe’s strongest and best trained militaries. It is entirely possible, had Germany invaded in 1938, that Germany would have been defeated. At a minimum, the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe (German army and air force) would have been badly mauled and, most likely, either unprepared or unwilling to invade Poland in 1939. However, Britain and France acceded to German pressure and surrendered Czechoslovakia to Hitler without a shot being fired.

In 1940, prior to Germany invading, France enjoyed both qualitative and quantitative superiority of arms over Germany. However, German soldiers and officers displayed greater elan, aggressiveness and initiative than their French (and British) opponents and thus prevailed, entailing the fall of France.

The point? That none of what is going on with Russia at present has dick to do with nation building and if the French or British had displayed even one nut (let alone both balls) in the face of German aggression in either 1938 or 1940, we could have possibly avoided what Winston Churchill referred to as the “unnecessary war” (WWII); a war that cost in excess of 50MM lives.

So, rather than bandy semantics with you, I’ll refer to the eminent George Santayana and his quote: Those that don’t remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Yeah, I would do a little “nation building” or “world policing (America, fuck yeah!)” if it would spare 50MM lives. I’d even tolerate being called a progressive in the bargain.

[Author]

Posts