(12-13-2017 10:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 10:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  This could also tie in to another idea I've been mulling over, that I first heard from Rep. Seth Moulton (D, MA-6; also, B.S., MBA, MPP Harvard). One of the things he's noticed, as part of the first generation of Congressfolk who are veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan, is that there's a relative dearth of people who have served in his generation, compared to previous ones (the cadre of Vietnam vets, before them the cadres of WWII and Korea vets). He's talked a little bit about extending the ideas of the GI Bill to other areas of service to the country, too, as a way to incentivize people actually serving their country in not-necessarily-military ways they find fulfilling (e.g. teaching in under-served communities, working on combating the opioid epidemic, etc), without reinstituting the draft.
It seems to me that helping fill an invaluable hole in the workforce would tie into that nicely.

I think it is worth exploring the idea that everyone should give some time to the country in some form--military, Peace Corps, other areas. I think one reason we have become so fractured and polarized is that so many of our young people have no experience doing things in a group of dissimilar people. Soldiers learn to do it in a hurry, or they die. We could all stand to do more.

Is there any evidence to suggest that it is the youth (Millenials and Gen X) that are driving the polarization?

I agree that required service would be good, not arguing that, just trying to understand why it's the youth, as opposed to another portion of the population, that is to blame. We seem to be the scapegoat for everything, even though we aren't in a position of power or influence yet.

(12-13-2017 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 10:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 10:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  This could also tie in to another idea I've been mulling over, that I first heard from Rep. Seth Moulton (D, MA-6; also, B.S., MBA, MPP Harvard). One of the things he's noticed, as part of the first generation of Congressfolk who are veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan, is that there's a relative dearth of people who have served in his generation, compared to previous ones (the cadre of Vietnam vets, before them the cadres of WWII and Korea vets). He's talked a little bit about extending the ideas of the GI Bill to other areas of service to the country, too, as a way to incentivize people actually serving their country in not-necessarily-military ways they find fulfilling (e.g. teaching in under-served communities, working on combating the opioid epidemic, etc), without reinstituting the draft.
It seems to me that helping fill an invaluable hole in the workforce would tie into that nicely.

I think it is worth exploring the idea that everyone should give some time to the country in some form--military, Peace Corps, other areas. I think one reason we have become so fractured and polarized is that so many of our young people have no experience doing things in a group of dissimilar people. Soldiers learn to do it in a hurry, or they die. We could all stand to do more.

Is there any evidence to suggest that it is the youth (Millenials and Gen X) that are driving the polarization?

None the I'm aware of, but where else do you start? Where did you get the idea it was a blame game thing?

I actually think that the youth could take the lead in ending the polarization if they were strongly motivated to do so. I don't think you can fix the generation that reached adulthood without it, but would hope that you could redirect the trend going forward.

The other thing that I think has been a huge factor in polarization, and I hate to say this, is our primary system. Having political bosses nominate candidates in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms doesn't sound very democratic, but I think we got better candidates that way. The bosses depended on winning elections for their careers, so they cared more about electability, which meant they tended to pick candidates from the center. Now the primaries are dominated by the two party bases, which are both extremist and becoming more so.

(12-13-2017 10:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 10:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 10:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  This could also tie in to another idea I've been mulling over, that I first heard from Rep. Seth Moulton (D, MA-6; also, B.S., MBA, MPP Harvard). One of the things he's noticed, as part of the first generation of Congressfolk who are veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan, is that there's a relative dearth of people who have served in his generation, compared to previous ones (the cadre of Vietnam vets, before them the cadres of WWII and Korea vets). He's talked a little bit about extending the ideas of the GI Bill to other areas of service to the country, too, as a way to incentivize people actually serving their country in not-necessarily-military ways they find fulfilling (e.g. teaching in under-served communities, working on combating the opioid epidemic, etc), without reinstituting the draft.
It seems to me that helping fill an invaluable hole in the workforce would tie into that nicely.

I think it is worth exploring the idea that everyone should give some time to the country in some form--military, Peace Corps, other areas. I think one reason we have become so fractured and polarized is that so many of our young people have no experience doing things in a group of dissimilar people. Soldiers learn to do it in a hurry, or they die. We could all stand to do more.

Is there any evidence to suggest that it is the youth (Millenials and Gen X) that are driving the polarization?

None the I'm aware of, but where else do you start? Where did you get the idea it was a blame game thing?

I actually think that the youth could take the lead in ending the polarization if they were strongly motivated to do so. I don't think you can fix the generation that reached adulthood without it, but would hope that you could redirect the trend going forward.

The other thing that I think has been a huge factor in polarization, and I hate to say this, is our primary system. Having political bosses nominate candidates in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms doesn't sound very democratic, but I think we got better candidates that way. The bosses depended on winning elections for their careers, so they cared more about electability, which meant they tended to pick candidates from the center. Now the primaries are dominated by the two party bases, which are both extremist and becoming more so.

Where do I get the idea it was a blame guy? Please see bolded text. That is explicitly laying blame at the feet of youth for polarization. Perhaps you meant it as a way to combat further polarization, but that is not how it read.

I don't think your proposal is bad, but it certainly read as if you were blaming some of the polarization on the youth.

(12-13-2017 10:21 AM)baker-13 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 10:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 10:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  This could also tie in to another idea I've been mulling over, that I first heard from Rep. Seth Moulton (D, MA-6; also, B.S., MBA, MPP Harvard). One of the things he's noticed, as part of the first generation of Congressfolk who are veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan, is that there's a relative dearth of people who have served in his generation, compared to previous ones (the cadre of Vietnam vets, before them the cadres of WWII and Korea vets). He's talked a little bit about extending the ideas of the GI Bill to other areas of service to the country, too, as a way to incentivize people actually serving their country in not-necessarily-military ways they find fulfilling (e.g. teaching in under-served communities, working on combating the opioid epidemic, etc), without reinstituting the draft.
It seems to me that helping fill an invaluable hole in the workforce would tie into that nicely.

I think it is worth exploring the idea that everyone should give some time to the country in some form--military, Peace Corps, other areas. I think one reason we have become so fractured and polarized is that so many of our young people have no experience doing things in a group of dissimilar people. Soldiers learn to do it in a hurry, or they die. We could all stand to do more.

Wholly concur. My only concern with it is the chance that it could become Heinlein's "Service Guarantees Citizenship" (i.e. the reward for service is the right to vote), which seems anathema to the premise of democracy (because I'm the sort of paranoid who worries about government riffing off of late-50's sci-fi novels).
A GI-Bill-esque thing, though--service guarantees training in the workforce training program of your choice, whether that's classes to become an electrician or college courses to become a screenwriter--seems like it would be fairly effective, assuming you figure out a way to pay for it.

Well, it is one idea that runs counter to my (and Heinlein's) generally libertarian views. But I do think the generation that fought a war together was much more inclined to work together on other things than we are now. I would be okay with some sort of GI Bill concept. But I would fear that it could become an inflated entitlement program if politicians thought they could buy votes with it. And unlike many places where we are squandering billions today, it could properly be viewed as an investment.

(12-13-2017 10:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 10:21 AM)baker-13 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 10:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 10:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  This could also tie in to another idea I've been mulling over, that I first heard from Rep. Seth Moulton (D, MA-6; also, B.S., MBA, MPP Harvard). One of the things he's noticed, as part of the first generation of Congressfolk who are veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan, is that there's a relative dearth of people who have served in his generation, compared to previous ones (the cadre of Vietnam vets, before them the cadres of WWII and Korea vets). He's talked a little bit about extending the ideas of the GI Bill to other areas of service to the country, too, as a way to incentivize people actually serving their country in not-necessarily-military ways they find fulfilling (e.g. teaching in under-served communities, working on combating the opioid epidemic, etc), without reinstituting the draft.
It seems to me that helping fill an invaluable hole in the workforce would tie into that nicely.

I think it is worth exploring the idea that everyone should give some time to the country in some form--military, Peace Corps, other areas. I think one reason we have become so fractured and polarized is that so many of our young people have no experience doing things in a group of dissimilar people. Soldiers learn to do it in a hurry, or they die. We could all stand to do more.

Wholly concur. My only concern with it is the chance that it could become Heinlein's "Service Guarantees Citizenship" (i.e. the reward for service is the right to vote), which seems anathema to the premise of democracy (because I'm the sort of paranoid who worries about government riffing off of late-50's sci-fi novels).
A GI-Bill-esque thing, though--service guarantees training in the workforce training program of your choice, whether that's classes to become an electrician or college courses to become a screenwriter--seems like it would be fairly effective, assuming you figure out a way to pay for it.

Well, it is one idea that runs counter to my (and Heinlein's) generally libertarian views. But I do think the generation that fought a war together was much more inclined to work together on other things than we are now. I would be okay with some sort of GI Bill concept. But I would fear that it could become an inflated entitlement program if politicians thought they could buy votes with it. And unlike many places where we are squandering billions today, it could properly be viewed as an investment.

Agreed on it being an investment. It'd be the biggest investment the US has made in workforce education since...probably the WWII GI Bill, actually. That or the Morrill Acts.

(12-13-2017 10:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 08:48 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  So the response to a misogynistic tweet from the current POTUS to a sitting Senator in 2017 is "What about Chappaquiddick?"

Where's the Picard face palm emoji?

Not to make you feel old, but I'm old enough to be Lad's dad (assuming '15 is the year he graduated) and *I* wasn't born when Chappaquiddick happened. :-)

If it makes you feel better, I don't have a good explanation of why he got a pass on that, though I do think it's why he never became President or got the nomination. It's an older generation of Dems mostly that seem to have the undying loyalty to the Kennedys. I'd suspect the fact that it happened the year after RFK's assassination and 6 after JFK's was not irrelevant to the reaction.

Graduated in '11, so close enough. 15 was the number I wore for the Lads.

We'll go with almost old enough, then.

A little history for the youngsters

(12-13-2017 10:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 10:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 10:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 10:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  This could also tie in to another idea I've been mulling over, that I first heard from Rep. Seth Moulton (D, MA-6; also, B.S., MBA, MPP Harvard). One of the things he's noticed, as part of the first generation of Congressfolk who are veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan, is that there's a relative dearth of people who have served in his generation, compared to previous ones (the cadre of Vietnam vets, before them the cadres of WWII and Korea vets). He's talked a little bit about extending the ideas of the GI Bill to other areas of service to the country, too, as a way to incentivize people actually serving their country in not-necessarily-military ways they find fulfilling (e.g. teaching in under-served communities, working on combating the opioid epidemic, etc), without reinstituting the draft.
It seems to me that helping fill an invaluable hole in the workforce would tie into that nicely.

I think it is worth exploring the idea that everyone should give some time to the country in some form--military, Peace Corps, other areas. I think one reason we have become so fractured and polarized is that so many of our young people have no experience doing things in a group of dissimilar people. Soldiers learn to do it in a hurry, or they die. We could all stand to do more.

Is there any evidence to suggest that it is the youth (Millenials and Gen X) that are driving the polarization?

None the I'm aware of, but where else do you start? Where did you get the idea it was a blame game thing?
I actually think that the youth could take the lead in ending the polarization if they were strongly motivated to do so. I don't think you can fix the generation that reached adulthood without it, but would hope that you could redirect the trend going forward.
The other thing that I think has been a huge factor in polarization, and I hate to say this, is our primary system. Having political bosses nominate candidates in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms doesn't sound very democratic, but I think we got better candidates that way. The bosses depended on winning elections for their careers, so they cared more about electability, which meant they tended to pick candidates from the center. Now the primaries are dominated by the two party bases, which are both extremist and becoming more so.

Where do I get the idea it was a blame guy? Please see bolded text. That is explicitly laying blame at the feet of youth for polarization. Perhaps you meant it as a way to combat further polarization, but that is not how it read.
I don't think your proposal is bad, but it certainly read as if you were blaming some of the polarization on the youth.

Well, you read wrong. "One reason" is not blame. Where do I say it's their fault they don't have that experience? That would be blame. The experience isn't available, unless they join the military or attend a very diverse university. And the number of both those is limited. We need to provide more opportunities. That was my point, which you obviously missed.

(12-13-2017 11:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  A little history for the youngsters

For the record, I'm familiar with Chappaquiddick. :-) I'm just saying it happened nearly 50 years ago. Bill Clinton's impeachment happened 20 years ago. (And the Republican Speaker of the time is now in jail for child molestation.)

Trump's tweet about Gillibrand happened yesterday.

(12-13-2017 12:16 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 11:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  A little history for the youngsters

For the record, I'm familiar with Chappaquiddick. :-) I'm just saying it happened nearly 50 years ago. Bill Clinton's impeachment happened 20 years ago. (And the Republican Speaker of the time is now in jail for child molestation.)
Trump's tweet about Gillibrand happened yesterday.

And my point is that the left (collectively, to be clear) calmly looked the other way when one of their own killed a woman, and are now going ballistic over tweets. To be candid, the right does the same thing. Let's come up with a standard that we apply to everyone. If that standard says that killing a woman is okay, then nobody needs to resign. And if it says the killing a woman is not okay, then any reminders of Ted Kennedy ned to go the way of the confederate generals.

(12-13-2017 12:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 10:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 10:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 10:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think it is worth exploring the idea that everyone should give some time to the country in some form--military, Peace Corps, other areas. I think one reason we have become so fractured and polarized is that so many of our young people have no experience doing things in a group of dissimilar people. Soldiers learn to do it in a hurry, or they die. We could all stand to do more.

Is there any evidence to suggest that it is the youth (Millenials and Gen X) that are driving the polarization?

None the I'm aware of, but where else do you start? Where did you get the idea it was a blame game thing?
I actually think that the youth could take the lead in ending the polarization if they were strongly motivated to do so. I don't think you can fix the generation that reached adulthood without it, but would hope that you could redirect the trend going forward.
The other thing that I think has been a huge factor in polarization, and I hate to say this, is our primary system. Having political bosses nominate candidates in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms doesn't sound very democratic, but I think we got better candidates that way. The bosses depended on winning elections for their careers, so they cared more about electability, which meant they tended to pick candidates from the center. Now the primaries are dominated by the two party bases, which are both extremist and becoming more so.

Where do I get the idea it was a blame guy? Please see bolded text. That is explicitly laying blame at the feet of youth for polarization. Perhaps you meant it as a way to combat further polarization, but that is not how it read.
I don't think your proposal is bad, but it certainly read as if you were blaming some of the polarization on the youth.

Well, you read wrong. "One reason" is not blame. Where do I say it's their fault they don't have that experience? That would be blame. The experience isn't available, unless they join the military or attend a very diverse university. And the number of both those is limited.

Blame = assign responsibility for a fault or wrong (literally, the exact definition).

So since your statement was assigning some responsibility for the fault (polarization) because young people aren't serving in the military, how were you not assigning some blame to them with that statement?

I get what you meant to say now, but the way you wrote it then laid some blame on our young people. It's not just young people that haven't served, it's pretty much everyone after the Greatest Generation that hasn't served. Service participation has been going down more and more with each generation, and the generations between the Greatest and Gen X aren't any different.

So perhaps I took your statement in a way it wasn't meant, but many people are so quick to blame my generation for problems we haven't caused that I'm quick to refute those accusations when they need to be refuted.

(12-13-2017 12:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 12:16 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 11:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  A little history for the youngsters

For the record, I'm familiar with Chappaquiddick. :-) I'm just saying it happened nearly 50 years ago. Bill Clinton's impeachment happened 20 years ago. (And the Republican Speaker of the time is now in jail for child molestation.)
Trump's tweet about Gillibrand happened yesterday.

And my point is that the left (collectively, to be clear) calmly looked the other way when one of their own killed a woman, and are now going ballistic over tweets. To be candid, the right does the same thing. Let's come up with a standard that we apply to everyone. If that standard says that killing a woman is okay, then nobody needs to resign. And if it says the killing a woman is not okay, then any reminders of Ted Kennedy ned to go the way of the confederate generals.

We have a standard. The standard is, What is OK for side A is not OK for side B.

But yes, we need a new standard.

another standard I would like to see set is that accusations do not lead directly to consequences. Teddy and Bill at least went through the legal system, even ifit appears justice was perverted by politics.

(12-13-2017 12:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 12:16 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 11:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  A little history for the youngsters

For the record, I'm familiar with Chappaquiddick. :-) I'm just saying it happened nearly 50 years ago. Bill Clinton's impeachment happened 20 years ago. (And the Republican Speaker of the time is now in jail for child molestation.)
Trump's tweet about Gillibrand happened yesterday.

And my point is that the left (collectively, to be clear) calmly looked the other way when one of their own killed a woman, and are now going ballistic over tweets. To be candid, the right does the same thing. Let's come up with a standard that we apply to everyone. If that standard says that killing a woman is okay, then nobody needs to resign. And if it says the killing a woman is not okay, then any reminders of Ted Kennedy ned to go the way of the confederate generals.

I agree that we need to come up with a standard, but there is no reason to apply it so retroactively.

People's thoughts, opinions, social norms, etc. change over time, and that is OK. It's why when you watch shows about the 60s, like Mad Men, things feel so foreign, because we as a society have evolved past some of the behavior we used to think was socially acceptable. So we now must look at how one reacts, in real time, to these changes. Do they admit that what they did decades previously was wrong and ask for forgiveness and try and mend old wounds? Or do they deny and obfuscate what happened to try and avoid dealing with the consequences?

Why look back at how Dems or Reps acted at the time, and instead hold them accountable for either how they act now or how they respond today to how they acted then? So bring up Kennedy or Clinton, but not in response to how people let them off the hook back then. Bring them up as a way to show how we shouldn't act now, and try to understand how actions would be, should a similar situation present itself today (a few decades down the road).

(12-13-2017 12:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Blame = assign responsibility for a fault or wrong (literally, the exact definition).
So since your statement was assigning some responsibility for the fault (polarization) because young people aren't serving in the military, how were you not assigning some blame to them with that statement?
I get what you meant to say now, but the way you wrote it then laid some blame on our young people. It's not just young people that haven't served, it's pretty much everyone after the Greatest Generation that hasn't served. Service participation has been going down more and more with each generation, and the generations between the Greatest and Gen X aren't any different.
So perhaps I took your statement in a way it wasn't meant, but many people are so quick to blame my generation for problems we haven't caused that I'm quick to refute those accusations when they need to be refuted.

You need to get a thicker skin. Either that or read more carefully. My proposal was to provide opportunities that don't exist now. How you construed the to mean that I was blaming people for not taking opportunities that don't exist is quite frankly beyond me. Do you parse every single sentence separately without regard to context, like fundamentalists quoting Bible verses?

But what about Aaron Burr?!?!?! He killed Alexander Hamilton!

Therefore Trump has a freebie coming. People saying he shouldn't shoot someone on fifth avenue have partisan blinders on!

(12-13-2017 12:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 12:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Blame = assign responsibility for a fault or wrong (literally, the exact definition).
So since your statement was assigning some responsibility for the fault (polarization) because young people aren't serving in the military, how were you not assigning some blame to them with that statement?
I get what you meant to say now, but the way you wrote it then laid some blame on our young people. It's not just young people that haven't served, it's pretty much everyone after the Greatest Generation that hasn't served. Service participation has been going down more and more with each generation, and the generations between the Greatest and Gen X aren't any different.
So perhaps I took your statement in a way it wasn't meant, but many people are so quick to blame my generation for problems we haven't caused that I'm quick to refute those accusations when they need to be refuted.

You need to get a thicker skin. Either that or read more carefully. My proposal was to provide opportunities that don't exist now. How you construed the to mean that I was blaming people for not taking opportunities that don't exist is quite frankly beyond me. Do you parse every single sentence separately without regard to context, like fundamentalists quoting Bible verses?

Young people can’t server right now? Your post wasn’t about opportunities that don’t exist, it was about a policy that doesn’t force young people into those opportunities.

It’s not as if you can’t volunteer for military service, Peace Corps, etc. so it reasons that you were also commenting on the intentional decision to not serve.

I can agree that I could grow a thicker skin, but you also need to recognize the carelessness in how that post came across and what it unintentionally implied. This ain’t all on me.

(12-13-2017 01:07 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  But what about Aaron Burr?!?!?! He killed Alexander Hamilton!

Therefore Trump has a freebie coming. People saying he shouldn't shoot someone on fifth avenue have partisan blinders on!

(12-13-2017 01:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 12:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 12:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Blame = assign responsibility for a fault or wrong (literally, the exact definition).
So since your statement was assigning some responsibility for the fault (polarization) because young people aren't serving in the military, how were you not assigning some blame to them with that statement?
I get what you meant to say now, but the way you wrote it then laid some blame on our young people. It's not just young people that haven't served, it's pretty much everyone after the Greatest Generation that hasn't served. Service participation has been going down more and more with each generation, and the generations between the Greatest and Gen X aren't any different.
So perhaps I took your statement in a way it wasn't meant, but many people are so quick to blame my generation for problems we haven't caused that I'm quick to refute those accusations when they need to be refuted.

You need to get a thicker skin. Either that or read more carefully. My proposal was to provide opportunities that don't exist now. How you construed the to mean that I was blaming people for not taking opportunities that don't exist is quite frankly beyond me. Do you parse every single sentence separately without regard to context, like fundamentalists quoting Bible verses?

Young people can’t server right now? Your post wasn’t about opportunities that don’t exist, it was about a policy that doesn’t force young people into those opportunities.
It’s not as if you can’t volunteer for military service, Peace Corps, etc. so it reasons that you were also commenting on the intentional decision to not serve.
I can agree that I could grow a thicker skin, but you also need to recognize the carelessness in how that post came across and what it unintentionally implied. This ain’t all on me.

I’m sorry you did not comprehend the point I was making. If you read it in the context of the post to which I was replying, I think it’s pretty obvious, although perhaps not when stripped of that context. Yes you CAN volunteer for those things now, but those opportunities don’t exist in large numbers.

As for your definition of blame, I agree, and nothing I wrote assigned responsibility to anyone, except the collective us for not making the opportunities. If you want blame, that’s where I assign it.

In some ways I think this personifies a much greater problem. It seems we can’t solve anything until we blame somebody, and we get so bogged down figuring out blame that we fail to solve anything. I’m proposing a solution, in the context of a discussion of proposed solutions. How blame got there requires that someone was looking to be offended, instead of contributing positively.

Couple of thoughts. No my idea is not very Libertarian. But Mormons are pretty
Libertarian, and they do it, so why can’t we? That brings up another issue. Would we give Mormons credit for Service to others by doing their missions. I’m inclined to say yes, but no benefits, but am open to suggestions.

As far as benefits, I’d put them on some kind of sliding scale based on time and degree of difficulty. One thing I do like is the French approach to medical school. You agree to work ten years on the “free” side for a salary, and we pay for your med school.

(12-13-2017 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 12:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 12:16 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 11:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  A little history for the youngsters

For the record, I'm familiar with Chappaquiddick. :-) I'm just saying it happened nearly 50 years ago. Bill Clinton's impeachment happened 20 years ago. (And the Republican Speaker of the time is now in jail for child molestation.)
Trump's tweet about Gillibrand happened yesterday.

And my point is that the left (collectively, to be clear) calmly looked the other way when one of their own killed a woman, and are now going ballistic over tweets. To be candid, the right does the same thing. Let's come up with a standard that we apply to everyone. If that standard says that killing a woman is okay, then nobody needs to resign. And if it says the killing a woman is not okay, then any reminders of Ted Kennedy ned to go the way of the confederate generals.

I agree that we need to come up with a standard, but there is no reason to apply it so retroactively.

People's thoughts, opinions, social norms, etc. change over time, and that is OK. It's why when you watch shows about the 60s, like Mad Men, things feel so foreign, because we as a society have evolved past some of the behavior we used to think was socially acceptable. So we now must look at how one reacts, in real time, to these changes. Do they admit that what they did decades previously was wrong and ask for forgiveness and try and mend old wounds? Or do they deny and obfuscate what happened to try and avoid dealing with the consequences?

Why look back at how Dems or Reps acted at the time, and instead hold them accountable for either how they act now or how they respond today to how they acted then? So bring up Kennedy or Clinton, but not in response to how people let them off the hook back then. Bring them up as a way to show how we shouldn't act now, and try to understand how actions would be, should a similar situation present itself today (a few decades down the road).

A friend and I were discussing historic context and wondering how things we've done in the past would be viewed today. I agree that we have to appreciate past standards and how they may need to be revised.

But I remember Barbara Fields from Ken Burns' Civil War asking in what context was it ever OK for humans to own other humans.

In 1960, LBJ thought the most damaging information he could leak about JFK was that he had Addison's Disease.