Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's a (correct) conclusion you drew but this thread is not about Chappaquidick.
I'll give you another example. Branch Rickey was a baseball executive with the Brooklyn Dodgers. He was a deeply conservative man originally from Kentucky, a former slave state. That distinction mattered in 1947 when he brought Jackie Robinson into baseball. Would any possible bigoted statements in his past have precluded him from his role in the Dodgers?
And to the point also Martin Luther King's personal life was far from perfect. Do we still admire him, even give his birthday a holiday? And yes, he was not great with his wife. Should that matter to his legacy?
There are several turning-point scenes in "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner". One is between Sidney Poitier's character (the son) and his father: "And if I tried to explain it the rest of your life, you would never understand. ... You and your whole lousy generation believes the way it was for you is the way it's got to be! And not until your whole generation has lain down and died will the dead weight of you be off our backs! You understand? You've got to get off my back."
It's not always a generational thing, although it probably is generational more than anything else. And some people get caught up in a period of change -- sometimes a sudden period of change, other times more gradual -- and can't adjust in time to avoid being a victim of whatever the period of change is about. Some people will lead the change, others will be dragged through the change kicking and screaming.
This thread is about "the me-too movement". And it's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The time when women will be afforded dignity is long past due. In fact, not just women (although in the case of what this thread is about...women, but also anyone who has been in the less powerful role, including gay men and even children). Culture is always evolutionary. Sometimes, culture is revolutionary. There are a whole crop of men right now who are caught up in the revolutionary change occurring about how people should be treated with dignity -- Kevin Spacey, Roy Moore, Garrison Keillor, Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, John Conyers, Russell Simmons, Al Franken, Bill O'Reilly, and many more. Some would say that we should put people like Kevin Spacey on probation; give him another chance. But the problem for people like Spacey is that rarely is someone irreplaceable. Hence a film he had already completed was reworked with a different actor.
The problem with your position (as when you said, "Martin Luther King's personal life was far from perfect. Do we still admire him, even give his birthday a holiday? And yes, he was not great with his wife. Should that matter to his legacy?") is that you think everything is black or white, either/or. No, I'm not going to throw away my Dean Martin CDs because he was a womanizer and told jokes that were full of innuendo. No, we're not going to throw out the Constitution because Thomas Jefferson had sex with Sally Hemmings. No, we're not going to change the outcome of the Civil War because Ulysses Grant had slaves. No, we're not going to throw out the Civil Rights Act because Martin Luther King had affairs. But what we are going to do is say, "Dean Martin was a great entertainer, but..."; Thomas Jefferson played a brilliant role in the founding of our nation, but..."; Ulysses Grant was key to our victory in the Civil War, but..."; Martin Luther was, perhaps, the most influential player in the civil rights movement, but...".
There are no perfect people out there. But what I expect from our president and others is to not just talk about hiring the "best and brightest", but to actually do so. That's what I tried to do when I was a principal -- hire the best person for the job based on all the information at hand. And people with BIG flaws in their personalities were almost never "the best and brightest". A man who will abuse his wife or women in general, has to big a character flaw to be "the best and brightest". Bullies rarely bully only one person. Furthermore, David Sorensen and Rob Porter were not "the best and brightest". David Sorensen was just a speech writer. Big deal. Rob Porter worked for some elected officials. Again, big deal. There are literally hundreds of such workers in D.C.
The one place where I have a problem with the current climate is "due process". Do people deserve due process? Yes, they do. However, most of these guys don't really want due process and are actually hiding behind the perception that they are not getting due process. Did Kevin Spacey demand due process? No. He fled to a retreat to be treated for his character flaw. Did John Conyers demand due process? No. He resigned. Same with Al Franken. Did Bill O'Reilly really want due process? No. He paid the women off in the millions of dollars.
Sorry, but for almost all of these men, the suffering they are experiencing is of their own doing.
Not saying he doesn't bring a lot of justified heat.
What I'm saying is no matter what he does he's not going to get a fair shake. The media for the most part hates him with a passion.
It really comes down to this. Each time "you" lie to me you dig your hole deeper. He's dug a pretty deep hole. When he says he never said "that" (whatever "that" is at the moment) and then you play a video tape of him saying it...well, why shouldn't the press come down on him. That's their job.
The "movement" is important and long overdue, hOWEVER remember where it's based out of: Hollywood, New York, and British emotion based media. (thanks, Rubert Murdock) I'm just watching Jane Fonda and Joan Collins (the British open) remanufacture their life experience to suit the emotional times. We're not going to get around this fast. And media types WITH credentials like Meghan Kelly are and have run over to the emotion based side of the issue. A tremendous waste of her leadership, talent, and an insult to her law other credentials.
It's NOT a good time to be an ugly Jew billionaire, and/or a white guy over 45. HOWEVER, when I add up all the fights over the decades in the workplace that concerned what we NOW call bullying, harassment, and unsuitable behaviour, the incidents where something was done about it involved men dealing with men, usually white, and over 45.
With two glaring exceptions, women, minorities, and others were simply observers, made things worse, or wondered what happened. . This witch hunt is going to be around for awhile. I started handling issues like this when I was 19. Back in the day there were no laws, precedures, or "rules" in effect, but there were foggy fields in New Joisey that you could walk the guy into and ask what TF he though he was doing. There's more than one way to skin a cat. !! Just because it didn't make the six o'clock news doesn't mean something wasn't done. I have to wonder where the dad's were???
If "the movement" is "important and long overdue", then I don't really care who some of the standard-bearers are. Some will be the true leaders, others will not. The point is the principle, not the personality.
It really comes down to this. Each time "you" lie to me you dig your hole deeper. He's dug a pretty deep hole. When he says he never said "that" (whatever "that" is at the moment) and then you play a video tape of him saying it...well, why shouldn't the press come down on him. That's their job.
A lot of what he says is subjective. The Access tape where he talked about women being receptive to aggressive sexual behavior because he was a major TV star. That's not surprising. I'm sure he's had women slip him their telephone numbers or knock on his hotel door. The mainstream media claims of sexual assault were not necessarily true. These were often women eager to meet him. He was talking consensual behavior. However, this was never discussed.
But Trump turned the tables by staging a conference just before the next debate with a handful of BC accusers. Remarkable theater by the man. It's little wonder the media hates him with a passion. He simply refuses to let them control the narrative.
A lot of what he says is subjective. The Access tape where he talked about women being receptive to aggressive sexual behavior because he was a major TV star. That's not surprising. I'm sure he's had women slip him their telephone numbers or knock on his hotel door. The mainstream media claims of sexual assault were not necessarily true. These were often women eager to meet him. He was talking consensual behavior. However, this was never discussed.
But Trump turned the tables by staging a conference just before the next debate with a handful of BC accusers. Remarkable theater by the man. It's little wonder the media hates him with a passion. He simply refuses to let them control the narrative.
Yes,he is a master at gaslighting the public. Sounds like you may have gotten a bit much of those fumes.
So many men are collateral damage for this movement. Beyond tired of this group.
Yes,he is a master at gaslighting the public. Sounds like you may have gotten a bit much of those fumes.
So many men are collateral damage for this movement. Beyond tired of this group.
I prefer a politician who is upfront/speaks their mind and fortunately because of todays technology he's able to bypass mainstream media.
I agree Rob Porter should have been better vetted as everyone in Trump administration no matter how far down the ladder is fair game. We are truly a country divided yet I wouldn't place all the blame on Trump. The Obama Admin. and identity politics did little to heal the country.
Still I like Trumps USSC pick, stance on immigration and the tax cut so I am happy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nov3
...So many men are collateral damage for this movement. Beyond tired of this group.
That's fine and while I understand men in power abuse their position I also know several professional athletes who basically ask the woman sign a contract before agreeing to a relationship.
And maybe all these clearances prevent us from hiring the best people for the job? Or am I behind the times for wanting the best and the brightest?
WTF? If you can't pass the clearance you don't deserve the govt job.
People will fail clearances even if there is hints of impropriety because they might be susceptible to blackmail. Someone who's username is "xxxUSA" should know better.
Kelly is Chief Of Staff. Porter was White House staff. Thank about that.
This ain't rocket science.
And Kelly should have the right to choose his assistants based on skill and personal chemistry. Why don't we concentrate on their skills at what they do?
This reminds me of a loss, in New York City, of a talented hospital administrator who was appointed to head Woodhull Hospital where he said, "I bet I can find the "n" in the woodpile." Was there any evidence he was going to mistreat black patients?
I feel here we should concentrate on what these people do or will do in their appointed positions. Perhaps a public admonishment but not a resignation or not-running issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
