Last Friday, I went down to Mt. Rainier for a little hike. Near the end of the hike I decided to check out Myrtle Falls, hoping for a good picture. (The light was not quite right, so the pictures I took were just OK.) On my way to the usual viewpoint, I saw two older women and an older man. The man was having some trouble getting up the path, so I went down to offer my help.
This offer of help was not something unusual, for me, or for many other visitors to the park. I often see people there who need help of one kind or another, if only for a group photo. (I've even figured out the new etiquette for group pictures with digital cameras: After taking the picture, you ask the group to look at it to see if it was satisfactory.) The only thing that bothered me about the incident was that the three thanked me far more than I deserved, while I was helping, and afterwards.
Later, after I had taken my pictures, I headed back to the visitor's center and passed them on the trail. They asked me about myself and learned, from my description of my web site, that I was a conservative. This seemed to surprise them a little, as one of the women immediately told me the three were liberals. I just smiled at that and kept on walking.
Now then, for the moral of the story: Had I known their political views in advance, I would have offered them exactly the same help that I did. And I will go farther. I believe that many American leftists, maybe even most American leftists, would have given the same help to three conservatives that I did to those three self-proclaimed liberals. Despite the abuse so common in our politics (especially from the left), most Americans, regardless of their political views, are decent people. And when we are debating issues, it would be well to remember that.
And to my conservative friends, I will offer this bit of political advice: In most elections, a candidate, especially a conservative candidate, will gain by campaigning as if most of the voters on the other side are decent people. Because, in fact, most of them are, and by taking that approach, you may be able to win a few of them to your own side.
Correction: It was Myrtle Falls, not Narada Falls. I've corrected the text above. Both falls are quite lovely, by the way.
Posted by Jim Miller at August 29, 2007 12:46 PM | Email ThisNo, I don't feel ashamed at all. Jim should be ashamed posting such rubbish on a blog full of narrow minded nitwits. =P
Somebody frame that or something.
Posted by: Palouse on August 29, 2007 01:19 PMThat's why whenever someone that isn't on the left is discovered to be actually not eat deep-fried babies for breakfast, they have to make a point of how they happen to be nice people in spite of not being a leftist.
Posted by: John Galt on August 29, 2007 01:23 PMGreat pictures. Since hurting my back, I haven't done much hiking and climbing on Rainier (snowshoeing actually), but I sure do remember Sunrise and a few other spots. Never saw Narada Falls though.
I recall running for an office. When pounding on a door, sometimes a gruff question- Republican or Democrat- from a curmudgeon. It didn't have anything to do with the nonpartisan office, but it mattered to them.
On topic, I now have two ultraliberal friends that spew the Democratic/Socialistic line. We have points of agreement. If we didn't we couldn't talk about politics.
Unfortunately, because of blogs, etc. it is really, really hard to find points of agreement. Anymore, on the blogs, we can't even agree (Cato excluded) that both political parties have a terrible time governing.
Posted by: swatter on August 29, 2007 01:28 PMGreat pictures. Since hurting my back, I haven't done much hiking and climbing on Rainier (snowshoeing actually), but I sure do remember Sunrise and a few other spots. Never saw Narada Falls though.
I recall running for an office. When pounding on a door, sometimes a gruff question- Republican or Democrat- from a curmudgeon. It didn't have anything to do with the nonpartisan office, but it mattered to them.
On topic, I now have two ultraliberal friends that spew the Democratic/Socialistic line. We have points of agreement. If we didn't we couldn't talk about politics.
Unfortunately, because of blogs, etc. it is really, really hard to find points of agreement. Anymore, on the blogs, we can't even agree (Cato excluded) that both political parties have a terrible time governing.
Posted by: swatter on August 29, 2007 01:30 PMit'd be nice if ideas could be addressed without resorting to generalizations about liberals, leftists, republicans, conservatives.
i'm not holding my breath.
have a nice day.
Posted by: dinesh on August 29, 2007 01:33 PMIt's a shame really, by pulling the quote out of context you just further reinforce the perception that SP is 'a blog full of narrow minded nitwits'.
Nice one Cato, but as a medical person I dump all my Con/lib when it comes to helping people.
It's the same if your a druggie. I'm here to take care of you and don't give a damn what you believe.
But keep trying Cato. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 29, 2007 01:44 PMNice one Cato, but as a medical person I dump all my Con/lib when it comes to helping people.
It's the same if your a druggie. I'm here to take care of you and don't give a damn what you believe. (even us nitwits)
But keep trying Cato. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 29, 2007 01:48 PMLA Times (how odd) are just bashing them.
So Billary any words on this?
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 29, 2007 01:58 PMThat's very wise of you, maybe you should extend some of that wisdom to your posts.
I don't feel I'm out of the norm. Of the friends I have that are conservative, all of them act the same way and on occasion have been the victim of theft for trying to go a good deed.
Many of my closest friends are very left leaning, but we don't let politics define us. We all have qualities that make us compatable.
Sad commentary when people feel how you vote defines your character. It's very narrow-minded and small. Doing so will make you miss out on the best parts of life.
Posted by: Ken on August 29, 2007 02:00 PMI assume you're going to campaign whole-heartedly against Darcy Burner, then? What with her highly divisive "Us and Them" mentality to her would-be constituents and all...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on August 29, 2007 02:10 PMIn this case I agree with Cato that many of the comments directed toward him are inappropriate and I respect the fact that he continues to maintain a respectful demeanor when he posts. The same goes for others. I cannot claim that every post by some liberals whom I do respect are always without rancor because I did not record all past posts for review, so I am generalizing, but I think my generalizing is accurate in that there ARE several opposition posters here who are far more polite than some of the conservatives who post here regularly.
There is never any good time to demean the person when debating topics. I don't care how wrong you think their views are, or how aligned you might think they are with evil philosophies such as communism, you prove only your own small-mindedness when you attack the person or make insinuations rather than address the points they make specifically. If their ideas lack merit, it is a simple thing to point it out.
Civility is the reason I read this blog regularly, but it always chagrins me when I see someone disparage another poster. SP is generally better than a lot of other blogs, but there is room for improvement. I'd like to see that improvement as an example to those of more hateful bents.
Posted by: Eyago on August 29, 2007 02:12 PMBut that aside, the real issue for the left is that when people connect their preconceived notions with their actual experiences in the real world, the left loses every time. You just don't see images of conservatives unkempt and out screaming and dancing an burning Bush effigies, etc. And you don't see conservatives taking an in your face style out in public. I think that Jim is dead on that most people are good people regardless of political stripes, but it's the visible irrationality that has become far more a trademark of the left. And it hurts them, and they make little attempt to hide it or stop it. Pretty foolish.
And there really is an element of mythos in the left's view of the typical conservative that goes beyond the mythos of the right's view of the typical leftie, even notwithstanding all of the public naked displays and protest signs, etc. And think that comes down to the emotional element of the collective ideologies of the left. There are all of these left bromides about compassion and diversity, etc. and after a while, if that's how you think of your political ideology, then you really start to believe that you have some extraordinary compassion that others just don't have, etc. And then when you meet a live conservative, and they turn out to be pretty much just another person like yourself, you are stunned. It's just not that way on the right. Conservativism is simply a much more libertarian and reserved mindset when confronted face to face.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 29, 2007 02:43 PMThe real issue for most of us is liberalism is based on everything but facts, truth, reality and history.
Accordingly, if everything one believes in is based on fantasy, one really does wonder what level of intellect is in use in habitual 24/7 fantasyland...
-socialized medicine is based in economic dreamland devoid of reality; practioners thereof ration and discriminate.
-the rich do not pay enough tax is based in an utter lie, per IRS statistics.
-lowering taxes benefits everyone and always enhances prospertity, per OMB statistics.
Pick an issue and liberalism is based on feelings, not reality, facts, truth and history.
City of Portland spends 50% of its transportation dollars on 6.5% of commuters (buses, loot rail). Insanity, pure and simple.
So sad.
It would be nice to debate on alternate approaches to issues if the altnerate approaches have some attachment to reality.
Posted by: Hank on August 29, 2007 02:52 PMIn my mind, we fight in politics so that we don't have to fight in our personal relationship, our churches, or our businesses. We most especially fight in politics so we don't have to fight each other on the field of battle. Politics is the contest of ideas, and to take the battle outside of the framework of political debate is to admit you have lost the debate.
That means if you treat someone uncivilly simply because you disagree with them politically, you have admitted that your political ideas are inferior to his.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on August 29, 2007 02:54 PMPresident Hill with a filibuster-proof supermajority in both houses...at least one, maybe two SCOTUS picks....state redistricting coming up with the census....
Don't put it past the Kos kids to want re-education camps and more for the politically unrepentant.
That means us, gang.
Posted by: Rey Smith on August 29, 2007 02:55 PMMedical providers in any economic system ration and discriminate, but in different ways. "Facts, truth, reality, and history" show that the US system is less effective in outcomes, and less efficient in cost, than many other systems that you call "socialized".
-the rich do not pay enough tax is based in an utter lie, per IRS statistics.
"Enough" is a value judgment totally outside the realm of IRS statistics. For example, "facts, truth, reality, and history" show that the rich pay a higher percentage of tax now than in 1992, but a lower percentage relative to their income. What's "enough"? That's an important debate, but IRS statistics don't "prove" anything.
-lowering taxes benefits everyone and always enhances prospertity, per OMB statistics.
"Everyone?" "Always?" No one serious would ever make blanket statements like that. Why not lower taxes to zero? Seriously, what level is optimal?
Posted by: Bruce on August 29, 2007 03:31 PMHeck Rey they have been doing that for years, that's what political correctness is all about.
I do agree with Jim's point here however. I think there a lots of decent people regardless of their political persuasion.
I also think a lot of people that vote for Democrats do so in a knee jerk fashion. They don't realize it isn't the party of JFK and Warren Magnuson any more.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 29, 2007 03:33 PMThe rest of us are supposed to pay for your car, house, stereo, netflix, water, sewer, garbage, health care?
Yea right.
The world loves US health care because it is the best.
UK, Canada, Cuba, yada yada, where the peons get excremental, scatalogical health care, and bureaucrats get the best. That is your idea of euptopia? LOSER
IRS statistics dont prove anything? Click click click your ruby slippers, Dorothy. Duh.
The optimum tax rates, to encourage economic activity by entreprenuers, may be in the mid to high 20's for ordinary income, and ZERO for capital gains.
Right now, its triple taxation. Ordinary for earning it, capital gains for investing whats left after earning it, and estate tax on whats left at death. Gee, Bruce, lucky for your ilk, losers dont pay CG or estate tax........
Yet, winners pay the vast majority of income tax to fund all the income transfers to losers.
If you had any reasoning skills whatsoever, you would love lower tax rates and the related income transfers....
Another result of feelings overriding reality...
aka liberalism.
Pathetic reasoning skills. Get a life.....
Posted by: Hank on August 29, 2007 04:17 PMI think a major cause was that in those days the R's had control and were really starting to behave like Dems, with big spending and big gov't aplenty. Dems saw their turf being co-opted, maybe never to be wrested back. All those tax dollars flowing thru R hands, and D's cut out of the game they had perfected. It literally drove them nuts. This may also apply to Nixon, who is much-hated, and was a big-gov R. That's my little theory, anyway.
Posted by: russell garrard on August 29, 2007 04:26 PMI applaud your original suggestion to state "facts", but your post was devoid of facts, and you ignored the facts in mine.
Posted by: Bruce on August 29, 2007 04:34 PMTrue, nor is the GOP the party of Lincoln or even Reagan anymore.
it has been proven time after time that conservatives are much more charitable with their time and moneys than libs.
Do they donate money or time? I imagine there is quite a difference in the way Lib. vs Con. approach charity.
Right now, its triple taxation. Ordinary for earning it, capital gains for investing whats left after earning it, and estate tax on whats left at death. Gee, Bruce, lucky for your ilk, losers don't pay CG or estate tax........
Actually a lot of the rich don't pay taxes because they can hire tax lawyers who find creative loopholes (to quote the late Leona Hemsley 'We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes'). The middle class cannot afford this so they pick up the slack.
The GOP had their chance to reform the system between 2000 - 2006. Control of Congress, PUSA, etc. Did they take up the opportunity to make the tax laws more fair? Nope, they squandered their time and left it to future legislators.
The world loves US health care because it is the best.
Is it? Our doctors and nurses may be the best in the world but our Health Insurance industry is an atrocious mess.
Do they donate money or time? I imagine there is quite a difference in the way Lib. vs Con. approach charity.
Actually, they give more money, time and blood. Here are some conclusions from the book Who Really Cares: America's Charity Divide -Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters.
# Conservative households in America donate 30% more money to charity each year than liberal households, even in spite of lower average incomes
# Conservatives are also more generous in other ways, such as blood donations, and volunteer work. In fact, if liberals gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the U.S. would jump by about 45%
# Religious people give away four times more money each year than secularists. This is not just because of giving to churches - religious people are 10 percent more likely than secularists to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities
# Religious people are far more generous than secularists with their time. For instance, a religious person is 57% more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person
So, I am not sure of your point.
What seems apparent to me is that on average, conservatives are more generous with time, resources and money, and are less angry and hateful. It seems that while liberals and secularists talk a good game, they seem less inclined to demonstrate it in their own lives and would rather force such activity through government mandate. At least that is how it looks to me.
Posted by: Eyago on August 29, 2007 05:58 PMCato @ 34: Before you spout off about the medical insurance industry, take some time to do real research on the topic instead of relying on political soundbites. The hospitals in this area are forced to give away millions of dollars in uncompensated care. Someone has to pay for it. You don't work for free, so I don't understand the thought process that people who have to go through 8-15 years of specialized training are supposed to work for nothing. Volunteer at Harborview for 3 months or so to get a real bird's eye view of the situation.
And someone has to pay for the insane malpractice settlements that idiot juries pass out. Now I am all for giving a person adequate compensation in the event of true medical malpractice, but the malpractice attorneys don't do this because of an altruistic need to help the downtrodden. One of these ambulance chasers is currently running for president.
This state did a great job in chasing out many of the smaller insurers a few years ago through the mandate of what and how much coverage must be offered, decreasing the competition. The state's own basic health plan has shown exactly why government should not be in the insurance business. And before you bring up the example of how many people working for Wal-Mart are getting the state plan, dig into the issue and you will find it isn't a case of Wal-Mart not offering the insurance. It is a case of people wanting to be cheap. I am amazed at what people will spend on cable, internet, and lattes but then these same folks will turn around and whine because they have to pay a small amount for insurance.
Posted by: Burdabee on August 29, 2007 06:07 PMI buy my own insurance. I'm 39 years old, male, overweight. And I pay $93/month for good coverage. $20 copay, $2500 annual deductible. My choice of my doctor.
Insurance is expensive if you don't shop around; affordable, broad coverage is available.
I've been buying my own insurance of 10 years now (as long as I've been self-employed). There was a HUGE jump back in 1999 and 2000 when Deb Senn pushed through mandatory coverage of chiropractic, mental health, and a bunch of other things that used to be optional. As more and more alternative medicines are added to the mandatory coverage, prices increase.
Even then, you can still find affordable medical insurance. I know, I do it every year. And I will continue to do so. Single person, no big buying group, just contacted an insurance broker, told them what I wanted, and in a few days had a wide range of options.
Health care insurance costs could be DRAMATICALLY SCALED BACK in this country if it was treated as car insurance. Make the consumer responsible for buying their own insurance - they'll look for the best deal FOR THEM, which can be quite different from what you need!
Freedom of choice - let the employers who want to provide health insurance just provide a set amount of funds for the employees to use as they see fit. That's the best way to go. It works for auto, home, travel insurance. It works for just about every other installment/long-term payment plan for consumers, so why won't it work for health insurance?
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on August 29, 2007 08:14 PMGezz dude, you know nothing about being a CON. And buy the way, if you need my help on the side of the road or laying on the sidewalk dying. I would step in to save you NO matter what crazy idea's you believe.
I and others smack you around on this site because you make some of the dummest remarks. Sorry you don't like it, but life is not easy. No matter what the libs try to tell you!
Nothing, ZERO, nadda is free or easy. The sooner you learn that, the more you will understand life. Our for-father NEVER said you get what you want by taking from others. Even as Bruce, Stalin, Castro has said so. It doesn't work.
And PS cato. don't even tell me about giving. I spend many of my days off teaching other VOL-fire depts around this state what I know and how to keep them safe and I've never asked a dime from any of them!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 29, 2007 08:48 PMHe said, "I have wanted to understand people who hold leftist positions. Many people who hold them are personally decent, some very much so, yet they hold positions that I believe increase cruelty (e.g., advocating withdrawal from Iraq); increase criminality (e.g., more lenient attitudes toward punishing criminals); hasten the decline of Western society (e.g., pushing multiculturalism); and undermine liberty (e.g., expanding government, passing more and more laws, taking away ever larger percentages of citizens' money).
They also panic easily (e.g., heterosexual AIDS in America, carbon dioxide emissions leading to global catastrophe); and the further left one goes, the more morally confused they are (e.g., the inability to label the Soviet Union an "evil empire"; the exaggeration of America's flaws ? it is sexist, imperialist, racist, homophobic ? and the undervaluing of its virtues)."
Why? He answers. Worth reading apropos this discussion.
Posted by: Ann in Issaquah on August 29, 2007 09:04 PM$300.
I was stunned. I also was stunned to learn that my family had given more to non-profits in one year than John Kerry had in the few years previous to his presidential run. And I assure you we have nothing anything CLOSE to the $billion he has (well, it's his wife's, but he's sure living on it). All very telling, isn't it?
Posted by: Michele on August 29, 2007 09:09 PMsadly, some pea-brains have a perpetual agenda like subsequent posters; cant turn it off; want to complicate everything; their life is solutions looking for problems; it's sad; no balance in life;
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on August 29, 2007 09:59 PM