I'm curious

[Hollis]

Hey there Nanook of the North,

See what I mean ? And who says I can't show any restraint ?

Hollis

[bryce]

[jdb1]

Well, my friends, as to the previous exchange, all I can say is that first of all, we should all recognize by now that Friend Bryce prefers to look at things out from under a dark underbelly, and if he cares to express a dissenting opinion here that should be not only his privilege, but his right. I would ask those veterans in our number this: isn't that right one of the things we defend when we defend this country?

I say that there is room here for many points of view, and as long as we keep it civil, and maintain a sense of proportion about it, everyone should be heard. I don't always share Byce's "it's all bulls**t and it's bad for you" point of view (although sometimes I do), but neither do I think he shouldn't be heard here, just because he sees things differently. I love my country, but I also think there are things wrong with it. I would not want anyone, anywhere, to tell me I shouldn't voice an opinion on this subject. An unpopular view is not necessarily an incorrect one (and I am not taking any sides on the correctness of this difference of opinion, so please don't jump all over me as taking an un-American position).

Bryce, please consider the venue, and perhaps consider modifying your rhetoric a bit? One can express opinions without firebrands.

[bryce]

Judith, you're asking me to alter my rhetoric? Are we reading the same posts by Hollis? I find them hilarious, but there's only one person in this exchange who took things to a personal level, and it wasn't me. (edit: I realize that by asking me to modify my rhetoric you might be hoping to minimize any such altercations, and I'm sorry I can't be accommodating.)

If anything, I'd say this is a case of totally proving my point for me.

As for my disposition on life, this exchange sums things up perfectly:

Griffin: "(Were there) certain parts of your life that were really joyous?"
Welles: "Oh yes, there are certain parts of almost every day that are joyous. I'm not essentially a happy person, but I have all kinds of joy. (pause) And there's a difference you know. Because joy is a great big electrical experience, just happiness is a, oh, I don't know, a warthog can be happy. And I don't want to knock warthogs. Why did I pick on them?"
Griffin: "What about painful times?"
Welles: "Enough of those to do. I'm saving those for my book."
Griffin: "Yeah. Were they usually associated, though, with your work? The pain?"
Welles: "There are all kinds of pain, all kinds of pain. Bad conscious pain too. You know, that's the worst, the regrets, the things you think you didn't, the times you didn't behave as well as you ought to've. That's the real pain."

God rest his soul.

There's no dark underbelly here, nor any golden brick road, only life in all of its glorious facets.

[klondike]

One can express opinions without firebrands.

Perhaps . . but go ahead, ask Michael Palin, it's true:

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[bryce]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

[jdb1]

Judith, you're asking me to alter my rhetoric? Are we reading the same posts by Hollis? I find them hilarious, but there's only one person in this exchange who took things to a personal level, and it wasn't me. (edit: I realize that by asking me to modify my rhetoric you might be hoping to minimize any such altercations, and I'm sorry I can't be accommodating.)

If anything, I'd say this is a case of totally proving my point for me.

As for my disposition on life, this exchange sums things up perfectly:

Griffin: "(Were there) certain parts of your life that were really joyous?"
Welles: "Oh yes, there are certain parts of almost every day that are joyous. I'm not essentially a happy person, but I have all kinds of joy. (pause) And there's a difference you know. Because joy is a great big electrical experience, just happiness is a, oh, I don't know, a warthog can be happy. And I don't want to knock warthogs. Why did I pick on them?"
Griffin: "What about painful times?"
Welles: "Enough of those to do. I'm saving those for my book."
Griffin: "Yeah. Were they usually associated, though, with your work? The pain?"


Welles: "There are all kinds of pain, all kinds of pain. Bad conscious pain too. You know, that's the worst, the regrets, the things you think you didn't, the times you didn't behave as well as you ought to've. That's the real pain."

God rest his soul.

There's no dark underbelly here, nor any golden brick road, only life in all of its glorious facets.

Once again, we talk at cross purposes, and I think you just don't understand the impact your writing style has on the rest of us. I'm certainly not the only poster here who has opined that you see as through a glass darkly. There must be something to it. This is not a political forum, and there's no need for stem-winding, rabble-rousing, or ad hominem. I for one don't really get any particular sense of a zest for life from your typical choice of words; it may be your intent, but it's rarely your effect. And I was not taking you to task for your content in my last post, only for your style. Besides, it wasn't what you said that I found so troubling, but the tenor of the objections to it.

I am a former military wife; my ex was in the Navy for 20 years, for cryin' out loud. I'm no stranger to the idea or the reality of military service. But it really boils my onions to be confronted with the notion that if one never carried a govt issued gun and wore a govt issued ensemble, one cannot truly love one's country. Not to denigrate anyone who put a life on the line in the name of military action, but choosing not to do so does not make one unpatriotic. I don't really even see the point of reiterating that the expression of criticism of America by Americans is not treason; it's the exercise of First Amendment rights. I hear plenty of nonsense in that regard every day (especially on TV) that I find outrageous, but if I want to reserve my right to speak freely, then I have to respect the fact that others have that same right. (Bryce, do you understand that this paragraph is not directed at you? I hope so.)

[charliechaplinfan]

Judith, I think you are the voice of reason, I like the tone of your recent posts, I think you said it well and much better than I could. Take note boys.

Hollis, I used a book I've had since I was 8, I loved that book and looked at it often. The fact it's aimed at youngsters makes it easy for me to precise the information in there.

Lets continue learning here, some of the information that has come out is very interesting. I had another question but hold back from asking it because I don't want to inflame further passions.

[knitwit45]

Alison,ask away! How do we learn if we don't ask? H&B will calm down and behave themselves, or have to go to the naughty corner......
hh'm, "H&B" sounds like a fine, smooth whiskey, doesn't it?

if I want to reserve my right to speak freely, then I have to respect the fact that others have that same right.

I agree, absolutely, JD, even when it's rather painful and hard not to shout someone down.

[charliechaplinfan]

OK I'll ask my question but only on the understanding that nothing bad is said about Texas or Texans. I have a good friend on this board who has been upset by comments made about her home state.

As you've guessed my question concerns Texas.

Looking at America from our news reports I wolud guess that Texas and Florida are the most Republican states in the union (and there is nothing wrong with that) Texas I presume is a safe seat for the Republicans when it comes to elections. Lyndon B Johnson was President for 2 terms and he was from Texas, he was a Democrat and my understanding is that his nomination for Vice President helped carry Kennedy to the White House. Was it unusual for a Democrat to represent Texas even in the sixties. I ask this because wasn't Kennedy in TExas as a presonal favour to LBJ and to help shore up support for him.

On the back of this question, through my reading, the South West used to traditionally be Democrat but after the civil rights laws were passed by LBJ the democrats lost their popularity and from there on in the South West usually goes Republican.

Has Texas changed a great deal in 40 odd years politically, is it the same with the south west> Does this now mean that the Republicans would have an easier time than 40 odd years ago getting elected. Or have other states changed from traditionally Republican to Democrat?

Let me remind everyone, can we keep it nice just because the question is regarding politics please just deal with facts if you think your opinions might upset others

[silentscreen]

Alison,

I found this article online, and it seems fairly accurate to me, at least from a historical aspect, and I think that's what you're looking to find out about. (Not any of the sideline opinions by the author.) Some of it surprised me! I did know that Lincoln started the party, but I really didn't know how it got a foothold in Texas. It's been a long time since I took a history class.(Old age sets in....)

http://www.texasgop.org/site/PageServer ... ry_history

[charliechaplinfan]

Oh, that's really interesting. So basically the Republican vote in Texas was abandoned for 4 generations because of Lincoln's actions after the Civil War. This would probably coincide with LBJ's tenure. Ahh, it doesn't explain why the South changed their votes from Democrat to Republican. Where they traditionally Democrat because of the Civil War and that changed with the Civil Rights movement.

Hope I'm nto sounding too niave

[jdb1]

Here some more Americana for you:

The question was raised as to why Oklahomans are called "Sooners" and Oklahoma "the Sooner State." Well, as far as I can determine from zillions of years of reading about such things, it stems from the Oklahoma Land Grant of 1889.

Several million acres of what was considered desirable property was offered for settlement by the Benjamin Harrison administration (once the indigenous population had been relocated, that is). All interested parties were to assemble at designated starting points, and at the signal, they were to rush like heck to a parcel of land there were willing to settle on for a specific period of time. These people were referred to as the "Boomers" (as in land boom). The city of Guthrie calls itself the first Oklahoma town settled by the Boomers of 1889. Most of us have probably seen that silent movie clip recreation of the Land Ruch, where the covered wagons rush away from a starting line.

However, there were some who couldn't wait, and sneaked onto the land grant to stake claims before the big day. And those were called "Sooners" (as in too soon). Since so much of Oklahoma was established through land grants of this sort, although most were not quite as dramatic, the Sooner name stuck.

Now -- as to Indiana Hoosiers.

There are a lot of very fanciful explanations, such as the Indiana people liking a catchphrase something like "Who's yer?" Then there's the one about the riverboat people being called "Hushers," because they shut up everyone who got in their way. And some other reasonings, each one a bigger stretch than the last.

Many folklorists and American language specialists give a different explanation, one which seems much more logical and reasonable to me: apparently among the earliest Europeans to come to what became Indiana (the French were probably first) were woodsmen and fur trappers who came from the Suffolk, England area, and who called themselves "hill men." In that area, a hill is a "hoo," so they may have called themselves "hoosers" or "hoosiers," and they were eventually referred to by others as "hoosiers." There is a well-known and extensively researched Anglo-Saxon burial site in Suffolk known as Sutton Hoo, and most of such mounds there are referred to, at least by the archaeologists, as "hoos." Perhaps one of our English members can corroborate.

[charliechaplinfan]

It sounds entirely possible, Sutton Hoo is a very famous place and there is the Hoo Estuary very close by, a quick lok at our map shows a few areas referred to as Hoo in that area. Looks like you might have solved a mystery.

Are Catholics known as Red Necks in America?

[klondike]

It sounds entirely possible, Sutton Hoo is a very famous place and there is the Hoo Estuary very close by, a quick lok at our map shows a few areas referred to as Hoo in that area. Looks like you might have solved a mystery.

Are Catholics known as Red Necks in America?

Nope, Rednecks are another breed of cat entirely; the simplest definition is a white, American-born male of predominantly Southern descent, who comes from a background of limited education & a necessity and/or tradition of manual labor in a comparatively rural region; this is usually found combined with very strong, old-fashioned Protestant faith, and at least a mild intolerance and/or suspicion of "other kinds of folks".
The most common origin sited for the term is that having to wear rough-woven work shirts, working out-of-doors, and making-do with simple, home-done haircuts involving shaven necks, the nape of their necks had a perpetually raw/red/sunburnt appearance.