Thank you Antigone! That is the most meaningful thing I’ve read in a while, a positive reflection on Mr.Biden that for me carries a much needed healing and hopeful essence. Thank you ð
The story I’m about to share with you about Joe Biden is special — in fact, I’m fairly certain I’m the only living person left who actually witnessed it firsthand.
It was about 16 years ago, and I was a young rabbi, brand-new to Delaware, on my way to lead a shiva minyan — a worship service following a death of a Jewish person. I was from California. Back then, I didn’t know Claymont, Delaware from Scranton, Pennsylvania.
A quick bit of background: When someone passes away in the Jewish faith, we observe seven days of mourning, called shiva. We gather a group of ten Jewish adults together — a minyan — to say the Mourners’ Kaddish. It usually happens in a person’s home — somewhere intimate.
In this case, the deceased individual — her name was Mrs. Greenhouse, of blessed memory — had not been a person of means. She had lived in rent-controlled senior housing in a tall high-rise building off of Namaans Road. Her apartment had been too small to fit everyone into, so we conducted our worship service in the building’s communal laundry room, in the basement of the high-rise.
We assembled the ten elders together, and it was in this most humble of places that I began to lead the kaddish. Toward the end of the service, a door at the back of the laundry room opened, and who walks in but Senator Joe Biden, his head lowered, all by himself.
I nearly dropped my prayer book in shock.
Senator Biden stood quietly in the back of the room for the duration of the service.
At the close of the kaddish, I walked over to him and asked the same question that must have been on everyone else’s mind: “Senator Biden — what are you doing here?”
And he said to me: “Listen, back in 1972, when I first ran for Senate, Mrs. Greenhouse gave $18 to my first campaign. Because that’s what she could afford. And every six years, when I’d run for reelection, she’d give another $18. She did it her whole life. I’m here to show my respect and gratitude.”
Now, the number 18 is
significant in the Jewish faith — its numbers spell out the Hebrew word chai, as in “to life, to life, l’chayim!” But it’s also a humble amount. Joe Biden knew that. And he respected that. There were no news outlets at our service that day — no Jewish reporters or important dignitaries. Just a few elderly mourners in a basement laundry room.
Joe Biden didn’t come to that service for political gain. He came to that service because he has character. He came to that service because he’s a mensch.
And if we need anything right now when it comes to the leadership of our country — we need a mensch.
I know this is such a simple, small story. But I tell it to as many people as will listen to me.
Because I think that, in their heart of hearts, when people are trying to think about the decision they’ll make this year — this is the kind of story that matters.
You could whittle down each and every candidate into a shady puppet. You have ... when you ... you're voting.....
if you don't have allies in Congress and the judicial branch, you're not going to get much done as president.
I do agree with your concern about the broadness of Joe's appeal. Frankly, he could ramble on about baseball or riding the commuter train and it would be like the sweet air of heaven compared to the all-permeating fecal stench of Donald Trump's Tower of Babbled Lies, but I don't know if he sparks the hope of "Yes We Can" in the hearts of young voters.
If you're looking for The New Hope, maybe Beto appeals...if he ever gets his campaign underway. Like you I'll vote for the nominee but I think that as nice as Pete Buttigieg seems, going from mayor of South Bend to POTUS is a huge goddamned leap.
As for Biden and Anita Hill, there's an interesting op-ed about the matter:
Joe Biden doesnât owe me an apology. Only Anita Hill can speak to what he owes her, but as âthe uncalled witnessâ in the 1991 Senate confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, I believe we have more pressing issues than whether Biden has sufficiently apologized for what did or did not happen almost three decades ago. ...
Biden is not a #MeToo villain.
I respectfully agree. We do not need to hang Anita Hills mistreatment solely on JB.
I'm merely pointing out the not-so-good-timing of his entry into the race ... soon after a repeat of the National Screw Women have endured for decades since A.H. He's a great guy. and my choices aren't based on genitalia. However, many, many of us women who graduated college in the mid 80s, worked all these years and assumed the ol boys club around assault and extremely uncomfortable work environment were over, are finding, ever more grossly, four decades later, we have been proven wrong. An apology from CH means zilch, However, I may consider one from Shlitz Kavanaugh.
Many, many women are disgusted that rape kits still sit in Police evidence rooms without funding to test them. Long after the statute of limitations is out. Kristine came out despite moving and death threats to her family. Yet one political party decided a lust for power and tax cuts was more important than listening to her. Now, a stacked SCOTUS may take our autonomy away - colluding with a wanna-be religious state.
I am NOT a raging feminist. I subscribe to the sense that no one race, gender or religious affiliation has a monopoly on assholes.
But ... Truly how many men here have sisters, daughters, wives, mothers, women in their lives they love are not troubled by this?
Biden is Wall Street and Corporations' choice, not ours. He is safe to them, he'll still look out for their interests. His immediate meeting and cash haul from Comcast says EVERYTHING we need to know about him. Yet . . . I'm behind whoever gets the nom. Just don't think ol Joe's past will pass muster with women and youth. The recent Kavanaugh Calendars and Confirmation spectacle brought back Anita Hill ...on steroids. Women are still fekked in 2018? A long ago sore spot has become a festered wound for many women now. Joe's part won't easily be forgotten or forgiven, unfortunately.
You could whittle down each and every candidate into a shady puppet. You have to look at the policies a candidate promotes and the likelihood s/he will get them enacted. Remember that when you vote for a presidential candidate, you're voting for his/her party as well. If the candidate can't or won't gain support from the party or compromise with the party, not much is going to get done. Personally, that's my main concern about a Bernie Sander's presidency: he has no record of legislative compromise IIRC and won't accept anything less than Medicare for All. It's also the reason I won't vote for a third-party candidate: if you don't have allies in Congress and the judicial branch, you're not going to get much done as president.
I do agree with your concern about the broadness of Joe's appeal. Frankly, he could ramble on about baseball or riding the commuter train and it would be like the sweet air of heaven compared to the all-permeating fecal stench of Donald Trump's Tower of Babbled Lies, but I don't know if he sparks the hope of "Yes We Can" in the hearts of young voters.
If you're looking for The New Hope, maybe Beto appeals...if he ever gets his campaign underway. Like you I'll vote for the nominee but I think that as nice as Pete Buttigieg seems, going from mayor of South Bend to POTUS is a huge goddamned leap.
As for Biden and Anita Hill, there's an interesting op-ed about the matter:
Joe Biden doesn’t owe me an apology. Only Anita Hill can speak to what he owes her, but as “the uncalled witness” in the 1991 Senate confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, I believe we have more pressing issues than whether Biden has sufficiently apologized for what did or did not happen almost three decades ago.
Let’s get our priorities straight. We can discuss ad nauseam whether Biden acted appropriately during those 1991 hearings, and whether he’s too touchy-feely now. But why allow those issues to derail his presidential bid when the vulgar, always inappropriate current occupant of the White House has bragged about groping women and entering dressing rooms to ogle half-naked girls during the Miss Teen USA pageant? At stake is the 2020 presidential election, and if we don’t keep our eyes on that prize, we might find ourselves trumped again.
...
Biden is not a #MeToo villain. He wrote the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, which survives despite Republican attempts to cut funding and a Supreme Court decision gutting a key provision that allowed women the right to sue their attackers. That law was recently reauthorized by the House and awaits Senate consideration. The law was a measure of Biden’s character, and what he now proposes as a candidate should be judged just as carefully.
In addition to Bidenâs disturbing record on domestic policy, he has been a consistent warmonger. He has supported every military intervention heâs been able to, including, most disastrously voting for the 2002 resolution authorizing war against Iraq and ushering the country into the endless war against âterrorâ we remain immersed in.
I am reading and hearing a lot of mediocre and poor reasons to not politically support Biden but his track record on foreign military adventures is a good reason not to vote for Biden.
More fundamentally, are American voters ready to elect a President who will defy Israel as well as raise excise taxes on polluting fuels? Probably not so folks should simply brace yourself for more wealth-destroying military "training". Is the US$5 Billion per year spent on maintaining the naval fleet close to the Strait of Hormuz money well spent to maintain the US addiction to polluting fossil fuels and cheap energy entitlement? You tell me. One estimate suggests that the USA has spent US$18 trillion protecting the Strait of Hormuz.
Frankly if it were not for full on support for the Israeli nation building process, would the USA have invaded and occupied Iraq and Afghanistan and currently be at loggerheads with Hamas and Iran?
Will any Democratic Party candidate have the courage to stand up and directly question the US War on Terror? Probably not.
Biden is Wall Street and Corporations' choice, not ours. He is safe to them, he'll still look out for their interests. His immediate meeting and cash haul from Comcast says EVERYTHING we need to know about him. Yet . . . I'm behind whoever gets the nom. Just don't think ol Joe's past will pass muster with women and youth. The recent Kavanaugh Calendars and Confirmation spectacle brought back Anita Hill ...on steroids. Women are still fekked in 2018? A long ago sore spot has become a festered wound for many women now. Joe's part won't easily be forgotten or forgiven, unfortunately.
In addition to Bidenâs disturbing record on domestic policy, he has been a consistent warmonger. He has supported every military intervention heâs been able to, including, most disastrously voting for the 2002 resolution authorizing war against Iraq and ushering the country into the endless war against âterrorâ we remain immersed in.
I am extremely emotional, touchy and huggy with my inner circle of family and friends and none of them will not know how I feel about them when I or they go. But I don't act that way to acquaintances and strangers and certainly not children acquaintances and strangers.
I'm not arguing the general premise, but politics is weird. If we elected people based on their skill set alone, this wouldn't be an issue. But a politician MUST appeal to more than a person's rational thought. "He seems like a guy I could have a beer with." They have just seconds to win a person over. Maybe we're entering a time when this touchy-feely tactic isn't going to be effective, but for certain politicians it's what got them where they are. In that light, this is less than zero as a sexual predation thing; it's more likely a political survival technique. Learned, mastered, worn out, and can be un-learned.
Yes, there is that. There also are other differences in play, some of them generational and some of them gender-based; some are just differences from individual to individual. Let me say at the outset of this comment, that I certainly am not trying to minimize inappropriate touching and certainly not anything that rises to the level of sexual assault. That said, there are differences in socialization. For example, as a young man, I realized (or at least it appeared to me) that men tended more to shake hands as a greeting than hug in social settings whereas women tended more towards hugging. Over time, that difference has decreased quite a bit . At various times, I remember being unsure whether I should be greeting a female friend or acquaintance with a hug or a handshake. It was sometimes awkward for me to figure that out at that precise moment, but not because I thought hugging would be inappropriate or offensive. Another example: in my experience, it is not unusual for women in social or business settings to touch me on the arm while making a point, be it a humorous one or a more emphatic one. Nothing romantic or offensive about it, at least in my mind. Men, on the other hand, were more prone to clap someone or touch someone on the shoulder. A lot of this has changed, but some of it still exists. I am probably not explaining this very well, but maybe the general gist of what I am trying to say is apparent.
I dunno about anyone else but I don't want any politician being touchy/feely with me at all. That is not the reason they are leaders. Then again I am rarely star struck or impressed by so called celebrities either. Someone that does their job well is enough for me. As far as touching at work. Handshakes and hugs are too be distributed at the participants discretion. If I worked for a huge firm or corporation, I would never hug anyone, male or female. At a smaller business where the atmosphere is more family like, I have hugged both males and females at the appropriate times. A little common sense goes a long way but as my boss always says......."Common sense is not evenly distributed."
I completely concur. Speaking of common sense, I know the difference between an affectionate person and someone who likes to cop feels. Joe happens to be both. It can be subjective of course and I may not be the smartest man, Jennaay, but I was given a good heap of common sense.
I am extremely emotional, touchy and huggy with my inner circle of family and friends and none of them will not know how I feel about them when I or they go. But I don't act that way to acquaintances and strangers and certainly not children acquaintances and strangers.
I'm not arguing the general premise, but politics is weird. If we elected people based on their skill set alone, this wouldn't be an issue. But a politician MUST appeal to more than a person's rational thought. "He seems like a guy I could have a beer with." They have just seconds to win a person over. Maybe we're entering a time when this touchy-feely tactic isn't going to be effective, but for certain politicians it's what got them where they are. In that light, this is less than zero as a sexual predation thing; it's more likely a political survival technique. Learned, mastered, worn out, and can be un-learned.
Yes, there is that. There also are other differences in play, some of them generational and some of them gender-based; some are just differences from individual to individual. Let me say at the outset of this comment, that I certainly am not trying to minimize inappropriate touching and certainly not anything that rises to the level of sexual assault. That said, there are differences in socialization. For example, as a young man, I realized (or at least it appeared to me) that men tended more to shake hands as a greeting than hug in social settings whereas women tended more towards hugging. Over time, that difference has decreased quite a bit . At various times, I remember being unsure whether I should be greeting a female friend or acquaintance with a hug or a handshake. It was sometimes awkward for me to figure that out at that precise moment, but not because I thought hugging would be inappropriate or offensive. Another example: in my experience, it is not unusual for women in social or business settings to touch me on the arm while making a point, be it a humorous one or a more emphatic one. Nothing romantic or offensive about it, at least in my mind. Men, on the other hand, were more prone to clap someone or touch someone on the shoulder. A lot of this has changed, but some of it still exists. I am probably not explaining this very well, but maybe the general gist of what I am trying to say is apparent.
I dunno about anyone else but I don't want any politician being touchy/feely with me at all. That is not the reason they are leaders. Then again I am rarely star struck or impressed by so called celebrities either. Someone that does their job well is enough for me. As far as touching at work. Handshakes and hugs are too be distributed at the participants discretion. If I worked for a huge firm or corporation, I would never hug anyone, male or female. At a smaller business where the atmosphere is more family like, I have hugged both males and females at the appropriate times. A little common sense goes a long way but as my boss always says......."Common sense is not evenly distributed."
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Apr 2, 2019 - 3:26pm
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
sirdroseph wrote:
I am extremely emotional, touchy and huggy with my inner circle of family and friends and none of them will not know how I feel about them when I or they go. But I don't act that way to acquaintances and strangers and certainly not children acquaintances and strangers.
I'm not arguing the general premise, but politics is weird. If we elected people based on their skill set alone, this wouldn't be an issue. But a politician MUST appeal to more than a person's rational thought. "He seems like a guy I could have a beer with." They have just seconds to win a person over. Maybe we're entering a time when this touchy-feely tactic isn't going to be effective, but for certain politicians it's what got them where they are. In that light, this is less than zero as a sexual predation thing; it's more likely a political survival technique. Learned, mastered, worn out, and can be un-learned.
Yes, there is that. There also are other differences in play, some of them generational and some of them gender-based; some are just differences from individual to individual. Let me say at the outset of this comment, that I certainly am not trying to minimize inappropriate touching and certainly not anything that rises to the level of sexual assault. That said, there are differences in socialization. For example, as a young man, I realized (or at least it appeared to me) that men tended more to shake hands as a greeting than hug in social settings whereas women tended more towards hugging. Over time, that difference has decreased quite a bit . At various times, I remember being unsure whether I should be greeting a female friend or acquaintance with a hug or a handshake. It was sometimes awkward for me to figure that out at that precise moment, but not because I thought hugging would be inappropriate or offensive. I was just more oriented toward shaking hands than hugging. Another example: in my experience, it is not unusual for women in social or business settings to touch me on the arm while making a point, be it a humorous one or a more emphatic one. Nothing romantic or offensive about it, at least in my mind. Men, on the other hand, were more prone to clap someone or touch someone on the shoulder. A lot of this has changed, but some of it still exists. I am probably not explaining this very well, but maybe the general gist of what I am trying to say is apparent.
metaphorically speaking, i find it a bit suspect that an opponent waits four years and when he comes up to bat calls him out on his juicing
of course media can be edited to make his (potentially) minor snarfing problem a flashing sign
i searched and saw him snuggling with men too
it also looks like he isn't shy about professing feelings/love for the people in his circle (the guy has loved and lost a lot)
==========
admittedly, as i have gotten older and lost quite a few people very close to me, i have started "completing" conversations
Yeah, I thought the same thing about that NV politician. IIRC she said she would vote for Biden over Trump, though...
Joe has been a demonstratively affectionate guy for a while, though. The hugs and back rubs aren't new. I posted this pic somewhere in this forum a while back, and nothing about it was staged or Photoshopped:
Some older folks, you worry that they're going to fall and break their hip. Joe? You worry that he's going to innocently going to make a fool of himself on a regular basis.
Trump? You know he's sleazy enough to break every law if he thinks he can get away with it, and stupid enough to drag us all down with him when things go sideways.
I am extremely emotional, touchy and huggy with my inner circle of family and friends and none of them will not know how I feel about them when I or they go. But I don't act that way to acquaintances and strangers and certainly not children acquaintances and strangers.
I'm not arguing the general premise, but politics is weird. If we elected people based on their skill set alone, this wouldn't be an issue. But a politician MUST appeal to more than a person's rational thought. "He seems like a guy I could have a beer with." They have just seconds to win a person over. Maybe we're entering a time when this touchy-feely tactic isn't going to be effective, but for certain politicians it's what got them where they are. In that light, this is less than zero as a sexual predation thing; it's more likely a political survival technique. Learned, mastered, worn out, and can be un-learned.
