BBB's favorite congressman admits he's an atheist

Georgeob1:

See what I mean about your posts? Take slkshock.



Didn't take long for your personal observations to become still more "shot" material, did it George?



True, so why provide them, then, if not to be fodder for the cheap shots which America has adopted at the expense of intelligent discourse?

Georgeob1:

Aside from providing fodder for the slkshocks, George, I still have some problems with the Stark scenario you presented, besides being too close in form to the Boxer one.

I don't doubt that the events unfolded as in your narrative. It is the interpretation which is still up in the air. In the case of this incident, I really don't know what is considered "normal" behavior in Washington in conflicts like this. In this case, a conference was scheduled, a Congressman decided he needed to be there, so he shows up at the last minute to a room which had a table set up for the scheduled conferees. Which meant that he had to take someone's seat if he was going to sit at this conference table.

I don't know what is "normal" for Washington in cases such as this. Here we have a Congressman representing 600,000 people who decides he needs to be at this economic conference, and if he is to be seated at the table somebody's seat has to be taken. Epecially in a competitive environment like Washington, where position and power is king, I would think that somehow, in some way, someone of lesser position ends up giving up the seat.

I really can't imagine it ending up otherwise, no matter who was Congressman.

By the way, the person in question still got a chair, correct? She was not told to leave the conference, I assume?

kelticwizard,

You appear to be motivated here by something beyond the explicit points to which you refer.

The conjunction of the evident characteristics in the Boxer and Stark stories is explained by (1) my reaction to them; (2) the relationship of the observed behaviors to the public personas of these representatives of the people; and (3) a response to rather fulsome praise of the individuals, dropped out of the blue here on A2K.

Perhaps you have a different conception, that you have not fully revealed.

My reporting was accurate and based on my own direct observations in both cases. The two events stand out in my experience with other politicians -- I have not observed their equal with others. That is why I remember them.

The lunch in question was just that - a lunch, no formal discussion. It was held in the offices of the District Committee in the Rayburn office Building, through the courtesy of then Rep. Ron Dellums - a figure with whom I disagree politically (rather strongly), but whom as a person I rather admire. The seating was informal at three or so circular tables. Stark showed up at the last moment (he was not a scheduled attendee), looked around the table and appeared to pick the least consequential appearing person and took the chair behind which she was standing, literally shoving her aside.

I believe Stark had something he wanted to say to one of the state representatives in the group and that motivated his presence. I gave my seat to the young woman in question, but it was evident that the incident had already taken away the magic of the experience for her.

I have a good deal of experience in what you might call leadership situations myself, and I know both the temptations it can bring for this sort of self-important behavior, and the costs they can impose on the group or organization being so led.

Well, I'm sorry, but I have to say: boo-f*cking-hoo.

Let's not judge someone on whether or not they are an effective leader, or provide good governance. Nah, let's form opinions of people based on whether or not they ensure that young ladies are having a 'magical experience,' all the time.

Ridiculous

Cycloptichorn

Not having been there, just reading, it seems to me it would have been courteous for him to ask if the seat was the lady's, and I share Georgeob's discomfiture. I too have some friends in the elected public sphere and in my observation they are genuinely courteous people, as they were before they ever thought of going into politics. I have no idea if the instances of apparent boorish behavior that Georgeob mentions with Stark reflect on Rep. Stark's general way of behaving in public or private, these years after BBB hosted a get-together for him.

However, I would judge his career in Congress by other means, which would primarily look at his votes and his representation of his district - as I alluded to in my first post, which was that I don't care about anyone's religious convictions, as those are personal. I care about the performance in their job. These are usually called "performance criteria". I realize one's moral framework can have impact on one's choices, but to me the framework is personal, and the choices are the public product.

I understand also that Stark's admission to nontheism is unique at his level of politics and that it was a response in an interview as opposed to a longtime speech point.

I agree that BBB's story of Stark's frank admission in an interview that he is an atheist is no more indicative of his pervasive virtue than is my observation of his thoughtless, self-centered behavior an indicator of the opposite. Both are interpretations of the character in question, albeit through different lenses, and both based on somewhat isolated acts. They are of about equal importance and relevance.

For my own purposes, the vignette I related, coming on the heels of the bombast and self-absorbtion evident in earlier conversations with him, was sufficient to persuade me that the event was indeed a window to the inner man. I can't be sure, but, like others, I often make judgements of people based on such things. and have come to rely on my judgements in such matters -- not perfect, but, so far, pretty good..

Now, that's the part I'd like to hear about. This is so much more substantive than his ruining a young woman's day.

Cycloptichorn

I don't agree. I have found that one's behavior towards unimportant (to them) people is a fairly reliable indicator of the natural disposition underlying behavior. The positions taken and style of presenting them in purposeful transactions are more likely to be influenced by other factors and needs.

But, the vignette you presented isn't representative of anything. Did Stark take her chair on purpose, or did he not know it was her chair?

Is your interpretation accurate? Is the event being reported accurately? These are things we cannot know.

On the other hand, we most certainly can know what he has done in an official capacity and judge him in that fashion. That's just one reason why I find anecdotal evidence of someone's behavior to be quite uncompelling.

Cycloptichorn

I generally agree. I was there and saw exactly what I related, including his quick scan of the other people at the table before he made his move. You know only my words. Similarly none of us was present during the interview in which Fourtney P Stark candidly acknowledged his atheism. We know only the words of the interviewer and the interpretation BBB gave it.

If the seating was informal, which means that you can sit in any chair, and the woman wasn't sitting in the chair in question, what exactly made it "her" chair?

Probably the fact she had her ass in it.

McGentrix, you are actually supposed to read the posts in question before attempting a response.

Work on that.

"looked around the table and appeared to pick the least consequential appearing person and took the chair behind which she was standing, literally shoving her aside."

Close enough to make him a rude bastard that only whiny liberals would attempt to defend.

Oh, so you are forced to admit that you were talking out your posterior when you said "the fact she had her ass in it."

Obviously, her ass was not in it. Wait, don't fall over yourself apologizing to the board for giving incorrect information. Like most internet tough guys, the things you say which turn out to be just plain wrong you demand to be merely ignored, right?

Or what's the correct term, "inoperative"?

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002.

make a mountain out of a molehill


To blow an issue or event out of proportion: "You have only a small blister on your heel, but you complain as though you broke your leg. Why are you making a mountain out of a molehill?"

McGentrix:

It's hardly making a mountain out of a molehill to point out that when you attempt to make a snappy rejoinder to a post, you might make less of a public fool of yourself if read the post first.

To return to what was being discussed, I would like an answer from George to the following exchange, if possible.

BBB
Is anyone interested in discussing the impact on Congressman Stark's political career of his atheist revelation? He could have refused to respond to the questioner or lied about it. That kind of response would have been out of character for Pete and he responded truthfully.

I admire him for that.

BBB

I don't know if Stark's revelation would affect his career much, since he is firmly entrenched in a place known for tolerance.

I think it might make it slightly easier for other atheists come forward in districts which are not quite so tolerant.