Some amazing preliminary observations of the flood records

[creek wader]

Al's right, Phil will shut this down. 

Some people believe in science, others believe in conspiracy. It's useless to try to change anyone's mind on this. 

 I'll drop it. 

The crappie are bite is in full swing, up here. I now have something better to do. 

[mixermarkb]

I'm not speaking for Phil at all, and I'm sure he will shut it down if he feels the need, but I for one appreciate the fact that we can disagree on important issues like climate change and not call each other names. I've learned a lot from Phil, Al, Vernon and others here on the OAF about rain events, stream flow, lake level management, and climate change. 

This is a pretty special community,  and I think at this point we all do a pretty gosh darn good job of listening and sharing ideas while keeping things respectful. We all say things in the heat of a discussion from time to time that we might regret, but this is the only forum where I've ever seen folks self moderate when they step over a line that others find disrespectful. 

It's a refreshing change from most of the online world.

Frankly, if the Blue team and the Red team in the political world listened and talked to each other with anywhere close to the same level of mutual respect that we do here on the OAF, our country would be in much better shape. 

So, I say all that to say that I'll keep checking in and learning, and hope Phil lets the conversation go as long as it stays respectful and productive. 

[Deadstream]

3 hours ago, mixermarkb said:

Frankly, if the Blue team and the Red team in the political world listened and talked to each other with anywhere close to the same level of mutual respect that we do here on the OAF, our country would be in much better shape. 

   Nice job.

[Al Agnew]

Getting far afield here, but this is a piece of writing my buddy Tom sent me, and I think it covers the red versus blue subject VERY well:

"My liberal friends think I'm conservative.  My conservative friends think I'm liberal.  More often than not, I feel like a man without a country, like a traveling nomad without a tribe.  I want to be another voice.  A different view.  At best, suggesting a calm and respectful approach--less extreme.  My hope is to offer some doubt, dismissing what I see as a human lust for certitude.  At worst, I may appear uncommitted, lacking in fortitude and conviction.  Few choose to be this kind of "third voice".

"It is my experience that evil suffers no doubt, with an agenda never in question.  So certain that it is right...ready to discount anyone not holding its version of the "truth".  Grasping any fact that supports their version of "truth" as they see it.  Quoting facts undergirding their certitude, and discounting any that are counter to it, because it's more important to be right than to listen to others.

"This tribe mentality, us versus them, leads to demonizing the other in an effort to justify what we consider an enlightened position.  Refusing to hold the tension of realizing that one MIGHT be wrong, leads to unashamed 'I'm right, you're wrong', and we feel justified in leaving the other behind.  Forgetting that we belong to each other, we give in to indifference or even hatred toward those we consider unenlightened.  We become the same, and a worsening version of those we have demonized and disdainfully dismissed."

It seems to me that many politicians and media rabble rousers have a vested interest in keeping us at each others' throats, when what we need is, at the very least, the kind of respect for each other that we "Ozarkanglers" usually show here.  I am sick and tired of people considering anybody who doesn't agree with their political or religious views not just an opposing voice, but an enemy with a nefarious agenda.  Most of us want the same things, we simply disagree sometimes on what is the best way to proceed to get them.  

[joeD]

Wait. What?

[Mitch f]

Best thing I ever did was get rid of cable TV.

I pretty much just vote now for who I want and never think about it again. We can't do anything about it anyway. There will always be poor, always be rich, always be hard workers, and always be lazy people. I can't let myself get angry about it anymore.

[Mark]

The Founding Fathers warned us of a two party political system. We do need a major third party if, for nothing else, to end the majority advantage in Congress. If no party had a majority of votes in either chamber of congress, then everyone would have to compromise. That's what I am really sick of - the pure partisan politics - and the voting is strictly along political lines in Congress. No wonder we can't get anything done. And no one dares step outside party politics without fearing losing the next election.

[Flysmallie]

We don't need a third party. That will just get us more of the same. We need no parties. Political parties are just schoolyard BS. 

[Al Agnew]

Nope, here's what we need...independent commissions in all 50 states (well, except for states with only one House seat, like Montana) that "gerrymander" the congressional districts so that there are as many districts that are competitive as possible.  The problem now is that the way the House districts are gerrymandered in most states, most Representatives have "safe" districts.  Their party is gonna win no matter what, and the incumbent only has to worry about losing in the primary to a challenger that's even more radical than he is.  That's guaranteed to end up with radical Democrats and radical Republicans in power, and the two shall never agree on anything.  But if most Representative candidates had to run in a district where the outcome is in doubt, they'd have to cater to the independents and moderates who want cooperation with the other party whenever possible.  You'd still have a certain number of districts in strongly red or blue states that are safe no matter what, but at least you'd have a lot more districts in play.  And the winner would have to represent ALL his constituents, not just the ones that make up the base of his party.  

Alternatively...make it so everybody can vote in both the Republican and Democratic primaries in their district.

[MOPanfisher]

I don't know a third party that would split up the house and Senate so that no party has a clear majority and thus either couldn't pass anything or would have to cooperate to get anything passed wouldn't be the worst thing I could think of.