Now sit together and play nicely

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
In summary, there is a proposal to mix up the seating arrangement in Congress in order to break down psychological barriers between parties. This idea has gained support from both Democrats and Republicans, with some even suggesting it could lead to more civility and cooperation. However, there are some objections, potentially stemming from the Tea Party's desire to not compromise or work together with the other party. Overall, the proposal has been seen as a positive step towards promoting bipartisanship in Congress.
  • #1
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,142
1,755
It has been suggested, and apparently without opposition so far, that members of Congress are no longer seated separately, by party. The idea being that by simply mixing up the seating arrangement, a psychological wall will come down.

A simple gesture, perhaps, but it has all the overtones of an idea with insidious, simple elegance. I am all for it!

MARK SHIELDS: ...I mean, I think it was Jesse Jackson that said, we came over in different ships, but we are all in the same boat. And I think that has to be acknowledged, admitted, and worked upon at this point.

One of the encouraging signs was Mark Udall, the senator...

JIM LEHRER: Yes, I was going to ask you about that.

MARK SHIELDS: Well, the senator from Colorado, freshman Democratic senator.

JIM LEHRER: Yes.

MARK SHIELDS: And he's proposed -- we have all watched this puppeteering in the State of the Union.

JIM LEHRER: Oh, yes.

MARK SHIELDS: Our side gets up and cheers. Then the other side gets up and cheers. And we sit on our hands. Then they sit on their hands.

And he suggested that they all sit together, I mean, you know, not sit on strict Democratic side and Republican side. Lisa Murkowski, the Republican senator from Alaska, has cosigned a letter with him. Nineteen senators have agreed, including John McCain. Ten of the 19, interestingly enough, a number of them Republicans, are women. Maybe that will be the leading in civility.

But that is an encouraging sign. And even Kevin McCarthy, the Republican whip in the House, has sort of given it a semi-endorsement anyway.

But that's a step, I mean, that we can sit and talk with each other and we're human beings.

JIM LEHRER: Why would that be important?

DAVID BROOKS: Because the chief dynamic in the Congress is the herd mentality, my herd and your herd.

I have stopped -- when a member of Congress starts telling me about the other the party, I almost want to stop listening, because I know what is going to follow is going to be false, because they just don't know the people in the other party very well.

And so they get this herd dynamic. And it is materialized in the way they sit together and meet together and react as one. And, if you actually physically interspersed them, I think it would defang that herd mentality, and actually have a material difference, because the geographical way they organize their lives is -- has an effect.

I was on the Senate floor before the session with a senator, and he was showing me the desks. And I wanted to go see the Kennedy desk, but he was a Republican. And he said, oh, it's somewhere over there. It's like he didn't quite know where it was, because it was on the other side of the floor. And that's...

JIM LEHRER: Well, I mean, it is a room. It's not very far.

DAVID BROOKS: Right. It's not a very big room.

(LAUGHTER)

JIM LEHRER: Right.

DAVID BROOKS: And he is a great senator, but, you know, there's that difference. And it's worth breaking up on every occasion.

JIM LEHRER: You think it could matter? You think it could really matter, too, right, Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: I'm hopeful, Jim. I mean, it's subject to verification. And you don't want to be unrealistic. But I'm hopeful. I really am.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june11/shieldsbrooks_01-14.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Like
 
  • #3
Pengwuino said:
Like

Me too. Have to start somewhere, a tangible gesture could be a good start.
 
  • #4
Good aisles make good neighbors.
Taiwan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW3cudDZ4n0
Nigeria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLWCgq4LPA8
Ukraine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0XZlxKuig
South Korea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Pqhnf6XKC8
Russia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZGaaqH2o6I
 
  • #5
Here are a few more:
Sri Lanka: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdldgpzHBtg
India: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYewI_l-aAI
Bolivia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjMeQoIq36c
 
  • #6
:rofl: I have to give the Administration credit on this one - really! With all of the new Republicans "in the House" - there will be a lot less people standing up to show support - for him.

If he wants to see the whole room stand up - then say something that makes sense.

PURE NONSENSE and THEATRICS - IMO.:yuck:
 
  • #7
WhoWee said:
:rofl: I have to give the Administration credit on this one - really! With all of the new Republicans "in the House" - there will be a lot less people standing up to show support - for him.

If he wants to see the whole room stand up - then say something that makes sense.

PURE NONSENSE and THEATRICS - IMO.:yuck:

So you are suggesting that rather than taking credit for a highly bipartisan gesture, Obama conspired to allow a Freshman Senator have all the glory? Nevermind that the Dems still own the Senate, which is where it started. I guess the Republicans giving their thumbs up rather than deferring comment are in on it as well?

And Jimmy predicts a bar fight if we change the seating? Are you saying that all of those fights wouldn't have happened if the seating was different? If so, do you have any evidence for this or is it just wild speculation with no basis in fact?
 
  • #8
The Tea Party has made it clear that they don't want compromise or diplomacy. They don't want to see a functional Congress that works together. Could this be the basis for the objections?
 
  • #9
I love the idea. And if some Kung Fu fights should break out, so much the better!
 
  • #10
Ivan Seeking said:
The Tea Party has made it clear that they don't want compromise or diplomacy. They don't want to see a functional Congress that works together. Could this be the basis for the objections?
when a member of PF starts telling me about the other the party, I almost want to stop listening, because I know what is going to follow is going to be false, because they just don't know the people in the other party very well.
 
  • #11
math is hard said:
i love the idea. And if some kung fu fights should break out, so much the better!

shbingo!
 
  • #12
Hurkyl said:
when a member of PF starts telling me about the other the party, I almost want to stop listening, because I know what is going to follow is going to be false, because they just don't know the people in the other party very well.

Hurkyl - you are always fair (IMO).

Do you think changing seat assignments will actually change anything other than the depth perception of unity?
 
  • #13
WhoWee said:
Hurkyl - you are always fair (IMO).

Do you think changing seat assignments will actually change anything other than the depth perception of unity?

Not directed at me, but, nope. I think it's still worth doing, if only because I'd dearly love to see a congressional brawl.
 
  • #14
Math Is Hard said:
I love the idea. And if some Kung Fu fights should break out, so much the better!
Yeah, I don't watch C-Span, but this could change that!
 
  • #15
They should arm each member with nerf swords, lances, shields, and maces! Their aides could be their squires... meleeeeeeee!
 
  • #16
Ivan Seeking said:
And Jimmy predicts a bar fight if we change the seating?
No I don't. I think that this is an attempt to fix something that isn't broken. I presented a few examples of what it looks like when it's broken. As for a Congress that works together, I don't want to see it. From here it looks like a one-party system.
 
  • #17
Hurkyl said:
when a member of PF starts telling me about the other the party, I almost want to stop listening, because I know what is going to follow is going to be false, because they just don't know the people in the other party very well.
That's as dead on as a post can get. Just don't expect them to ever realize (or admit) it.
 
  • #18
Al68 said:
That's as dead on as a post can get. Just don't expect them to ever realize (or admit) it.

Are you making an ironic point by saying, "them", or do you truly not get it?
 
  • #19
nismaratwork said:
Are you making an ironic point by saying, "them", or do you truly not get it?
OK, I'll bite: What is it you think I don't get?
 
  • #20
Al68 said:
OK, I'll bite: What is it you think I don't get?

Who is "them". In a general way, you're still unwilling to let go of the desire to divide into oppositional groups; you just re-define them.

edit: I actually recognize that I've earned "I'll bite". I laughed at that, because frankly, I need to work on it.
 
  • #21
nismaratwork said:
Who is "them". In a general way, you're still unwilling to let go of the desire to divide into oppositional groups; you just re-define them.
I have no such desire. I didn't make people different. This isn't QM, observing reality doesn't cause it.
 
  • #22
Al68 said:
I have no such desire. I didn't make people different. This isn't QM, observing reality doesn't cause it.

Um Al... that doesn't happen in QM either unless you believe in some form of the CI, I guess.
 
  • #23
nismaratwork said:
Um Al... that doesn't happen in QM either unless you believe in some form of the CI, I guess.
Well, the CI is the most widely accepted interpretation, but I didn't anticipate the need to be that specific for this purpose. Regardless, it's a little off topic here.

My point was that the fact that people are divided into oppositional groups for each issue is an unavoidable consequence of some advocating the use of force against citizens, while others oppose the use of such force. I blame the group advocating the use of force to get their way, not the group advocating "live and let live".

And Hurkyl's post that I agreed with the pointed out the obvious observation that it's common for members here to go out of their way to describe a point of view they are clearly ignorant of.
 
  • #24
Al68 said:
Well, the CI is the most widely accepted interpretation

Not even close to being true; can you back up that claim? I'd be amazed if it's true on this website alone. I think you're just saying things as though they're facts, but they're not facts. Frankly, I care a whole lot more about QM interpretations that this thread, and rightly so I think.

Al68 said:
but I didn't anticipate the need to be that specific for this purpose. Regardless, it's a little off topic here.
It's an unfortunate turn of events, but hard to avoid on a physics forum.

Al68 said:
My point was that the fact that people are divided into oppositional groups for each issue is an unavoidable consequence of some advocating the use of force against citizens, while others oppose the use of such force. I blame the group advocating the use of force to get their way, not the group advocating "live and let live".

OK.

Al68 said:
And Hurkyl's post that I agreed with the pointed out the obvious observation that it's common for members here to go out of their way to describe a point of view they are clearly ignorant of.

Yeah... more irony.
 
  • #25
nismaratwork said:
Not even close to being true; can you back up that claim? I'd be amazed if it's true on this website alone. I think you're just saying things as though they're facts, but they're not facts.
Yeah, I just made that up out of thin air. :uhh: According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics" [Broken] even calls it the "standard" interpretation.

Any evidence to the contrary? Or is saying "not even close to being true" just saying things as if they're facts, when they're not facts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
You guys are getting wayyyyyy off topic!
 
  • #27
EDIT: @MIH: Sorry!
 
  • #28
Math Is Hard said:
You guys are getting wayyyyyy off topic!

See what happens when you try to rearrange seats? (sorry Math)o:)
 
  • #29
Math Is Hard said:
You guys are getting wayyyyyy off topic!
You're right. I had no idea that a simple reference to QM would have this effect. My bad.
 
  • #30
Hurkyl said:
when a member of PF starts telling me about the other the party, I almost want to stop listening, because I know what is going to follow is going to be false, because they just don't know the people in the other party very well.

Last November, moderate Republicans took a beating from the so-called "Tea Party" because they are willing to compromise. Even McCain started backpeddaling due to the pressure. Murkowski [R] lost the primary and had to run as a write-in, where she won with Democratic support.

By the way, the Tea Party isn't a party, so your objection [your David Brooks quote from my post in GD] is moot. I object to irrational demands and an unrelenting and blind ideology, not party affiliations in and of themselves.

Beyond that, I'm not a Democrat.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
Ivan Seeking said:
Moderate Republicans took a beating from the so-called "Tea Party" because they are willing to compromise. Even McCain started backpeddaling due to the pressure.

By the way, the Tea Party isn't a party, so your objection [your David Brooks quote from my post in GD] is moot.

Ivan, do you have any doubt in your mind that a serious effort by both parties could not eliminate a few hundred billion dollars in waste? After the stimulus passed, documentaries emerged regarding the most ridiculous waste. Compromise is bad - when it means agreeing to each other's nonsense. I'm in favor of organizing members into smaller groups - with a focus on finding waste - a surgical approach. Everything is not wrong and everything is not correct - they need to find a way to act like adults - use proven problem solving methods - and get results. Changing seats to look like they're working together is just more of the same.
 
  • #32
finally, desegregation. now if only we'd have busing to force them to live in each others districts.
 
  • #33
Proton Soup said:
finally, desegregation. now if only we'd have busing to force them to live in each others districts.

I'm thinking some kind of reality show where a bunch of them have to live together in the same house. Something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Hotel" [Broken], except nobody's hot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
Math Is Hard said:
I'm thinking some kind of reality show where a bunch of them have to live together in the same house. Something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Hotel" [Broken], except nobody's hot.

Why would anyone want to watch? Of course people do watch the storage shed, hoarding, pickers, pawn, fat, wedding, and drama shows - why not a show about "PROMISES"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
This week on Promises! We have only four surviving members of Congress still in the House. Will the Democrat bloc of John Larson and Richard Neal be able to convince Jim Gerlach to join them in a bipartisan effort to oust Ted Poe, or will Gerlach and Poe band together and force a sudden death super scary showdown? This week's showdown is which member is willing to accept the largest federal aid cut to their state: the winner gets to pick who is removed from the House!

Make sure to tune into catch it all this Thursday at 9pm: Promises!
 
<h2>1. What is the purpose of asking children to sit together and play nicely?</h2><p>The purpose of asking children to sit together and play nicely is to encourage positive social interactions and the development of important social skills such as sharing, taking turns, and resolving conflicts peacefully. It also helps to promote teamwork and cooperation.</p><h2>2. How can I get my children to sit together and play nicely?</h2><p>There are a few strategies you can try to encourage your children to sit together and play nicely. One approach is to set clear expectations and rules for behavior during playtime. You can also model positive social interactions and praise your children when they exhibit good behavior. Additionally, providing engaging and age-appropriate toys and activities can help keep children interested and focused on playing together.</p><h2>3. What do I do if my children are not getting along while sitting together and playing?</h2><p>If your children are not getting along while sitting together and playing, it is important to remain calm and intervene in a calm and positive manner. You can try redirecting their attention to a different activity or taking a break and discussing the issue with them. Encouraging them to use their words to express their feelings and helping them find a solution can also be helpful.</p><h2>4. At what age should I start encouraging my children to sit together and play nicely?</h2><p>The age at which children can sit together and play nicely can vary, but generally, children can start developing social skills and playing together with others around the age of 2-3 years old. However, it is never too early to start modeling positive social interactions and encouraging children to share and take turns.</p><h2>5. What are the benefits of children sitting together and playing nicely?</h2><p>There are many benefits of children sitting together and playing nicely. It helps them develop important social skills, promotes teamwork and cooperation, and can also foster creativity and imagination. Additionally, playing together can help children build friendships and learn how to navigate social situations in a positive way.</p>

1. What is the purpose of asking children to sit together and play nicely?

The purpose of asking children to sit together and play nicely is to encourage positive social interactions and the development of important social skills such as sharing, taking turns, and resolving conflicts peacefully. It also helps to promote teamwork and cooperation.

2. How can I get my children to sit together and play nicely?

There are a few strategies you can try to encourage your children to sit together and play nicely. One approach is to set clear expectations and rules for behavior during playtime. You can also model positive social interactions and praise your children when they exhibit good behavior. Additionally, providing engaging and age-appropriate toys and activities can help keep children interested and focused on playing together.

3. What do I do if my children are not getting along while sitting together and playing?

If your children are not getting along while sitting together and playing, it is important to remain calm and intervene in a calm and positive manner. You can try redirecting their attention to a different activity or taking a break and discussing the issue with them. Encouraging them to use their words to express their feelings and helping them find a solution can also be helpful.

4. At what age should I start encouraging my children to sit together and play nicely?

The age at which children can sit together and play nicely can vary, but generally, children can start developing social skills and playing together with others around the age of 2-3 years old. However, it is never too early to start modeling positive social interactions and encouraging children to share and take turns.

5. What are the benefits of children sitting together and playing nicely?

There are many benefits of children sitting together and playing nicely. It helps them develop important social skills, promotes teamwork and cooperation, and can also foster creativity and imagination. Additionally, playing together can help children build friendships and learn how to navigate social situations in a positive way.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
12K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • Poll
  • General Discussion
6
Replies
183
Views
19K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top