Tag Archives: politics

When a Scandal…Isn’t…

I’m finding it increasingly hard to read the “news” lately.  What qualifies as “news” has already changed significantly in the last few decades, as “news” websites and “journalists” seem to increasingly focus on the trivial, on the provocative, and on the scandalous, regardless of “news” worthiness.

In the world of D.C. politics, “scandal” has similarly become focused on the provocative, political, and trivial.  With the extreme polarization of Repubs and Dems, it seems our elected Representatives and Senators are more interested in finding “gotcha” moments to score political points than they are in actually governing.  Politicians are more interested in seeking the short-term limelight of the attention garnered through uncovering of “scandals” than they are in the long-term benefits of legislating.

According to the “news” sources, we have three major “scandals” occurring right now; Benghazi, the IRS, and the Justice Department/AP.  Especially given the involvement of the AP in the Justice Department investigation, a riled-up media has played up the three “scandals”, doing their best to make them as provocative as possible to an ignorant and easily fooled public.

Dig a little deeper, and its damned hard to get too worked up about the major “scandals”.  PERHAPS if Republicans in the House would focus on legislating and solving the issues, rather than just trying to score political points, I could take them seriously.  However, Republicans have turned the “scandals” into personal witch-hunts, desperately trying to directly link the “scandals” to the current Obama presidency, and a possible NEXT Democratic presidency of Hillary Clinton.  Benghazi was a tragedy, and people died.  In the world of D.C. politics, the focus isn’t on correcting the situation and trying to improve security.  GOD no…in fact, Republicans continue to be against any increases in funding for diplomatic security.  Instead, Benghazi, like the other scandals, is primarily about the next election instead of being focused on preventing another Benghazi.

Immigration reform?  Entitlement reform? Increasing unrest in the Middle East? Deficit reduction? Health care?  With the current focus on “scandal”, Congress seems like they couldn’t care less about the more pressing issues facing the country.

“Gotcha” journalism now has a VERY willing partner in “gotcha” D.C. politics.

Wayne LaPierre and the NRA – The True Terrorists

It certainly has been interesting seeing the aftermath of the Boston bombings, the hunt for the suspects, and the reactions after one was killed and the other captured.  I’m not trivializing the bombing.  It’s horrific event, perpetrated by a couple of very screwed up, evil men.  However…in what many are calling the first “terrorist” killing in the U.S. since 9-11, there were 3 people hurt, along with several score injured. 

On April 15th, the day of the bombing, there were ELEVEN Americans killed by guns.  The day after, on Tuesday, there were FOURTEEN Americans killed by guns.  The next day?  FIFTEEN gun deaths.  And so on…and so on…and so on.  Over 3,500 Americans have died due to gun violence, JUST since Newtown happened in December…a four month period.  That’s an average of about 30 deaths per day.  Gun deaths in the United States routinely top 12,000 a year, and nobody bats an eye.  An AVERAGE day in America and many more are killed by guns than were killed by the one “terrorist” event in the United States since 9-11.

But then again…what constitutes a “terrorist”?  If a Muslim guy blows up a bomb at a marathon?  You bet, says America!  It’s “terrorism”!  It’s a no-brainer!  A bomb is involved, and a Muslim is involved!! 

But what if a young white man who is NOT Muslim commits mass murder?  Is it called “terrorism” by the press?  Are there calls to suspend Miranda rights?  Are there calls to suspend due process under the law?  No.  If a white NON-MUSLIM commits mass murder, it’s a mental health issue, the act of a troubled young man. It’s NOT ever labeled as “terrorism”.  An young guy equally as troubled as the Tsarnaev’s from Boston walks into a grade school in Newtown and takes the lives of over 20 young children, a death toll that far surpasses Boston, but the “terrorism” label was never applied to that case. 

So again…what constitutes ”terrorism”?  What consitutes a “terrorist”? ”Official” definitions for “terrorism” usually infer violence with a political purpose.  However, in America, since 9-11, it seems that the term “terrorist” has unfortunately taken on religious connotations, with the religious background of the person evidently more important than the crimes that were committed.  Were there any political claims made by the Tsarnaev brothers for the Boston bombings?  Wouldn’t a “terrorist” claim responsibility in the name of a cause?  The Tsarnaev’s certainly didn’t attempt to claim responsibility, and certainly didn’t pronounce the bombing was for some political cause.  However, the event is widely labeled as “terrorism”, a label that has become further entrenched in Americans’ minds after it became known the brothers had at least some involvement in the Islamic faith.

It’s sad that we can spend SO much time and energy focusing on controlling “terrorism” in the United States, but completely ignore “everyday” violence that claims the lives of MANY thousands more Americans than does “terrorism”. 

If “terrorism” can be defined as a “violence with a political motivation”, then America is FULL of (as yet) unrecognized terrorists.  Look at how political the issue of gun control has become.  Even a simple, sensible, straight-forward piece of legislation to increase background checks and keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill is turned into a political argument.  When I see THOUSANDS of Americans being killed every year by gun violence, I see MANY violent deaths that are ultimately due to political motivations. 

With THOUSANDS of highly preventable gun-violence deaths in America each year, if we are to follow the standard definition of “terrorism”, those that ENABLE those gun violence deaths should be defined as “terrorists”, just as those who provide bomb-making equipment and training are considered as “terrorists”.  If “Violence ultimately due to a political motivation” is the definition of a “terrorist”, then there’s little doubt that Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA, should be considered the most dangerous “terrorist” in America.  Thanks to the efforts of LaPierre and the NRA, criminals and violent mentally ill persons can easily obtain weaponry that no other Western culture allows such easy access to. 

Boston was a sad event to be sure.  The Tsarnaev brothers were sick, evil human beings.  But it’s stunning to me that Americans can tolerate the equivalent of 10 Boston bombings  PER DAY in America, in terms of deaths due to gun violence, and not get nearly as worked up as they do about a once-in-a-decade event.

Environmental Protection Agency – South Dakota’s “Boogeyman”

I swear I live in a place where stupidity and greed are viewed as virtues…

In South Dakota, we haven’t been totally swamped by political ads.  Presidential candidates certainly aren’t going to waste any money here.  Hell will freeze over before a Democratic presidential candidate wins South Dakota.  However, South Dakota is getting to be known for corny, ridiculous political ads for in-state battles.  Jeff Barth, a Democrat who was running for South Dakota’s lone House seat, had an ad go viral on YouTube this spring.  In the ad, Barth walks along while a series of corny props show up in his path, including a gun that Barth picks up and fires.  Barth did end up losing.

The House race is between Kristi Noem, the Republican (of course) incumbent, and Matt Varilek, Democrat. Noem had her own ad go viral this week, a ridiculous ad that makes all of South Dakota look like a bunch of dumb hicks.  In the ad, Noem compares her experiences in South Dakota, winning awards from the state soybean council and working on a farm, to Varilek, who is apparently wasting his time traveling the world, getting graduate degrees, and working for the United Nations.  Her point?  To supposedly make Varilek look like he’s out of touch, I guess…for you see, here in South Dakota, if you travel the world, get a graduate degree, and work for the U.N., it evidently makes you uppity and out of touch with “real” South Dakotans.

Don’t ask what I think of the “real” South Dakotan.  I’m sitting here watching football tonight, and there have been a number of political ads, including more for Kristi Noem.  The talking point for Repub political candidates in the state?  Stopping “Obama and EPA regulations” that evidently are killing the state.  It’s not just Noem that has used the supposed evils of the EPA in attack ads against a Democratic opponent.  I just saw an ad for Kristi Fiegen, an incumbent with the Public Utilities Commission, that also used the evil EPA as a reason why South Dakotans should vote for her.  After all, EVERYONE knows that when you control the mighty South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, you control the EPA, and the world.  Vote for Fiegen!!  Otherwise the evil EPA and their regulations will ruin South Dakota!!

Everyone needs a boogeyman, I guess, and for Republicans of all flavors in South Dakota, it seems like the EPA is somehow the boogeyman de jour.  After all, it’s more important for farmers and industry in South Dakota to make an extra buck, than it is to protect the air, water, and land that our children will depend upon.  I’m young enough that I guess I don’t understand when the terms “environment” or “conservation” became dirty words to Republicans.  For god’s sake, it was Nixon who established the EPA. It was Nixon who established the Endangered Species Act.  It was Nixon who signed the Clean Air Act.  Yes, public pressures at the time were important in moving Nixon to establish a number of environmental programs, but Republicans as a whole USED to believe in environmental and conservation issues.

Why have Republicans become so averse to supporting environmental issues?  When did things start to turn?  The naive side of me can’t understand why environmental and conservation issues ARE political issues.  The naive side of me can’t understand how ANY party, how any human being, can be so unconcerned about the world our children will live in.

However, the naive side of me is dwarfed by my cynical side.  The cynical side knows the reason.  People are inherently selfish SOBs, so much so, that their short-term pursuit of the almighty dollar is more important to them than what kind of world they leave their children.  As with every other issue in America, it’s been branded as a black-or-white issue…it’s either economic growth, or environmental conservation.

I do find it rather pathetic to sit here tonight and watch commercials, where South Dakota politicians feel that opposing the EPA, an agency charged with PROTECTING the health of our citizens, is a winning play for getting votes.  Are South Dakotans really that gullible?  Are they really that stupid?  Given how South Dakotans typically vote, it’s pretty obvious what the answer is.

People believing what they want to believe

Cigarette Warning

It's a lot easier for a smoker to deny the facts, than it is to accept that their habit may be killing their friends and family. People are wonderful at ignoring fact, if it doesn't jive with their own lifestyle or beliefs.

From Slate.com today, a story about smokers, with only 28% of smokers saying second-hand smoke is very harmful to others. 63% of nonsmokers think second-hand smoke is very harmful.  This brings up a question…why the HELL do people “believe” what they believe?

I put “believe” in quotes, because frankly, the way people answer a question like this may differ from what they truly believe.  Do nonsmokers really think all that extra smoke floating around isn’t harmful?  Or…do many of them just try to convince themselves that it’s not harmful, knowing the truth, but trying their best to deny it, just so they don’t have to face the fact that their bad habits are not only harming themselves, but also harming others?

It’s amazing that an age of free information flow, where your computer or smart phone can instantly lead you to answers for practically any question you may have, that ignorance appears to be GROWING, not lessening.  Granted, it doesn’t help when any quack with a computer can set up a website saying the earth is flat, or that aliens are secretly running the earth.  However, just as smokers HAVE to really believe in their hearts that second-hand smoke is harmful to others, I think it has to be the same with climate change denialists, evolution denialists, or others that deny sound and well-established science.

Some right-wing wacko can listen to Rush Limbaugh or go to a right-wing “climate” site and hear plenty of “evidence” that climate change isn’t real.  But even as cynical as I am, I find it very hard to believe that deep down, people are truly that stupid, that they’ll believe a Rush Limbaugh over an actual climate scientist.  Life-or-death situation, if your immortal soul is in the balance…would even a right-wing wacko go with the word of a Limbaugh, over the established science?  I find it very hard to believe that someone would do so.

It’s human nature to be, well…stubborn.  God knows my 8-year old son can vouch for that.  People are also selfish sons-of-bitches.  Does Shell Oil or Exxon spend money denying climate change science, because they don’t believe it’s real?  Of course not, they fight climate change science because it could affect their bottom dollar.  It’s the same with an individual human being.  We’re selfish, we want to live our lives in comfort and style.  If some annoying piece of information clashes with how we want to live our lives, if something causes us a bit of GUILT…our first reaction is to react defensively, and dispute the information, rather than changing our beliefs.  And that’s true if it’s smokers denying the danger of second-hand smoke, Humvee drivers who scoff at climate change, or even evolution-deniers who don’t want to face their own mortality without the comfort that their religion (and eternal life) provides them.

People will “believe” what they want to believe, facts be damned.  As a scientist, that can be awfully damned maddening.  But what’s dangerous is that this form of “personal ignorance” has become an accepted component of politics and collective thinking.  There’s no way in hell Republican leadership truly believes that climate change is a hoax.  There’s no way in hell Republican leadership thinks evolution is false.  But they are certainly willing to use people’s own biases and personal ignorance for their own political ends.  And that is even less forgivable than an individual trying to deny the danger of second-hand smoke, just so they feel less guilty about puffing away.

 

Raped and pregnant? Too bad, says GOP

Hairy Old White Men

A photo of the GOP press conference, back when they were responding to Obama's decision on contraceptive rules. Note everyone in the picture is a bona fide "Hairy Old White Man", with nary a woman in sight. THESE are the folks who say that if YOUR DAUGHTER is raped...she must carry the baby to term.

JUST when you think the GOP couldn’t possibly lurch any further to the right, those ”Hairy Old White Men“ go and do something nutty.  Today, the GOP announced that a major plank of their election platform will be a call for a Constitutional amendment that bans ALL abortions, including NO exceptions for women who are victims of rape or incest

Imagine a teenage girl, as a victim of rape or incest.  Imagine one of your FAMILY members as a victim of rape or incest.  Would you be comfortable FORCING a woman to carry a child that came about due to a violent crime??! 

It’s so nice to know that the Hairy Old White Men who dominate the GOP are SO in touch with women’s issues.  Just a few days after Todd Akin makes his ridiculous comments about rape, the GOP establishment comes out themselves and basically says WE DON’T CARE ABOUT WOMEN’S RIGHTS.

What’s even more pathetic is that should Romney win the White House, and should Repubs. gain control of the Senate and keep control of the House…NOTHING WILL CHANGE on the abortion front.  As I’ve said before…Repubs know their most reliable voting bloc are people who vote SOLELY because of the abortion issue.  Republicans have controlled the White House and both the Senate and House before, and what happened on the abortion issue?  Nothing.  And that’s by design.  They talk a good talk.  They’ve talked a good talk for many years.  But when push comes to shove, at a National level, nothing changes, and Republican politicians honestly have little motivation to change the status quo.

The Constitutional amendment ploy is purely political.  It has zero chance of ever becoming the law of the land, even if Repubs tried to push it.  But hey, it SOUNDS good to the ever wackier, ignorant, red-necked masses who make up the majority of the Republican constituency.

Gun Control? Nah…no need in the U.S.

Wade Page

Wade Page playing in his "hate" band. Just another hate-mongering nutjob with a gun. Unfortunately, there are seemingly millions of them in the U.S. Fortunately, only a handful take things as far as Page.

Another week, another mass murder in the U.S.  Yawn.  It’s to the point now that there’s some higher threshold in how many people must die, before it makes headlines on the national news.  Two or three people shot and killed?  Not even worthy of the front page, much less a headline.  Seems like you have to shoot and kill 5 or more to guarantee yourself a spot on the front page, and maybe 8-10 or more to guarantee a longer-term, top billing in the headlines, since mass killings are so common in our gun-crazy culture. 

As a culture, we’ve become so numb to mass killings that they fail to move the needle even a tiny bit any more, with regard to American’s opinions on the need for gun control.  One thing that Americans are VERY good at is rationalizing things on their own terms, facts be damned.  Murder rates and mass killings in the U.S. out of control compared to countries with strict gun control?  Nonsense, say the gun nuts!  If only there were MORE guns on the street, it would discourage nuts like those that have made the news in the last couple of weeks!! “It’s not the gun, it’s the person pulling the trigger”.  Etc.  Etc. Etc. 

It’s depressing that even after two mass murders in two weeks, that Obama and Democrats in general are too damned worried about the next election to make any meaningful calls for more gun control.  It doesn’t matter what any Republican politician believes about gun control, they’re too scared to say ANYTHING negative about guns lest they upset the gun wackos whose entire political awareness seems to be limited to their desire to continue to get their rocks off by playing with their toys.  But that’s just one manifestation of what American politics is all about nowadays…pandering to the masses in the short term to win the next election, and leaving actual governance and hard decisions to the NEXT generation.

Two more mass murders.  Nothing unusual.  Nothing to worry about, at least not for the 90% of Americans that are seemingly completely numb to the violence, or to the 100% of politicians who are more worried about their own political lives than the ACTUAL lives of their constituents. 

Just one more symptom of America showing that we are a nation of cowards, afraid or unwilling to make tough decisions.  Tackling gun control?  Yeah, that’ll happen…right after our cowardly and selfish politicians tackle the deficit and the National debt, REAL long-term health care solutions, or global warming.

In other words…never…

Immigration in Reverse

Immigration Trends since 1990

Immigration from Mexico has declined sharply in recent years, yet Republicans have still tried to make anti-immigration rhetoric a key part of the campaign. Graphic from the Pew Research Center and the Washington Post article referenced here.

I wonder how right-wing nutjobs are going to spin this.  For the first time since the Great Depression, there’s actually an OUTFLOW of Mexican immigrants from the U.S., as immigration into the U.S. is at about 1/4th of what it was in 2000, and half as much as it was when Obama took office, while more people are moving from the U.S. to Mexico.

Mitt Romney, as well as most of the former Republican field, all have tried to woo “conservative” (OK, let’s be honest and just say ”bigoted”) voters with very strong anti-immigration rhetoric.  Just think back a few months during the debates, when you had Repub candidates falling all over themselves talking about which one of them would build the biggest wall or would beef up border security the most.  Republicans have attacked the Obama administration, stating that ridiculous tough anti-immigration laws like those passed in Arizona and Alabama are necessary, because the Federal government supposedly wasn’t doing its job.  Yet the analysts who provided the immigration report note it was a tougher deportation stance under Obama that is partially responsible for the change in the immigration trend.

I find the entire immigration debate rather distasteful.   I think it’s quite obvious that simple racism is the true motivation behind many folks’ very strong anti-immigration views.  When you see a Romney or other pol pandering to the anti-immigration crowd, I think they’re mostly playing off people’s underlying racism for their own political game.  God knows Republicans have made an art form out of subtly (or not so subtly) using race to their political advantage, be it the immigration debate, or the quite transparent voter “fraud” laws that do little to combat fraud (what little there IS in the United States), but do a lot to ensure a weaker minority voting bloc. 

In an ideal world, this report would make Republicans think twice about using anti-immigration rhetoric for political gain.  However, we don’t live in an ideal world, and I have no doubt that we STILL will hear anti-immigration rhetoric from the right, particularly as the Arizona and Alabama laws continued to be publicly and legally debated.

The 9 Politicians on the Supreme Court

John Roberts

Chief Justice John Roberts...just a man. Just like the rest of us, he and his colleagues let their biases affect their decision-making. INCLUDING how they interpret "law".

l’ve purposely tried to avoid getting too immersed in the Supreme Court hearings this week over ObamaCare.  The reason?  Every time I read an update on what’s happening, I get PO’d.  As I stated 2 days ago before things even got started…I fully expect a 5-4 decision that tosses out, at a minimum, the insurance mandate portion of ObamaCare.   Only because there are 5 “conservative” judges and 4 “liberal” judges.

As I stated then, I don’t think the decision will be based on the “law”, but would be based on the political persuasions of the individual justices.  I haven’t seen anything yet that changes my perception of what will happen.  The questions being asked by some of the “conservative” justices seem like something straight out of the Republican presidential campaign right now.  Roberts basically implied a ”what’s next” scenario if ObamaCare is allowed to stand, as if it’s all part of some evil liberal plot for government to take over, well, EVERYTHING!!  BUUUU-WAAA-HAAA-HAAA-HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!  DRAT, Fellow Liberals!  They’re on to our evil plan!!

What it’s ALL about evidently…Broccolli!!  Scalia even came out and said that if ObamaCare stands…”What’s Next”…the government forcing us all to eat broccoli?  GREAT legal argument, Scalia!!  Broccoli-gate has played an unexpected role in the entire debate.  Scalia also embarassed himself by bitching about the “Cornhusker Kickback” component of ObamaCare.  Only problem…the “Cornhusker Kickback” doesn’t exist, after it was stricken from the original bill before it passed.  Sounds like another Republican trademark…if you can’t find something to bitch about, make up some kind of conspiracy out of thin air.

It’s not like the Supreme Court is different from the rest of government.  After all…all the States fighting against ObamaCare have Republican governors, while those supporting it have Democratic governors.  What an AMAZING coincidence!! 

Politico has a nice story here about the “Roberts Court on Trial“, where they speculate on whether this case will cement, or clear, the perception that political persuasion rules the court.  It’s fascinating to read the transcripts of the discussions over the last three days.  If you knew NOTHING about the court, NOTHING about the individual personalities on the court…it would be IMMEDIATELY apparent upon reading the transcripts who were the “conservative” or “liberal” justices.  Hey, they’re people.  They have biases and opinions just like the rest of us.  And despite their position on the Nation’s highest court, I see few indications that they’re able to look past those biases and prejudices any more than the rest of us.   American “law” is just as apt to be corrupted by the same ugly, partisan, political discourse that has invaded every OTHER aspect of American life.

5 to 4.  Count on it.

Wonderful Editorial by Retiring Olympia Snowe

Olympia Snowe

Senator Snowe...I couldn't have said it better myself.

If you get a chance, read Olympia Snowe’s opinion piece in the Washington Post on her reasons for retiring from the Senate.  Is it any wonder Congressional approval sits at 11%?  Even those WITHIN Congress are disgusted with what’s become of Congressional politics. 

Rush Limbaugh (my, am I picking on him a bit lately?) said that losing Snowe was no big loss for Republicans.  Of course he would say that.  Snowe is moderate, someone who has angered her own party on more than one occasion.  In the “new” world of American politics, that just won’t do!  In the Limbaugh world of politics, there IS no compromise with the “enemy”.  There IS no going against the party. 

As Snowe states so beautifully, it’s going to take a lot for the current paradigm in Congress to change.  It’s going to take something of a revolution, if you will, from American voters.  But at present, American voters are just as polarized as American politicians.  Look at the current GOP presidential race, where candidates are stumbling all over themselves to see who can sound the most “severely” conservative.  It’s not exactly a recipe for change in Washington. 

Obama went to Washington on the motto of “change”.  He vowed to bridge the divide between Republicans and Democrats.  It sounded good.  It hasn’t happened.  There simply isn’t one man, even the President, who is capable of changing the tenor of Washington politics.  What’s bound Americans together in the past, what’s brought out the best in them, has been crisis.  Is THAT what it’s going to take to change Washington?  Some unforeseen crisis?

America: Home of “Political Bigotry”

Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh, father of American "Political Bigotry".

Few things bother me more than bigotry.  When people think of bigotry, what  typically comes to mind is racism or homophobia, or, as I’ve noted in recent posts, bigotry based on religious belief.   I think we have a relatively “new” form of bigotry that is perhaps as equally destructive…”political bigotry”.

Politics has always had a nasty side.  But in my lifetime (I’m 45), is there any question that basic civility in politics has been in decline?   The current GOP has adopted intolerance of Democrats to the point that it’s seemingly their only party platform, as the party of “no” seemingly is incapable of coming up with a coherent strategy for governing other than opposing ANYTHING proposed or done by Democrats.  Partisanship obviously isn’t unique to the GOP, as Democrats are sometimes just as guilty (although they haven’t honed inter-party hatred to the fine edge that the GOP has).   But…

During my lifetime, and from my personal perception, it seems that start of the decline in civility was during the Clinton years.  In Congress you had Newt Gingrich and fellow Republicans hell-bent on trying to personally destroy the Clinton administration.  On the airwaves, Rush Limbaugh started the now well-established tradition for talking heads to whip up hatred towards Democrats and liberals.  Over time, the pure HATRED towards other political groups has led to two parties that refuse to cooperate on even the most basic and uncontroversial pieces of legislation.  Gridlock is now the standard in American politics, where every piece of legislation is considered more for the political implications and the next election, rather than on its merits for improving the lives of Americans. 

What bothers me the most, however, is how inter-party battles have spilled over into the American mainstream.   The ridiculous battles, the COMPLETE lack of civility now seen in American politics has spilled over into the lives of everyday Americans, and how we treat each other.   Inter-party battles between the GOP and Democrats, the pure HATRED being spouted on the airwaves on completely one-sided political shows, have infiltrated the lives of Americans to such a degree that the American people themselves are seemingly at war with each other.

America has become a place where “political bigotry” has defined us just as much as has discrimination based on race, religion, or sexual preference. 

Given an individual person’s religion, place of work, and background, the people we associate with often DO have similar political beliefs.  Just because of where you end up in life, chances are that for many of us, our friends and colleagues, overall, are more likely to have political beliefs similar to your own.  That’s the case for me.  Despite being in a very “red” state, most of my friends and colleagues are relatively liberal, just because of my background and where I work.   However, I also have friends and colleagues who have very different political beliefs, and we’ve managed to remain friends and colleagues without killing each other.

It seems, however, that for an increasing number of Americans, that simply isn’t an option.  Given all the pure hatred that has infiltrated American politics (and again, Repubs, sorry, you get most of the blame here), for substantial numbers of Americans, simple CIVILITY towards someone from the “other” party isn’t an option. 

Look at how Republicans use the term “liberal” as if it’s an insult, hurled with as much venom at another human being as someone might use a traditional curse word.  If someone sits around and listens to a Rush Limbaugh for day after day, week after week, year after year, is it any wonder how indoctrinated many in the general public have become in treating the “other” party as the enemy?   It’s to the point where a person’s political beliefs are EVERY BIT as much of a grounds for bigotry, for hateful or discriminatory treatment, as other characteristics that make people different. 

The same lack of civility, the same lack of cooperation that’s seen in Congress or during any American election is now a part of many Americans’ daily lives.  We’ve become a country where one group no longer considers the other real “Americans”, simply due to political persuasion.   It’s an ugly trend.  Despite what some would have you believe (Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, or ANYONE on Fox “News” come to mind), you CAN disagree with someone and still treat them with civility.