Violent Right Wing Rhetoric Becomes Tragically Real

Since September 11th, the right wing echo chamber has become increasingly violent in regards to their rhetoric. The hatred shown by pundits such as O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity and Michael Savage has been vicious towards liberals and those that oppose their way of seeing a black and white, good versus evil world. Well people out there listen to their foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and unfortunately we will see tragic events like this happen more frequently.

From RawStory:

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. - An out-of-work truck driver accused of opening fire at a Unitarian church, killing two people, left behind a note suggesting that he targeted the congregation out of hatred for its liberal policies, including its acceptance of gays, authorities said Monday.

A four-page letter found in Jim D. Adkisson's small SUV indicated he intentionally targeted the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church because, the police chief said, "he hated the liberal movement" and was upset with "liberals in general as well as gays."[...]

The attack Sunday morning lasted only minutes. But the anger behind it may have been building for months, if not years.

"It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that, and his stated hatred for the liberal movement," Police Chief Sterling Owen said.

Adkisson was a loner who hates "blacks, gays and anyone different from him," longtime acquaintance Carol Smallwood of Alice, Texas, told the Knoxville News Sentinel.

These pathetic individuals are exactly the type that right-wing commentators go after. They seek out those that hate the world for their situation, without opening their eyes to realize that so many are in the same boat with them. Instead, it is a "me against the world" attitude that breeds hate and violence when a strong dose of ignorance is involved. Every once in a while our society is exposed to the culmination of one individual's hate. Yet it would be wrong to write this off as one loon that killed innocent people, because that loon is getting his information from somewhere.

"You're A Liberal!" / "Nuh Uh, You Are....You Big Meanie"

From Yahoo News:

One day before the crucial Florida primary, Romney lambasted the Arizona senator for a host of "liberal answers" to the country's problems. Among them: McCain's legislation curbing money in politics, his more forgiving view of illegal immigrants and his backing of an energy bill that Romney said would raise consumer costs.

"And I just don't think those liberal answers are what America is looking for, not for the Republican Party or for any party, for that matter," Romney said in Fort Myers, Fla.

McCain accused Romney of "wholesale deception of voters" and of flip-flopping on the issues.

"On every one of the issues he has attacked us on, Mitt Romney was for it before he was against it," McCain said.

He added, "The truth is, Mitt Romney was a liberal governor of Massachusetts who raised taxes, imposed with Ted Kennedy a big government mandate health care plan that is now a quarter of a billion dollars in the red, and managed his state's economy incompetently, leaving Massachusetts with less job growth than 46 other states."

Now boys, boys, settle down. Neither of you are liberal, not even close. There is no need for name calling like that. We already know that you, John, want us to be in Iraq for 100 years and to prepare us for more wars on top of that. You ditched that Straight-Talk Express back in 2000 and gave George Bush a big hug and promised to be his bestest friend, even though he stabbed you in the back. I guess you let bygones be bygones, right? So don't worry, you have warmongered enough to ensure (no not your favorite drink) that you are certainly no liberal.

Now Mittens, you are certainly no liberal either. With all of that business experience, you threw out any semblance of morality or having the ability to retain principles long ago. Sure, you were Governor of a liberal state but that was just a fluke to have a title like your Daddy. You'll say one thing and then another, on any topic. Of course that doesn't mean you believe in the position you take today and the opposite one tomorrow, it just means you'll do anything to win. That has nothing to do with liberalness, that resembles something closer to greed and lust (for power that is). So don't worry about being a liberal from Massachusetts, they have plenty of them already in the Bay State.

Thank You Captain Obvious

So I was going through The Huffington Post just now and I ran into a post by Peter Mehlman. If you do not recognize the name, he was one of the head writers for Seinfeld. Due to a couple degrees of separation, he got me on as an extra for a show he created (not Seinfeld) a few years back. He is a great comedy writer, but when it comes to analyzing the media, his message is rather depressing.

The gist of it is that in today's media, there are so many outlets for people to choose to get their news from, whether you are liberal or conservative. Because of that, he sees the Information Age is more like "it's the blather-ation age." Well I am glad you notice that Peter, the Information Age does allow many people to express their viewpoints and yes, other people can choose to read whichever they deem fit.

Mehlman highlights the works of Maureen Dowd and Bill Maher on the left and David Broder on the right, showing that as talented as these people are the only thing being accomplished is preaching to the choir. What Peter is missing here is that even though politics is extremely divisive, the world is not wholly black and white. There are (gasp) independents out there that hate both choirs and are looking for a middle ground. In fact, there are more and more Independents being registered all the time.

The most depressing part of his post was the end:

Preaching to the choir is a deadening experience.

Then again, preaching to the heathens isn't much better. On the right, a respected conservative columnist like David Brooks in the New York Times sounds more and more desperate in his attempts to gently get liberals to think another way. Ask a Maureen Dowd fan if he or she read David Brooks today and you get this put upon reaction of, "I started reading but by the third paragraph, I just couldn't stand it anymore."

Instead, we spend our lives preparing for an argument we'll never have with a person we'll never meet whose opinions we could never change.

Now I find this insulting to people that are actively engaged in politics, even if they only want to know what is going on in the world. What Peter seems to be inferring is that with all the sources of information out there, why should we even bother following the news if we can't get through to the other side?

Well if I remember correctly, it is an engaged citizenry that strengthens a democracy. Sure, not everyone is going to follow the news as meticulously as others, but that is perfectly fine. Nevertheless, people's minds do actually change, the Congress, the Presidency and all the elected offices below that do change hands based on how the public feels their leaders are doing. It is how a democracy works (even if ours has been walloped in the head over and over by the neo-cons in the last few years) and we should continue to strive for a better nation that serves its people.

Am I A Hard-Wired Liberal?

Are you one? Are you programmed to think like a conservative? One random question in the universe may have been solved by researchers at UCLA and NYU. The answer is......yes. Their studies tested the brains of liberals and conservatives with a very simple test and the results were strikingly different. Now of course the researchers claim it does not mean being liberal or conservative is a bad thing...but, well....you know.

From The Los Angeles Times:

Frank J. Sulloway, a researcher at UC Berkeley's Institute of Personality and Social Research who was not connected to the study, said results "provided an elegant demonstration that individual differences on a conservative-liberal dimension are strongly related to brain activity."

Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.

Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a flip-flopper for changing his mind about the conflict.

Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.

Hmm, sounds like there is a bias here. Scientists are more accepted by liberals, hence they cannot be trusted with God's creation....or something like that. Of course this information isn't surprising in the least. Conservatives are reluctant to the ever-changing world while liberals are open-minded and explore many different options whether it comes to politics or grocery shopping. The George Bush v. John Kerry example is one of many that you can look to see differences between libs and cons.

Not-So-Breaking News: Liberals Read More Books

It makes perfect sense to me that a new study shows that liberals read more than conservatives. Simply, liberals want to learn more and have a larger intellectual appetite. It isn't that the left is necessarily smarter, but their minds are much more open than the restriction of thought that leaders in the conservative world like to maintain.

The first person that comes to mind is Frank Luntz, who has come up with many alliterations and catch-phrases for the Republican party (as well as some Democrats). Simplification is their key asset to make sure their flock stays in line with ideological priorities. Keeping things "black and white" makes things easier for them, even though the world is full of shades of gray.

From the AP:

"The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans: 'No, don't raise my taxes, no new taxes,'" Pat Schroeder, president of the American Association of Publishers, said in a recent interview. "It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page."

Schroeder, who as a Colorado Democrat was once one of Congress' most liberal House members, was responding to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that found people who consider themselves liberals are more prodigious book readers than conservatives.

She said liberals tend to be policy wonks who "can't say anything in less than paragraphs. We really want the whole picture, want to peel the onion."

Conservatives are quick to disagree of course. Mary Matalin was interviewed for this article as well and put in her two cents. First she says that Schroeder shouldn't interject her opinion....and that conservatives are getting more of their reading material online. Well Mary, I hate to tell you, but online readership, especially on the blogs is heavily liberal. In fact, the largest Democratic blog gets more traffic than the top 50 sites in the conservative blogosphere. In addition to that, blogs on the left are much less top-heavy.

Lets face it, liberals like to read more. We are more interested in finding out the nuances of the gray shades than simply saying it is "us vs. them" all the time. The world isn't that simple. The difference is that liberals want to learn about it and conservatives want to make it easy so they don't have to think.

Liberals And Conservatives Are Wired Differently

I've always joked around that there are personality differences between the two ideologies and that you can tell a Republican from a Democrat from early on. I remember one of my friends from 3rd grade was always obsessed about what things cost and all things money. So it didn't surprise me that he turned out to be a Republican (there were other factors as well). I on the other hand was more artistic, messy, cared about the environment and supported Dukakis (being 7yrs old at the time).

Now there is definitive proof by a psychological study that shows true differences between Liberals and Conservatives. All the information makes complete sense and is easily seen in real life if you know what to look for. It puts a damper on people that believe reasoning on issues is the basic motivator for determining political persuasions.

From Psychology Today:

"All people are born alike—except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

The most comprehensive review of personality and political orientation to date is a 2003 meta-analysis of 88 prior studies involving 22,000 participants. The researchers—John Jost of NYU, Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland, and Jack Glaser and Frank Sulloway of Berkeley—found that conservatives have a greater desire to reach a decision quickly and stick to it, and are higher on conscientiousness, which includes neatness, orderliness, duty, and rule-following. Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature.

The article goes into sub-topics such as the bias of liberal researchers, the thinking habits of either side and many more areas of interest. Of course a liberal can be neat and orderly, but still have the majority of traits listed for left-leaners. I know that for me that I have almost all of the personality traits that signify a liberal.

Another key aspect of the piece shows the transformation of 'liberals' becoming conservative after 9/11. This proved to them that people with deep-seated fears will tend to become their true selves when a major event like that triggers life and death questions and the need to be safe. In fact, when you hear George Bush speak, he is talking to those scared conservatives that want to hear his tough talk to satisfy that safety need. Addressing issues in black and white terms also helps them cope with the world. When it comes to fearfulness and safety, describing the world in simple terms helps is easier for that part of the brain to deal with, since fear comes from the part of the brain that deals with instinct and is 'older' in a way. On the other side of the spectrum, people that are immersed in complex thought have an easier time seeing issues that have multiple sides to them. Conservatives see this as a weakness and call it 'flip-flopping', as Bush did to Kerry in 2004.

If I'm not making sense to you, go check out the article and let the experts explain. I guess I am just rambling on with my artistic, messy, liberal self.