Bear with me on this one. The Reverend's mind works mysteriously at times....that is, when it's working at all.
Nicole Belle at Crooks and Liars posted the top ten "dangers" to the U.S., considered to be so by FamilySecurityMatters.org, obviously a far right group. Think Progress, MoveOn.org, Media Matters and "universities and colleges" made the top ten. Yeah, I know.
But it's this sentence in Belle's post that I want to consider.....
...it’s also so sad to think that the chasm between “right” and “left” (and I hate labels like that, the definitions are so ambiguous) look more and more unbridgeable. Link
"Unbridgeable". The word "polarized" has often been used to describe the divide in today's Red State-Blue State condition. "Unbridgeable", I believe, is closer to reality.
Consider how "unbridgeable" by reading Digby's words about how the "right" regards the new American policy of human rights rejection and torture.....
They just don't care if someone is wrongly accused, and they could not care less about torture or cruel and unusual punishment. In other words, to people like this, our entire system of due process is absurd. Terrorism is the least of it. They would not care if it were you, or their neighbor or anyone else --- and they are unable to see that it could be them. They simply don't have the imagination or the empathy to do it. And if you were to read these horrific stories to them, or even show them pictures, they would believe that the victims deserved it.
The best the right wing can summon on this issue, including the religious right, is to simply assert that we can believe that the United States doesn't torture or we can believe what our eyes tell us.
And I believe that everyone should brace themselves for the inevitable stretching of this concept to the criminal justice system. If the current belief is that torture is necessary to protect people from terrorist attacks, there is simply no way to argue that it isn't also ok to use torture to protect people from criminal attacks. Why wouldn't it be? Link
Read Digby's entire post on this subject, and take in the pictures.....it is excellent, as usual, in stripping away the bullsh*t and telling it and showing it like it is.
Yes, torture should be "unbridgeable" in America. At least from the sane and humane side of the bridge.
In the 60's and early 70's America came to an "unbridgeable" point in it's history and social unrest, violence and, eventually, change were the results. Racism, communist fearmongering, police state tactics, suppression of women's rights, were some of the issues the right and the left could not agree on.
Today's seemingly "unbridgeable" times consist of many disagreements over issues I would have never before considered even to be argumentative.
How could we have come to the point where torture is a divisive, two sided argument? How could we have come to the point where lawlessness in the government is not only expected, but cheered on? How could we have come to the point where telling the truth with, you know, supportable, empirical facts, is no longer acceptable?
Prediction: If Hillary takes the White House and Democrats gain in their Congressional majorities next November, those "unbridgeable" differences will become more pronounced. Domestic acts of violence, dressed up to look like the work of Islamic extremists, could very well be the result.
Let's not forget that Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh were violent perpetrators from the far right and acted because of what they considered to be a wicked American government. Is there any doubt that some in America's far right zoo would not also consider a Hillary presidency and a Democratically controlled Congress an excuse to lash out against a wicked government?
Prodded on by daily Rush Limbaugh hate injections, encouraged to violence by the "humorous" words of violence by Little Orphan Annie Coulter and children and minority hater Michelle Malkin.....what would you predict would be the outcome?
About This Blog