Good Friday

For Good Friday, I wanted to share a moment of spiritual insight.

March 1987, I joined a religious retreat in my senior year at St. Joseph's University.

We went to Wernersville, Pennsylvania, to a monastery run by the Jesuits. It should have been freezing cold, but for the whole week, we had beautiful, warm, sunny weather. Until then, I'd been emotionally isolated. I learned about happiness and empathy that week.

On the last day, I went to a service in the chapel. Suddenly, I saw Jesus on the cross in a new way. I was struck by the pain and suffering depicted by this sculpture. I could envision the reality of a person being nailed to a piece of wood and hung up to die. It was awful!

I plunged into sadness at the thought.

Then it turned around with another thought. It just popped into my head.

"Jesus doesn't want us to be sad. He wants us to be happy. He just wants us to know how important it is to love one another."

My spirit exploded with a cold wave of joy. I went to talk to a priest I'd been chatting with throughout the week, and I shook with cold chills. He touched my shoulder and said, "It's like you've been touched by the Holy Spirit."

For the next few months, I lived my life raw. All the usual barriers and devices I employed to protect myself had been stripped away. I went on another student retreat to a site run by nuns in Long Branch NJ -- on the beach -- and I shared my new insights.

But I was not equipped to switch from isolated loner to living with such raw emotions. I had missed out on years of lessons about appropriate behaviors in friendships and relationships. I didn't know how to keep my feelings in check. Attempts to connect to a woman I cared about ended very badly. Obviously, I had gone off the tracks.  As I sorted it through in the months that followed, I realized my mistake was in mixing up the joy of my spiritual journey with the emotional needs I had.

I had to separate the spiritual needs from the emotional. Somehow, I needed to back out and try again.

After I moved to Corning, I stopped going to church. I didn't stop because I was bored with it or angry at God or didn't believe.  I still loved God. I stopped going because I had a lot to sort out.

I knew I believed in God. So, I accepted that, and then waited to see what else life would reveal to me.

I had to sort out the emotional needs first. In Corning, my experience with women continued as a series of crushes I never did anything about until it was far too late.

Finally, one night as I drove from Elmira to Corning, I listened to a psychologist's radio call-in show. A woman on the line was bemoaning the fact that she would never find the perfect man for her, and the host had a great response: "It's not about finding the perfect mate. It's about having fun. If you can have fun with someone, then everything else will follow."

OOOOOHHHHHHHHH!

I got it. This started a year in which I had just enough emotional growth to be ready to meet Amy. That all eventually led to marriage, kids, family and our life together.

In the meantime, my spiritual journey continued in a sideways direction. I was not actively seeking insights about God, but as  newspaper reporter, I found myself visiting every kind of worship service. As part of news coverage, I attended services of all denominations of Christianity, in synagogues, mosques and at a Unitarian center. As I met with and interviewed a variety of people, I learned about other faiths, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam and Protestant Christianity.

I saw a commonality in these faiths. Love of God and your fellow person, kindness, mercy were all there in each one, so long as the person expressing it held to their core beliefs. There were others who  used their faith to bully and belittle others, but these are not the true ambassadors of the higher power.

Ultimately, this would lead to a conclusion.

God is a diamond. A diamond has many, many sides. You approach that diamond from the direction that works for you.

It was the first Christmas after Jack was born that I began my journey back to the church. Christmas seemed so empty without God, and I saw no point in having our kids celebrate a holiday without understanding its meaning. I wanted them to have meaning in their lives. To realize there is something beyond themselves that is worthwhile.

With Jack as a toddler, I started going back to Church. It was not easy to get back to that rhythm. I had to sort through a lot of emotions. When we moved back to Upstate New York, I ended up in a night job as a copy editor. I hated the hours and it made it difficult to get up on Sunday mornings to go to church. I think I subconsciously hated God for that situation, so I stopped going to Church for a while.

In 2004, I began having chest pains. I went for a series of tests, and in May 2004 was scheduled for a heart catheter. This is when they poke a long needle into the big vein that runs through your groin and run it up into your heart to find out -- a possibly fix -- what was wrong.

The night before, I was very worried. Jack was 4 years old, and we were expecting a new baby boy in June. I prayed to God. I asked to be a part of his plan. "Let me raise these two boys and help them grow into good men."

The next day, I lay on a table and they injected me with valium. Then they inserted the needle up into my heart. The doctor -- a Muslim from Pakistan, by the way -- worked silently and I felt nothing. After a while, he tapped me on a shoulder and said, "I found nothing I could fix. There is nothing wrong." He gave me a clean bill of health.

What he did find was interesting. Across the surface of the heart is supposed to be three arteries. I had been born with only two.

God made me that way. He had planned this all along, just to get my attention. So that I would know he wanted me to be a part of his plan.

It was at Liam's baptism that I felt I had fully returned to the church. Yes, this is the approach to God that works for me.

A couple of years ago, I sat in the church pew waiting for services to begin, frantically trying to write out a check for my monthly donation. I thought to myself, "Yes, I am giving money. But I don't volunteer. ... Ok, maybe I will volunteer for something, but only if someone asks me."

Within 30 seconds, I felt a tap on my shoulder.

The head usher, a gentleman named Bill, stood next to me. "Could you help with the collections today?"

WOW!

Well played, God. I've helped with the collections at that mass since then.

I suppose someone else would read all this and say this is all just coincidence and luck. But I choose to see the influence of God in my life and the world. I see it as a positive force, but it needs our help and it needs to be aided with kindness. He just wants us to know how important it is to love one another.

So, my journey continues.

Pickett's charge

I was on my daily run last night, when it occurred to me that we may have witnessed the T.E.A. party's version of Pickett's charge during the government shutdown fight.

Pickett's charge is considered to be the high-water mark for the Confederacy, but it was also a disaster for their cause. The infamous charge happened on the last day of fighting at Gettysburg, when after attempts to flank the Union army on the previous two days failed, the Confederates went all-out with a massive but futile attack on the Union center.

It was the furthest advance into northern territory made by Gen. Robert E. Lee's army, but from that point on the Confederate cause was in decline.

Similarly, what we saw in the shutdown fight was a massive demonstration of T.E.A. party strength, aimed at bringing the federal government to a grinding halt. Indeed, the shutdown brought the Confederate battle flag to the gates of the White House itself, something I'll bet never happened during the Civil War.

They executed their initial plan flawlessly, but too late to realize that when they reached the enemy lines there would be no where to go but retreat and defeat.

In the aftermath, polls showing what the shutdown has cost the GOP and the T.E.A. party in particular. Most Americans now believe it is a bad thing that the GOP controls the House of Representatives.  Standard & Poor’s reported that the U.S. economy suffered a loss of $24 billion, a number strongly disputed by Forbes, but the repercussions of this foolhardy strategy have been felt throughout the country.

It is my hope that most people now realize how poisonous T.E.A. party politics have been for this country. This is not a movement of fiscal conservancy. It is a movement of selfishness, distortion, lies and deceit, waged for the benefit of a privileged few.

When the T.E.A. party rose up in 2010, I shuddered. It seemed to me this was ignorance, disguising itself as patriotism. My hope is that after this disaster, the moderates in the GOP will take back control of their party so that government can function with an ongoing series of compromises between the left and right.

We need both liberal and conservative philosophies to make the legislative process work. They are the Yin and Yang of our government. The progressive philosophy is needed so that we do not destroy our country through short-sightedness and selfishness. The conservative philosophy is needed so that we remember we cannot spend money that we do not have, and that we should be wary of too much government control of our lives.

But I also keep on thinking about a montage I saw recently -- probably on The Colbert Report -- showing Congressmen complaining that "government should get off our backs."

I find it to be an ironic argument to be made by a Congressman. After all, they are our government. In fact, we are our government. We are a self-governed nation. The first words of the Constitution read: "We, the people ..."  If we don't like the government, we can change it. But we do it through elections, and if you don't have the votes, then you need to work with what you have. Sometimes you can't get what you want. But if you don't get it, you need to earn it through the value of your arguments with the electorate, not by taking hostages and bringing the entire government to a grinding halt.

I will end with my favorite quote, from one of my favorite Republican presidents, Teddy Roosevelt: "Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."

Republicans, you didn't have the votes. That's why you don't get what you want. Ask yourselves why.

Trickling down

We have a leaky shower. It trickles down all day. I tried to fix it, but failed. So, the trickle lasts as a monument to my faulty plumbing skills.

But I’m not calling a plumber. Not that I expect my skills to improve any time soon, but money’s just too tight right now. I’m hoping for some extra money to come in soon, but until then I will have to wait.

However, my trickling shower helped me realize why trickle down economics will never work.

Leaky showers, delayed repairs, doing without are often the reality of the middle class.

Being middle class means you have enough to live comfortably. You can have a home and a car, usually by making payments on long-term loans. You have enough food and clothing for your family. You can pay for utilities, digital television and even for a fun night out now and then.

And then there’s the activities for kids – sports and youth groups, school fundraisers, Super Saturdays and summer camps – small amounts of money that add up to a sizable pile by the end of the year.

If we had a little more money, we would put it away for vacations or college funds for our kid’s futures.

Don’t get me wrong. This is a good life. And we do what we can for our families, for our kids. But the reality of the middle class is living on a budget. You make sure you have enough to pay for the essentials, and you figure out how to get those little extras that make life worthwhile for you and your kids.

But living on a budget also means doing without a lot of things on your wish list.

Being poor means struggling to get those essentials and rarely getting those little extras. The wish list is often nothing more than a wish.

But what the poor and the middle class have in common is that a little extra money would be put to use.

And that is a trait that we don’t share with the super wealthy.

A little extra money for us would probably first go to paying any essentials that aren’t covered, then would go to a growing wish list of items – fixing the shower, putting more work into the house, getting my eyeglasses updated, maybe even replacing that tooth I lost two years ago.

We all have our wish lists, whether we are middle class or poor.

Fulfilling those wish lists would mean hiring contractors, going shopping, making dental appointments, booking vacations, starting college funds and looking at possible schools.

So, as the money available increases, there’s paying for what we need, then there’s paying for what we would like, and then there’s paying those things that we think would make us happy. (Of course, money doesn’t buy you happiness, but that’s another story.)

Still, each item on that list puts more money into the pocket of someone else in the middle class.  That is the engine that spurs on an economy.

Now, how does making more money available to the super rich help drive the economy?

They’ve already paid for their essentials, they’ve already checked off everything on their wish list, they bought the things they think will make them happy, and they’ve probably paid off their children’s college education when they were toddlers.

What would extra money mean for them?

“Oh, look dear, we got a tax rebate,” says Mrs. Romney.  “Now we can finally build that new stable for our dressage horse that we’ve been putting off.”

C’mon. If they wanted to fix a leaky shower or build a new stable, they would have built it. They aren’t waiting for extra money from their taxes before they spend their wealth.

Where does that extra money for the rich go? Investments.

How does that help drive the engine of the economy, hire plumbers, roofers, carpenters, and pay for dentists, opticians and tree surgeons?

Not only that, but it is this culture of pursuing more wealth through investments that created such entities as Bain Capital, which used its financial power to acquire companies, suck them dry of assets and put all the employees out of work. That’s called “harvesting” as Mitt Romney put it in a video from the 80s.

I’m not against investments, but I am against an economic policy that only serves a group of people who are more concerned with their investments and maintaining their personal wealth than with rebooting this economy.

It is disappointing that trickle down economics – a principle that started under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s – has not yet been sufficiently debunked, and that a major political party is still promoting it.

Let me debunk it for you. I think I’ve laid out the groundwork.

Keeping taxes low for the poor and middle class:

Would allow – say – at least 100 million households to hire contractors or use the services of a small business. Those contractors and other small businesses would then be able to expand their operations and put more money into the economy. That's 100 million homes that are motivated to spend their money.

Keeping taxes low or cutting taxes for the 1 percent:

Gives the wealthy – say 3 million households – no driving incentive to spend that money to hire more contractors, use small business or create jobs. It just gives them more money. That's zero homes given a new incentive to spend their money.

Think about it. Whose policy will really reboot the economy?

But does Stephen Hawking exist?

Dr. Ian Malcolm:
"God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs..."

Dr. Ellie Sattler:

"Dinosaurs eat man. Woman inherits the earth..."

"Jurassic Park" 1993

Has Stephen Hawking destroyed God?

In his opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, which is based on the book "The Grand Design" by Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow of CalTech, Hawking argues that according to the latest theories of quantum physics and gravity a universe can spring from nothing. In fact, existence is really a multiverse, many universes that each have their own laws of nature.

If I understood this correctly, he is saying that there are other universes in which the laws of physics work differently. Gravitational constants, the mass of a proton, the strong nuclear force, the electric force, all could be different in these other universes. Change any of these factors by just a small percentage and life could never exist.

We just happen to live in a universe where the laws of physics allow for the creation of heavy elements and planets that exist in the proper distance from stars to support life. We also just happen to live on a planet that is just perfect for the evolution and continued existence of used car salesmen, college professors, baseball players, flight attendants, massage therapists, lion tamers and Stephen Hawking. (Unless we destroy ourselves.)

Newton argued that because of the order of the universe that favors the creation of our world and human life that it demonstrated that the universe was created by God. This point of view was still reinforced after the development of the Big Bang theory. 

When I was in Catholic school in the fifth grade, I remember my class talked about the Big Bang Theory. I believe we were told that at one point all that is now in the universe had once been contained within a space no bigger than a thimble. It exploded out and created existence.

But where did that thimble of very dense matter come from?

God was our answer.

I remember reading Hawking's earlier book, "A Brief History of Time." He talked about discussing the Big Bang with the Pope. The Pope told him science could explore any question up to the Big Bang, but not to go inside the Big Bang itself for that was the realm of God.

Hawking didn't tell the Pope that he was already theoretically probing the inner workings of the Big Bang.

Now, physicists have gone far beyond the Big Bang.

I remember the other side of the Big Bang theory was that eventually the universe might collapse into a Big Crunch, then maybe spark another Big Bang. But that doesn't seem to be the conclusion now.

Instead, the universe is projected to just keep expanding into a Big Rip. After several generations, stars will die out and new stars will no longer be born. The universe will get very cold in the distant future and  matter will tear apart into atoms and then subatomic particles, all scattering further and further out. (The Buddhists have it right. Nobody gets to keep their toys.)

But even at this stage, there could be a rebirth.

I watched a documentary on this new theory of the fate of the universe. It explained that in quantum physics -- the physics of the very small -- the possibilities at the subatomic level can be endless. One of those possibilities could be the creation of a new universe.

A universe can be created from nothing. 

Fine.

No God needed?

Well, humans may have a psychological need for God, but the existence of God does not rely on a human need for God. God exists or does not exist independent of our need for him.

Does the universe need God?

Well, the laws of physics have no psychological need for a higher being. But again, God can exist or not exist whether or not there is a need for God in the universe.

Just because it is possible the Big Bang happened without God does not mean he does not exist.

So, let's back it up even further and consider Hawking's and other physicists' concept of the multiverse.

How does the multiverse prove there is no God? Perhaps God's plan goes back farther than we ever imagined. We used to imagine that the world was created 6,000 years ago in a matter of six days.

We now realize that story was a fable. (Sorry creationists, but you're way behind the times.)

Then through science, we discovered how old our Earth is, how old our sun is, and how old our universe is, which is something like 14 billion years old. Science showed us this existence that we know came from a Big Bang. 

So, those people of faith who saw the value of science concluded God must have created the Big Bang.

Now science has drawn back another curtain and said there's now a multiverse. God didn't cause the Big Bang. (We win, God loses.)

But to go back to that discussion in fifth grade, about where the thimble came from, what we were really talking about was the point where science ends and faith begins.

The whole problem with the debate between science and faith is that there is no common ground. There is no point where science and faith touch. No matter how much science discovers or understands, no matter how many curtains are drawn back on the origin and nature of existence, faith is never revealed to be a fraud.

Faith is not a matter of science, just as science is not a matter of faith.

A year ago, someone sent me a video about a scientific proof of God. The theory was rather twisted, but it turned on the so-called existence of polonium halos found in rock. Polonium is a very unstable matter, it exists very briefly as uranium decays into lead. The claim was that they had found evidence of polonium that had remained stable long enough to leave a halo in the rock. Such a transitory material could never survive long enough to leave a halo in rock, therefore God must have intervened and held the polonium in that state and created the halo. Therefore, God exists.

Nonsense.

I wrote back this guy and said "I do not need science to prove God exists." 

I think it is as foolhardy to try to prove God exists through science as it is to try to prove that he does not exist. If you build your faith on God based on a scientific proof, then if that proof collapses or if science pulls back another curtain, then your faith is destroyed. Your faith is revealed to be false.

Hawking has not proven that God doesn't exist. He has simply given us a deeper understanding of our existence.

I also don't buy the idea that just because we live on a planet that is perfectly suited to human life that means that the universe was created only to suit humans.

When you consider the vastness of the universe, the possibilities of other life, and now the possibilities of  other universes and the prospect of life there (in those universes where the laws of physics allows it), I am struck by the potential for how big God's plan may be.  

Perhaps humanity does expand out into the universe and survives for billions of years. Perhaps we will discover that not only are not alone, but that we are just one of millions of species. That we are not the most important species, but that we have a role to play in the universe, a role to play in God's plan. 

We shall see.

Hindsight

For all the merits of the jobs bill proposed by President Obama, the entire effort suffers from a case of very bad timing.

It should have happened much earlier.

In the current political environment in Washington, such an initiative can nearly be considered dead on arrival just because it has the president's name on it.

That's easy to understand why, given that the opposition's No. 1 goal is to make Barack Obama a one-term president. So anything that would make Obama look good -- disregarding the possible benefits to the country -- will not get GOP backing.

Since the T.E.A.-party-flavored Republican House swept into office, every bit of legislation that might have been handled in a more amicable and reasonable way in other administrations has instead been bitter, grueling death matches.

This year, legislation on the federal budget and the debt ceiling chewed up months in a conflict orchestrated by T.E.A. party radicals who bent the government agenda to their will and nearly forced the government to default on its loans.

They continue to play this game, endangering emergency relief funds for regions devastated by recent storms. And if they continue to make the kinds of cuts in government services that they want, they could even threaten our ability to respond to major storms like Hurricane Irene. A smaller government would not have to ability to bring federal resources quickly to bear during natural disasters. Average people could end up suffering more.

No wonder Obama had to wait until now to roll out a jobs program. This was just a moment when the T.E.A. party was not hijacking the agenda.

We will have to wait until November 2012 to find out who the voters will blame for this political quagmire. But the roots of this grim situation can be traced back to the hope and optimism of November 2008.

Obama had been elected on many promises, but I think he was elected so overwhelmingly because of his promise that we would not be Red States and Blue States but a United States of America. We so wanted an end to the divisive politics of the past that we threw our support behind this one man.

But electing one politician -- even if that one politician is president -- does not change the nature of politics. Even if that president truly and earnestly wants to change the way politics works, his election will not change the behavior of other politicians.

By nature, politics is divisive. It is driven by competition and conflict.

By nature, we are human. And we remain human even when elected to office. Some with more human failings than others.

When Obama came into office in January 2009, he was flush with the success of a landslide victory and a Congress that was fully behind the Democratic agenda. He may have taken office with every intention of negotiating and working with the Republicans.

But they didn't want to work with him.

And I think that Obama may have looked around at the potential he had with a Democratic Congress and a landslide victory and felt less of a need to work with the GOP. It was a human failing to allow the electoral success to put aside his ideals of compromise and unity.

To his credit, he pursued most of his campaign promises, chiefly health care reform. It was a piece of legislation that would not have happened with a divided Congress. He seized the opportunity and let go of some of the dream of political cooperation.

The GOP, if they had any interest, let go of the rest. The health care reform legislation was the trigger for the popularity of the T.E.A. party movement.

I support health care reform, but in looking back at this situation with the benefit of hindsight, we can see the bitter political cost that came with it.

It's easy to second guess someone else's strategy. It's like playing chess against a computer. Make a stupid mistake and lose your queen? Hit the undo button.

So, just for fun, let's do that. Let's look at what happened.

When he was a candidate for the Democratic nomination, health care was a major issue for Obama in the spring of 2008. Throughout the primaries, throughout the factory visits and chicken dinners and handshaking and canvassing of voters, health care would come up again and again. Obama promised to make it a priority of his administration.

He got the nomination in part because of that and other promises, along with a broader promise for "hope and change." That was in August 2008.

But that fall, everything changed.

The economy nearly collapsed.

Many of those workers who had told Obama that health care was a priority now were out of a job. Health care was probably still a big priority for these people, but in the meantime unemployment went up to nearly 10 percent.

I believe that the actions taken by the government in early 2009 helped to stabilize the economy and prevented a much deeper recession, even a depression.

The economy stabilized and finally began to grow. But it was a jobless growth.

Obama knew in 2008/09 that unemployment was going to stay high for some time, and that it would cost him politically in 2010.

It did.

What seems apparent to me now is that while health care was the big issue for the Democratic nomination, by late 2008/early 2009, the bigger issue was the economy and jobs.

And let's be frank, with all the blue collar and union support in the party, jobs should be a Democratic priority.

And for a Democratic president looking for common ground with a Republican opposition, jobs would have been the natural choice in early 2009.

More jobs means more money in the economy, stronger businesses, and a fiscally sound government. It's a Dem-GOP win-win.

C'mon, don't you remember "Dave," the movie where Kevin Klein gets to be president? He plowed through all the political nonsense and zeroed in on what he knew to be the most important issue: Getting everyone a job.

Could Obama have pursued an aggressive jobs package in early 2009 while also pursuing health care reform and the bailout packages?  Maybe. Maybe not.

Could he have pursued jobs first and then brought in health care reform after some kind of precedent for political compromise had been established? Who knows?

In 2010, the voters sent one message that both sides should have understood: The American people were tired of a weak economy and 10 percent unemployment.

So, what if even right after the T.E.A.-party swept into office, Obama called Boehner and said, "Tell you what, Let's focus on jobs as our priority. That is what everyone needs." Would that have made a difference? I'm not so sure. This all is just theoretical. Like fantasy football and computer chess.

The reality is that for whatever reason, our 2008 hopes for a new way of doing politics was lost. Obama did not find the other side willing to help build his dream.  He also learned too late the lessons of political strategy, that -- as Dana Milbank put it recently -- he should not begin "a game of strip poker in his boxer shorts."


For what it's worth, I still consider Obama to be an honorable president. He set out to achieve what he promised to achieve. I am grateful for the good he has done. I think he has had to bear some very unfair attacks from the other side, who have called him not a true American, a secret Muslim, a socialist and a Nazi.


He's really a moderate, and considering where we've come from -- the presidency of George W. Bush -- and where we might end up -- a presidency that serves the whims of T.E.A. party radicals -- I hope and pray that Obama finds his "inner Harry Truman" and survives the 2012 election. 


My faith, once again, rests with the middle. It is my hope that the independent and moderate voters  have been horrified with the positions spouted by the current crop of GOP candidates and that they realize that the T.E.A. party tactics of obstruction and radicalism are not good for the country. 


It depends on whether Obama can find a new message that will resonate with the American people.  Not a vague dream of "hope" but a concrete plan for his second term.

Panda pajamas

John Stewart handles the Arizona shootings better than anyone else, as only he could handle it.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Arizona Shootings Reaction
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> The Daily Show on Facebook

The aftermath of the Giffords shooting

When I first heard the news that a congresswoman in Arizona had been shot in the head at an event in Arizona, my first reaction was that this was likely an attempt by some crazed individual to influence legislation through violence.

Then as I read postings from my friends on Facebook, a more sinister possibility surfaced, the Sarah Palin ad, which I now repost:

What this ad shows was Sarah Palin's target list for the 2010 election. Gabrielle Giffords is one of the U.S. Reps on the list, with a gun sight targeted over her district. Giffords herself talks about the consequences of violence creeping into the political process in this video, and in particular about the Palin ad at about 2:20:





But as we have learned more about the suspected shooter, we get a picture of him from Internet postings and YouTube that he was an incoherent and deeply troubled individual. He included both "Mein Kampf" and the "Communist Manifesto" as his favorite books. Think about that. One is an example of extreme right, fascist thinking and the other is the ultimate blueprint for the extreme left. Nazis and Communists were bitter enemies during World War II, remember?

More importantly, there is no evidence that this suspect was a supporter of Sarah Palin, did not seem to advocate for her political platform and does not seem to have been motivated by her ad or by any particular vote by Giffords as a congresswoman. (At least not as far as we know now.)

And yet, Palin should be ashamed of how she has conducted herself. "Violent rhetoric, when legitimized, will always trickle down to someone who is unstable enough to take the literal message to heart," as Derrick Stamos posted on Facebook. I don't know Derrick, but it rings with truth, especially when you remember how Glenn Beck's rhetoric presumably led to a shoot-out in Oakland:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073003254.html

We have the right to free speech, but violent rhetoric abuses that right. We can say what we want, but we can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater because it will get someone killed. It seems to me that Palin and Beck have been getting closer to crossing that line. It is a line that no sane American wants to see crossed.

On the day that politicians in this country are shot and killed because of their political views, that will be the day America dies. And the more this brand of rhetoric is used, the closer we get to that day.

In any event, if Palin has any conscience, decency or at least basic smarts, it will be a long time before she uses the phrase "Don't retreat, reload," or use guns and gun sights in her ads.

My hope is that we have reached a high-water mark for violent rhetoric in American politics. My hope is that most Americans have felt enough disgust over the shooting in Tuscon that we will no longer welcome such inflammatory and divisive politics.