THE FACEBOOK CHRONICLES

"Wish we could just resurrect the spirit of let's work together, " lamented a cousin of mine.

My initial reaction was, "No, I don't see that happening." Recently I got involved in some one day Facebook political "discussions." This experience has caused me to change my answer to, "Hell no, I don't see that happening."

The difference in thinking on some basic life situations is amazing. The first FB post was from our local newspaper. It stated, "Dead on arrival. That's the fate of a controversial bill in the New Mexico legislature that would allow business owners to refuse service to customers based on the owners' religious beliefs." OK, I am a free market, personal responsibility Conservative. To me if I have started a business, sunk my personal money in it and am relying on its success to feed my family, I should be able to make total decisions as to who or what I serve. The business is MINE.

It seems the Liberals who responded, and the 125 comments were pretty evenly divided between left and right, believed basically in the argument of Elizabeth Warren and the President, ("You didn't build that business") The left point of view was that the business folks are "using the infrastructure created by society. Imagine having to run that business without public roads. Imagine not having reliable utilities like electricity, phone, internet, water/sewer. Imagine having to defend that business without fire and police protection. Sorry, hun, if you start a business here, there are rules and rightly so. The business likely wouldn't exist and have a potential to flourish without the structure already in place. I challenge you to go put a business in the middle of no where, without any of the things I mentioned above, and see how well it goes."

Setting aside the fact that the first businesses that funded this country were out in the "middle of no where" and seemed to do alright (Have I really gotten to the age where people are calling me "hun"?). My belief is that since the people who own their own businesses have contributed to the infrastructure, should they not be given the option of how they want to use that infrastructure? Who they want as customers? How much should the public sector be able to tell the private sector what to do? Sure, the public sector took the money from the private sector and coordinated the building of the infrastructure, but if no businesses started, who would fund the government? This is an age-old left vs. right chicken and egg debate.

Of course there are current Federal laws against discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation and religion. I have already said how I feel about those, and many of the Facebook comments dealt with the left/right of those specific issues. The right saying if people don't like the way they are treated, or not treated, they can go elsewhere. The only one hurting in that scenario would be the business which is turning away paying customers. The left feels we all contribute to the business being able to maximize its effectiveness (the commons), therefore the whole has the right to tell its parts how they are to operate. This variety of thinking is one of the many obstacles in our "working together".

How much control the public sector should have over the private sector is a discussion based on some degree of facts and rational beliefs from both sides, but that wasn't the part that scared me. When the comments deteriorated into just religion and its part in the proposed New Mexico bill, I felt a need to go out and get a security system for the house (or another gun, but that's a subject for later on).

Since 83% of Americans describe themselves as Christians, I can understand why the anti-religious comments were thrown against Christianity, but the the depth of emotion was a surprise. Comments such as:

"Racist, bigoted, idiots"

" Ignorant and truly brainwashed "

"Warmth of Satan's blessing should be coursing through your bloodstream, mingling with the blood of that lamb...."

Believers in" Easter Bunny, tooth fairy, Santa, and leprechauns...."

"The scared religious monkeys need to evolve...."

"Total brainless idiot"

"Christianity is a religion of hate" (I love this one because they seem to hate and are bigoted toward Christians because Christians are full of hate and bigotry.)

Then there was one, a pro-religious guy, who had this helpful suggestion to the anti- group,"Grab your protective helmet and go to your sand box, moron." Consider this potential solution to the problem of business not discriminating by religion, "If you have deep-seated religious or personal beliefs, don't start your own small business."

I have to wonder how the Federal government will handle the non-Christian situations. What will happen when a Muslim business refuses to cater a Baconfest? What if Timothy Cardinal Dolan of New York were to attempt to hire Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, noted Atheists and professional speakers, to read the Homily at St Patrick's Cathedral at the midnight mass next Christmas?

As you can see, we have a ways to go to "work together."

There was another Facebook posting that covered Matthew Bissonnette — the former Navy SEAL who wrote a book, No Easy Day, detailing his role in the mission that took out Osama bin Laden. He is facing federal criminal investigation for revealing classified information in the book. As a Conservative, my first reaction was that when it comes to revealing classified information it would seem that a SEAL could go to jail and Hillary could go to the White House. Many of the other views were summed up by:

"Bin Laden was dead long before Obama had Navy Seals look like they got Bin Laden. Later all Navy Seals on that mission were killed due to a crash. This guy saying he was the hero killing Bin Laden was under the wings of Obama. "

Then, of course, there was the obligatory Gun Control posting of a news article: Concealed Carry Gun Owner Shoots Himself After Accidentally Killing A Friend. As has been true in every mass shooting, I write, " Not a thing suggested by the administration would have stopped this." I asked, as I do whenever this subject comes up, "What is a doable solution? "

Here are some of the helpful R-rated solutions to our very real gun issues set forth by Facebook contributors. (This is why, cuz, "working together" is so challenging.)

 "See how disturbed many gun owners are? The more they worship guns and act like someone wants to take their guns (thanks to Fox news and other douche bag republican politicians), the more I want these crazy people to be unarmed. All you crazy people should look up the term "self-fulfilling prophecy" and apply it to yourselves. "

 "Well, that's one way to get rid of these gun nuts"

"He got what he deserved, and this goes out to everybody else that has a small penis thinking that they need to carry a big gun ."

 "We've come to see and expect this at the hands of the rabid right-wing gun owners."

 "HAHAHAHA! Let them have more guns and kill each other. Any asshole can get a gun in America"

This is just one day's back and forth on Facebook. one day of a cross section of humanity and how they view and would solve the issues of the day.

God help us--if I'm allowed to say that.

TAKE A TRIP TO THE DARK SIDE

"Why?" Jean asked over a glass of fermented grapes, "is there such political divisions in the United States today?" I, over my glass of fermented potatoes, thoughtfully answered, "BTSOOM."

But then I began to think about it....

Over the last few weeks I made contact with a couple of friends I had not been in touch with for many, many years. They were coworkers, school and army buddies and old neighbors. We were very close for a long time, a long time ago. I realized when talking to them that I don't know now, nor did I know then, what their politics were/are. I don't think I'm friends with anybody I've met over maybe the last 10 years that I'm not intimately aware of their politics. What happened?

As much as I write and think about politics, the truth is I know very little about the intricacies and back room dealing of government. I don't really understand government budgeting, the complexity of getting a bill passed, of foreign trade etc. etc. etc. So, to evaluate the issues of the day in my own mind, I fall back on my life experience and my brand of common sense. Then when I hear somebody on the radio or read a newspaper, website, Blog or other forms of social media that match what I believe, they become my "people." If something comes out of Washington DC I don't understand, I go to my people for clarification. A number of years ago I determined Conservative people share my world view.

I have also come to understand over the years that, much to my surprise, not all folks share my views! My guess is they do the same as I do--Liberals go to their people for confirmation of their beliefs.

I am a senior person and get most of my information the old-fashioned way, from radio and TV. I am lucky because the first nine of the top ten political talk show hosts are conservative, so I have choices. The top TV cable news channel, Fox News, is basically conservative oriented. I get my beliefs reinforced daily. A Pew Research study shows that conservatives almost exclusively get their TV news from Fox, whereas Liberals tend to watch a variety of other liberal sources; network news, BBC, NPR, Al Jazeera and MSNBC. We all gravitate toward where we are most comfortable.

Being more comfortable doesn't necessarily make us more intelligently informed. To even recognize there is another side, we will have to suck it up and listen/read opposing views. If you are anything like me, and I know I am, this will not be easy. I try often to listen to Thom Hartmann (the #10 radio host, first Liberal/Socialist). When I listen to Rush, I nod my head in agreement 80% of the time. When I listen to Thom, I shriek at the radio 80% of the time. Let me guess, with Liberals, it's the same percentage, just opposite activities.

Listening to somebody who sees the world, its problem and its solutions, so differently is one of life's more difficult activities. I am a dog lover. I could listen 3 hours a day to a talk show about the positive qualities of dogs. If I blocked my gag reflex, I could maybe get down a 1/2 hour anti-dog show. But how else do I get a more inclusive view of man's best friend? If my love of dogs is costing me friends, I have to ask myself do a want a friend who doesn't like dogs? Does that friend share my basic values, my view as to what makes life fun? Do I want to listen to them or read articles as to why Iguanas are better pets than dogs? Do I think any amount of new information will get me to switch my allegiance from canines to herbivorous lizards? (Notice: the string of animal metaphors.)

And yet we keep trying.......

The Pew Study found that Liberals are more likely to block or unfriend someone on social media as well as end a personal friendship because of a disagreement on politics. (I know that to be personally true.) The study also showed Conservatives are more likely to have a majority of Conservative friends. Neither of these study results help contribute to understanding the other side.

When I was growing up the standard fare on my radio was music. I read the newspaper when I had time and listened to network news on TV. What they told me, I believed. Would Walter Cronkite lie? Then about 30 years ago either more talk appeared on the radio, or I began listening to programs other than music. Much to my surprise there appeared people with opinions. Some I agreed with; others were wrong--I mean different. Since a person can't hold two conflicting beliefs at the same time, I made my choice.

Then media of all types seem to just explode. If a person were at all inquisitive, more than enough two-sided information was available. It was then media bias reared its ugly head. Media business plans were simple, how could they sell the most advertising? Should they promote a Liberal or a Conservative agenda? It began to be more and more difficult to tell a journalist from a commentator, a news show from an opinion show. It became imperative to know the bias of the program we were listening to in order to properly evaluate the content. Also, it is important to know we will not be getting a non-biased view. (It may be true, but non-biased, no) Being biased while telling the "truth" is actually very easy for both sides. If there were an elevator with a capacity of 24 and there are 12 passengers on the elevator, one side will bring in experts to tell us the elevator was half full. The other side will bring in an equally qualified elevator capacity engineer contributor telling their audience, they are looking at a half empty lift. Which side is the carrier of the truth?

It was easier for me and my recently resurrected friends and neighbors because we never had so much input. The government did what the government did, and we accepted it as the way things were. I think it's good so many conflicting "facts" are out there now; it keeps us mentally stimulated, but it demands introspection of us. What do we believe? What kind of country do we wish to live in and to leave to our descendants? What kind of country did our founders wish to leave to us? Which political party is best to make happen what we want to have happen?

The original question was, "Why such political division?" I think it's information. We know too much but understand too little. We have to listen to conflicting views. Most of the time doing that we will only reinforce the beliefs we had going in and the chance of changing our minds is slim. But maybe, just maybe, we will understand.

(Sorry, but I will never understand an iguana.)