LETTERMAN

I'm not old enough to remember Sen. Joseph McCarthy's blacklisting of Hollywood "communists" and the fear instilled in them and others of the time. I am present, now, though, for the spectacle sent forth by angry and lost "conservatives" like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh and the crazy state senator from Tennessee, Diane Black of Gallatin.

The current insane reaction from these and other unthinking, hate-filled losers happens in nanoseconds, causing me to wonder what it'd been like had McCarthy been digital: imagine crazy Joe McCarthy on Twitter or facebook, his toxic sweat coming through the electronic waves into your living room. Jesus.

I watched Letterman last night and true to his genius, he followed up Monday night's "official" apology (for really nothing) to Sarah Palin's family with last night's offering of an apology to anyone, anywhere who may be offended by his humor. He even told the audience they could pick their apology up at the door as they left.

In his own way he diluted Monday night's Palinotomy to nothing but a handout to a needy reactionary, like baby food to a screaming infant. It was as if he said, "Here... now take your little apology and go home, please."

But no, that's not enough for those sickos. This morning in the news I see crazy people out there mocking Letterman, calling his young son, who Letterman so obviously loves, a "bastard child," and more. These are the same folks who are "God fearing Americans," Christians and patriots. These are the folks who have seizures if we limit the amount of ammo they can carry into public places, yet want to limit our free speech and right to make personal choices about religion or even our own bodies.

I understand differences, especially in opinion. That's what makes life interesting and livable. I do not understand intolerance, though, especially in the extreme to which an opposing point of view need not apply. Where in the right-wing's beloved constitution does it say this? Where did Jefferson and the like suggest we build a country of religious bigots and gun-toting crazies who enforce their rights and assassinate - both literally and figurately - those who happen to differ with them?

And as far as Jesus is concerned, well, frankly? I'm no Biblical scholar. I got raised by one, though - no piece of cake - and, even then, I've heard nothing about Jesus being intolerant. Nada. Negative. Nothing. If anything, the dude loved you, me, Palin, Franken, Limbaugh, Dr. Tilly, King and even Ray. That would be what I think Christianity is/was meant to be. Like the constitution, the "word" intends to breathe hope and tolerance and freedom.

However, those nuts out there are anything but fresh air - they are dangerous and dark and mean. And worse, they are more scared than ever. The state senator from Tennessee? Her "aide" sent out an email with a "group" photograph of all U.S. presidents to date, and instead of his picture she substituted a racist cartoon for President Barack H. Obama. This came from one of the flag-waving, Christian patriots.

So I ask: when someone like George W. Bush is president and he's criticized by (lots and lots of) those who disagree with him, why is that unpatriotic, and overt hate toward our current president is okay?

The irony is that both acts are okay because we have free speech - even though the unchecked hate on the racist email raises cause for questions and consequences for a variety of reasons (government employee, elected official's office, possible hate-crime inducing, etc etc). I simply would like - yet, like waiting for a 2nd grader to understand accountability, don't expect - an acknowledgement from the crazies that the very constitution they use to beat others over the head with enables them to do so. The very same protections they enjoy make free speech possible for both points of view (hence "free"); that if it were written that only one point of view's allowed they might just get ruled out.

Jesus.

Or should I say, "Jefferson."