When is Opinion Just Disrespect?

It seems it isn't enough to have a political opinion and to exercise freedom of speech without spending inordinate amounts of cash or to ignore the parts of the Constitution that don't fit an ideological profile. Thus the Supreme Court and other supporters of unfettered gun rights choose to ignore the amendment's opening lines "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Where are those well-regulated militias to which the second amendment refers?

And no-one has yet offered a satisfactory explanation for defining money as free speech or for congratulating candidates who disrespect the president, the press or each other with rude, self serving remarks. Ever since Congressman Joe Wilson interrupted president Obama's state-of-the-union speech by shouting "you lie" and was criticized by some but rewarded with contributions from supporters the tone of our political discourse has grown ever coarser and more inappropriate.

This country affords its citizens the right and opportunity to express views that may or may not be popular but for some reason this right has deteriorated into a license to ignore facts and supplant them with opinion and the assumption that any view may be posited on any occasion. The inexcusable behavior of Boston Bruin goalie, for example, in refusing an invitation to the White House honoring his team - - winners of last year's Stanley Cup - - was unconscionable and allowed political bias to interfere with the nature of an a-political celebration. Somewhere along the line we have lost a sense of rudimentary common courtesy. People like Tim Thomas seem to think it is acceptable to use any opportunity to express their personal views no matter how inappropriate or disrespectful. Thomas played a great series but receives a failing grade in good citizenship.

For his part, Newt Gingrich elicited a standing ovation from a partisan crowd at the Republican debate in South Carolina when he allegedly put questioner Juan Williams "in his place" for asking if Gingrich meant to belittle certain segments of society for using food stamps and unemployment insurance. It isn't surprising that others in our culture are encouraged to behave in a rude, undisciplined manner when leaders like Gingrich make such behavior seem acceptable. The harsh incantation of the speaker's name, Juan, wasn't lost on the crowd who chuckled their approval in advance of their ovation. Gingrich knew perfectly well what he was up to and only fools would argue he was within his rights as opposed to what has been called the right-wing "dog-whistle" approach. And why do the press and others insist on calling candidates by their former titles? Should Gingrich be afforded the respect of others when he is so disrespectful of the president and belittles members of the press for doing their job? Why must he always be addressed as "Mr. Speaker" a title he hasn't held for many years and which he debased during his term of office? Why shouldn't he be just plain old Newt spoken as derisively as he addressed Williams or perhaps Mr. Lobbyist or Mr. Hypocrite?

Doctors are called upon to abide by the Hippocratic Oath which instructs them to practice their craft according to a code of ethical behavior befitting the highest standards of their profession. Newt Gingrich and many other politicians say their inner compass leads them on a path that conforms with moral and religious norms. But in fact

they continue to articulate outlandish myths they choose to call truth but what might more accurately be called theories of irrelevance or the hypocritical oath.

Is unseemly and insulting behavior to become the measure of a leader and if it is what kind of country do we the people envision from such leadership?