"Jindal aide accuses liberals of 'race-baiting' on portrait"

"Bobby Jindal’s chief of staff is accusing liberals of “race-baiting” after a photograph spread on social media was falsely assumed to be the Louisiana governor’s official portrait."

Louisiana political blogger Lamar White tweeted out a photo of a painting on Tuesday with the caption “This is Bobby Jindal’s official portrait,” showing a pale version of the first Indian-American governor of a U.S. state.

Jindal’s chief of staff, Kyle Plotkin, was quick to respond by tweeting a photo of a different painting of the Louisiana governor at White.

“That’s not the official portrait. Constituent loaned it. This 1’s official. Thx 4 ur race-baiting tweet,” Plotkin tweeted.

"Jindal: 'Messed Up Situation When Miley Cyrus Gets a Laugh, and Phil Robertson Gets Suspended'"

"Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal criticized the suspension of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson by network A&E."

“Phil Robertson and his family are great citizens of the State of Louisiana. The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with. I don’t agree with quite a bit of stuff I read in magazine interviews or see on TV. In fact, come to think of it, I find a good bit of it offensive. But I also acknowledge that this is a free country and everyone is entitled to express their views. In fact, I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment. It is a messed up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended," said Jindal in a prepared statement.

Over a Daily Caller, Matt K Lewis also sees it in terms of a divided "two Americas".

When you consider the more effete, cosmopolitan America that “Pajama Boy” represents, you’ll get a sense for why the Duck Dynasty folks are out of touch with today’s acceptable norms. There is a huge schism between red state America and blue state America, and these two stories seem to symbolize the yawning chasm. 

We (by We, I mean those paying attention to this) seem to be caught up in a version of what the Wikipedia "tit for tat" page describes as a "death spiral." That's my impression, for whatever is worth. I don't want to stick my neck out too far on this. I wanted to carefully consider it before posting\copying and pasting about it.

While Axelrod has empirically shown that the strategy is optimal in some cases, two agents playing tit for tat remain vulnerable. A one-time, single-bit error in either player's interpretation of events can lead to an unending "death spiral". In this symmetric situation, each side perceives itself as preferring to cooperate, if only the other side would. But each is forced by the strategy into repeatedly punishing an opponent who continues to attack despite being punished in every game cycle. Both sides come to think of themselves as innocent and acting in self-defense, and their opponent as either evil or too stupid to learn to cooperate.

As a Christian, I want to promote love, understanding and cooperation.