Even the casual reader of The Observer can see that there hasn't been a whole lot of warm and fuzzy discourse in the paper lately. Most banter has been between the "you don't belong here" folks and the "Oh my goodness, like everyone here is so conservative!" crowd. Most of us fall somewhere in between these two camps, thank goodness. In fact, I even chose to make this column a bit more suitable to atheists and certain theology graduate students by using "goodness" in place of "God."

Despite my mushy, feel-good fence-sitting, I have to take issue with a particularly asinine comment made in a recent letter to The Observer: "The Democrats are far superior to the Republicans regarding race relations, the environment, and opposition to the School of the Americas."

Allow me to translate for the trust fund-brats, warmongers and other Republicans out there: because you do not support I-feel-your-pain, take-a-hit-from-the-bong legislation that only further complicates things, you are, in effect, big meanies. It's a good thing so many buy into this logic; otherwise Democrats would have to find another way to attract the vote.

Regarding race relations, there is little doubt to the leading contribution of liberals to the cause of civil rights in the 1960s. But taking a closer look reveals that party lines are not completely relevant. These so-called contributions by Democrats often amount to nothing more than flawed affirmative action programs and broken promises. Racism and discrimination have never been monopolized by either party, as some will have you believe. And it does little good to crow about your party's contributions, lest someone decides to point out a few minor holes in your argument. Out of curiosity, what were the political leanings of that guy Wallace who proclaimed "Segregation now, segregation forever"?

Environmental issues aren't likely to pick up strong support on the right either, at least not in the manner they are presented. Once again, the strongest case for ignoring Republicans' equal concern for the environment stems from the idea that not supporting ineffective legislation means not caring. We "greedy" types would like to see changes made without causing economic disaster or relying on anything Al Gore writes in his tree-petting diatribe "Earth in the Balance." This book, as many recall, lectured us about the evils of the automobile, resulting in wasting a lot of healthy trees to print half-baked horror stories. Unfortunately, it has not dawned or Mr. Gore to curb pollution (and political BS) by staying home instead of running around campaigning.

Most issues gravitate towards one party or another, at least in the eyes of the general public. Democrats are presumably skilled in race relations, education, interior decorating and dancing. Republicans are considered superior in crime prevention, taxes, skeet shooting and golf.

These are nothing more than generalizations, and buying into them gives us a harsh dose of reality when it comes time for presidential or congressional action.

To put it another way, saying that Democratic policies towards race relations and the environment are superior to those of the Republicans is akin to saying Wilt Chamberlain's "policies" towards his 10,000 concubines was good for gender relations. Both policies feature plenty of sweet-talk, but in the end, everyone gets screwed.

• Nothing but talk