I've always thought that humor was a solid indicator of intelligence. And in politics, some of the smartest observations I've ever encountered came from very funny people.
For example, FrankJ of IMAO. He's a brilliant humorist, as well as a right-wing nut. But quite often, there's a concealed edge in his humor.
And sometimes, there's not even an attempt at concealment.
FrankJ is taking another approach to an argument I've made numerous times: that when it comes to political violence, liberals are passionate while conservatives are efficient.
Because the liberals are passionate, they tend to be quicker to resort to violence. For them, it's an emotional outlet. They aren't so much concerned with actually doing things, just that they be seen as doing something about what has them so worked up.
This is why violent leftists do things like smash windows, gang up to beat up people they don't like, hold riots, burn things, and attack the police. It's not about achieving anything with their violence, but attention.
On the right, the nuts are more concerned with results than perceptions. Their violence isn't an outlet, it's a duty. It's not recreation, it's work. They don't draw their satisfaction from the act itself, but in completing it.
Further, they tend to not want attention or publicity or recognition. Timothy McVeigh didn't issue press releases or make statements before he was caught. Eric Rudolph was content to let everyone think Richard Jewell set off the Olympics bombing.
That difference also explains why there's so much more political violence from the left. Hell, for some it's a social gathering -- The Weather Underground was almost a dating service; William Ayers was seriously involved with one of the members who blew herself up assembling that bomb intended for an Army Enlisted Men's Dance. He ended up marrying another member.
On the right, it's work. And very few people think of "work" as something you do for fun.
However, that means that when the Right does engage in political violence, it's likely going to be a hell of a lot more effective than the average Left violence.
And therefore, the right can be a bit "prouder" of its nuts than the left can.
In Greece, we can see what is pretty much an "anti-Tea Party" movement. Masses of people are rioting not to cut government spending, but preserve and even increase it -- despite the fact that the government is essentially bankrupt. And in those riots, they burned down a bank, killing three people -- including a pregnant woman.
Here in the US, in addition to the aforementioned Weather Underground, we have the black-clad, masked anarchists that show up at big gatherings. They vandalize businesses and pick fights with cops. And at the GOP National Convention in 2004, they attacked buses carrying delegates -- and planned even worse.
They talk big, and they even try big, but they just don't pull it off very well.
But back to FrankJ's point. As has been pointed out numerous times, immediately after the Times Square bombing attempt, there were precisely the sorts of things that liberals always decry after a major incident -- profiling, scapegoating, and denunciations of whole groups of people.
And it was the left who was doing it, who latched on to the initial reports of "white man" and "resident of Connecticut" and immediately leaped to the conclusion that, at long last, they'd finally got one of those psycho Teabaggers to go nuts and do something seriously violent.
When it turned out to be a radical Muslim with serious ties to terrorist groups who had become an American citizen, the disappointment was absolutely palpable. And many of the same people who'd been ready to round up every single Tea Party attendee immediately started publicly worrying about possible "backlashes" against Muslims.
In other words, they were worried that Muslims get treated like they wanted to treat the Tea Party folk.
I've been hearing about that possibility for nigh on three decades -- since the Iranian hostage crisis, long before 9/11. I've heard it from liberals. I've heard it from the terrorist apologists and unindicted co-conspirators of CAIR and other Muslim activist groups. I've heard it from liberals of all walks of life.
And I have yet to see it happen. Oh, there have been isolated incidents here and there (I recall one case where a shot-up Koran was left in front of a mosque, and another mosque had a pig's head tossed inside), but it just ain't happened yet. I've come to the conclusion that it's a diversionary tactic, intended to get people's minds off the atrocity that recently occurred, and instead on the defensive over accusations for things that haven't happened yet, and never happen.
No wonder the Left is trying it so hard. They've learned how well it works.
And it's all built on a lie. A damnable lie.