« The Tennesse Floods - How You Can Help | Main | Bus Bomb Scare In New Hampshire »

Listen To The Funny Man

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.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (15)

"they [liberals] were worri... (Below threshold)

"they [liberals] were worried that Muslims get treated like they wanted to treat the Tea Party folk."

Excellent point!!

"they [liberals] were wo... (Below threshold)

"they [liberals] were worried that Muslims get treated like they wanted to treat the Tea Party folk."

I thought so too.

Maybe it's time to 'round u... (Below threshold)

Maybe it's time to 'round up the left'. November is coming.

Good thing Lee Ward's not i... (Below threshold)

Good thing Lee Ward's not in charge of national security. The gulags would be bulging at the seams by now...

Why the sympathy from the L... (Below threshold)

Why the sympathy from the Left for muslims????
Everything the Left stands for, the muslims are adamantly against: women's rights, sex free from religious beliefs, no punishment for crimes, etc. So, why....??? Is it just to be different from the Right. I just don't get it. Do they think if the play up to the muslims that the "alligator" will eat them last? And the left being so against religions and God, they decide to side with the most bizzare religion on this planet. What gives?

Maybe its because Islamofac... (Below threshold)

Maybe its because Islamofachists stand for everything the left sympathizes with.

Seriously, they are all for oppressing groups of people for their beliefs, skin color, sexuality, sex, organizational memberships, location (flyover country) and a myriad other classifications.

To the Democrats, what's not to like about the Islamofachists.

Further, they tend to no... (Below threshold)

Further, they tend to not want attention or publicity or recognition.

Perhaps because, as you yourself argue, the nuts on the right tend to take actions that warrant serious prison time or even the death penalty. Not quite the same as smashing windows.

And therefore, the right can be a bit "prouder" of its nuts than the left can.

Be proud that your side is more effective at killing people than the other side? I guess you take what you can get.

I have YET to hear the word... (Below threshold)

I have YET to hear the word ISLAM or ISLAMIC from the MSM. Probably just an oversight.

But fighting terrorism take... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

But fighting terrorism takes a back seat to the Second Amendment for many politicians and personalities on the right. Talk about left wing loonies, the right wing might be for racial profiling, suspicious of the Islam religion, and not at all concerned that the constitutional rights or the Miranda protection afforded suspected terrorists or those lumped in with them, might be trampled ..except for the curious cognitive dissonance that they will defend the constitutional right of terrorists to buy and bear arms and explosives, even if it risks national security. SEE 'Terrorists who want to buy guns have friends on Capitol Hill'.

it was no surprise that pro-gun Republican senators on the committee such as Tom Coburn (Okla.), John McCain (Ariz.) and John Ensign (Nev.) declined to participate in the hearing. Also taking a pass was pro-gun Democrat Jon Tester (Mont.).

As various participants in the hearing had pointed out, the Government Accountability Office found that people on terrorist watch lists had bought guns or explosives from U.S. dealers 1,119 times over the past six years -- largely because the federal government has no power to stop them.

I apologize in advance if m... (Below threshold)

I apologize in advance if my thoughts are actually off topic. But there is an undertone to news reports that I find disturbing. It seems that Faisal Shahzad has been charged with "trying to use a weapon of mass destruction". Also the Hutaree are being charged with the attempt to use "a weapon of mass destruction". Does the term WMD mean nothing to these people? are they trying to tell me that Faisal and the Hutaree have them but Saddam did not? It is such an obvious exageration that I am aghast!

No Burt, Saddam didn't have... (Below threshold)

No Burt, Saddam didn't have access to 5 million automatic weapons in the hands of islamomaniacs. That whole charade was put to rest when Saddam's neck was stretched.

Steve,I don't hear... (Below threshold)


I don't hear any howls of outrage from you or anyone on the left over the fact that Faisal was interrogated by the FBI and gave up 'valuable information' BEFORE his miranda rights were read to him.

Since he is an american citizen who was arrested in America, I think he should have had his miranda rights read to him first.

Seems wrong to me that we read miranda rights to non-citizens detained in iraq/afghanistan, but not to an american citizen arrested in America. But then, I don't have the proper 'progressive' mindset. (Thank god!)

Kenny, that's because you e... (Below threshold)

Kenny, that's because you either aren't paying attention to what actually happened, or you don't understand the Miranda requirements.

Read up.


John,Perhaps you c... (Below threshold)


Perhaps you can explain to us what possible time-critical information could justify a public safety exemption when he was under surveillance for a while before his arrest, then arrested more than 50 hours after the failed bombing attempt, and was pulled off of a plane headed overseas?

If the authorities were concerned about time-critical information, why wasn't he arrested as soon as he was spotted?

Since he wasn't arrested immediately, but was placed under surveillance and only arrested one he had boarded a plane headed to Dubai, that sure seems to indicate the authorities were not worried about any time-critical information.

So what justifies interrogating him before his miranda rights were read?

Please share your brilliant insights with us!

Relevant! <a href="http:/... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Relevant! Ducking a bullet






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy