Jack Lail asks this question over at KnoxNews.com.
Well, let's look at the record, shall we?
Four Presidents have been assassinated, three Republicans and one Democrat, Lee Harvey Oswald can not be described in any way as a conservative.
Looks like it's safer to be a liberal than a conservative in America.
Now before all the liberals howl with outrage, let me point out that this is obviously not a fair test. I've taken one small example of political violence, one certain to induce strong emotional responses, and I'm extrapolating a threat to a much larger group.
Sort of like what Jack is doing, isn't it?
Jack defends his piece by writing in the comment section:
I said that some in the national media (and not from obscure publications) are raising issues about being liberal in America.And I backed that up with examples.
But beyond that the links included in the article contain a range of perspectives.
Sorry, Jack, but I don't buy that defense. First, the title of the article says that a question has been raised, but the ones you choose to quote don't ask anything. The question, in their minds at least, has already been answered. It is dangerous to be a liberal, and it's all Rush Limbaugh's fault. Second, you claim that there is a wide range of perspectives linked, but you didn't quote any of them and you chose some pretty egregious examples to use, most notably the Guardian piece. Finally, the question is absurd on it's face. Trying to pull rational conclusions out of the irrational acts of an irrational man is futile at best and dangerous at worst. Programmers have a saying, "Garbage in, garbage out."Using Adkisson as a single data point to extrapolate a general trend is a wonderful example of that principle.
On the other hand, right now Jack's story is the 5th most e-mailed and 2nd most commented on the KNS website.
Posted by Rich at August 3, 2008 11:28 PM | TrackBack