Friday, February 19, 2010

Stupid conclusions about murderers

It really is getting quite aggravating to see a rush to categorize the author of each new atrocity in order to cast blame on one's ideological opponents. So we saw people on the right gleefully pointing out that Amy Bishop who murdered three biology professors in Huntsville was reportedly obsessed with Obama. Now we have a rush to characterize the guy who flew a plane in the IRS building is a tea partier, when, in fact, the screed that he posted on the internet before boarding his plane was full of rants against George Bush, Catholics, and private health insurance.

There is something particularly despicable about trying to draw conclusions from a single nut in order to paint all the people you opposes politically with the same brush. We don't need to line up murderers by ideology with the left having to claim Lee Harvey Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan and the right having to claim Yigal Amir, the guy who shot Yitzhak Rabin.

The same sort of people who tell us that we shouldn't draw conclusions about Muslims because of Major Hassan's murderous rampage at Fort Hood, now want to connect every newest atrocity to the right. That's just silly. The left is quick to tell us not to generalize from specific examples when it comes to global warming and that it is only ignorant fools who would confuse a single cold and snowy winter with a general trend in climate. I agree. We shouldn't confuse weather with climate because a few anecdotal examples don't tell us everything we need to know about the nation's climate.

The same is true for an isolated nut. Just because tea partiers object to the leviathan growth in government that we've witnessed in the last year doesn't mean that some guy who hates the IRS is part of that movement.

And those who object to conservatives tying Hassan to radical Islam shouldn't be quick to jump to conclusions that the tea party movement inspires murderous attacks because a guy wanted to kill IRS agents.