Two Lists on Political Violence

Several days ago I saw a list documenting primarily right wing political violence. I wanted to post and talk about it, but was concerned about commenters reactions and demand for balance because there wasn't a left wing counter-part that I was aware of. Now we have one from Michelle Malkin. Both lists have big problems with them, but here they are:

- Michelle Malkin's "The Progressive Climate of Hate: An Illustrated Primer"
- The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence's "Insurrectionism Timeline"

Some concerns:

1. The "Insurrectionism Timeline" is pretty broad ranging, including a lot of NRA/gun rights points that I think have nothing to do with the question of political violence. If I wrote or was editing this, I'd cut all those out.

2. Malkin's list, similarly, has a lot of simply angry campaign rhetoric (for example, a monkey crapping on John McCain's head). My response - who cares??? Don Boudreaux did this recently in a little "but they do it toooooo" list of his. There seems to be a confusion between not liking an opponent and making allusions to political violence. Of course both sides act like jerks to each other. That problem, insofar as it is a problem, strikes me as being considerably farther down the list of problems.

3. I think with both lists people need to keep in mind that the actual actions are rarely embraced by either party - so let's not pretend they are.

4. Malkin's take on the military is also weird. First, she has a couple points simply on anti-war protests and puts them on the same list as violent acts. That, of course, makes no sense. In the case where anti-war protesters did attack or vandalize recruitment centers, this oughta be on someone's list of political violence to be sure, but it seems to me an attack on a recruitment center is an attack on both liberals and conservatives. Anyway, I just don't like Malkin trying to use that sort of thing to score points when there is no ideological identity for the military, and when the specific victim could come from any perspective.


What conclusions do you all draw from both lists? I think they're both troubling in the opportunism with which they were constructed, but they're also both troubling because the genuine content of each list is substantial.