In Iraq, throwing them at the actual bad guys?

It would be more intellectually honest to describe the San Francisco molotov-tossers as radicals of the American left, no? Of course it would. Therefore you should be soliciting examples of American radical right violence, not simply "conservative protesters initiating violence." Thus I give you your "bomb-tossers" from the past 15 years...and a few gunmen thrown in to boot:

1995: Murrah Federal Building bombing, Oklahoma City, 168 dead

Abortion clinic shootings; 10 incidents between '93 and '98, 7 dead, 11 seriously injured.

Eric Rudolph: 1996 Atlanta Olympics Centennial Park bombing, 1997 bombings at an Atlanta gay nightclub and abortion clinic, 1998 abortion clinic bombing in Birmingham. Overall: 2 dead, more than 100 injured.

Makes the SF bomb-tossers look like amateurs.

Shall we list all the ELF activities and the like? The Weather Underground? There are and have been more than a few leftist terrorist attacks in the last few years.

The point isn't that there aren't wierdo wackos who will resort to violence on both sides. The point is that the right vilifies and ostricizes those who do violence in the name of politics, while the left glorifies it. When was the last time you saw even a fringe right wing protest devolve into a spasm of violence? The left does it all the time.

Violence at protests? Maybe not since the protests in south Boston, and of course Selma, etc. Violence among the right wing is at a more personal level, whether threatened or real.

Ask anyone who works at planned parenthood, or is openly gay, how "safe" they feel.

Religious conservatives have also blocked the distribution of a vaccine which can prevent cervical cancer (which my sister-in-law almost DIED FROM) because they fear it would promote sexual activity. I would call that violence, just in another form...

"Violence at protests? Maybe not since the protests in south Boston, and of course Selma, etc."

Ahh, good. So we agree that the celebration of violence in political gatherings in present times is a liberal/leftist thing.

"Violence among the right wing is at a more personal level, whether threatened or real."

Truth be told, there are equal threats by left wing wacko individuals. Ask anyone doing medical research whether they feel safe from the ELF/PETA folks. Loggers who feel threatened by tree spiking, etc. Again, the left celebrates and encourages (or at the very least doesn't discourage) these acts of violence by similary inclined individuals. The right actively protests those who do violence in their name.

"Religious conservatives have also blocked the distribution of a vaccine which can prevent cervical cancer (which my sister-in-law almost DIED FROM) because they fear it would promote sexual activity. I would call that violence, just in another form..."

Not true, yet again. What the groups oppose is making it mandatory for teenagers as it may send the wrong message. Consider the message that the effectiveness of antibiotics against typical STDs of the 70s sent as to promiscuity and you can see the risk. Then contemplate that the vaccine is only effective against two of the strains of HPV running around now. Those two strains are the most prominent, but by no means the only strains out there. If I may quote from the AP: "Merck is continuing research on Gardasil and will soon report on four years of follow-up on women in the current study. The company also will explore whether the vaccine's effectiveness wanes over time. Barr noted that some women in the study developed dangerous precancerous lesions caused by HPV types other than 16 and 18." (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051006/D8D2H5CG8.html) This is a good start, but no magic bullet.

Personally, I would want my kids vaccinated, but I can see their points.

I will have to look up that vaccination information later; it still should not be blocked, however.

I think the lack of violence at conservative protests/vigils is more a reflection of their current ascendancy than anything else. There was plenty of reactionary violence, often as state instruments (police, national guard) when liberal ideas were emergant and setting the national agenda. Even during the Clinton presidency, we saw the militia movement (not violent in and of itself, but the potential start of a longer path to violence), and I can remember at least one prominant talk show host advocating violence against the federal government (that wing-nut from the Nixon presidency ... forgot his name) as a consequence of Ruby Ridge and Waco. Mainstream pundits were constantly bringing up a Jefferson addage which defended violent revolution for the cause of liberty as well. And when you see tshirts and bumper stickers along the lines of "plant a tree hugger" or "liberal hunting permit" it makes me thing that violence is not far under the surface.

I tend to see right wing violence as the more dangerous of the two, as historically it has often been directed against personal safety, while mainstream lefty violence, if that phrase can even be justified, has been more centered on property damage (McDonalds, Et. Al).

"I think the lack of violence at conservative protests/vigils is more a reflection of their current ascendancy than anything else."

There is some of that, no doubt, but I don't recall seeing bomb throwing violent protests at antiabortion rallies. The right-wing violence tends to be small and unorganized and composed of radical losers.

Much of the difference may well have to do with the subculture of the various movements. Since the 30s the left has been drenched in the rhetoric of revolution, courtesy of the Marxists. Even today from the liberal wing we often hear cries of "Fight the power!", much less what we hear from the leftists who advocate more violent "revolution."

"Even during the Clinton presidency, we saw the militia movement..."

Yes, we did. But the militia movement seemed to be more about defending themselves against what they saw as an immenent government threat against their persons. The leftist violence today is promulgated on the threat of government policies they dislike, and there's quite a difference there. Organizing for self defense is quite different than organizing for violent assaults because of ideological reasons.

I believe the "wing-nut" you're talking about is Buchanan, but I don't recall him ever calling for violent action against the Administration. As I recall he warned it would be possible or probable. Do you have a more direct quote? I'm just curious. Besides, have you noted exactly how well he's viewed by the Right? He's not exactly a luminary nor a part of any movement, nor a leader of intellectual thought. He's far more marginalized than Sharpton, who seems to still justify his inciting a mob to a lethal racist attack.

"I tend to see right wing violence as the more dangerous of the two, as historically it has often been directed against personal safety, while mainstream lefty violence, if that phrase can even be justified, has been more centered on property damage (McDonalds, Et. Al)."

I would say that it's more likely that the right wing and their nutjobs are just more capable ;-) To be a bit more serious, you're right in that the current crop of nutjobs is more able to carry out violence, but we can't discount the ability of folks like the SLA, Black Panthers, Weather Undergrond and the like. But note again: the right wing violence is onesy-twosy lonely loser types, while the left wing violence today is more organized.

And before you go minimizing the threat of the lefties, it's only a matter of time until those Molotov cocktails seriously hurt or kill someone. Strangely enough, the more liberal news media dislikes covering serious injuries that come from tree spiking and the like. I know many loggers from the more remote regions of the Northeast and Northwest who are frightened of entering areas that lefties have been protesting in: kickback from hitting a spike isn't safe and can be lethal. Not to mention the threat arson poses to those asked to fight the fires or those who may have been in the building in the case of the PETA spinoffs like ELF.

Do check out the issue of the vaccines, though. It's an interesting and promising development, but no magic bullet.

"I tend to see right wing violence as the more dangerous of the two, as historically it has often been directed against personal safety, while mainstream lefty violence, if that phrase can even be justified, has been more centered on property damage (McDonalds, Et. Al)."

Uhm.. Did you ever hear about the historically tens of millions killed by Russian, Chinese and Cambodian communists? And before you mention Hitler, remember that the party was called the National-Socialist (Nazi) Party and they took power away from the right wing monarchists.

No, left wing violence is much, much scarier.