A couple of weeks ago this blog wondered how liberals could reconcile taking a hard line on men who take sexual advantage of women while at the same time defending Julian Assange from the thinkly disguised political attack on him and WikiLeaks.
Now here is another conundrum, this one for the Right.
They are always banging on about the dangers of too much freedom of speech infecting the brains of the young and the unbalanced. Clause 28 was imposed on schools because of the terrible threat that children could be turned into homsexuals simply by having it explaned to them.
Similarly they blame the liberal media (such as it is) for unleashing a flood of pornography and violence on the nation by dealing with it in an open way.
So presumably they would abhor anyone who encouraged launching a violent attack on politicians.
Afraid not - at least, not when the person doing the attacking is Sarah Palin.
Two months after she produced advertising with gun sights superimposed on various liberal Democrats, one of them has been shot through the head and nearly killed.
Yet the Right has risen up to protest that it is not Palin's fault nor Fox News's, nor any other ultra commentators.
The person who shot Gabbi Giffords is clearly deranged but would he have done it without being urged to by Palin?
If he wasn't affected by her blatant incitement, why should anyone else, stable or unstanble, be encouraged to do anything they wouldn't have done anyway?