is murder conservative?

the cbc today reported on the US evangalist Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of venezualan president Hugo Chavez. in their online article they referred to robertson as "The conservative U.S. evangelist and founder of the Christian Coalition."

it would seem to me that calling for the murder of anyone, let alone the covert ASSASSINATION of chavez, would preclude reference, in the very same sentence, to conservatism.

i ask again: is murder conservative?

to me, murder is the greatest example of extremism and radicalism. a quick look at miriam-websters thesaurus search for conservative in fact lists extreme and radical as antonyms to conservative. wouldn't these words more aptly describe a man who publicly calls for an assassination? any assassination?

but more important than how robertson might fancy himself, it appears that the (unnamed) cbc reporter who filed this article has apparently forgotten that he/she is not bound by robertson's views of himself, or by how his "conservative" media-friends in the states might describe him. he/she is free to use any adjective they please.

so why fall into the trap? is this reporter so influenced by the propaganda spewed forth each day by the american media giants as to be wholly unable to think for themselves in this matter? why are we not decrying the use of such a word to describe such a man?

it may be that many of pat robertson's other beliefs and actions could be called conservative, but to use this label, this pejorative, simply to gain sympathy with decidedly liberal cbc readers is a misuse of the term.

let's call the kettle black, when the kettle is, in fact, black. pat robertson is an extremist, a radical. in some circles, you might even hear him referred to as a terrorist. and who are we to argue with miriam-webster, who describe terror as: violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands?

it seems mr. robertson does, in fact, fit the description of a terrorist. but that can't be... they don't grow terrorists in the states, right?

RIGHT?

incidentally, both the toronto star and the globe and mail referred to robertson as a 'religious broadcaster' and without making mention of his "conservative" nature.

last note: it would appear that at least one person (venezualan president hugo chavez, himself) agrees with my assessment of robertson's statement. as quoted in the globe article, chavez states:

"The ball is in the U.S. court, after this criminal statement by a citizen of that country. It's huge hypocrisy to maintain this discourse against terrorism and at the same time, in the heart of that country, there are entirely terrorist statements like those."

comments?

/pk