buckeye, in answer to the last bit of your post, we made it nearly impossible to involuntarily commit people to mental health facilities in the 70s and early 80s. Reagan put the final nail in the coffin, but the policy of deinstitutionalization dates back much farther. That said, this guy's rantings sound no nuttier than what I hear from some of my more nutty winger family members.
It's no nuttier than the ever-popular birther bullshit, which is espoused by people on TV, either.
His main hangups appeared to be ones usually associated with the fringe of the tea party, Ron Paul, and Glenn Beck, namely goldbugism, the illegitimate flag, and all that other pseudo-libertarian hooey. I don't say that meaning that he was an adherent of the tea party or listened to Ron Paul or Glenn Beck, I'm only saying that you typically hear that stuff from people who identify with the libertarian right.
Eh, not buying it, man.
You can't seriously believe that far-righters (we'll call them) have mental issues tantamount to whatshisname. For one thing, that would be a gigantically large instance of dangerous mental illness and I wager that wouldn't play out well in light of the facts. Would also you assert that only the right harbors such nuttitude? That is to say, I bet you would. It's also a bit scary - you're essentially saying that you wouldn't be too surprised to find some of your kin out shooting up the city council. In fact, "no nuttier" suggests said kin might be even farther afield...
In any case, one never knows what kinds of things a crazy person will take to, sometimes it's something that seems entirely innocuous to the rest of us. That really gets back to my point - a person can't legitimately say that Glenn Beck's radio show was all the catalyst necessary to set that guy off. For one thing, nobody has complete enough information about him to say. Well, not in any seriously credible way.
Here's a sample of the tortured logic out there:
"Mark Pitcavage, director of investigative research at the Anti-Defamation League said his [Loughner's] writings were so formless that tying them to any coherent philosophy was impossible.
"Most of it is entirely unrelated to any ideology at all," he said.
Potok agreed on his website that Loughner was most likely influenced by ideas around him, rather than perpetrating a philosophy of his own.
"But at the same time, I think you can find clues to some of the ideas that have influenced him, and I think many of them are clearly coming from the extreme right."
"
Wait, what? Did a grown person in a position of responsibility really let that get into print? Good Lord...
Maybe this is all to say that one crazy person's actions do not define the nature of whatever philosophy/political belief one may be able to (however tenuously) link with them. That tenuous linking is merely convenient fodder for those seeking any available lump of poo to hurl. Not very convincing and it's a shame that's getting so much traction. What's that logical fallacy that involves only observing things in a light that bolsters one's own suppositions?
It is a horrible tragedy. It's not the gun's fault, it's not the magazine (NOT CLIP)'s fault, it's not even the loathsome Stormfront forum's fault (or Bush's), it is the ultimately inexplicable action of an insane person. How do we address the root of the event instead of festering over all this other stuff that's really just moot?
Shame about the way mental illness is handled. Is there anyplace or was there anytime when it was addressed effectively? Seems like we haven't come all that far from "village idiot" days in some regards.
