what he *is*
So much energy is being used in order to define the Tucson shooter. He’s a leftist, a rightist, a Tea Partier, a conspiracy theorist, an anti-semite, etc. And then there’s the super-category of insane, which has the wonderful property of absolving all social and political positions/movements.
Thanks in part to certain comments from a certain Professor Herring, I’m much more interested in the historical and material conditions of the shooting. Few of us may be absolved from those considerations.
I’m also interested in reminding us that
1) lots of people will use this debate on what the shooter is to score points against political opponents; we will recognize this (mis)use of debate only in those we oppose
2) US foreign policy creates conditions that are regularly and durably responsible for many more than 6 innocent victims. When’s the last time you and I cared about “innocent victims” or “collateral damage” when the US government was the shooter and the attack occurred outside US borders?
