Sarah Palin and Gabrielle Giffords

Everyone has heard the classic definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. But sometimes insanity expresses itself by doing something wildly different than what has been before.

The mass shooting in Arizona is a case in point. Interviews with the shooter’s former college professors at Pima Community College have indicated pretty clearly that he was barking mad, but not violent. He was unstable, but there was no evidence of being a danger to self or others. The fact that he was obviously off his rocker was a necessary, but not sufficient prerequisite for what he did. That is to say, he had to be crazy to do what he did, but there are plenty of people who run the spectrum from mentally ill through to pure looney tunes, and most of them don’t bring a loaded Glock to a political meet and greet event.

So we are left with the question: what drove the shooter’s behavior? In these cases, the insanity of the action is defined by the fact that it defies rational analysis. We’re never going to know why he shot all those people, beyond the fact that he was crazy.

There has been considerable commentary expended on trying to connect this tragedy with Sarah Palin. On the web site of her political action committee, there was a graphic that showed a bulls eye over the Arizona congressional district of Gabrielle Giffords. It has been claimed that this somehow incites or condones violence.

This is absurd. I have seen the graphic in question. It is actually a map of the United States with all of the states outlined. There are cross hairs drawn on districts considered vulnerable, because they voted for McCain/Palin in 2008, but elected a Democrat to Congress. If it was a photo of specific congressmen taken through a rifle scope, the idea might have some traction, but it is a graphic of the entire country.

I would say trying to connect Sarah Palin to the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords was crazy but I don’t believe that it is. After all, the commentators airing this theory are, as far as I can tell, diametrically opposed to her on the political spectrum. Trying to discredit a political opponent’s rhetoric by tying her to a dangerous, violent lunatic’s attacks on innocent people? It doesn’t take much rational analysis to understand that course of action.