My conclusion is based upon one indisputable fact. Mental health care and the expected living conditions of the mentally ill in the US are pathetic.

He was presumed to be reasonably intelligent in a very odd way. It wouldn’t take very long to discover that seeking treatment for his mental illness would have low chances of success. With his failure to “act straight” in community college he had no mean$ with which to secure a place in society.

So he committed suicide by cop; and failed.

How do we tell where illness stops and motivating factors begin? Certainly not by lining up in partisan factions and insisting that one or the other is primary.

Tell you what I did, for chuckles and because I have a firm belief in getting the views of people who know more than I do. I asked a shrink – one who has experience with profoundly disturbed people. I asked in a way that I intended not to imply my own view. The answer was that the expression of mental illness is likely to be determined by environmental cues. Nobody ever claimed to have a chip in their head controlling their activity until computer chips were a cultural artifact. Nobody claimed that aliens were controlling their thoughts until the possibility of alien life forms was widely discussed. Taking violent action against a member of a particular party with a gun is made more likely by a culture in which gun violence and violence against political opponents is widely discussed. For the mentally ill and the crank alike. So says the psychiatric pro.

In Vaughan’s review, he states:

“The Boston Globe has an excellent article on whether suicide bombers are largely motivated by religious fanaticism or whether some might have symptoms of low mood and hopelessness that encourage them to end their lives.”

The critical word is “or”. In Vaughan’s Slate article, he states that “We’re too quick to use mental illness as an explanation for violence”.

- Yet Vaughan lauds praise on using mental illness as an explanation for suicide bombers.

Its pretty clear from Loughner’s Internet ramblings, multiple public disturbances, etc. that he is severely mentally ill. Many people on the left are now trying to exploit this tragedy by linking Loughner’s to enemies on the right. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I read Vaughan’s Slate article as an attempt to bolster these attacks, to crack open the door for what another author aptly referred to as blood libels.

Suppose Loughner’s mental illness had nothing to do with his violence. And further suppose he was motivated by “political reasons” to some degree. How exactly would you distinguish the illness from the politics? This is a man who cites both Mein Kampf and the Communist manifesto as favorite books, and keeps a potted plastic skull in a backyard shrine. Yet for reasons of political malice, the pundits are now speculating wildly on how he was influenced by Palin et al. Armchair speculation into Loughner’s political views is deemed a legitimate line of inquiry, but questions about Loughner’s mental state are derided.

Oh, how the science suits the politics when convenient.