It seems that the Batman Shooter may be a neuroscientist that went haywire.

So will the media issue numerous exposes and reports how this individual had likely been subjected for years to evolutionary dogma how human beings are nothing more than an accidental conglomeration of chemicals and electricity?

Leftists will remark that such insinuations are offensive and irresponsible.

But are such claims any more so than those of ABC news correspondents hoping that the act of terror was Tea Party related?

Such an insinuation was bandied back and forth between Brian Ross and George Stephanopolous.

If the gunman had been named Abdul Hassan, would this journalistic outlet had latched onto the first one they could find especially if an activist with the local chapter of CAIR?

Thinking from more conservative voices was no less muddled.

Responding as additional information was made available to the general public, Brain Wilson of WMAL radio remarked it was good news that it seemed likely that the shooter was a “lone wolf” not connected to international terrorism.

But how is a victim any less mangled or dead if shot by a loner or by someone more inherently group oriented such as a member of a gang or terrorist organization?

Sophisticates will opine that this deed does not rise to the level of terrorism.

But why not?

When I first took an interest in this subject over twenty years ago, terrorism was defined as an act of violence committed for the purposes of garnering attention to get people to alter their behavior or shift their perceptions.

If not terrorism, what else do you call an attack with the purposes of attaching forever in a sick and twisted way one’s name to one of America’s most beloved cultural icons and literary characters?

by Frederick Meekins