Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Amy Bishop Leftist Hate Politics

I've got a Memeorandum thread this morning, first time in a while.

It turns out just writing about the murdering proclivities of radical Obama-backing Harvard professors gets some folks on the radical left pretty angry.

Comrade Repsac3,
Commissar of State Security, People's Commissariat for Internet Affairs, who I thought put his Donald-demonology to bed, must have instead been lurking in the shadows, waiting for a chance to pounce. Here's his post, "Why Donald Douglas is a Scumbag." Yeah, noticing that a Harvard scientist who murders her faculty collegues for failing tenure will engender some emotions like that from folks.

And recall that Comrade Repsac3 attracts some of the most bestial commenters on the web. Here's this from "
The Original" (an attack monkey), who invested in a little hate-research over at RateMyProfessors:
What is truly pathetic about DD's RMP page is not the accusations of bias by several students but the number of shill posts obviously written by DD or an accomplice.

Note the number that give basic advice that any instructor would give - come on time; be prepared - and end in "...and you'll do fine." These are only the most obvious. Also notice the relatively large number of rating/comments and the middling scores. There is a strong extremity bias in student comments, especially in self-selected samples such as RMP. Instructors who do not shill tend to collect either relatively few ratings/comments or an above average count of positive/negative comments. Relatively large numbers of comments (as compared to the rates of others in the same department) and middling ratings is a tell-tale sign of balancing poor ratings/comments with shills. Spikes in the frequency near tenure or other decision dates are another tell-tale, as students are generally unaware of these.
Folks can follow Comrade Repsac3's links to RateMyProfessors to confirm The Original's suspicions. I don't read my evaluations, frankly. It's mostly disgruntled students getting their revenge. But Comrade Repsac gets his jollies over there, which helps kindle his warped hatred -- which is all he's got.

Anyway, I got a little additional attention for pointing out that leftists only politicize murders from which they can tar Republicans as evil racists. That explains the title of my post, "
Amy Bishop Killed Minorities: Leftists Silent on 'Racist' Rampage; Victims' Families Ask, 'Why Was She Still Teaching?'"

Uber-hypocrite Steve M., who gets my name wrong while attacking me, responds to the race questions:

You know what? I have no freaking idea whether there was a racial motive in these killings. I know that, when you dig into the past, the intended pipe-bomb victim was white, and Bishop's brother was white. Maybe David Douglas has an explanation for how those crimes, if she's guilty of them, fits his new theory of racism. Maybe back then she was trying to eliminate the white race, one whitey every few years, as a revolutionary act. I sure hope he tells us. He has such insight into the criminal mind -- I'm dying to know."
Okay, dying to know?

Then I'll just direct little Stevie over to Dag Blog's entry, "
Not About Tenure. Seriously" (with emphasis added):

Friday, at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, a biology professor named Amy Bishop murdered three of her colleagues and wounded three others. Two of the people she wounded are still in critical condition, and I offer my sincere hopes for their complete and swift recovery. The murderer had been denied tenure in the department, and media coverage has centered on the question of tenure. Tenure, that strange and exotic academic rite, is obviously the hook for this story, and the resulting coverage is appalling.

The New York Times headline for their story today (which doesn't deserve a link) is "At an Academic Pressure Cooker, a Setback Turns Deadly, Official Say." There's something appalling about the passive construction in that sentence, as if it's the "setback" that did the killing. But the story, with its emphasis on "the pressure-cooker world of academic startups" is worse. It also undermines its own angle: the killer's potentially lucrative biotech startup was going well. Meanwhile, Inside Higher Ed fautously links to an old article about faculty who have minor breakdowns after being turned down for tenure, as if one could compare a shouting incident or a distarught person climbing up an ivy trellis with cold-blooded murder. (No link for you either, IHD.) The general thrust of the coverage is that the tenure process is so painful and stressful that an otherwise normal person might snap and become violent.

Let me just say, as someone going through the tenure process: bullshit.

On the other hand, the media has had no interest at all in the question of race, although Bishop shot almost every non-white faculty member in the department. (She also shot and wounded two white victims, a professor and a staff member.) She killed both African-American professors in the department (one of whom was too junior to have had anything to do with Bishop's tenure decision). She killed the department chair, who was ethnically South Asian. A Latino faculty member was wounded. There may only be two non-white faculty left in the department. Whether she intended it or not, Amy Bishop effected a racial purge of the Alabama Huntsville biology department. But the press isn't interested in asking whether or not she intended it. Perhaps the question isn't exotic enough.

These murders are not about tenure. They are about Amy Bishop's moral failings. Those failings might or might not include racism. But a person who responds to a career setback by cold-bloodedly murdering three people, and attempting to kill three more, is not the victim of a difficult process. Amy Bishop is a horribly defective human being. Whatever complaints she may have had a week ago, she has forfeited any right to make them.
Jesus Christ!

Seriously. A "racial purge" of the entire Huntsville department! That's what I'm talkin' about!

But the silence on the left is splitting eardrums nationwide. You just can't talk about this stuff! A white Harvard leftist opens fire on a room full of minority professors and students. And we should
just STFU and not politicize it? Okay. Sure. Those leftists sure got me beat in the moral equivalence department.

My heart and prayers go out the families of the dead.

Hat Tip:
Kathy Shaidle.


Nameless Cynic said...

Wow. That's some pretty fascinating reasoning you're using there. Yeah, she must be racist. We'll just ignore the white guys she killed.

You quoted the eyewitness in your earlier post, saying, "She started with the one closest to her and went down the row shooting her targets in the head. Our chairman got it the worst as he was right next to her along with two others who died almost instantly."

I'll bet she even set up the seating chart herself, to be sure that she was right next to all the melanin-enhanced members of the faculty! Or maybe she moved them around right before her hearing! Nobody would think that was unusual, would they?

And you even point out that this is straight out of Che Guevara or the Taliban's playbook! Of course, the Taliban is a pretty conservative group, so maybe you shouldn't have mentioned them, huh? How about the Klan? They're racist, and they used to do mass lynchings!

...oh, wait. Most of them vote Republican, too... wow, this is hard...

I know! Maybe you should stop being an idiot!

courtneyme109 said...

Love to see a comparison betwixt Amy Bishop and Sarah Palin

Dave said...

I posted a short blurb about this lefty kook over at the Notepad.

I noted the following:

Ted Kaczynski, Bill Ayers, Amy Bishop...

You know, I think Janet "Reno II" Napolitano might want to consider shifting her focus away from armed conservatives and start keeping tabs on communist college professors, as they seem to be a far larger threat to innocent people.

Just a thought.

Dave said...

Brainless Cynic,

The Taliban is "conservative?" In what way, pray tell? After all, like you, they hate freedom, America, everybody in it (including you) and everything it stands for.

And I am not sure exactly what government school your abusive parents forced you to attend, but your crack about the KKK voting republican is demonstrable bullshit.

The Klan was, after all, founded by DEMOCRATS, and was pretty much populated by them for its entire existence.

Ever checked out the party breakdown of the congressional vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Had it not been for republican votes, it would have never made it into law.

-Bet they didn't teach you that in government school, did they?

Ever heard of Sen. Robert "Sheets" Byrd, D - West Virginia. Care to know how he got the nickname "sheets"? It wasn't because he spent a lot of time in bed.

I bet you are a big abortion supporter, too. Are you aware that the founder of Planned Parenthood (that organization that is the darling of far-left kooks like you) Margaret Sanger, did so in part to limit the number of black babies born in America?

Don't believe me? Then hear it straight from the horses mouth:


You are what we here in the south refer to as a dipstick, which is the polite version of dip-shit.

That means you are too stoopid to even make it as a useful idiot.


Nameless Cynic said...

Aw, Dave, why do you want to be such an inbred little idiot? OK, let's go backward through your ignorance.

The word is spelled "stupid." That's the legacy your homeschool gave you.

Your ignorant Margaret Sanger misquotes? They're lies, spread by the anti-choice people, who think that any sin they commit, including openly spreading falsehoods about what a woman said, will be forgiven. (Yeah, by the way - that's false, too. Jesus knows the truth.) Please note that one of the clips there uses an openly computerized voice as "Margaret Sanger."

And meanwhile, what the HELL does that have to do with Ms Bishop and her attack on her fellow professors? Why do you feel the need to change the subject? Can't handle reality, Davy?

Yes, I've heard of Robert Byrd. He repudiated his Klan background. And what does that have to do with the topic at hand? Again, why are you trying to change the subject?

You really are an idiot, aren't you?

Now, let's get to your original contention.

The Klan was started by six Confederate veterans after the Civil War, in Pulaski, TN. Their names were John C. Lester, John B. Kennedy, James R. Crowe, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed, and J. Calvin Jones.

Yeah, you can probably find some people who claimed to be Democrats in the Klan. However, you should probably look up the term "Dixiecrats" before you get all high-minded here. (Sorry, that probably wasn't covered in your homeschool, was it?)

By the way, since your mom didn't pass it along in that particular lesson over the dining room table, you'd probably be interested to know that the breakdown of the vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act was as follows:

The original House version:[8]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)\

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

But, see, that's where it gets interesting. Because, remember where I mentioned "Dixiecrats"? Break the vote down by region, and it looks like this:

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

Are you seeing the pattern, or did Mom actually manage to close your eyes to reality there?

Oh, and by the way,
The Taliban is "conservative?" In what way, pray tell?

Gee, I dunno, Davey. How about you tell me?

- Religious conservatives.
- Believe that the State should be controlled by the Church
- Opposed to popular music, dancing, abortion, women's rights, movies, books, and any "outside influences" that might support any other interpretation of religion than theirs.

Is this sounding familiar, at all?

And, incidentally, I support freedom and America, despite your ignorant and libelous statements. I spent 21 years in the military protecting liberty from brainless savages like yourself.

Go back to the playground, kid. The adults want to talk.

Dennis said...

Nicely stated Dave. It always present a question as to whether one wastes their time responding to an obvious mental midget like Nameless Cynic, but you hit it out of the park.
This idiot sets up so many non sequiturs that it does amaze.

Nameless Cynic said...

Dennis - please elucidate vis a vis the non sequiter in question. Please let me know what I didn't explain clearly enough.

You small-minded moron.

repsac3 said...

American Nihilist tracked back with In reply to "Amy Bishop Leftist Hate Politics"