Monday, February 15, 2010

Killer Amy Bishop and the Leftist Oddballs Who Defend Her

The Boston Herald has a piece on Dr. Amy Bishop, "‘Oddball’ Portrait Emerges"* (via Memeorandum):

As authorities searched for clues into what could have sent a University of Alabama neurobiology professor on an alleged killing spree, friends and family yesterday described Braintree native Amy Bishop as an awkward introvert on the brink of losing her teaching job ....

“She was an oddball - just not very sociable,” said Sylvia Fluckiger, a former lab technician who worked with Bishop in 1993.

Bishop acknowledged at the time being questioned in the bombing attempt of a Harvard medical doctor evaluating her on doctorate work, a professor with whom Bishop was known to quarrel, Fluckiger said ....

“She was quite cavalier about it,” Fluckiger said of Bishop’s description of her interview with police. She said Bishop “grinned” as she described being asked by cops whether she’d ever taken stamps off an envelope and fastened them onto something else. “I cannot tell you what the grin meant,” Fluckiger said.
Speaking of oddballs, this guy Steven Taylor is really steamed that I've highlighted his idiocy. And he again mischaracterizes the issues at hand: "Let me ask directly: do you think that a political motive is evident here?"

Actually, I've never claimed she had political motives. All I've ever said was that she's a "Harvard-trained left-wing professor." Sounds reasonable, considering the evaluation offered by one of her former students:

Neuroscience essentially turns into a bioethics class. She's a liberal from "Hahvahd" and let's you know exactly how she feels about particular subjects ...
But note something else: I responded to Steven Taylor at the comments this morning, asking (kinda snarkily) with regards to Malik Hasan, "No doubt one can only assume that you rebuffed political motives in these cases as well."

And my hunch was correct. See Taylor's essay, "
What to do About Hasan’s Religion?":

... unless we have evidence of a broader conspiracy, I don’t see how this is ultimately any different than any other mass shooting in US history: the acts of a deranged individual.
The "deranged individual" argument has proved to be perhaps the most monumentally stupid meme of the post-9/11 era. And Steven has even more of teh insight:

To this point, the evidence suggests that the Fort Hood shooting will fall into this category [of historical insignificance ] as well, with Hasan’s religion being part of his personal motivation, but with almost certainly no broader meaning than that.

All kinds of broader meaning, actually ...

The president announced a memorandum on November 12 last year, "
Presidential Memorandum on Inventory of Files Related to Fort Hood Shooting," obviously indicating the White House's belated sincerity on the murders. (See also, "Obama Wants Probe of Hasan Intelligence.") And of course just days earlier evidence emerged that Hasan has sought contact with al Qaeda, and -- surprise! -- the Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki had the highest praise for the killer. See, "Nidal Hasan Sought Contact With al Qaeda: CIA Refuses Congressional Briefing; Anwar al Awlaki, Hasan Mentor, Praises 'Great Heroic Act'." Recall that Awlaki was shown to have direct contacts with three of the 9/11 terrorists.

But of course, idiot leftists will still tell you that you shouldn't draw conclusions, even though Nidal Hasan handed out Korans the morning of the killings, and he sought spiritual guidance through chants of "Allahu akbar" — "God is great" — moments before opening fire on the innocents.

But anyway, back to the Huntsville killings. See Dan Collins for an analysis of the Amy Bishop case (with attention to the left's denialism): "On the Uses of Amy Bishop Anderson."


* I've corrected the title of the Boston Herald piece above. There's a typo at the original.


Steven Taylor said...

I can rather easily admit that Hasan's religion and politics ended up being relevant. All I was saying in that post is that just because he was Muslim didn't mean that it automatically meant that was what motivated the action.

Ultimately, the argument was about wanting evidence to support a conclusion. That's not "leftist" that's just being reasonable. Again, as someone with a Ph.D. you should be familiar with the concept of needing evidence to support a conclusion.

And really, how in the world you come to the conclusion that I am defending Bishop is beyond me.

My point has simply been that using this heinous crime to try and score cheap political points is wrong. It trivializes three murders and three attempted murders. Amy Bishop deserves the death penalty for what she has done.

You are the one, btw, who keeps using ideological/partisan terms in this conversation, not me.

Your usage of "left-wing" to describe Bishop is clearly an attempt to make a political point, else why continually use it?

Ultimately, I am not even sure what your point is.

And, by the way, if it ends up that she was politically motivated, I will be happy to acknowledge the fact, although the evidence to date seems not to indicate such.