Anyway, Robert Stacy McCain's been on the case, for example in his piece yesterday, "‘Random Tragedy’ Not So Random: Socialist Serial Killer Amy Bishop." And now he updates with more, "‘Almost Never’ Is Once Too Often." It turns out that Dr. Joyner's getting some grief over his "balanced" analysis on the matter, although he reiterates his main point, "As I’ve previously noted, her politics seem rather irrelevant."
And they would be, except that as soon as we have a high-profile murder anywhere in this country, speculation immediately focuses on political motives. Leftists have no problem looking at the political affiliations of a James von Brunn or a Scott Roeder. But as soon as we have a Malik Nadal Hasan or an Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab we can't jump to conclusions!
And frankly, my initial post was a cut-and-paste job with no original commentary. Being "Harvard-trained" is almost clue enough as to Professor Bishop's ideology, and while a posting or two at RateMyProfessors is statistically insignificant, that fact alone doesn't preempt discussion of her political positions.
In any case, with reference to late reports on Dr. Bishop, I think my good friend Dave in Boca pretty much nails it:
Turns out she shot her brother in MA twenty-some years ago fatally with three bullets, but the [then] DA [now] Dem Congresscritter Delahunt didn't think that was worthy of a trial & the case was DROPPED. I guess he recognized another libtard in Amy & let her go free to get her PhD in bioethics/neuroscience & kill three more people---this will be ignored by the MSM, and she will be protected from excessive investigation by the Dem criminal racket squads.
Steven Taylor, is now desperately back-tracking after the additional evidence Dr. Joyner was asking for has proved Bishop's critics right.
ReplyDelete???
I am not sure where I am back-tracking (or doubling-down). As faculty you know full well that student evals are to be taken with a grain, if not shaker, of salt. To base much of anything off of one comment on RateMyProfessors.com is quite the stretch.
Beyond that, I have seen nothing that suggests her actions were politically motivated or that her politics were at all relevant (which we really don't know what they were in the first place).
Even if she was a card-carrying member of the Socialist Party of America, I see no evidence that the murders she committed were about politics.
"As faculty you know full well that student evals are to be taken with a grain, if not shaker, of salt. To base much of anything off of one comment on RateMyProfessors.com is quite the stretch."
ReplyDeleteDid you actually read my post, Steven? I did not rely on RateMyProfs in my initial entry, and I have no clue if Bishop's socialist or not. As I note at this post:
"And frankly, my initial post was a cut-and-paste job with no original commentary. Being "Harvard-trained" is almost clue enough as to Professor Bishop's ideology, and while a posting or two at RateMyProfessors is statistically insignificant, that fact alone doesn't preempt discussion of her political positions."
You mischaracterized what I wrote in your first post, and now you're whining?
I have no clue if Bishop's socialist or not
ReplyDeleteUm, the title of your post is "Socialist Serial Killer Amy Bishop."
You have to admit, that tends to color the way one interprets the post.
And yes, you downplay RateMyProfessors.com and yet the only source (to my knowledge) of any reference to her as a socialist comes from that site.
Beyond any of that, I still don't see any evidence of a political motive for the attack and I maintain what I say over at my site: trying to make this into partisan politics is petty and cheap.
I am not sure how I mis-characterized your first post--I linked to it as example of a reaction to the shooting that tried make a political point. The title of that post calls her "left wing" which not only assumed facts not in evidence, but irrelevant ones at that.
How any of this, by the way, is whining is beyond me. Looks more like a conversation (at least I haven't asked you to STFU).
Let me ask directly: do you think that a political motive is evident here?
Don, thanks for the hat tip. As for Bishop, like many ideologues, she appears to not have been very smart/diligent/organized & probably shouldn't have got her PhD from Harvard. Maybe the pipe bomb she sent one of her profs there scared the cowardly craven socialists on that august institution's faculty [of which my brother-in-law is one] into giving her the doctorate.
ReplyDeleteAs I said previously, I don't expect Delahunt to get in any trouble over his slipshod handling of the killing of Bishop's brother. Coakley thought she could skate by protecting a connected Somerville cop & Bishop's dad was a local Dem straphanger in the machinery the Dems use to extort taxes from peaceful citizens to do stuff like Big Digs.
The institutional crime wave in MA known as the Dem Party takes care of its Congressional & Senate members, as those who remember unindicted DUI manslaughterer Teddy the Fat & his sad victim, Mary Jo Kopechne, can well attest.
Libtards are cringing whiners and murderous backstabbers at the same time, and Bishop had the guts to actually carry out her final murder in public.
Steven: It's you who are jumping the gun. I've never said she was socialist. The post title is a riff off R.S. McCain. Besides you're conveniently avoiding my argument at this post, e.g.: "Leftists have no problem looking at the political affiliations of a James von Brunn or a Scott Roeder. But as soon as we have a Malik Nadal Hasan or an Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab we can't jump to conclusions!" No doubt one can only assume that you rebuffed political motives in these caseas well.
ReplyDeleteI was going to tell you about the bombs she mailed - but Dave beat me to it!!
ReplyDeleteOk, so I guess what I have learned is that I should not take seriously words used in your titles.
ReplyDeleteMy point remains: we have no reason to assign political motivations to the killings, and yet you are clearly trying to make a political point where there isn't one to make.
This notion that because in the past there have been shooters over whom the press have behaved one way or another means that it is okay to then speculate here is petty and trivializes the actual event.
BTW, if you don't think there are any political motives and all of that, why do you think I am "eating crow" and should shut up? You aren't making any sense.
The fact that in the past politics was either the motive for a shooting or handled by the press/"leftists"/whomever doesn't mean that this is a chance for payback of some type.
As a generic point, it seems that the political leaning of a person who perpetrates a crime are really only relevant if they motived that crime.
Clearly, political motives were relevant to all the others you note. There is no evidence to suggest that this attack fits into that category. As such, I am not sure what your point is.
Steven: Let's just call it a day. I've written a brand new post on this, 'Killer Amy Bishop and the Leftist Oddballs Who Defend Her>'.
ReplyDelete