Confederate Yankee
February 19, 2010
Bishop Defense: Elitist Entitlement Syndrome
Like we didn't all see this coming:
Roy W. Miller, the court-appointed attorney for Amy Bishop, told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday that his client has severe mental problems that appear to be paranoid schizophrenia. Miller discussed the case hours after hundreds of mourners attended the first funeral and memorial services for Bishop's slain co-workers.
Authorities said three more people were hurt when Bishop pulled out a handgun and started shooting during the routine meeting with colleagues last Friday. Charged with capital murder and attempted murder, she is being held without bond.
Miller said Bishop's failure to obtain tenure at the University of Alabama in Huntsville was likely a key to the shootings. Bishop, who has a doctorate from Harvard University and has taught at the University of Alabama in Huntsville since 2003, apparently was incensed that a lesser-known school rejected her for what amounted to a lifetime job.
"Obviously she was very distraught and concerned over that tenure," Miller said. "It insulted her and slapped her in the face, and it's probably tied in with the Harvard mentality. She brooded and brooded and brooded over it, and then, 'bingo.'"
So Bishop's defense is going to claim paranoid schizophrenia, even as it admits that the real trigger wasn't mental illness, but the arrogance and sense of entitlement Bishop acquired along with her Harvard degree.
It's the "I'm better than you" defense.
I somehow doubt that is going to win her freedom.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:58 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I don't know what the specifics are for the "insanity" defense is in Alabama, but in NY, they explicitly (by statute) exclude those who are psychopaths or sociopaths from asserting a "not guity by reason of insanity" defense.
Can't wait for the prosecutors psych expert to get a chance to poke around in her head. She is not a paranoid schizophrenic, she's a psychopath, she knew what she was doing was wrong but still did it. She took the steps to acquire a handgun, go to a range to practice shooting it, and waited for an oppportune moment to assassinate her boss and co-workers because things did not go her way.
Posted by: Penfold at February 19, 2010 09:42 AM (1PeEC)
2
No, but it certainly entitles her to free membership in the Democrat party
Posted by: henry green at February 19, 2010 10:16 AM (yAzWq)
3
This looks more like HDS, Harvard Derangement Syndrome, it the most extreme form. I've only seen lesser cases. That's where someone who's been out of school for three decades can't dropping that they went to Harvard in almost every conversation. It almost always means they haven't done anything of note since then.
Posted by: NC Mountain Girl at February 19, 2010 11:08 AM (LVJDj)
4
The HDS (Harvard Derangement Syndrome) defense ought to play real well to an Alabama jury -- what could possibly go wrong with that???
just where is her court-appointed lawyer from? Harvard?
Posted by: MtnGote at February 19, 2010 11:29 AM (TBRoM)
5
It won't win HER freedom... it just sets up the next one down the line.
Posted by: Todd at February 19, 2010 11:57 AM (VqI8k)
6
solomonia has an anecdotal story of what it was like to live near this creepy women
www.solomonia.com
Posted by: rumcrook at February 19, 2010 12:43 PM (BXgFB)
7
id give the exact link but it was rejected as questionable content...
Posted by: rumcrook at February 19, 2010 12:48 PM (BXgFB)
8
I recommend months of electro-shock
Posted by: Neo at February 19, 2010 01:29 PM (tE8FB)
9
Sort of like the San Francisco Chronicle blogger Zennie Abraham who said Bishop killed the people because the evil white rednecks of Alabama drove her to it.
Posted by: Federale at February 19, 2010 01:38 PM (q3Oy6)
10
Well, it might get her freedom. After all, it could win her a ride in Old Sparky, and the end of that is a freedom of sorts...
Posted by: Laughing Wolf at February 19, 2010 02:00 PM (w2TmW)
11
Notwithstanding the fact that Amy dearest was a big O BOW MA supporter, that in itself should qualify her for an insanity plea!
Posted by: Navyman at February 20, 2010 04:24 PM (K2bb3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 18, 2010
How Do They Define Terrorism?
When Timothy McVeigh used a truck bomb to target the Alfred P. Murruh Federal building, the world swiftly and correctly identified the crime as a case of domestic terrorism.
Even after an
online manifesto revealed the pilot's motives for driving a small plane into a building housing IRS offices, the White House is
refusing to call the suicide crash an act of terrorism.
Other than scale, what makes Joe Stack's assault on a federal building any less a terrorist act than Timothy McVeigh's?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:41 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
At the time, pundits were asking why McVeigh didn't choose the IRS building in OK City rather than the Murrah Building. One question I remember reading was whether the level of sympathy for the victims would have been less if McVeigh had bombed the IRS rather than a building with a daycare center. I believe so. It's hard to get me to feel any sympathy when IRS is in the same sentence.
Posted by: twolaneflash at February 18, 2010 04:17 PM (svkhS)
2
Echelon III isn't really a "federal building" in the sense we're used to. It was a private commercial building housing real estate offices, software firms and a field office for a couple of government agencies. Regardless, his method of attack was not designed to harm a specific person, but rather a non-specific grouping of people in general, and that makes it an act of terrorism.
Posted by: TexasRainmaker at February 18, 2010 04:34 PM (FSLpr)
3
When do we decide that the election process is not working and that our leaders are actually our enemies? The One and his group will not listen. My Senator even turns her phones off in order to avoid our pleas. I really feel the rule of law is breaking down.
Posted by: David at February 18, 2010 05:11 PM (aTssA)
4
CY asked "Other than scale, what makes Joe Stack's assault on a federal building any less a terrorist act than Timothy McVeigh's?"
The easy, yet troubling, answer is that our politically correct administration refuses to label anyone, except right-wingers, conservatives, gun-owners, and "Tea-baggers". Wouldn't want to offend anyone by smacking a label on them now would we?
No difference between McVeigh, Stack, Hassan, or E.L.F. Domestic terrorists all.
Tarheel Repub Out!
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at February 18, 2010 05:34 PM (OQEcO)
5
Sounds to me he had a specific grouping of people in mind when he crashed the plane into the building: the IRS.
Posted by: kahr40 at February 18, 2010 05:35 PM (tHeks)
6
I would be more inclined to make that determination based on 1) the actual results or 2) the intent of the attacker. And, in the instant case, the intent was to crash an aircraft, flying at full throttle, into a building where he knew, or should have known, that human beings were at work and, therefore, would be killed or badly injured.
That, to me, makes it a domestic terrorist attack.
Posted by: Dell at February 18, 2010 05:45 PM (H/+W/)
7
Yes, this was a "terrorist act".
But the elephant in the room when comparing Austin with Oklahoma City is that Timothy McVeigh never expected to die that day, while Joe Stack, on the other hand, was driven to suicide .. a suicide he wished to share with those who, in his judgement, facilitated his desperation.
Posted by: Neo at February 18, 2010 05:48 PM (tE8FB)
8
Despite the last few paragraphs - where he makes a call to action - his manifesto really reads like a list of grievences. I'd lean toward his actions not being terrorism. Rather a desparate "lash out" at the government and others.
And not without some justification. The mission statement of the I.R.S. is, "to enforce voluntary compliance with the Internal Revenue Code."
Posted by: RBCinci at February 18, 2010 08:09 PM (dcD+i)
9
Ever since we have a president with a terrorist buddy who lives down the street, we don't call them terrorists anymore.
Posted by: George at February 18, 2010 10:13 PM (WA19M)
10
Obama better not call this terrorism, he's refused to call anything his muzzie buddies do terrorism, so he is at least to this point playing it even...Wait for the fallout though, eventually Obama or Biden will call the guy a terrorist and some on top of it reporter will nail him.
Posted by: Robert at February 19, 2010 04:45 AM (IEh7K)
11
I would submit that lone wackos don't commit terrorism, and that this was an act of revenge. Terrorism usually denotes some sort of organization with political aspirations. Stack seems to have wanted to go out in a blaze of demented glory, punching the IRS in the mouth on his way out.
Posted by: Pablo at February 19, 2010 02:04 PM (yTndK)
12
I'd go with Pablo's line of thought on this - also saw some comments from Ann Althouse on the matter that made sense - a key component of terrorism is the objective of 'creating terror', in an ongoing sense, towards a political objective. With OKC and 9/11, both shared this aspect - that it was a group of people, acting in an ongoing manner, with the capability to repeat/replicate the act(s) of violence. One nut job, acting alone, in a suicidal venture, isn't really an 'ongoing threat' when he takes himself out in his one and only action. He's done.
Unless there's an unrecognized/unnoticed 'Joe Stack is our hero' subculture out there willing to pick up his incoherent banner and replicate his self destructive act of frustrated futility, it's criminal insanity - not terrorism, per se.
Posted by: Wind Rider at February 19, 2010 02:47 PM (/+pN2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Domestic Terror, or Criminal Insanity?
Joseph Andrew Stack, an apparently out of work engineer and conspiratorial anti-government crank, burned down his house today before taking off in a small plane and crashing it into a building in Austin, Texas, apparently in a bid to wipe out an IRS office:
Officials are investigating whether a small plane that crashed into an office building in Austin, Texas, Thursday morning was an intentional act, an NTSB official told Fox News.
An NTSB spokesman, however, told FoxNews.com that "we can't confirm any of that."
Authorities said they have identified the pilot as Joseph Andrew Stack, a 53-year-old software engineer who lived in Texas.
The small single-engine plane crashed into a seven-story office building in Austin around 10 a.m. local time Thursday.
Stack left behind an rambling rant on the web site
http://embeddedart.com/, reproduced in full below:
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:02 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
One poor man's revolution...he could of used some help....
Posted by: Falcon at February 18, 2010 02:06 PM (/I/Y7)
2
This guy is obviously a lefty. When are the lamestream media going to start accusing him of being a right winger? It's only been 3 and a half hours, I predict it'll start before nightfall.
Posted by: NevadaDailySteve at February 18, 2010 02:24 PM (+xi30)
3
Perhaps a left-leaning Independent...Perhaps a Democrat, but even that's "iffy" from his tome. Certainly not a Republican and certainly not a Tea Party lover, either. His ax to grind appears to be mostly internal - within the government bureaucracy itself. Been there; done that....will never do it again!
Posted by: Dell at February 18, 2010 02:25 PM (H/+W/)
4
I read it as him putting down both 'creeds', and phrasing it so the similarity is evident.
Posted by: BobC at February 18, 2010 02:29 PM (SjfCX)
5
You'll also notice that he tried at least twice or more to set up his own entrepreneurial engineering consulting businesses, and rants continuously about the IRS, taxes in general, and the need for violence to remake the government. He also complains about military cutbacks, particularly because he worked in related industries. These are all classic right-wing obsessions.
He doesn't fall cleanly into any political category, but the claim that this was an "attack on capitalism" is mindlessly stupid, and poor reading comprehension. (For a more advanced reading test, try noting that the communism/capitalism quotes are obviously an ironic contrast - he thinks both slogans are lies. But just understanding the words would be a necessary first step.)
This is a sad display personal anguish and a confused mix of angry frustrations. It isn't obviously the product of any distinct political ideology, or even right or left slant - it has elements from all over the map. The only distinctly right-wing aspect to this situation that I can see is that, as usual, right-wingers can't understand simple printed statements, and jump unthinkingly into stereotyped reactionism.
Posted by: Kevin T. Keith at February 18, 2010 03:37 PM (S0Wa1)
6
How long is the president going to wait before he responds to this clear act of war against the United States?
Posted by: eddy at February 18, 2010 06:36 PM (9DAAP)
7
"A feature of pure terrorism is that the target is selected without regard to the identity of the people to be terrorized (or killed.)"
I'm sure once you think about what you've written here, nobreakfast, you'll wish you hadn't written it. But don't fret. Your theory of Random Acts Of Violence is only absurd if you disregard every act of terrorism ever committed.
Posted by: Mosestein at February 18, 2010 08:57 PM (fkbVt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Run Away! UN Climate Change Chief Bails for Private Sector
At least he seems to be able to see the writing on the wall:
Yvo de Boer, the United Nation's top climate official, announced Thursday that he would step down from his post in July to work in the private sector on environmental sustainability.
De Boer has overseen international climate talks for nearly four years, laboring without success to produce a legally binding pact to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.
His departure comes amidst uncertainty as to whether the 193 member nations of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change can produce a final treaty in Mexico in December.
"Working with my colleagues . . . in support of the climate change negotiations has been a tremendous experience", De Boer said in a statement. " . . . But I believe the time is ripe for me to take on a new challenge."
The "new challenge" is apparently to retain his credibility and ability to make money on "green" causes... which seems to be the primary driver behind many anthropogenic climate change fantasists.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:47 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Looks like he chose to exercise the "Democrat" option - the modern version of 'taking the Boeing'
Get the hell off the train before the wreck.
Posted by: Wind Rider at February 18, 2010 11:01 AM (/+pN2)
2
"in Mexico in December."
Haven't these people learned not to hold meetings during the winter months yet?
Admittedly they're stacking the odds by going to Mexico.
Posted by: SSG Jeff (USAR) at February 18, 2010 11:34 AM (zGCLY)
3
Mexico city can be kinda cold in the winter.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 18, 2010 01:47 PM (3GKCn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Much Ado About Nothing
HuffPo writer Sam Stein is having a hissy fit because an unidentified speaker at a Washington state Tea Party meeting engaged in a bit of flippant hyperbole, stating that she wanted to treat Senator Patty Murray like the character Jake from Lonesome Dove, and have her hung for running with the wrong crowd.
Was the speaker
really calling for a lynching? No honest person can watch this video clip and come away feeling that this woman was actually advocating Murray to be hung. It was obvious hyperbole, and a bit of political theater... nothing more.
Could Stein have argued that this exercise of free speech was over the top, without casting it as a death threat? Certainly.
But that wouldn't mesh with his goal of trying to smear all Tea Party activists for the words of one speaker.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:33 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
If only they'd hung Murray in effigy! That seems to be approved political speech on the left. At least, it is as long as it's them hanging a Republican in effigy.
Posted by: flenser at February 18, 2010 10:32 AM (f92KV)
2
I must disagree with you on this. I can't, in good faith, let it go. Hyperbole isn't an immunity to say any ole thing. Being angry isn't an immunity.
The "They do it too", isn't a good enough defense. We all know that Libs would love to hang Palin, Bush, Cheney, McCain, and US Servicemen in general. How do we know? Because they constantly scream it, hang and burn their voodoo models, and other Libs attack those who denounce it. I often confront jv-liberals to see if they are a-ok with this. I'm astonished that they proudly defend it.
When you go after Huffpo on this issue, it makes it seem like you're defending/advocating it.
What I'm doing is calmly and politely raising my hand saying "I'm firmly against hanging Senator Patty Murray. You should be too."
Posted by: brando at February 18, 2010 11:33 AM (IPGju)
3
It might not have been a good thing to say, but clearly it was not a real threat.
Posted by: MikeM at February 18, 2010 05:54 PM (30CMs)
4
brando:
Since nobody is actually calling for her hanging, your 'point' is meaningless.
Posted by: ECM at February 18, 2010 08:03 PM (nYKDd)
5
Hyperbole??? HYPERBOLE!!!???
13 coils wasted!
(sarcasm button "Off")
Posted by: Earl T at February 18, 2010 09:39 PM (ldMw8)
6
ECM, wait a sec. You're attacking the wrong person. I don't want to commit murder, because I'm a good person. I know that you actually believe that's meaningless, as you say.
But it isn't.
I actually do mean that murder is wrong. That's the point. With no sarcasm quotes.
But with truth.
Posted by: brando at February 18, 2010 10:17 PM (LjEkE)
7
Pictures are hung; people are hanged (killed by hanging by the neck.) Pet peeve.
Posted by: Mahon at February 19, 2010 12:30 PM (hPOpf)
8
Two words: David Carradine
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 19, 2010 12:45 PM (gAi9Z)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Duke Lacrosse Stripper Jailed
It would have been really difficult for her to do this if she had been in jail for trying to frame the Duke lacrosse team for rape:
Durham police arrested Duke lacrosse accuser Crystal Gale Mangum, 33, late Wednesday after she allegedly assaulted her boyfriend and set his clothes on fire in a bathtub.
Authorities charged her with five counts of arson, simple assault, identity theft, communicating threats, damage to property, resisting, delaying and obstructing an officer and three counts of child endangerment.
It is believed one of her children called 9/11.
You stay classy, Crystal.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:07 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
And if the lacrosse team allegation had been investigated soberly and properly, this item would never caught anyone's attention outside of her local area.
Posted by: MikeM at February 18, 2010 07:38 AM (30CMs)
2
Why did her kid call September 11th? Wouldn't it have been easier to call 9-1-1?
Posted by: SSG Jeff (USAR) at February 18, 2010 11:32 AM (zGCLY)
3
Didn't Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton start a fund to put this woman through law school or something? I guess that didn't work out.
Posted by: zhombre at February 18, 2010 12:03 PM (VPkIM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 17, 2010
The Hundred Jobs Challenge
Barack Obama is attempting to claim that his $787 billion pork-laden stimulus is a success.
Many critics consider it a costly waste.
So here is a simple challenge to President Obama.
Please provide America with a list of one hundred different permanent full-time private sector jobs that can
directly attributed to specific provisions of the stimulus.
You claim that the stimulus will create 1.5 million jobs, and that it has "saved or created" 2 million more, so documenting just 100 should be fairly simply, shouldn't it?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:43 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Don't hold your breath waiting....
The only jobs that have been "created" are thousands of GOVERNMENT jobs, which has the federal government now listed as the largest "employer" in the entire country. This from a President who said "I don't favor big government".
And the worst part? He plans to make it MUCH bigger.
Posted by: Dell at February 17, 2010 12:58 PM (H/+W/)
2
Isn't it true that most of the money hasn't even been spent? From my view, The One, has done absolutely nothing for the economy or the markets.
Posted by: David at February 17, 2010 03:15 PM (dccG2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Biden Blames Our System of Government For Failures of Liberal Ideology
Our government is the oldest continuously functioning in the world. Since the United States has been founded, France has gone through five Republics, Russia evolved from monarchy to communist state to its current iteration, and and every other nation on earth has watched it's form of government die, transform,or be reborn.
But according to Joe Biden, our form of government is
broken:
In an interview with CBS "Early Show" co-anchor Harry Smith, Biden was blunt about the nation's political system. "Washington, right now, is broken."
Having served in the Senate for more than 30 years, Biden has seen a fair share of gridlock in Congress, but the current version is the worst ever, he said.
"I don't ever recall a time in my career where to get anything done, you needed a supermajority, 60 out of 100 senators. You can block anything with 60 (votes).
"I've never seen it this dysfunctional," he said.
Biden is merely echoing a new talking point that liberal Democrats have issued in an attempt to explain away their failure to ram through unpopular legislation. According to the meme, it is the fault of our system of government that our socialist President and progressive Senate and House leaders have been unable to push through an economy-crippling cap-and-trade bill, a disasterous health care rationing bill, and a second costly, pork-laden attempt at stimulus.
Democrats, trapped in a community-based reality, simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that the
same failed radical leftist policies that they have attempted to ram through multiple times in the past fifty years. They are part of a bankrupt ideology that has never worked, no matter how many times it has been tried.
But instead of admitting their own failures, Democrats arrogantly insisted these failures are the fault of the American people, or a problem of communication. They cannot admit that they belong to an intellectually stagnant movement devoid of new ideas.
It is no wonder that they stand on the threshold of squandering their attempt to lead yet again.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:12 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
To quote a well-known politician and community organizer; "We're on the precipice" of total failure.
That which we were warned is "an emergency"..."can't wait"..."must be done now or it will never get done"...a year ago, languishes in the trash can on Capitol Hill. Democrats simply replaced it with more of the same, just with a different title. Stimulus failed miserably, so the next stimulus legislation gets the new name - "Jobs Bill", as though the fools think we don't recognize BS when we smell it.
About the only hope we have is maintaining a "HELL NO to everything" attitude and pray that three years goes by without having a George Soros coronation as King.
Posted by: Dell at February 17, 2010 01:07 PM (H/+W/)
2
The US government has been functioning longer than the British one?
That should surprise them.
I think you left out the word "Republic" there.
Posted by: SSG Jeff (USAR) at February 17, 2010 01:32 PM (zGCLY)
3
Jeff, Britain was run by a monarch when our government was founded. Now, the monarch is only a figurehead. Safe to say their government has transformed, too.
I love the Dems complaining about needing 60 votes to pass anything, since they're the ones who gave us the non-filibuster filibuster, i.e. invoking cloture on any and all Republican initiatives and appointees.
Posted by: Tim at February 17, 2010 02:41 PM (xq7pr)
4
I don't align myself with either of the two (the only two that matter) political parties in this country and I certainly don't support all of the agenda of the current administration.
Having said that, our system of government IS broken. It's just a matter of time before that truth is evident to all thinking people. The costs and the time associated with running a political campaign in the modern era has opened up our system to the corrupting influences of campaign contributions.
A politician simply cannot win an election, or even get on the ticket, without vast sums of money. As Senator Bayh has recently stated since his announcement that he won't seek another term in the Senate, both houses of Congress are in a constant campaign mode. There's no time for the people's business. It's all about raising money for the next election.
Furthermore, we are more divided as a nation than we have been since The American Civil War.
What's the solution? I don't know. I predict that within another decade or two we'll all know that the system itself needs to undergo radical transformation. In fact, it's doing so as we discuss this topic now. The America that so called conservatives long for and pine for is long gone. And, that America ain't coming back.
That isn't to say that what lies ahead is necessarily a bad thing, it's just different than the America of the past. We adapt or we fail. Simple as that.
Posted by: Dude at February 17, 2010 03:38 PM (5gxhz)
5
The damn old Constitution won't let them do it like they want to. Just wait until we get a group of judges in there who actually enforce the thing!
Half the power grab from the last 150 years will be stripped frm the Feds. God Speed that great day. It will be that or guns.
We will have our country back.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at February 17, 2010 04:08 PM (brIiu)
6
It seemed to me that the government was working fine 2 years ago, and while it does need some changes (campaign finance reform, tax code, and earmark reductions). The current system needs two parties to work together, that eases things in both House and Senate. The party lines vote disturb me.
Posted by: Picric at February 17, 2010 04:14 PM (oKOn9)
7
Our Government has been broken since Pelosi took over in 2006. You look at the dive chart and you can see it plain as day. The "Government" was doing what it was supposed to do in regards to America's citizens from Reagan, even most of Clinton's years up through the first 4 years of GWB. Yeah I know Iraq, the patriot act, Gitmo... but Inflation/economy/jobs/public safety/tax's and several other items were being addressed. The drug plan, was passed to help seniors it was a DEMOCRAT pushed issue and Bush gave in, Bush gave in to Immigration reform... Bush tried to work with the Dems, Obama is anything BUT bi-partisan and he is reaping what he has sewed.
Posted by: Robert at February 17, 2010 04:59 PM (IEh7K)
8
Robert, Are you suggesting that the extremely partisan divide that we're now experiencing is all Obama's fault? It sounds as if you're suggesting that the Republicans in Congress are trying to work with the president in a bi-partisan manner. IF that's what you're suggesting, I propose that it's time for a reality check on your part.
Posted by: Dude at February 17, 2010 05:52 PM (5gxhz)
9
Dude - Get back to us on that "the republicans are to blame" BS when the democraps start allowing the repubs back in the committe rooms...
Posted by: emdfl at February 17, 2010 07:18 PM (i8a3s)
10
Dude - I get a kick out you liberals. Your comments are proof of our failed education system. You think we are partisan in the here and now "worse since the civil war." WOW - you need to do some real research and look for front page stories from the 18th and early 19th century. Back then opponents were killed, houses and farms burnt to the ground, families executed and other such mayhem. Do the names Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr ring a bell?? Their pistol duel was strictly about politics. By the way Dude, the duel was in 1804 - just a few years BEFORE the Civil War!!! Wouldn't it be cool to see Joe Biden and Sarah Palin have a duel?? I bet pay per view would make a fortune.
Secondly - you seem to want to place all the blame on those "rascally republicans" - I guess you have selective memory of the disgusting partisanship and seditious comments for EIGHT years that George Bush and our military had to endure. I won't give you all the examples - you can explore them when you educate yourself on the 18th and 19th century partisanship.
Lastly, and I hope this doesn't offend you to much. My 50+ years of experience has led me to look at most liberals as either naive, ignorant or stupid. Two are fixable, one is permanent. Most libs have some of all three - I have "hope" that you can "change" and wake up to the real world and develope some common sense. I did - I once voted for George McGovern and twice for Jimmy Carter - I left my liberal FOG and started thinking FOR MYSELF and QUESTIONING everything that was being fed to my by a BIASED media - OH my GOD - there is that dirty word!!!!!
Posted by: mixitup at February 17, 2010 09:52 PM (Z21cb)
11
Dude, How about giving me some data that shows Obama, Pelosi and Reid have done ANYTHING in a bi-partisan way in this year? All we heard was "We won, so take it"....Well, after the losses the demorats have experienced, all of the sudden Obama wants to play nice...
Another thing you may or may not have noticed. Obama says" We have saved or created millions of jobs, and averted a disaster that would have destroyed our economy"
With that reasoning, GWB averted a disaster by invading/rebuilding and bringing democracy to Iraq. He saved or protected millions of lives by not allowing AQ a place to hang out and a dictator to party with...You buy that? Didn't think so but that's exactly the type of reasoning YOUR guy expects us to buy....Funny how all that Bush bashing your crew did for over 5 years is coming back to bite you guys in the ass.
Posted by: Robert at February 17, 2010 10:04 PM (IEh7K)
12
Dude said: "The America that so called conservatives long for and pine for is long gone. And, that America ain't coming back". "That isn't to say that what lies ahead is necessarily a bad thing, it's just different than the America of the past. We adapt or we fail. Simple as that".
Conservatives long for and pine for a strong national defense - living within our means - freedom - self reliance - taking care of those that are not capable. Dude, if that America is long gone, what lies ahead that you feel is not necessarily a bad thing?
Posted by: Rick at February 18, 2010 09:17 AM (GmIEI)
13
Another good rerason to ditch the lot we have in DC right now. Back to what made us great: Capitalism and the Constitution. Promote the first. Uphold the second. That means repealing many of the power grabs made by the feds in the last 150 years.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at February 18, 2010 01:51 PM (brIiu)
14
Rick said:
Conservatives long for and pine for a strong national defense - living within our means - freedom - self reliance - taking care of those that are not capable. Dude, if that America is long gone, what lies ahead that you feel is not necessarily a bad thing?
strong national defense: Check, we have that.
living within our means: Unlikely to happen regardless of which party is in power. I've not been able to find any evidence that would suggest otherwise to me.
freedom: Check, we have that, at least more so than most other places that I know of. What sort of "freedom" do you long for and pine for that you don't currently have?
self reliance: Please define in more detail. Like freedom, that's a pretty broad term.
taking care of those that are not capable: We're on the same page on this one, Rick! Unfortunately, due to circumstances beyond their control, more and more Americans are finding themselves in this condition. I'm not talking about lazy people, either. I'm talking about hard working citizens for whom the American Dream hasn't panned out too well. You know, our fellow Americans.
What isn't necessarily a bad thing for the future of America? A couple of examples that come to mind:
A single payer health care system that provides universal health care to ALL Americans.
More aspects of socialism that benefits the average citizen rather than the current type of socialism that we now have, which benefits a few at the expense of the population in general.
Posted by: Dude at February 19, 2010 03:10 PM (5gxhz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 16, 2010
Another Day, Another Obama Tie to Terrorism
Yeah, that's hyperbole... I don't think that Dear Leader would openly consort with a new terrorist every single day, and frankly, don't think Osama bin Laden could make that claim these days.
Even so, Rashad Hussain is at least the fourth or fifth terrorist or terrorist sympathizer that the President has had far
too close for comfort:
President Obama's new envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference, Rashad Hussain, is at the center of a controversy over remarks attributed to him defending a man who later pleaded guilty to conspiring to aid a terrorist group.
The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs quoted Hussain in 2004 as calling Sami al-Arian the victim of "politically motivated persecutions" after al-Arian, a university professor, was charged in 2003 with heading U.S. operations of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
The United States has designated the Palestinian Islamic Jihad as a foreign terrorist group as far back as 1997. At the time of al-Arian's arrest, then Attorney General John Ashcroft called it "one of the most violent terrorist organizations in the world."
Al-Arian pleaded guilty in 2006 to conspiracy to aid Palestinian Islamic Jihad and was sentenced to more than four years in prison.
Hussain may not actually meet the lower threshold of being "close" to the President, especially when compared to terrorists with which Barack Obama has directly spent time such as Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, or PLO sympathizer Rashid Khalidi, but the President is long past the point where he deserves the benefit of a doubt.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:37 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Obama wouldn't be able to get a Top Secret clearance with all the indirect connections to terrorists he has as it certainly establishes a pattern now (besides his first-hand relationships with subversives who intended to overthrow the government).
But then again, he already has, so does anyone really care anymore?
Posted by: Flyover Fred at February 16, 2010 10:47 PM (7r7wy)
2
@Flyover Fred at February 16, 2010 10:47 PM
And don't forget his self confessed drug use. Even casual cocaine use can cause brain damage, too.
Posted by: ytba at February 17, 2010 12:55 AM (JWUZR)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Family: Bishop Obsessed with Obama
Yes we cantankerous:
A family source said Bishop, a mother of four children - the youngest a third-grade boy - was a far-left political extremist who was "obsessed" with President Obama to the point of being off-putting.
This familial admission of her politics buttresses
claims made by students, one of which claimed "she is a socalist but she only talks about it after class." Another student wrote that Bishop, "She's a liberal from 'Hahvahd' and let's you know exactly how she feels about particular subjects."
A liberal college professor who wore her politics on her sleeve and who was
unable to deal with reality? Surely, you can't be serious.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:39 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
At the moment, there are just too many unanswered questions. Answers that I expect will turn this case into one of the most talked about in recent criminal history.
The husband's flipping and flopping on key points, the "borrowed gun", which the husband claimed to know little or nothing about, but wanted it out of the house "because of the children". The woman's visit to the firing range to "practice" mere hours before she put that practice to good use. The relationship, if any, between this woman's Mother - who was said to be a member of the "personnel board" for the city - and the prosecutor during the brother's shooting death. The missing case file, which is a red flag if there ever was one as to a possible cover-up of a crime. Many questions as to why no criminal charges were ever filed. Etc., Etc.
At the moment, Mr. Delahunt is the man in the spotlight. I doubt we'll get too many cohesive answers from the shooter. In fact, an Insanity Defense for her is a distinct possibility. The husband doesn't seem to be wrapped all that tight, either.
So that leaves Mr. Delahunt directly on the spot. His political career - in fact the rest of his public and private life - will depend greatly on what he has to say and just how honest he is in saying it.
Posted by: Dell at February 16, 2010 12:38 PM (H/+W/)
2
From an academician: You were expecting something different?
Posted by: Warren_Beatty at February 16, 2010 03:49 PM (RKUr7)
3
Waiting for book and film announcements.
Posted by: Earlg at February 16, 2010 06:44 PM (fe7bh)
4
I read that she was also obsessed with booster chairs.
Posted by: brando at February 17, 2010 05:48 PM (IPGju)
5
Too bad we retired Old Sparky a few years ago.
Posted by: 1sttofight at February 17, 2010 09:55 PM (jGwwE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 15, 2010
Confederate Yankee Now On Kindle
Lookie here.
I have to confess that I don't yet have a
Kindle, but it is on my tech toy list along with a netbook for my wife and an external hard drive.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:44 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Buy the Kindle, you'll love it. The Netbook is a great little addition to any home.
I've got both and would be lost without either. Oh yeah, I'm retired so I have plenty of time for reading and the internet.
Posted by: Chuck at February 15, 2010 05:09 PM (cJyXC)
2
Almost forgot. The external hard drive is not really a necessity. I use an off site backup for about 50 bucks a year. I have two externals and have not used them in years.
Posted by: Chuck at February 15, 2010 05:11 PM (cJyXC)
3
How do you do the kindle thing?
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at February 15, 2010 05:30 PM (KU4uN)
4
The Kindle was a gift from the wife. You get it at Amazon.com and download and read whatever you wish. It has it's own wireless hook-up and downloads a book in a matter of minutes, if not seconds.
I love it and books are much cheaper than buying hardback or paperback. If you see or hear a book recommended you can have it to read in minutes.
Posted by: Chuck at February 15, 2010 06:12 PM (cJyXC)
5
Bo -- how do you get your site on the kindle? I know what the device it.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at February 15, 2010 08:34 PM (KU4uN)
6
That's really neat! Do you get any part of the $1.99 monthly subscription price? I hope so...
Posted by: lady red at February 17, 2010 12:39 PM (9acdv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Tea Party of Nevada: Real Third Party, or False Flag?
I've seen several articles today and have read some comments about the formation of the Tea Party of Nevada and their intention to run an unknown against struggling Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.
As others have noted, there isn't a great deal of information online about the group or its principles... but there is enough to start wondering whether
the group is remotely serious, or just a bunch of cutups.
You need look not further than Barry Levinson to know that the group is a farce. Levinson, former attorney for
John Wayne Bobbitt is the Secretary of the organization, and holds a seemingly bizarre pedigree for a Tea Party patriot. According to his own blog, Levinson is a
disgruntled Obama supporter:
America is falling apart and we are watching it crumble. Obama is just another politician and not the savor we all thought. His idea of CHANGE is a band aid. Maybe, Americans need to rethink the way our government is run.
He's also a
Bush-hating conspiracy theorist:
I was thinking that if Osama bin Laden was captured early on or killed early in 2002 then, Bush's policies would have come to a halt.
Bush's administration lied to the public about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). How can we trust anything else they said? Maybe, the government is keeping his capture or death a secret?
Why?, in order to further the patriot act; other agendas; spy on US citizens and to create a cloud of fear and distrust. Since, the bombing of Tora Bora, Osama bin Laden has not personally claimed any other acts of terror. Why?
Now, I'm certain that there are a representative sample of disgruntled Obama fans among tea party attendees and certain there are conspiracy theorists, but I've not heard of many that were pro-Obama tea party supporters spouting radical left wing "Bush lied, people died" conspiracies.
There is also a Larry Lathum[sic?] listed in the filing. There is a
Larry Latham in Las Vegas with a conspiratorial mindset to match Levinson's. Is he the At-Large Executive Committee member that runs this
web site and
rabid supporter of
Zeitgeist: The Movie, a veritable cornucopia of conspiracy theories including 9/11 trutherism and allusions to a shadowy network of "international bankers" running the world? I'm not sure... but he fits the conspiratorial profile Levinson mirrors, so it seems possible, if not probable.
Others listed among the officers are more difficult to pin down online, but I'm going with a preliminary conclusion that if this group isn't a false flag operation designed to split the opposition to Harry Reid and mock the tea party movement, then it is a sad, silly example of why third party runs are doomed to failure.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:26 PM
| Comments (31)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"...mock the tea party movement..."
You could have stopped right there.
I fully expect a lot of that mockery as we get closer to November...and even in '12.
Posted by: Dell at February 15, 2010 03:42 PM (eV8BP)
2
I'm very glad you are watching for such things. I think we'll see more of this in the future.
Posted by: rk at February 15, 2010 03:43 PM (vsIqH)
3
Thanks for doing this research. My first thought when I saw the original article was: Best news Harry Reid has had in months! Could only be good news for him if it were really true -- splitting opposition to his re-election. So -- a plausible motive for a false-flag op if there ever was one.
Posted by: Arthur at February 15, 2010 03:53 PM (fr+qV)
4
Thanks, I've been trying to track these guys down since seeing the post. No presence on TPN or TPP, high probability of false flag.
Posted by: motionview at February 15, 2010 04:03 PM (22FgP)
5
Are you saying that Obama IS the savor we have been waiting for?
Ah, whatever. This kind of opportunistic remora activity is just not, um, sustainable in the current media climate. Like with Barry's multiple and continuing contradictions, this kind of foolishness is designed for yester-year's conditions. The only important thing, and the Yank seems on top of this, is to prevent legacy/agenda media from blowing it up beyond its merits. And they don't have the power to do that any longer. So let David Shuster or whomever declare a new age in the movement. It won't last a week.
Posted by: megapotamus at February 15, 2010 04:06 PM (x53hD)
6
Why is anyone even second-guessing the fact that Harry Reid is behind this? He can't get to 50 percent, no how, no way. So how's Harry to win? By lowering the threshold for victory to a number under 50 percent that is attainable. If this "Tea Party" gets 10 percent, then 45 percent (a much more do-able number for Harry) is a winning number. Five percent gets victory at 47.6 percent for Harry -- difficult but attainable.
Harry's a craft bugger.
Posted by: Rhodium Heart at February 15, 2010 04:12 PM (zYqP2)
7
Why is anyone even second-guessing the fact that Harry Reid is behind this? He can't get to 50 percent, no how, no way. So how's Harry to win? By lowering the threshold for victory to a number under 50 percent that is attainable. If this "Tea Party" gets 10 percent, then 45 percent (a much more do-able number for Harry) is a winning number. Five percent gets victory at 47.6 percent for Harry -- difficult but attainable.
Harry's a crafty bugger.
Posted by: Rhodium Heart at February 15, 2010 04:13 PM (zYqP2)
8
Sounds like Reid's plant to save his hide.
Posted by: ic at February 15, 2010 04:13 PM (PAqtC)
9
It's always interesting when these groups, right or left, tiptoe right up to anti-Semitism and then settle for describing that group as a cabal of "international bankers."
Posted by: Pat Patterson at February 15, 2010 04:17 PM (FHAOW)
10
Sounds like we've got a possible Paul-bot on our hands. Haven't heard many of them supporting Zero, but there's got to be one in every crowd.
As much as I would like to see Harry's greasy fingerprints on this thing, I just don't think he's got enough intellect to even conceive of a false-flag operation, much less pull it off.
Posted by: Fresh Air at February 15, 2010 04:26 PM (pxNOm)
11
It's Nevada. Vegas, Area 51, Howard Hughes, Elvis, Mustang Ranch. How can you tell what's authentic and what's not?
Posted by: zhombre at February 15, 2010 04:35 PM (FBJBT)
12
This brings up something others have been concerned about - democrat operatives creating and/or running as tea-party candidates in order to dilute and split the contest on the right and win elections for democrats a la Ross Perot. This is something the left will try to do sooner than later.
Posted by: JDW at February 15, 2010 04:47 PM (uw+0A)
13
This is why the most effective strategy for unseating as many lefties as possible in the fall is for tea partiers to fight it out in the Republican primaries rather than go the third party route. Their objective should be to drive the Republican party as far to the right as it can and then back the winner of the primary, even if he is less than 100% desirable. Going third party can be held in reserve for the hard cases, such as a Dede Scozzafava. Unattainable conservative purity is the enemy of the good-enough 90% solution.
Posted by: wpw at February 15, 2010 05:04 PM (gB+AI)
14
I doubt it's a false flag group, at least not for Harry Reid. I'm thinking it's just a bunch of rejects that other third party types in Nevada refuse to listen to that think they can gain a bit of legitimacy if they claim to be the "Tea Party". Personally, I can live with that - it just means that those that are serious about creating a viable third party in Nevada don't have to worry quite as much about the kooks showing up and disrupting their meetings.
Posted by: Oatworm at February 15, 2010 05:26 PM (83z8d)
15
Anyone want to bet that the MSM treats these folks as legitimate? Any chance that a suit can be brought over trademark?
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at February 15, 2010 05:35 PM (PsxOb)
16
This is a faux tea party. The left now recognizes the election armegeddon they face in November and are trying to undermine the tea party movement by putting up fake ones that are purposefully incompetent, to confuse the general populace and they hope undermine the whole movement.
Posted by: Duke at February 15, 2010 06:47 PM (1eqlM)
17
I have the misfortune of knowing Levinson, Mr. One brick short of a full load, who's rice is not fully cooked, who's porch light is on but nobody's home, who's one french fry short of a happy meal. His latest marketing triumph, a 20' plastic banner on metal fence posts in front of his office advertising "Mortgage Modification $999.00."
Easily the worst lawyer you've ever sat next to at a Chamber of Commerce meeting.
Tea Party should run from this guy . . . fast.
Posted by: boondox at February 15, 2010 06:49 PM (xD0iE)
18
I recently moved from Las Vegas after being there for four years. My guess is it's not "false flag" in the sense that maybe you mean, but rather is an invention of the kookier fringe of the Ron Paul crowd I became familiar with in Las Vegas.
9-11 Trutherism, Alex Jones conspiracies, and most importantly hatred of the mainstream Nevada GOP and national GOP were big themes in that group during the 2008 primary season when they were the most active, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them hijacking the more mainstream Tea Party sentiment for their own kooky quest against the lizard-people.
Hopefully most will see them for the nutbags that they are.
Posted by: radiant8 at February 15, 2010 07:26 PM (ng/Dw)
19
In the current political environment in America, if you're not paranoid, you're simply not paying attention.
That requires no theory of any type or kind.
Google: "The Plain Truth: Beyond Conspiracy: Police State America." and read all of the references in the 'bibliography.'
Plus, see: "News Kontent: A reader's resources on systemic collapse." Read all of the references and resources there.
What we wish to believe, what our ideology and belief systems requires us to believe, what the MSM and talking heads of all political stripes in America try to convince us to believe ...is unsupported by the facts.
Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at February 15, 2010 07:53 PM (oeESr)
20
I am from New Jersey, but this information does not seem legitimate and me be totally bogus. These people are NOT legitimate Tea Party Members. This looks like a HOAX.
Posted by: jgreene at February 15, 2010 09:21 PM (qm1vA)
21
This is totally messed up. I live in Las Vegas and I am an active member of the Tea Party and I have never even heard of this guy. We have not "elected" anyone to be the President of the organization much less a Secretary of the organization. Sharon Angle won the straw poll at the CCRP *Clark County Republican Party* meeting last month *which by the way, someone is blocking so it won't be released publicly* If you want to report on something, report on how the GOP is rallying against the Tea Party and doing everything they can to make us go away! We are not only fighting Dingy Harry and his ilk, we are fighting the GOP! Thankfully we have taken over the CCRP with Tea Party members but the "old guard" isn't happy about it. The CCRP membership has more than tripled since the tea party became active here. So, I call BS on this story
Posted by: Lasvegaslady at February 15, 2010 09:57 PM (AKDvd)
22
I guess after the Baltimore Trilogy it was all downhill for Barry Levinson. :-)
Posted by: northern Nevadan at February 15, 2010 11:45 PM (8kQ8M)
23
Just found this.....Tea Party Imposters?
http://www.nevadanewsbureau.com/2010/02/15/tea-party-imposters/
Posted by: Lasvegaslady at February 16, 2010 01:20 AM (AKDvd)
24
"it is a sad, silly example of why third party runs are doomed to failure."
One of the primary reasons why so many third party runs are doomed to failure is because so many are Americans are so disgusted by the Democratic-Republican two-party state that they choose not to vote rather than vote Democrat or Republican. On the other hand, those who do vote are so deluded by the ideology of the Democratic-Republican two-party state that they literally cannot imagine a politics that is not bound by the insipid dynamics of the ruling political establishment.
Posted by: d.eris at February 16, 2010 02:02 AM (NtUNb)
25
The tea party movement is a protest rather than a political party. You know what comes after the tea party. It ain't no joke. Dead effin serious.
Reforms now. Constitutional Convention ASAP. The alternative shall bebloody. America has grown some stones again and we ain't playin no more. Get serious or get out of the way.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at February 16, 2010 12:26 PM (brIiu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
"Settled Science" Collapses Again
Another key component of the UN report on anthropogenic climate change collapses:
Ever more question marks have been raised in recent weeks over the reputations of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and of its chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri. But the latest example to emerge is arguably the most bizarre and scandalous of all. It centres on a very specific scare story which was included in the IPCC's 2007 report, although it was completely at odds with the scientific evidence including that produced by the British expert in charge of the relevant section of the report. Even more tellingly, however, this particular claim has repeatedly been championed by Dr Pachauri himself.
Only last week Dr Pachauri was specifically denying that the appearance of this claim in two IPCC reports, including one of which he was the editor, was an error. Yet it has now come to light that the IPCC, ignoring the evidence of its own experts, deliberately published the claim for propaganda purposes.
All the scientific community has proven about anthropogenic climate change is that they are willing to manipulate data, hide facts, and sabotage their peers in order to claim it exists. They want and need it to exist, because the fear they are selling had funneled vast amounts of money, power, and prestige to this formerly obscure branch of science.
In this instance the data supporting the claim had no merit, and had been provided by an advocacy group, who had hired an academic who derived income from carbon trading in a clear conflict of interest.
Scientists and officials in the climate change community need to be investigated for racketeering. Considering the economic damage they have attempted to cause, there may be good reason to investigate them for other crimes as well... perhaps as extreme as economic terrorism or treason. I'm not a prosecutor, and don't pretend to know which charges should be applied to the politicians and thieves at the heart of this grand deception.
Considering the magnitude of the deception and the lives impacted, however, it would seem capital punishment should not be out of the question for those most directly involved in the conspiracy.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:33 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
At this point, the house-of-cards collapse has reached the point where it can officially be declared DEAD, UNSCIENTIFIC research designed as an outright hoax on the people of the world for monetary gain. In a word: FRAUD
Posted by: Dell at February 15, 2010 12:20 PM (eV8BP)
2
Al Gore comes right to mind. Though, to see him (and family) completely impoverished and put on SS retirement only would please me. Though make sure he gets no other government retirement since he abused his office(s) in order to rig the system in his favor. I think a few of those cases, or a couple hundred to thousands, and I would be very pleased.
Posted by: Doom at February 15, 2010 12:55 PM (p5da/)
3
When will a class-action suit be initiated against Al Gore and the producers of his movie? It would certainly put some heat (pun intended) on the Goracle and his inflated rep as recipient of an ignoble Nobel.
Posted by: zhombre at February 15, 2010 01:07 PM (FBJBT)
4
"capital punishment should not be out of the question for those most directly involved in the conspiracy"
Eeek.
Mabye I'm not as passionate about global warming/cooling as you are, but jeez. Maybe jail time for fraud, but that seems a bit much. You don't really think that do you?
Posted by: brando at February 15, 2010 04:05 PM (IPGju)
5
Oh, I dunno, brando.
James Hansen, after all, was arguing that oil executives should be tried for "high crimes against humanity," or somesuch nonsense.
I've little doubt that he'd have done so, if he could have gathered the authority (which, as a NASA expert on global warming, he clearly had a hankering for).
So, why shouldn't he be subjected to the same rules of justice he was arguing for?
Might make some of these idiots a little less hyperbolic in their claims and their arguments, if they knew they had to face what they were so anxious to dish out.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at February 15, 2010 06:00 PM (0c6CL)
6
I don't think that's fair, Lurking Observer. I know plenty of Liberals who want Palin to be killed, but I certainly don't want to kill them. Not unless I was acting to stop an immediate threat, and even then their deaths would be secondary. I just scold them, and tell them that I disapprove. I'm a blast at parties.
"Might make some of these idiots a little less hyperbolic in their claims and their arguments, if they knew they had to face what they were so anxious to dish out."
Maybe. But I think it just makes them even more nuts, and worse yet, the real cost is to yourself. I prefer to smugly grind their faces in their own argument, not by adopting it, but by elevating myself above it.
Hyperbole just isn't a very good argument style, and it leaves one's positon open to easy attack, and there's no rule that the listener has to acknowledge it as hyperbole. I usually tear into people when they say stuff like that. It gives me the creeps. (There was a moby on this blog a while back that flatly stated that we should kill every black person in the world.)
Oh, and I want to be clear. I have no problem with violence as a rule; I just feel that calls for it shouldn't be casually made, because with things like death, it's irreversible.
Posted by: brando at February 15, 2010 06:41 PM (IPGju)
7
brando:
I'm not suggesting random violence. I'm not suggesting going out there and killing AGW advocates.
I think, as the good Dr. Hansen has suggested, that these people should be put on trial. By their actions, they have retarded actual research into the atmosphere, wasted billions of dollars in research funds that could have gone into more useful areas, and slowed up economic development both in the Western world and the poorer Third World.
That last action has consequences, including the indirect deaths of thousands, if not millions.
That first action means that people will have less confidence in good science, be it immunology or epidemiology or astrophysics.
I am not talking about scientists who published results suitably caveated. I'm talking about scientists who acted to conceal evidence, deny it to skeptics and even colleagues who wanted to check it over, and who acted to keep skeptics from even being able to publish (the lifeblood of modern science). How many careers did these people short-circuit, on behalf of their ideology and their FAITH?
And while this may be slightly tongue-in-cheek, I doubt very much Dr. Hansen would have exhibited much mercy, given the opportunity to place the head of Exxon/Mobil or Valero on trial.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at February 16, 2010 04:56 PM (lt/wV)
8
I laugh almost everyday now. Y'all don't know the bitter arguments I have undergone on behalf of rational scientific thinking. For years and years I have argued against the AGW fallacy. It's good to be right on the big things. So good.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at February 17, 2010 04:11 PM (brIiu)
9
And y'all stop trying to make me feel good with all this talk of killing liberals responsible for the destruction of lives and jobs and freedom. Justice of something? That would be too much like right...
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at February 17, 2010 04:13 PM (brIiu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 14, 2010
Did Congressman Delahunt Play Role In Cover-Up of Professor/Murderer Amy Bishop's First Killing?
Amy Bishop is facing three counts of first-degree murder for killing three and wounding three others during a biology faculty meeting at the University of Alabama-Huntsville on Friday, and news broke yesterday that Bishop had shot her own brother to death in 1986. There are conflicting accounts of her brother's death, including a version where she seems attempted to carjack someone and escape the scene before being disarmed by police at gunpoint. There are also hints that Bishop was released and the death classified as an accident as part of a cover-up.
This is relevant to the future of Congressman William Delahunt (D-MA), the district attorney at the time Bishop killed her brother, who is
considering whether or he will run for reelection or retire.
If Delahunt's name comes up too often in relation to the Seth Bishop case and there are even hints that he may have played a significantly suspect role in the decision not to charge Amy Bishop the first time she took a life, then retirement would seem to be the only logical decision.
Update: Good Grief. Bishop and her husband were suspects in a
1993 bombing as well?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:55 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I don't quite understand why this demojerk would have covered up this. This blackwidow was only 20 and her brother 18. Yes, quite a tragedy, but to extrapolate from the recent killings to her brother's killing seems a bit of a stretch. Unless she discovered at age 20 that somehow the law doesn't apply to her.
Posted by: TimothyJ at February 14, 2010 01:03 PM (IKKIf)
2
The relationship, if any, that needs to be investigated thoroughly, is the one between Delahunt and the Mother of Amy Bishop. The Mother, we're told, was a member of the city's Personnel Board at the time of the boys death. A reasonable and prudent investigator would be right to get all of the pertinent facts surrounding THAT relationship.
If Delahunt decides tomorrow that he's no longer a candidate for re-election, it may be a hint as to what's to come.
Posted by: Dell at February 14, 2010 02:31 PM (eV8BP)
3
Yes, quite a tragedy
If the reports I've seen are correct then she killed her brother in a fit of rage. Not an accident. That's relevant to the recent case. It's also interesting that a person who seemingly should have at least been charged with manslaughter got off scot-free, perhaps due to political interference.
Posted by: flenser at February 14, 2010 04:34 PM (+VMEA)
4
It's pretty hard to accidently discharge a pump action shot gun three times. The statement by the current Braintree Police Chief reports that cops who worked on the case said there was a hole in a wall, one in her brother and another one in the ceiling.
According to the Braintree PD, the file on the case disappeared by sometime in 1988. The current police chief seems really upset about the whole story and has called for an investigation.
Posted by: NC Mountain Girl at February 14, 2010 09:01 PM (LVJDj)
5
And that is quite a story about the letter bomb as well...murderous violence seems to follow this woman around....
Posted by: iconoclast at February 15, 2010 03:04 AM (I5shO)
6
Bishop would be a great advisor to the bouncy Ms Janet Napolitano and would fit right in with the zanies among the many "czars" and commissars little o has appointed for fear of disturbing the Senate into an up-or-down vote.
Also, she helped the job situation in little o's eyes by wiping out the entire biology department at UAH & giving other less-qualified bio specialists a chance to be denied tenure.
My brother-in-law on the Harvard faculty just finished a stint in McLeans, where he did a sabbatical while trying to shut down the voices in his head. Hes a nice and sane enuf guy, and my theory is that he got zany from the tranference working with all the Hahvahd socialists/scientists brimming over with recessive moral behavior excusable only because of their exalted status as brainiacs. The three females who run his dept are far outside the norm---[all daughters of Sappho and/or Lesbos] and harbor eccentric foibles that Bishop may have shared, like hating males of all stripes and sizes..
Posted by: daveinboca at February 15, 2010 03:38 AM (muPb3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Anthropogenic Climate Change Lie Collapses Ever Faster; Why Don't We See Prosecutions?
I have some very simple questions: When will politicians, businessmen, and scientists active in anthropogenic climate change fraud be brought up on racketeering charges and imprisoned for attempting to steal siphon off trillions of dollars in what would have been the most expensive criminal conspiracy in human history?
Will any nation admit that the "solutions" being offered by this fraud, which would have radically damaged the economies of almost the entire developed world, constitutes treason?
These are legitimate questions, but don't look for serious investigations or prosecutions. Too many people in high elected and appointed offices—including our own President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, Congressmen and Senators were either stooges buying an ideologically-convenient position that would only show their ignorance or complicity.
And the complicity is mounting.
Phil Jones, the embattled scientist that led East Anglia's Climate Research Unit prior to "Climategate," has now admitted that the world's temperate has not increased in the past 15 years, and that mankind may have
no role in climate change.
Other scientists
agree with Jones' admission, even as the so-called "settled science"
continues to implode.
Climate change fanatics have now been exposed as rubes for the second time in the past 40 years (the global cooling freaks were out during my youth). Their arrogance, however, will never let them admit they were wrong, and you will never see Eric Holder or his boss in the White House push to prosecute their fellow believers.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:34 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"Their arrogance, however, will never let them admit they were wrong, and you will never see Eric Holder or his boss in the White House push to prosecute their fellow believers."
How true it is!
Just follow the money and you'll learn the reasons why. Billions have been wasted and billions more lost in this the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world.
Eric Holder wouldn't prosecute Adolph Hitler for genocide. Not enough evidence.
Posted by: Dell at February 14, 2010 01:16 PM (eV8BP)
2
Think of the lives and careers that these thugs have damaged already. Also, England fell for the bull early in the game and passed taxes to counter the CO2 effect. Any bet those don't get removed?
Posted by: David at February 14, 2010 02:28 PM (aTssA)
3
American Power tracked-back with, 'Phil 'Hide the Decline' Jones Admits Faked Data'.
Posted by: Americaneocon at February 14, 2010 02:28 PM (p/5qc)
4
Any bet those don't get removed?
I know this is rhetorical, but the whole point of the AGW scare was to submit to more government control via taxation so, no, there is no chance those taxes go away as the scare served its primary purpose. (The only saving grace is that it was caught in the nick of time for the USA.)
Posted by: ECM at February 14, 2010 03:35 PM (nYKDd)
5
"which would have radically damaged the economies of almost the entire developed world"
It already has, and Al Gore and his ilk should be held to account.
Posted by: Rick at February 14, 2010 05:24 PM (9Vu5w)
6
Nonetheless, I still read articles about AGW being a fact and the psychology of denial by people who doubt it etc.
Posted by: John at February 14, 2010 08:47 PM (ivCv1)
7
No, but you may see a different White House prosecute these thieving bastards. That's what elections are for.
Posted by: Jack at February 14, 2010 09:35 PM (bvDV5)
8
Congress has already given the EPA the power to regulate "greenhouse gases" like CO2, defining them as pollutants. They see no reason to stop destroying the private sector with unecessary regulations.
Then there's this enlightening comment on HotAir.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/14/was-there-any-actual-warming-to-begin-with/comment-page-1/#comment-3258701
"No, GE owns NBC universal
GE stands to make trillions over the decades cashing in on green hysteria
NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, and The Weather Channel are components of NBC universal"
That explains so much.
comment by Nozzle on February 14, 2010 at 12:45 PM
Posted by: Looking Glass at February 15, 2010 12:45 AM (zamYU)
9
A neat open letter to the British press requesting some investigative journalism into our state-approved media.
Posted by: iconoclast at February 15, 2010 03:07 AM (I5shO)
10
The hopeless recidivists who believe that we are destroying the planet won't stop just because it's proven that the science is fraudulent. Their agenda is based on political ends and domination of the private sector by big government---or subsuming the private sector altogether. In this respect, little o is right that the Republicans regard him as a Bolshevik.
The UN's IRCC are a bunch of Bolshie con men and the criminal at the top, a certain Rajendra Pachauri, is making money hand over fist as a "consultant" to big corporations who want to buy protection from this railroad engineer reincarnated as a "climate scientist."
Posted by: daveinboca at February 15, 2010 03:44 AM (muPb3)
11
this did just bring back memories of global the cooling freaks of my youth. how and when did it turn to global warming? i sorta remember the first time i heard anything about it was my freshman year in college. 1990 or so.
Posted by: Grady Syrickland at February 15, 2010 06:56 AM (b0WBx)
12
It's all about money.
And I'm sure if you had a few hundred billion dollars,you could buy enough scientists to disprove glowbull warming/climate money exchange,and buy enough politicians to make it leagal so you wont be prosecuted in the event you're wrong.
Yes,many of us know GW/CC is a fraud,and we all are paying for the scemes through taxes,increased out of pocket expenses and user fees.
This is money we will never be recovered no matter what the outcome of the scam,true or false.
Posted by: Harley at February 15, 2010 09:09 AM (+shS5)
13
Follow the money. EUReferendum's December 20, 2009, article highlights the growth in Carbon Trading:
"...In 2004, it was less than $300 million. But in 2005, the trade really started to soar, ending the year with $10.8 billion-worth of transactions. A year later, in 2006, the "carbon" market had grown to $31 billion. In 2007, again it more than doubled its turnover, to $64 billion. Last year, it did it again, reaching a colossal $126 billion. By 2020, some estimates suggest the annual value will reach $2 trillion.
Not only does this represent a very significant business volume, its stunning growth rate makes carbon trading the hottest item in town, with banks, financial houses and independent brokers piling in to make a killing..."
I recall reading that several governments in the US North East have taken it upon themselves to pre-empt federal legislation by paying into public carbon trading schemes. When will the voters rise up in anger.
Posted by: Davod at February 15, 2010 09:51 AM (GUZAT)
14
Grady, that pivot was a subtle one, conducted by the same Original Gangsta from NASA, James Hansen. It was his oral emmissions that drove the Newsweakies to do a scare story on glaciers FORMING and indeed, it was a mere matter of months before the same dude was crying about glaciers MELTING. But with this sort of thing, especially back then, if the medioids said it there was no one to contradict it. Everyone was squarely on the same page.
As far as the issue of treason, this is not merely treason to the nation though is certainly amounts to that. Bill Nye was not reading all the emails before declaring you and me, but not HE, unpatriotic. Whatever. I defer in this matter to Al Gore. As that bilious idiot so frequently states, deniers are simply loons not to be taken seriously. So we may safely ignore the deniers of Global Cooling. If that is not availing I think it will be a simple matter to find some prominent Warmies on record that vast numbers of skeptics should be shot. This forms a compelling precedent.
Posted by: megapotamus at February 15, 2010 10:11 AM (hxpJX)
15
Everything in politics is always about money. Always.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at February 15, 2010 03:21 PM (brIiu)
16
Sorry, Odin, I'm gonna have to disagree w/ you there.
I think for a lot of these people, it's not about money (although that's nice), but power.
These people wanted to have the ability to tell all the "little people" how to lead their lives.
"Global warming, you have to turn your air conditioner down."
"Global warming, you can't buy that big car, you must take mass transit."
"Global warming, you'll have to accept a lower standard of living, and have fewer children."
Of course, if you greased their palms (or those of their acolytes), I'm sure a way can be found to okay YOUR private jet and 8,000 square foot home!
Posted by: Lurking Observer at February 15, 2010 06:03 PM (0c6CL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 13, 2010
Professor Bishop's Reviews From Students Very Mixed, Edited Post-Shooting
Amy Bishop, the professor that killed three of University of Alabama-Huntsville biology faculty members and wounded three others after being denied tenure, had very mixed reviews on her teaching abilities, according to the Web site ratemyprofessor.com.
While no students doubted her knowledge of the subject matter, a significant number of them accused Bishop of being an incompetent educator, unable to relate the subject matter to her students in a way that they could understand.
In addition, several made references to political comments Bishop made, including one who said "she is a socalist but she only talks about it after class." Another student wrote that Bishop, " She's a liberal from 'Hahvahd' and let's you know exactly how she feels about particular subjects."
The later user's comment had mysteriously been removed from Bishop's profile on www.ratemyprofessors.com/ by Saturday morning, the day after the shooting, after being referenced on multiple web sites and
blogs.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:50 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Obviously, this calls for federal legislation to prevent recurrence of this tragedy. I propose abolishing all tenure.
Posted by: Dr. Horrible at February 13, 2010 10:58 AM (Dj4BX)
2
In many major universities, excellence in teaching is actually a negative when it comes to tenure. It indicates a lack of dedication to research. (And no, I am not kidding.) UAH still puts significant emphasis on teaching as well as publication. I suspect we will find that there is a lot more to this story, including the puff pieces about here excellence in research.
Posted by: Tregonsee at February 13, 2010 10:59 AM (g9QSj)
3
I wonder how long it will take the MSM (at the behest of the White House) to bury this story?
Will it drop off the face of the Earth overnight just like the murder of graduate student Annie Le did last fall?
In the latter, it has pretty much been established that the suspect did not have an on-going affair with the victim and the police will not say what his motive was.
He was, responsible for the care of mice and other animals used in testing in the laboratory. However, not one journalist has looked into whether or not he had ties to PETA or any other racial "animal rights" group? Perhaps they are afraid of what they will find.
Likewise, I'm pretty sure there is more to this most recent shooting than just being denied "tenure". I am equally sure, that unless a tie to some radical right wing organization pops up out of nowhere, we will never know what her true motives (or background) is.
As the post states, her "history" is already being "sanitized" for the good of the State!
Posted by: George J at February 13, 2010 12:35 PM (0rhF2)
4
Freudian slip there... I wrote "racial" when I meant to say "radical".
My bad!
Posted by: George J at February 13, 2010 12:37 PM (0rhF2)
5
Shouldn't the headline read "Socialist-leaning prof goes on shooting rampage"? If some otherwise obscure teacher who had attended a tea party shot anybody, his or her politics would certainly be the lede.
Posted by: zhombre at February 13, 2010 12:57 PM (FBJBT)
6
That it would... that it would...
And it would all be blamed on the "hate speech" of talk radio (ie Rush Limbaugh)
Posted by: George J at February 13, 2010 02:04 PM (0rhF2)
7
You forgot to mention that many of the other members of the department, including those who were murdered, had worse student evaluation comments than the killer did. Look at the RateMyProfessors page for the department as a whole. It doesn't sound like that department had very many good teachers at all.
Posted by: Charles at February 13, 2010 02:08 PM (qcGqM)
8
Now breaking that she shot her brother dead in 1986, but was not charged, and the records have disappeared. Just goes to prove that guns don't kill people, Ivy Leaguers kill people.
Posted by: Tregonsee at February 13, 2010 06:11 PM (g9QSj)
9
This is a tragedy. There has to be more to this story. It's rumored that she was denied tenure. Could it be that she had "anger management" issues that escalated in a situation beyond her control? She has 4 children. I feel for the kids.
Posted by: marion at February 14, 2010 05:49 AM (acJ52)
10
Ratemyprofessor.com is useless. Sample sizes tend to be small and are dominated by students who are pissed off and want some small measure of revenge. In addition, I heard a UAH student say on Headline News (sorry, it was on by accident) that this prof taught a prereq and it was almost impossible to avoid her. Since students have no choice but to take her class, you're going to get more negative reviews. I'm not defending the prof, just trying to discourage the use of low quality sources.
Posted by: Jeff at February 14, 2010 09:14 AM (nYK6e)
11
"In many major universities, excellence in teaching is actually a negative when it comes to tenure. It indicates a lack of dedication to research. (And no, I am not kidding.)"
I have no trouble believing this. Author Isaac Asimov was a professor at Boston University School of Medicine, and was probably the best lecturer the school had. His students frequently burst into applause at the end of his lectures. But he freely admitted that he was, at best, a mediocre researcher. The department head eventually fired him. Asimov simply got an agent and began speaking professionally for five-figure sums. Meanwhile, the students at BUSM got professors who were excellent researchers and terrible teachers.
Posted by: Sundog at February 14, 2010 11:07 AM (sHdW0)
12
This is a tragedy. There has to be more to this story. It's rumored that she was denied tenure. Could it be that she had "anger management" issues that escalated in a situation beyond her control?
It seems that way. She shot and killed her brother when she was 19. It sppears to have been an intentional killing, one which was covered up with the help of now Congressman Delahunt.
Posted by: flenser at February 14, 2010 12:06 PM (+VMEA)
13
I was a tenured Associate Professor at a large land grant university in Raleigh, NC. Quote from the Dean of Engineering "We're never going to be a top ten university on the strength of our undergraduate program."
Q.E.D.
I quit shortly thereafter.
Posted by: Locomotive Breath at February 14, 2010 07:46 PM (/bbO4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Guy Who Likes Palin Arrested For weapons Violations
It's a damn good thing they got this potential terrorist now, before he did something really dangerous, like try to bomb a dance, or host a fundraiser.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:46 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I am gonna go out on a limb here, and suggest that the Palin fan who had a few weapons stashed away is gonna get far more MSM time than the HARVARD Professor who just killed three people.
Posted by: MissTammy at February 13, 2010 02:20 AM (GXLjK)
2
"Palin fan?" Is that how you describe the idea that Girard "saw Sarah Palin, who he said is on a 'righteous "Mission from God,"' as the only figure capable of averting the destruction of society"?
And is his Palin fandom more pertinent to the issue of his arrest (as you seem to think it is) than the idea that "Girard, who pleaded not guilty at his arraignment, was 'preparing for domestic and political turmoil,' and feared martial law would soon be imposed," or that his advice to his wife was, "Don't talk to people, shoot them instead," and "it's fine to shoot people in the head because traitors deserve it"?
It would seem to a reasonable person that the problem was not that the guy was stockpiling weapons, but that he was discussing the (clearly insane) circumstances under which he was going to use them.
Also: she was not a "HARVARD Professor" (unless they moved HARVARD to Huntsville and renamed it the University of Alabama), so your "ivory-tower elitist" narrative takes a slight hit.
Other than all that, though, you're right on target, Tammy.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at February 13, 2010 08:29 AM (Fj5iY)
3
But she was a Harvard-miseducated professor!
Posted by: Richard Roark at February 13, 2010 11:33 AM (Y/4ua)
4
Well, my goodness Doc, I am not sure where the "ivory tower elitist" thing comes in, when my intent was to point out that the self-admitted Socialist Harvard educated prof who killed three people is getting less attention in the press (at least here in SoCal) than some guy who maybe saw Sarah at some point???
Perhaps my sarcasm wasn't good enough...I think we're on the same side.
My apologies if I offended you!
Posted by: MissTammy at February 13, 2010 11:52 AM (GXLjK)
5
Wait. What?
But she did go to Harvard. I'm going to assume that Doc is right for now, cause I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.
So that means that they actually did move Harvard to Huntsville and renamed it the University of Alabama.
That seems very unlikely.
It's much more likely that Bishop went to Harvard and that it just stayed in Cambridge.
Posted by: brando at February 17, 2010 01:59 PM (IPGju)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 12, 2010
Professor Snaps, Kills Faculty When Denied Tenure
Amy Bishop Credit: Bob Gathany / The Huntsville Times
Authorities said a female faculty member during a Biology faculty meeting learned she would not receive tenure. She then pulled out a gun and started shooting.
Tenure in this case refers to a senior academic's contractual right not to have their position terminated without just cause.
Police also have the alleged shooter's husband in custody. He has not been formally charged with anything.
UA-Huntsville spokesman Ray Garner confirmed three people were shot and killed.
What sickens me the most is that according to the story, the Harvard-educated shooter, Amy Bishop,
obviously suspected that she was going to be denied tenure, and brought the gun into the meeting to kill those peers who told her she wasn't as good as she thought. Pathetic.
Even if it is found that she ended up leaving and returning with a gun, would that make her killings any less premeditated?
2/14 Update: Turns out Bishop was told she wasn't getting tenure
last spring, and she sat quietly in the faculty meeting for a least a half-hour before pulling a 9mm pistol and gunning down her peers.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:12 PM
| Comments (72)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Or perhaps she was as good as she thought and their refusal to recognize it is why she killed them.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 12, 2010 09:02 PM (MfLlO)
Posted by: ceebee at February 12, 2010 09:24 PM (ob5QV)
3
Occam's Razor says that no-one is as good as they think they are; she most likely decided that, because she believed she was deserving, then she was deserving.
Classic is/ought confusion.
Posted by: Zimriel at February 12, 2010 09:30 PM (sVzRC)
4
She'll receive tenure, all right... at the Women's Prison.
Posted by: newton at February 12, 2010 09:35 PM (q5ZJk)
5
Anonymous (post #1) you are a piece of excrement.
Posted by: BillN at February 12, 2010 09:44 PM (RYJu6)
6
They simply call it "entitlement".... Just like the American missionaries who kidnapped the children in Haiti. These people honestly think that they can do it and get away with it. This says a lot for academic achievement and indeed quite a lot more about simple intelligence, or lack there of as is all too apparent in this sad incidence.... In this country, America, we habitually consider academics as being super intelligent...truth be known, many, yes many, are completely dense when attempting to fathom ways to be reasonable toward themselves and more particularly the people they habitually look down on....Yes, she looked down the barrel of a gun, once, twice and more....Am I still interested in reading her various academic journal contributions? -- I should think not!
Posted by: PJF at February 12, 2010 10:10 PM (YLjfu)
7
She appears to think she is a legend in her own mind.
Posted by: ret87 at February 12, 2010 10:26 PM (v2ghE)
8
I am so sorry that she felt she had to kill people just to prove a point. I think she was mentally sick before this happen. She seems to have some issues that someone should have picked up on before now. This is not an excuse for her but I think it is the facts. Her whole life messed up because she was rejected.
Posted by: Imogene Jackson-Rose at February 12, 2010 10:31 PM (9m55p)
9
There's a rumor going around that she and her husband had a major innovation, won a lot of grant money, and the other UAH faculty were going to keep it and all the rights to it. This is one of the things people don't know unless they've been in higher education - schools will keep your work and your inventions and even your class material after they deny you tenure, and give them to other people to use. It's not a justification at all for what she did, of course. But it gives a bit more insight than just saying she had a big ego.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 12, 2010 10:35 PM (TKACQ)
10
I think she validated their choice to deny tenure
Posted by: Jim at February 12, 2010 10:35 PM (KCrFy)
11
I agree with that - and yes, the materials, inventions, etc. are all kept by the university where they were created when someone is denied tenure.
I Alabama a concealed weapons state? Maybe she was a regular gun carrier? I know someone in my university's Political Science department who has a concealed gun at all times and announces it to his classes.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 12, 2010 10:40 PM (TKACQ)
12
Yes, it is a concealed weapons state. I carry. And i bet you with almost 99.9999% assurance that she did not have a carry license. Just because you dont have a license to carry doesn't mean you cannot get a gun, conceal it, and then shoot up a place. In most cases, the people that have license to carry are the ones that never use them unless their life or someone else life is in danger. Concealment in most cases, means that you have went through the process, registration, and waiting period to get a gun and are probably a responsible carrier.
So I am not sure what you point is on her being a regular gun carrier?
So you can probably be assured that if there were a carrier there, there would have been just 1 person dead, and either 1 cold blooded murderer dead, or wounded. That is, her firing on her first victim and taking one from a licensed carrier....
Posted by: Kman at February 12, 2010 10:55 PM (oF1yR)
13
I live in Bama, about 20 miles south of Huntsville. Easy to get a permit to carry in Alabama; but the Univ has a zero tollerance policy for firearms on campus. One news broadcast (chan 48, I think) interviewed a female student who, after the Virginia Tech massacre, appealed to the school to allow students and faculty with permits to carry to be allowed to carry on campus. That was denied at the time. Hopefully they will rethink that policy. If a couple of the other faculty members had been properly armed there may have been a few less deaths and injuries of of the innocent and the citizens of Alabama may not be facing the expense of a trial and incarceration.
Posted by: Jim at February 12, 2010 10:58 PM (KCrFy)
14
So I guess this means that the community see that even "their" UAH is open to violence. Carrying a gun is not the answer. We are not evolved enough.
Posted by: rlott at February 12, 2010 11:20 PM (9UQxU)
15
That's one bitter clinger.
Posted by: ThomasD at February 12, 2010 11:27 PM (21H5U)
16
She shot them because they were going to take her important discovery and all the grant dollars that her work had earned and spread it out amongst themselves. Some people might think that they deserved to be shot...although few would actually go so far as to carry out the shooting.
Still, it just goes to show that you do the wrong thing at your own risk. You never know when the person you wrong will be crazy enough to kill you. And speaking of entitlement, all of those sheltered academics who thought they were entitled to rip off an important scientific discovery which they would likely never be capable of making on their own probably never dreamed that they would actually be punished in any way. Certainly not in such a, um, permanent way.
Posted by: Rebecca at February 12, 2010 11:36 PM (1wUyo)
17
I still say that the reason she may have been denied tenure was more than stealing her ideas...
Do you think they may have noticed that she MAY have tended to be violent or unstable?
There may have been valid reasons they denied her tenure. Like I said before... I think she validated their choice to deny tenure.
Posted by: jim at February 12, 2010 11:51 PM (KCrFy)
18
Terribly sad tragedy. Perhaps this woman professor was taking an SSRI antidepressant.
The Physicians Desk Reference states that SSRI antidepressants and all antidepressants can cause mania, psychosis, abnormal thinking, paranoia, hostility, etc. These side effects can also appear during withdrawal. Also, these adverse reactions are not listed as Rare but are listed as either Frequent or Infrequent.
Go to www.SSRIstories.com where there are over 3,600 cases, with the full media article available, involving bizarre murders, suicides, school shootings/incidents [53 of these] and murder-suicides - all of which involve SSRI antidepressants like Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc, . The media article usually tells which SSRI antidepressant the perpetrator was taking or had been using.
Posted by: Rosiecee at February 12, 2010 11:52 PM (UhCCE)
19
When Liberal Harvard Intellectuals go bad......
Will be interesting to see how the MSM spins this one.
Posted by: Oiao at February 13, 2010 12:01 AM (xE34F)
20
There's a news item from November, describing her role in a faculty senate vs. the university president issue. The university president and administrators had decided to require students to live on campus in their sophomore year, which would cost a certain amount in housing fees. Apparently she was on the faculty senate and asking for a formal vote to censure the president, saying that the requirement to make students live on campus was unfair, that the poorer students would not be able to attend UAH, etc. By no means an excuse or justification at all, just another interesting piece of the puzzle of what went on there.
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2009/11/new_uah_student_residence_poli.html
Posted by: Anonymous at February 13, 2010 12:16 AM (TKACQ)
21
I read she was onto how to make a computer out of neurons. She had been working on it for years, and it sounded as though she was making significant progress. What if UAH had filed a dozen patents on what she developed, thereby appropriating her work, and when they saw a way to develop it told her not to let the door hit her in the ass as she was leaving. She would be barred from further developing her invention by the UAH-held patents. In essence, if this was her life's work, they would be stealing her life. What would she have to lose?
Posted by: Mark at February 13, 2010 12:50 AM (VFYLm)
22
There is such unfairness when it comes to tenure on university campuses. Usually it is the hardest worker, the one with a new invention, the one who has written a book or done some other outstanding accomplishment that makes other faculty members jealous and they in return deny that person tenure. It makes the "do nothing" faculty members look bad and they don't like it when someone is recognized for doing outstanding work. I understand how it feels for someone to say they will deny tenure as a threat and I also know the anger it invokes as well. I was never denied tenure, but how I was treated will always be with me. Faculty members need to be kinder when determining who gets tenure. The ones who have it already need to realize that they are destroying a person's livelihood when they deny a faculty member's tenure. This shooting in Huntsville could have been avoided if the other faculty members had a little compassion on their colleague. What a shame this is for a university to not monitor better promotion practices. A little kindness goes a long way.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 13, 2010 12:57 AM (i7HoF)
23
Is this a teachable moment?
Hang her from the highest yardarm. Keelhaul her, water board her, better yet yet deny her tenure.
After that revoke tenure and outlaw unions.
Posted by: Leatherneck at February 13, 2010 01:17 AM (40yOy)
24
this woman should be hanged...if you got the guts to shoot up a place like this and not pull the trigger on yourself you should have to suffer for years like these families are going to do for the rest of theit lives and then hang her so she feels the pain....this woman is never going to make it in a womens prison....Just keep the students,faculty, and everyones family in prayers.
Posted by: a very outraged citizen of north alabama at February 13, 2010 01:20 AM (f/lOr)
25
There is never a good reason to murder anyone !! Liberals make up excuses instead of putting the blame on the murderer. We use courts to deal with matters... not guns
Posted by: jo at February 13, 2010 01:21 AM (c3JG0)
26
Funny... Most Conservatives feel it's okay to shoot someone who is robbing them. If the patent/tenure issue is true, what the difference between a street thug robbing you and other professors robbing you?
Posted by: Cube at February 13, 2010 02:13 AM (h/ceG)
27
Lib on lib crime. Sweet.
Posted by: Jimma at February 13, 2010 02:31 AM (8yIhu)
28
Cube, I'll try to answer it for you. Conservatives think it's okay to shoot someone who's robbing you if you're in fear of your life. Conservatives think it's not okay to shoot someone just because you think he's pulling a fast one on a business deal. Conservatives think that's what courts are for.
Posted by: AYY at February 13, 2010 02:53 AM (+VuWg)
29
Why all the discussion? Killing has no place in a civilized society. If everone acted like Amy Bishop and killed people because they felt they had just cause, I would not have time to write this reflection, nor would you to read it. Perhaps we should be greatful that more of this beahvior does not take place. Law courts do sometimes hand out handsome settlements to Assistant Professors who have been denied tenure, if a case of bias can be made.
Posted by: Giles at February 13, 2010 03:46 AM (iADh3)
30
There is no excuse for what she did. I wonder if she feels that spending the rest of her life in jail, or receiving the death penalty is worth it. She's obviously not as smart as she thinks she is.
Posted by: luci at February 13, 2010 03:55 AM (clbYO)
31
Bishop seems like an accomplished woman. I work at an institution of higher education, and it occasionally happens that people are unjustly denied tenure.
That's no reason to shoot anybody. Hell, sit back, cool your heels, and rake in the major Ks without the pressure to publish. But people who use guns usually don't reason these things out.
Posted by: dcuervo at February 13, 2010 05:16 AM (svht/)
32
some people donīt understand that the tenure process is supposed to be a holistic one, not based only on academic achievement. other variables as character, ability to work and interact with others, etc., are also measured. in the case of prof. bishop, as accomplished as she obviously was, is quite and sadly obvious now that she was a deeply disturbed person, and her colleagues were tragically right in denying her tenure. I know of many cases when tenure was unjustly denied, but her reaction should be enough proof that she isnīt sane enough to be educating young people.
Posted by: emily at February 13, 2010 06:23 AM (IqqSs)
33
Oooh... Obama voting liberals shooting each other. One thing is for sure, that no conservatives were injured. They are virtually non-existent on university campuses.
Posted by: Bishop Tutu at February 13, 2010 07:43 AM (JxePy)
34
My appreciation to Rebecca and Mark: if you are going to believe rumors and declare that the victems probably deserved it, you can at least sign your name to that. I'll make certain to wear my kevlar before i hear either of your dissertations, though. You'll understand.
Posted by: toadbile at February 13, 2010 07:51 AM (ccNpT)
35
If you are Black or a woman and God forbide both it's almost automatic that you will be DENIED tenure. Tenure committees are mainly old White men who could care less about the research of women or minorities. Their main concern is keeping the university full of White men. This is a sad case and could have been prevented but tenure denial is a reality for some.
Posted by: The truth at February 13, 2010 07:53 AM (MSMIt)
36
we all know the quality of the old white men of Alabama. We see your retatrded senator all the time in Dc. This Harvard woman was naiive to try to thik it would be different with her. And she forgot to dress her part. The only way to get around those bastards was to dress seductively,look at the harvard professor, no common sense!
Posted by: rachel at February 13, 2010 08:01 AM (7QB/i)
37
This is why MSNBC is training a parrot to perform the task of firing Kweef Olberman.
Posted by: ccoffer at February 13, 2010 08:12 AM (Qi56u)
38
The Manchurian Candidate - the real story;
Dr. Amy Bishop, a Harvard-trained neuroscientist and biology professor at Department of Biology, University of Alabama in Huntsville, AL, USA conducted research on SSRI class of antidepressants and found Prozac and Paxil very neuro-toxic. It seems that in response to that revelation, that threatened Big Pharma's bottom line, psychodrug experts from Eli Lilly and Co. used on her and her husband their mind altering psychodrugs in order to drive her and her husband over the edge and send her on a recent shooting rampage.
If you think I am kidding see this link.
http://www.dovepress.com/effects-of-selective-serotonin-reuptake-inhibitors-on-motor-neuron-sur-peer-reviewed-article-IJGM
Effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors on motor neuron survival
Posted by: Karol at February 13, 2010 08:46 AM (iwEY4)
39
Hopefully another Harvard-educated individual will be denied tenure in 2012.
Posted by: bill at February 13, 2010 08:53 AM (SFLxv)
40
Denial of tenure is not something which is announced TO THE INDIVIDUAL in a public meeting. It is done in private, usually with the department chair and academic dean present. UAH is no different. There may have been a polite public announcement, something to the effect that she was leaving to pursure other opportunities, but she KNEW when she went to that meeting what the situation was.
Posted by: Tregonsee at February 13, 2010 09:46 AM (g9QSj)
41
I'm glad so many of you think this is glib. Several of these people who were shot were my friends, and one who was killed I had known for 15 years. These were good people, independent of these university politics that you all seem to be so knowledgeable about. I am angry and sad, and it hurts all the more to hear people speculate so flippantly about something that hits so close to home. I was trying to see if there were funeral services listed yet and this website came up with a keyword hit. I won't be reading any more of these things, but I wanted you all to know that all these shootings become more than just a news event when someone you care about is involved.
Posted by: Student at February 13, 2010 10:01 AM (AY7Js)
42
There are plenty of women who have tenure, and university departments are certainly not run by a monopoly of old white guys. Case in point - the head of my own department is a woman, even here in the deep south. Idiots.
Posted by: Grey Fox at February 13, 2010 10:36 AM (e+wCK)
43
Oiao; "...Liberal Harvard Intellectuals...", really?
That's as stupid as saying everyone from Alabama is a backward-ass country fool.
Posted by: Johnny Moss at February 13, 2010 10:41 AM (5cQWQ)
44
The people killed by Bishop were an Indian man, a black man, and a white woman. No white man was killed and no white-male conspiracy was trying to deny Bishop tenure. Get your facts straight before you start spouting, "the truth." In general, blacks and women get favoritism in the tenure-granting process: do the resarch and you will discover this.
Posted by: vaugh obern at February 13, 2010 10:54 AM (2dVWl)
45
It's amazing to read the commenters here who rationalize or justify these murders. Truly disgusting.
Posted by: Bugler at February 13, 2010 10:55 AM (YCVBL)
46
Of course she's mentally deranged.
She's a liberal isn't she?
She's probably also a vicious anti-gun kook too.
Posted by: Ken at February 13, 2010 11:07 AM (LOBLW)
47
Why is it disgusting, Bugler? If I had poured long hours into a dream, a research project that I thought I deserved credit for, only to find that a bunch of jackasses intended to steal it from me, I would kill them in a heartbeat. No doubt about it. No difference to me from killing an ordinary street thug trying to mug me for fifty or sixty dollars in my wallet, in fact, it would be more justified.
That being said, in this case she should have known going in what the situation was, and that there was a very strong likelihood this could be the result. Unfortunately, her hands might have been tied. It would have been next to impossible for her to receive a grant as a private individual.
Maybe there is more that needs to be reconsidered than the tenure process, which should probably be scrapped. Maybe we should rethink the grant allocation process. Maybe we should re-evaluate the manner in which we award patents? There are a whole lot of issues we need to look at here.
But don't expect me to feel sorry for the murder of a bunch of people who are basically nothing more or less than polished thieves with an education and positions of authority. Good riddance to bad rubbish is my thoughts on the matter.
Posted by: PatrickKelley at February 13, 2010 11:28 AM (NFU5q)
48
Why is it disgusting, Bugler? If I had poured long hours into a dream, a research project that I thought I deserved credit for, only to find that a bunch of crooks intended to steal it from me, I might be strongly tempted to do what she did. I don't see the difference in killing an ordinary street thug trying to mug me for fifty or sixty dollars in my wallet, in fact, it would be more justified.
That being said, in this case she should have known going in what the situation was, and that there was a very strong likelihood this could be the result. Unfortunately, her hands might have been tied. It would have been next to impossible for her to receive a grant as a private individual.
Maybe there is more that needs to be reconsidered than the tenure process, which should probably be scrapped. Maybe we should rethink the grant allocation process. Maybe we should re-evaluate the manner in which we award patents? There are a whole lot of issues we need to look at here.
But don't expect me to feel sorry for the murder of a bunch of people who are basically nothing more or less than polished thieves with an education and positions of authority. Good riddance to bad rubbish is my thoughts on the matter.
Posted by: PatrickKelley at February 13, 2010 11:31 AM (NFU5q)
49
"Posted by PatrickKelley at February 13, 2010 11:31 AM"
Wow. You're crazier than Amy Bishop. Please get help.
Posted by: Bugler at February 13, 2010 11:41 AM (YCVBL)
50
Obviously, this calls into question the dealy practice of giving tenure to professors
Posted by: Neo at February 13, 2010 11:55 AM (tE8FB)
51
To Rosiecee:
There are many stories about many things online. Like photoshopped pictures, stories online cannot be taken at face value. People making claims that their SSRI did this or that do not make it so.
People ascribe causality to all sorts of things and "know" they are right. Claiming that an SSRI "caused" some reaction in them is no more valid than someone who claims cops cause most of the crimes in this country because they are always around when crimes are committed.
Only systematically holding one variable constant while manipulating another will yield ultimate answers to these kinds of questions. Won't happen with this issue. Beware of anecdotes: like
a--h---s, we all have 'em.
Posted by: Mike M at February 13, 2010 11:56 AM (dAOnQ)
52
Rosicee is posting the exact same post all over the blogs. She obviously has an agenda.
Posted by: finnbot at February 13, 2010 12:21 PM (a6I4f)
53
Hey for those who are ignorant about the academic process, this person is not as good as she is being made out to be. She published seven papers in seven years. In my group, I routinely publish 6-7 papers a year and I am considered ordinary.
An inventor of a patent will always get their share of the money even if they leave university.
Thirdly, grant money is not distributed to academics when someone is denied tenure.
Next time, before you ignorant people make accusations, at least get your facts right.
Posted by: kwame at February 13, 2010 01:38 PM (4gVPu)
54
She was informed on Friday morning that she would not be tenured. The shooting took place at 4 pm Friday afternoon, so the initial blog post should be redacted. There is some evidence (neighbor's interview) that her husband and four children were preparing for a weekend trip with her. The gun she used was a 9 mm, so it would have been easy for her to conceal her purpose in stopping by the office before their "trip." Having been close to a miserable and overtly political (rather than fact-based) faculty decision affecting someone's chances of tenure, I can attest that the victim of such a situation often feels incredible rage at the injustice of it. Not saying that this case was one such, but it certainly crossed many academics' minds as soon as they saw the details. To the person who knew the individuals involved: I am sorry for your loss, and for your whole community. It is unspeakable that this mother of four snapped and not only ended the lives of three colleagues, but endangered her husband's and children's futures with her act of destruction. She, like her victims, was a person with the full complexity that implies; her students liked and respected her as a caring and committed professor (but hard), and she was obviously trying to reach across departments at UAH in putting together that launch-and-payload experiment that flew last March. It is tragic that this has happened, and if it was *not* one of those intensely political decisions, it's also hard to explain. Her publication record is better than the records of the tenured faculty for last few years, certainly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Bishop
For publications list, Google Scholar is better (she's been doing a few a year for years):
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&num=10&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=Amy+Bishop&as_publication=&as_ylo=2003&as_yhi=2010&as_sdt=1&as_subj=bio&as_subj=med&as_sdts=48&btnG=Search+Scholar&hl=en
This is going to be covered, probably in enough detail that we'll find out some of "why" it happened.
Posted by: Helen at February 13, 2010 02:25 PM (IKiao)
55
I go to school at uah and believe me when i say that as corrupt as some of you may say it is, it is no more than any other university. I have been dealing with the science department since i started school there and they are actually some of the nicest people on that campus. None of them deserved what happened yesterday. It cannot be justified. To those who are trying to be "cool" or "edgey" or whatever by saying that they deserved it because they "think" that her ideas were being stolen, ask yourselves, and be honest, how would you feel if the people being carried out on stretchers were your mom or dad or someone you really cared about? Would how they played office politics make you feel any better or worse about their lives being taken? Probably not. So how about you all just shut your mouths and do like the rest of us and pray for all of those involved.
Posted by: Hyle at February 13, 2010 04:31 PM (zFUp+)
56
Hey look, she's from my home town!
(Just read the latest news reports about her shooting her brother in 1987)
Posted by: Xmas at February 13, 2010 06:49 PM (gdR6i)
57
She was denied tenure several months ago. This was a calculated cold blooded revenge murder - period. She was a less than average teacher - research that for yourself (hint - ratemyprofesser). Prior shooting of her brother... The lady was a complete nut job. Her 3rd place $25,000 grant project wasn'r worth ripping off.
Posted by: Max Power at February 13, 2010 07:15 PM (8lQAc)
58
"Denial of tenure is not something which is announced TO THE INDIVIDUAL in a public meeting. It is done in private, usually with the department chair and academic dean present. UAH is no different. There may have been a polite public announcement, something to the effect that she was leaving to pursure other opportunities, but she KNEW when she went to that meeting what the situation was.
Posted by: Tregonsee at February 13, 2010 09:46 AM "
Tregonsee and Max Power are correct. Dr. Bishop was told after her 5th year that she was not getting tenure. She filed an appeal during her 6th year which is normally when a professor not getting tenure would spend the time hunting for a new job. She lost the appeal, and I believe that was communicated to her earlier this year. I think this was just a normal staff meeting. She probably wasn't invited because as someone who was finishing out her last semester her attendance wasn't essential.
There was some dispute about a technology she and her husband had developed, but if you accept a job with a university you have to sign a legal document waiving claims to any patents in favor of the university. You don't have to sign, but you don't get the job unless you do.
Not getting tenure can be a devastating experience for an academic. Deciding to murder a bunch of people in a fit of pique and leaving your husband + 4 kids abandoned is not a sensible solution. She may well be nuts, but she's going on trial for capital murder. Alabama is a death penalty state and it actually does apply the sentence.
Posted by: Huntsville Resident at February 13, 2010 10:27 PM (aQf9t)
59
"Oooh... Obama-voting-liberals shooting each other. One thing is for sure, that no conservatives were injured. They are virtually non-existent on university campuses."
Thanks for the laugh, Bishop Tutu. But one can say more. I've been observing liberals and leftists on college campuses for some time now, and I think the conclusions to be drawn are that (1) academia is no more fair than any other realm, and (2) liberals and leftists cannot get along with each other, despite agreeing on many things.
Re: (1). If academics cannot create fairness in a realm they dominate, why expect that fairness will be created elsewhere? And why expect that the government can create it?
Re: (2). People who are left-of-center think it is conservatives who are messing things up, but I've seen too many bitter fights among liberals and leftists in academia to believe this anymore.
Academia should be used by everyone as the model of what happens when liberals and leftists dominate. It's not pretty.
Posted by: JFP at February 13, 2010 11:35 PM (Gt8aN)
60
I doubt it will make much difference to the ignorati spouting off about academia, tenure, patents, etc.; but:
1. Almost every private company has an "invention and patent" policy in place. You discover something, find a new and better way to do do things, etc., and your actions fall under said policy. Good companies have a policy in place that rewards you, provides other incentives, and ensures that everyone "wins." Bad companies don't. Have worked at one such, and they were amazed at how little innovation suddenly started taking place there, and they went the way of the dodo. Do you know what the policy is where you work? Again, almost every company has one, and if you don't know it, that's your problem as ignorance of the law extends...
2. The policies of an academic institution, especially a research institution (and UAH is one), are well known and discussed. In point of fact, they are often a recruiting tool. I had the honor of working with one of the foremost medical/biomedical researchers in the world, and the first thing he did when recruited to the institution where I met him was to get them to change the patent/invention policy so that the researcher had a strong incentive, the department and/or college involved gets a cut and has an incentive, and the university in question benefits too.
3. While tenure can be very political, the process is spelled out, well known, and almost always the head or others have made suggestions to the people involved on ways to improve, deal, etc. They may not listen, they may not like, and in some cases I have known of people to leave and go to another institution as they felt that they were being asked to do something that would compromise their principles. Some have prospered at these new homes and gone to do good things.
4. For anyone not intimately familiar with UAH and the situation in this particular department and all the people involved, to offer that tenure and denial of same justifies the shooting done is the zenith of moral bankruptcy and intellectual vacuousness.
5. For the thing above babbling about how "republicans" feel that deadly force is good during a robbery but shouldn't be used in a business deal: given your obvious immaturity and lack of general knowledge, most legal systems recognize the same as do most people with any degree of intellectual awareness. Most legal systems, Western, Eastern, and otherwise, have recognized the difference for most of recorded history. To equate the two is what is called the "apples ad oranges" logical fallacy since one involves immediate threat to life and property, and the other lacks that urgency since there is time for a (hopefully) neutral party (the judge and/or jury) to review, rule, and redress as necessary.
6. I did some study at UAH, having earned a specialized certificate there as part of the continuing education program. My jobs both times I lived in the Huntsville area caused me to work with people at that institution. Some were good, some were not; some were liberal, some were not; etc.
7. I am neither a degreed researcher nor an acadmic.
8. I intensely dislike working at places that require you to be an unarmed victim who is not supposed to fight back. While I would hope that this might wake up some people, I doubt it as this is what qualifies as a religious belief rather than a rational approach for many in academia.
9. To say I am disgusted by many of the comments made here, and the people behind them, is a huge understatement. Despicable does not even come close.
LW
Posted by: Laughing Wolf at February 14, 2010 07:48 AM (ENi4r)
61
Let me throw a curve ball for all to ponder. Read this list of dead scientists since 1994 paying particular interest to their field of endeavor. Now simply overlay that list, with the story of Amy Bishop. I don't have any answers, but something in my mind is definitely askew. Ask yourself if its plausible that a Neuroscientist, mother of 4, inventor, professor, simply takes out a 9mm unregistered handgun from her purse and starts shooting up a room. I think this could be a manchurian candidate scenario. She took out 5-7 bio researchers in a few mintues. The three who are deceased, herself, her husband (career finished and he's in custody without charge) and maybe 1 to 2 more if those in critical condition don't make it. Just check it out for yourself before you start laughing at the proposition.
Posted by: kalani at February 14, 2010 01:23 PM (WeyVK)
62
The post wouldnt allow me to attach the link but you can find the list at steve quayle dot com and search of dead scientists on the left
Posted by: kalani at February 14, 2010 01:25 PM (WeyVK)
63
Will the MSM do it's job and start reporting on Monday the reasons why we should feel sorry for her and why it's not really her fault because the victims mistreated her? Maybe they can do some in depth research and figure out that it's her parents fault.
Posted by: Greg at February 14, 2010 03:28 PM (fHiua)
64
This babe shot and killed her 18-year old violinist brother with a shotgun in 1986 - but that time it was an "accident".
Posted by: Cao at February 14, 2010 10:02 PM (i1itB)
65
I see it didn't take long to blame Obama. I guess next they'll blame him for Limbaugh being so disgusting
Posted by: George at February 15, 2010 12:22 AM (kdYtr)
66
I want to know who else was considered for the biology professor position that Amy Bishop held at the University of Alabama in Huntsville?
Was there another more qualified person that might not have passed the requirements of the US Education's liberal agenda.
I am not a joking about my question!
If anyone knows of any one that was trying to get that position and was refused that position please contacting ASAP!
David Kennedy
dragonsport@yahoo.com
Posted by: David at February 15, 2010 06:19 PM (nSGiA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Research Bleg for a Student
Good morning, bloggers and blog readers... have I got an assignment for you.
Last night a student contacted me because she is working on a paper for a class, and she needs our help:
Unfortunately my instructor is very strict and in my opinion attempting to push her political views on the class. Unfortunately for me, I have never been a conformist and I feel I am being set up to fail. My assigned topic was The Media and the Military. My stance is the media (American) does not support the troops as much as they should. (I have articles where journalists admit what they are allowed to write about and not, and most of it shows that the military's positive actions are shoved to the back burner while bad news about the wars are headlines.)
...
I completely understand that the in your face lying is not out there and that the rhetoric used by the mass news media is sneaky and takes someone with linguistic ability to differentiate. You mentioned "plausibly 'accidental' smears or misreporting." This is what I am interested in. I have read the reports on the laws saying that you need to prove it was reported falsely intentionally. (I think that's a crock!) This is how Newsweek got away with it's misreporting of the specific torture events in 2005. Do you know of any other stories like this?
Here's the problem: the instructor won't let her use blogs as a source, thereby forcing her to rely on the media to report when they lie.
If you can think of examples where the
mainstream media, academics, or other acceptable sources have documented examples of their brethren lying about the U.S. military, please leave them (with links) in the comments.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:36 AM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
OF course the clearinghouse for media wrongness and bias is Newsbusters. And it should not be considered a blog. The BBC has also been doing a pretty good job with Climategate, but I have not seen military stories there.
I am glad that I am no longer in school. I had to deal with the very same professorial biases, too.
Posted by: paul mitchell at February 12, 2010 08:47 AM (tt3ms)
2
For such a project I would want to communicate with Jim Hanson, for starters.
jim.hanson@warriorlegacyfoundation.org
...and I'd also try getting in touch with Oliver North at Fox News, or through his personal web site.
I'm sure both could help answer your question and/or direct you to other sources that could.
Posted by: Dell at February 12, 2010 09:01 AM (4ZXRv)
3
The Newsweek Koran Flushing article. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156612,00.html
Newsweek would not retract the story even after people had died over it. Even after admitting they had the facts wrong. Chutzpah.
Posted by: Dan Irving at February 12, 2010 09:03 AM (zw8QA)
4
Of course the students teacher might not take Fox News as a credible source either ...
Posted by: Dan Irving at February 12, 2010 09:03 AM (zw8QA)
5
Your student might want to get confirmation that MSM Blogs are also out of bounds. But, that is where I would first start. I also would look at the ombudsman articles and links to see what they are saying about their own papers.
Posted by: CoRev at February 12, 2010 09:14 AM (0U8Ob)
6
Bob,
Like the person said above, Newsbusters is a good place. They've got links to all their stories, so sourcing actual media articles won't be a problem.
Milblogs are also a good resource.
That said, I can think of a few stories that stick out:
Was it Gary Kamiya (spelling?), a columnist or reporter for a liberal newspaper I can't remember off-hand, that actually wished that he wanted things to "go badly" for our troops in Iraq during the height of the surge? Ace of Spades brings it up a couple of times as a reminder why the MSM are such shitbags.
Also, we can't forget an NC connection. Lt. Ilario Pantano, USMC (ret.) was crucified in the media for massacring Iraqi civilians. As it turned out, the media got the story completely wrong and jumped on the "military are evil" bandwagon before finding out the facts. Your student can reference his book, "No BetterFriend, No Worse Enemy". Lt Pantano is running for state office down in Wilmington, I believe.
Dick Cavet saying Gen. Petraeus' collection of medals and ribbons on his Class A would only impress "a 12 year old".
The NYT and the "General Betrayus" ad.
That's all I can think of right now. Hope that helps.
Posted by: EC at February 12, 2010 09:22 AM (mAhn3)
7
I would start with this google search for the biggest msm screwup in the last few years.
http://www.google.com/search?q=marines+massacre&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US
fficial&client=firefox-a
Papa Ray
Posted by: Papa Ray at February 12, 2010 10:04 AM (JpVJn)
8
If I remember correctly, the NY Times Ombudsman actually had a couple of stories where he rebuked their reporting as skewed. Around 2004-2006. No links that I have at my fingertips. That should help refute the liberals view that only discredited websites and sources claim the media is biased.
The best websites for media bias against the military is Mudville Gazette (www.mudvillegazette.com). Greyhawk has lots of comparisons for her to use, linking the media's own reports against themselves.
Sorry, not much else to offer. Will keep looking.
Subsunk
Posted by: Subsunk at February 12, 2010 10:22 AM (I/rTP)
9
While Milblogs may be out of bounds as a primary source, they should be contacted about where media bias appears as they do a great job tracking this issue. Here are a few Milblogs that are among the best.
Blacfive - http://www.blackfive.net/main/
Blogs of War - http://www.blogsofwar.com/
Michael Yon - http://www.michaelyon-online.com/
Best reporting bar-none.
Mudville Gazette - http://www.mudvillegazette.com/
Long War Journal - http://www.longwarjournal.org/
David Bellavia (Not strictly a Milblogger but has good military reporting) - http://davidbellavia.com/
Wish the young lady good luck. Tell her to keep s posted on her progress and final grade.
Tarheel Repub Out!
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at February 12, 2010 10:40 AM (+LRPE)
10
A great place to start is Peter Braestrup's BIG STORY, a lengthy dissection of the press coverage of the Tet Offensive in 1968 and how the press managed to report a major victory as a defeat. The two volume set is more detailed.
http://www.amazon.com/Big-Story-Peter-Braestrup/dp/0891415319
Posted by: Joe Hooker at February 12, 2010 10:43 AM (p7hIc)
11
Didn't the media quote a sensational source of Iraqi body count only to be corrected with the official Iraqi government count that was outrageously smaller? Something like the British Lancet vs Iraqibodycount.org?
Posted by: Jim at February 12, 2010 11:07 AM (VZQ7l)
12
Try reading up on Peter Arnett and "Tailwind."
Also B.G. Burkett, who spent years fighting the crazed homeless Vietnam vet image with his book "Stolen Valor."
Last, look up "US journalism scandals" on wikipedia. There are plenty to choose from, and strangely enough, they all go in one direction. Not too many stories on how the North Koreans/Vietcong/Iranians/Iraq troops were worse than reality.
Posted by: orthodoc at February 12, 2010 11:13 AM (rg3+6)
13
Just flip the DVD set of Victory at Sea on the teachers desk, and challenge them to imagine in their wildest dreams if such a thing could ever be produced today. They'll stand there slack jawed with no possible response. Game over.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 12, 2010 11:15 AM (qf/U+)
14
The Tailwind story that CNN and Time ran that accused the US of using nerve agents is a good example. The following url will take you to a site that documents many of the MSM stories highlighting CNN and Times lies and the retractions that followed. Many of the links for the stories do not work now but the info should be enough to look up micro-fiche files in the library.
http://www.skyraider.org/skyassn/cnn.htm
Posted by: a6bogie at February 12, 2010 11:23 AM (5h2j8)
15
http://www.iew.uzh.ch/wp/iewwp285.pdf
Blood and Ink! The Common-Interest-Game
Between Terrorists and the Media
Bruno S. Frey and Dominik Rohner
April 2006 Institute for Empirical Research in Economics
University of Zurich
The linked paper does not delve into further motivations for positive coverage of terrorists vs. negative coverage of American military such as negative coverage of terrorists incites them to kill the reporter, negative coverage of military incites conciliatory response by military.
http://osd.dtic.mil/news/Apr2005/20050405_491.html
This article shows a reporter filming a terrorist inciting a crowd to riot, the reporter being in close proximity to the terrorist - why does the reporter feel so safe?
http://www.nytpick.com/2009/07/nyt-hypocrisy-paper-tries-to-crack.html
There are other references to this story, but this contrasts how the media reported on a soldier who was kidnapped vs. how they reported on a reporter who was kidnapped.
google the Chris Matthews "Enemy Territory" comment
review the presumed guilt of the Marines involved in the Haditha "massacre"
review how the media reported faked abuse claims against the military, including faked pictures
NYT exposes money tracking effort to locate terrorists, admits that it is legal and had international cooperation, by exposing it, killed the program
http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/3400/3400lect07.htm
more discussion on terrorist/media
review reports of military killing 'innocent bystanders' or civilians; do the reports ever blame the terrorists for using civilians as shields?
Compare how CNN buried the stories of Saddam's torture chambers (state sanctioned torture) to the stories on Abu Ghraib (criminal acts which in my understanding were only humiliating, not painful, resulting in permanent injury or death, but were nonetheless prosecuted by the military as criminal acts) where they blamed the military/the Bush administration.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/
They're an official organization that has received media credentials, so sourcing them should be OK.
That's all the time I can spare, but it's a start, hope it helps.
Posted by: NewEnglandDevil at February 12, 2010 12:17 PM (73P68)
16
CBS News with Dan Rather used forged documents in an attempt to defeat the re-election of the Commander in Chief of the United States military.
Posted by: Rick at February 12, 2010 12:41 PM (GmIEI)
17
Eason Jordan accused soldiers of targeting journalists
Posted by: Jason at February 12, 2010 02:31 PM (wzIDV)
18
who was a Blue Falcon that wrote all those articles about running over dogs with his Bradley, etc, only to be proven a liar? his publishers refused to take down the stories, and other outlets carried them, and/or used them as the basis for new articles that were anti-GI.
there ought to be some material in that whole fiasco.
Posted by: redc1c4 at February 12, 2010 03:33 PM (d1FhN)
19
Here is another one: Left-leaning Salon.com publishing an article from a selfish bitch, advocating women to leave their soldier husbands at war. The link I'm providing is to Cassy Fiano's response, which gives it much better content.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/12/how-to-destroy-a-soldiers-life/
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 12, 2010 03:58 PM (gAi9Z)
20
She can research the Tailhook story from many years ago. That ought to get a reaction from her teacher. Volokh's blog has some postings about the distortions by Human Rights Watch.
Don't have time to go find the links now, sorry,
Posted by: AYY at February 13, 2010 03:07 AM (+VuWg)
21
Pressed the button too soon. What I meant by Tailhook is that many of the charges turned out to be false, but you'd never know it from the MSM.
Also I just remembered that during the Israel-Lebanon war there was a major scandal about photoshopped photos making it into the MSM. She ought to be able to find info on that pretty easily.
If media means movies, then she might want to see what James Bowman or Debbie Schlussel have written about movies that are military oriented. Even if she can't use them as direct sources they'll give her ideas she might be able to use.
It seems that even if she can't use blogs as a direct source, some of what they wrote on the MSM handling of military issues made it into other forms of media, so maybe she could start by searching blogs and then seeing if a non-blog source picked it up.
Posted by: AYY at February 13, 2010 03:39 AM (+VuWg)
22
You could mention the case of Mohammed Al Durah and France 2 Television. The case went to court and was widely reported in European news sources.
Pertinent links:
http://honestreporting.com/a/alDura.asp
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200306/fallows
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1144665.html
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/354621/the-al-durah-blood-libel.thtml
Posted by: Greg Martin at February 13, 2010 10:07 AM (X1oh7)
23
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Thomas_Beauchamp_controversy
Yes, it's wikipedia. But it has context and most importantly links to news stories about the Scoot Beauchamp scandal. That scandal is a perfect example of the press reflexive hostility to the U.S. military.
Posted by: Brad at February 14, 2010 03:09 PM (y0Ulm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Empty Symbol Of Camelot Retires
Rep. Patrick Kennedy—like most Kennedys, better known for his name and substance abuse than any real achievements—is retiring his seat after eight terms. His desire to do something else was no doubt due in part to the fact that polls indicated that the possibility of him being reelected was very slim, especially in a climate that saw his famous father replaced by Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts.
His retirement will leave the Congress Kennedy-free for the first time since 1962.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:19 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
And the list of Democrats jumping ship grows longer by the day - and who could blame them? In Kennedy's case, if his last name had been "Smith", he wouldn't have been elected to the first term! And after wrecking his car at 3 AM, while going to "cast a vote in the House", he should have been shown the nearest exit.
Let's hope and pray that the people of Rhode Island can find someone other than a corruptocrat or "family dynasty" figure to honestly represent their interests in Congress.
Posted by: Dell at February 12, 2010 09:18 AM (4ZXRv)
2
Sort of like the eradication of polio when I was a little kid.
Posted by: Glenn Mark Cassel AMH1(AW) USN Ret. at February 14, 2010 09:24 AM (KL4Fl)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 66 >>
Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.1877 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1644 seconds, 264 records returned.
Page size 183 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.