Remember the University of Alabama shooting last week? A Harvard-educated (read: part of the "educated class") woman (read: minority) pulled out a loaded gun and fired at colleagues on her tenure committee (she had just been denied), killing three of them. The motive, albeit unusual and desperately self-concerned, seems kind of obvious doesn't it? I believe in the 90s we referred to this type of instance as "going postal," a phrase initiated after several U.S.P.S. workers shot at coworkers after being fired from their jobs.
But, remember, we are in the post-racial era. Which means of course that every crime is motivated by the perpetrator's hatred of a certain race. Specifically, a criminal's crime is always motivated by their hatred of Obama as President. Once you get that into your thick, uneducated skull the news starts to make a lot more sense.
It appears Michelle Malkin hasn't gotten the memo yet, however, and still expresses shock at Reuters Foundation Fellow Jonathan Curiel's interpretation of the story. Here's Michelle, quoting Curiel:
"The 'results' that the Tea Party movement envisions include less government -- and less of Obama."
Curiel bemoaned the rejection of a post-racial society by tying together the Alabama massacre and the rise of the Tea Party movement more explicitly. Proof of anti-Obama bigotry, he wrote, could be found in "last week's shooting in Alabama, where a disgruntled white professor murdered three minority professors; and the growing success of the Tea Party movement, which is overwhelmingly white and increasing (sic) vocal in its violent dislike of the nation's first black president."
Right after the shooting Nic and I talked about it. He said, "Well, this blows the 'every mass shooter is a white racist' theory out of the water, huh?"
As it turns out, no. Seems that, even though the alleged here is both a WOMAN and EDUCATED in the big leagues and a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, she still gets lumped into the "increasingly vocal" Tea Party movement. Another one down the memory hole!