Posted on | October 30, 2013 | 39 Comments
Bill Schmalfeldt ranting, 2011. (Image via Thomas Anderson at Vimeo)
“Bill Schmalfeldt doesn’t have principles. Bill Schmalfeldt doesn’t have values. Bill Schmalfeldt doesn’t have beliefs. Bill Schmalfeldt has enemies, and then nothing, a black and dank and empty void of sullenness.”
— Ken White, Popehat, Aug. 6
Arguing with a sociopath is generally a waste of time, and if you dedicated yourself to exposing every malicious lie Bill Schmalfeldt tells, you would never have time for anything else. Not a day goes by that someone doesn’t call my attention to Schmalfeldt’s compulsive dishonesty and, while I know many readers have grown weary of hearing about his constant vile behavior, occasionally he does something so hatefully false that I simply cannot ignore it.
Bill Schmalfeldt has a habit of getting himself banned. He got banned from Daily Kos because of his grossly offensive anal rape “satire,” and has been repeatedly banned from the Examiner. In September, Schmalfeldt attempted to sneak back onto the Examiner as “Lester Klemper,” and when his unwelcome presence was (predictably) rejected, he unleashed obscenity-strewn threats of vengeance:
As I said at the time, this is typical Schmafeldt: The Dire Warning of Terrible Consequences — dreadful woe shall befall ye whom he hates.
What followed instead was Schmalfeldt’s complete humiliation at the Oct. 16 hearing on John Hoge’s peace order, and the subsequent rejection of Schmalfeldt’s appeal in the case. Keep in mind that, prior to the Oct. 16 hearing, Schmalfeldt had repeatedly boasted that he would prove Hoge guilty of perjury (!) with the predicted result that Hoge would leave the courtroom in handcuffs.
Threaten, threaten, threaten. Fail, fail, fail. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Meanwhile, however, Schmalfeldt had announced that he would begin writing for DigitalJournal.com. Schmalfeldt’s evident motive was that being published somewhere beside his own blog was necessary to Schmalfeldt’s defense of his harassment as “journalism.”
Of course, this was futile: Maryland’s harassment statute doesn’t have a Journalism Exemption. Schmalfeldt never got a chance to argue this in the Hoge v. Schmalfeldt hearing. Nevertheless, Schmalfeldt was a diligent DigitalJournal.com contributor, writing 56 articles between Sept. 25 and Oct. 27, generating 19,000 page-views. (That’s not bad, really, although by comparison this month I’ve published more than 150 posts with more than 300,000 page-views.)
It looked like Bill had found a home at DigitalJournal.com, but then he screwed it up because, as Ken White said, Bill has enemies.
Vengeance on his enemies is Schmalfeldt’s raison d’être and, after a month of being on his best behavior at DigitalJournal.com, he fell off the wagon and used an Oct. 25 article about the arrest of Alabama smear-blogger Roger Shuler to suggest that somehow Ali Akbar and I were responsible for Shuler’s arrest. That prompted Ali to write an e-mail to DigitalJournal.com publisher David Silverberg, and this false accusation was deleted from Schmalfeldt’s article.
But then in a follow-up article on Oct. 27, after name-checking me again, Schmalfeldt made a nameless reference to Lee Stranahan, which has been preserved by Aaron Walker:
Right wing bloggers don’t even need to have something actually happen to them to get the right wing blogosphere up in arms.
One writer for the extremist right wing blog Breitbart.com claimed a phony rape threat from a man with a progressive neurological disorder who lived 1,400 miles away from him. He sent the police to the man’s house, then cried to whoever would listen that he needed money, lots of money, so he could relocate his family. Right wing bloggers from coast to coast came to his aid, exhorting their readers to raise money for this man, who continued with his claim of death and rape threats from a man who would have to ask his wife to drive him the 1,400 miles to commit this imaginary crime the right wing blogger created in his mind.
I wrote to Silverberg asking that my name be removed from that article, and the above-quoted passage was also removed, so that all that remains of the Stranahan reference in the article is this:
In this climate where a right wing blogger can lie about a threat that never existed and raise thousands of dollars to “move” — and then not even change apartments — the left wing media establishment (such as it is) should be shamefaced over their lack of concern about an older man who is nursing his bruises behind bars while his wife remains barricaded in her house.
Ridiculous. You can read Aaron Worthing’s account and decide for yourself whether the rape threat was “phony,” and you can also read Stranahan’s own account, “Bill Schmalfeldt: The Stranger Who Harassed My Family.” Decide for yourself whether what Schmalfeldt was doing could be described as Ethical Journalism.
What was happening at DigitalJournal.com repeated a familiar pattern: Schmalfeldt was trying use his access to somebody else’s platform to pursue his personal enemies, the unprofessional behavior that got him banned from the Examiner in December 2011:
I am yet again forced to discuss your column after you continued to (1) make your OBN articles personal, rather than talking about what such an organization is attempting to do and its potential implications, and (2) continued to reply in an antagonistic manner within the comments sections / Facebook.
Due to the continued disregard for projecting yourself in a professional manner, I am forced to suspend your access to our publishing platform again.
This was not how I hoped things would work out, but I’m no longer in a position to justify the amount of effort we as an organization have to put in to mitigate the complaints your work is constantly receiving. I wish you well on your blog.-
Director, Northeast & Mid-Atlantic Regions
Bingo: “[T]he amount of effort we as an organization have to put in to mitigate the complaints your work is constantly receiving.”
That was in December 2011, when Schmalfeldt was pursuing his insane jihad against “Operation Burn Notice” (OBN), a Facebook group that opposed the recall of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.
Months before I ever heard of the guy, Schmalfeldt’s habits were making him obnoxious to management at the Examiner. Now, in October 2013, he has repeated the pattern at DigitalJournal.com, recycling his smears against Stranahan, Akbar and me with no legitimate journalistic purpose. And today, apparently in a snit because his articles were being edited, Schmalfeldt announced his resignation by publishing an e-mail exchange with Dave Silverberg:
First, let me express my gratitude for taking me back, I appreciate it very much and have tried very hard to abide by your rules. I have no problem with you or the site, and I will always have a soft place in my heart for you guys.
It is clear that I can’t turn from side to side without being attacked by the trolls who have decided that I have to be denied from doing any writing anywhere for anybody. Nor am I particularly agreeable to having to defend myself to my editor whenever one of these trolls raises a stink with you. This is how they are trying to get me fired. I choose not to grant them that trophy.
So, with great regret, and to save you and your publication any further difficulty with these criminals (not hyperbole), I offer you my resignation. If you choose to accept it, please advise.
And again, I am an appreciative and humble servant.
Thanks again for the opportunity.
We respectfully accept your resignation, and we sympathize with your situation. They are relentless, those people following you around online.
Thanks for your time on the site, and we hope you still check out the news content and vote and comment, as you like.
Note your Digital Journalist status has been removed.
Wishing you the best,
This is such a steaming heap of nonsense, I scarcely know where to begin debunking it. Schmalfeldt was not being “attacked by the trolls.” Rather, he was using his DigitalJournal.com access to make defamatory accusations against three innocent people who just happen, coincidentally, to be targets of Brett Kimberlin’s wrath.
Bill’s version of events is the exact opposite of truth: He was not being attacked, he was attacking. He is not a victim, but a victimizer.
Contrary to his claim that “trolls” want to prevent Schmalfeldt “from doing any writing anywhere for anybody,” nobody paid any attention to his DigitalJournal.com writing until there were specific complaints made by specific people about two specific articles.
As far as anyone “trying to get [Schmalfeldt] fired,” that description fits exactly one person: Bill Schmalfeldt, whose repetition of his previously demonstrated bad habits was the sole cause of the problem.
However, notice — as did Aaron Walker — how in attacking Lee Stranahan, Schmalfeldt referred to himself in the third person as “a man with a progressive neurological disorder.” Were DigitalJournal.com readers informed at any time that the author of that article was the same person who made the “phony rape threat” against Stranahan?
Because . . . ETHICS!
So, having tried unsuccessfully to use DigitalJournal.com as a platform for pursuing his own vindictive obsessions, now Schmalfeldt dishonestly claims victimhood as an excuse for his latest failure.
And isn’t crazy “a progressive neurological disorder”?
Posted on | October 30, 2013 | 64 Comments
Why are so many female journalists like Margaret Wente using their voice to reify rape culture, instead of criticizing it?
— Elizabeth Plank (@feministabulous) October 22, 2013
Someone’s still buttmad over the possibility of a woman possibly avoiding rape and insisting that constant and inescapable victimhood is empowering. Because, feminism.
Oh. It’s Liz Plank. So that’s why it’s cray cray.
Well, who is this cray-cray person?
Viral Content & Social Justice Editor at PolicyMic. Masters degree from the London School of Economics. Behavioral science consultant by training and feminist crusader by passion.
Uh, “Social Justice Editor”? Social justice is a mirage, as Friedrich Hayek observed, and we might therefore assume that Liz Plank‘s job is to advocate for unworkable schemes of utopian impossibility.
Nice work, if you can get it.
Liz Plank is “buttmad” about something that was published 12 days ago by Emily Yoffe at Slate, pointing out the role that alcohol plays in the date-rape phenomenon plaguing colleges and universities. Yoffe said that, for sexually predatory men, “the rise of female binge drinking has made campuses a prey-rich environment.”
This would seem to be merely a common-sense observation, which Yoffe elaborates by reference to research on the phenomenon, but feminists went nuts, screeching that Yoffe was engaged in misogynistic victim-blaming and slut-shaming and enabling “rape culture.”
Just when you thought the resulting screech-fest had played itself out — see my two cents, “The Drunk Sluts Rights Movement” — Plank responds by complaining that telling women not to get drunk “would be sensible advice if it didn’t reinforce the very structures that make sexual assault not only possible, but probable.”
You see that word “structures”? That’s jargon.
It’s a sort of code, an intellectual signifier, a way of saying, “Hey, I paid attention in my undergrad Critical Theory seminar.”
Jargon is a method of avoiding plain truth, and the minute people start talking that way, I figure them to be pretentious idiots who arrogantly assume they can baffle us with fancy bullshit.
Liz Plank reminds me of a certain TV personality in A Hard Day’s Night, about whom George Harrison says: “She’s a drag. A well known drag. We turn the sound down on her and say rude things.”
Posted on | October 30, 2013 | 32 Comments
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 30, 2013
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today displayed the classic combination of dishonesty and entitled arrogance we have come to expect from the monstrously selfish people who insist that we call them “public servants,” although Sebelius could scarcely conceal her contempt for the public she claims to serve.
Not a single Republican voted for ObamaCare, and the responsibility for its massive failure therefore lies entirely with Democrats. Therefore, the task assigned to Sebelius (and to Democrats on the committee) was to convey the impression that the failure is not actually failure, that contrary to all evidence, ObamaCare is successful, and that it is only the mean-spiritedness of Republicans that is the problem.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 30, 2013
Attention Titanic passengers, this is your captain. After we transition into that iceberg, we'll be operating at reduced speed.
— John Hayward (@Doc_0) October 30, 2013
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 30, 2013
I've suspected O-care was meant to pave the way for single-payer, but I can't imagine they'd design something this bad deliberately.
— Phineas Fahrquar (@irishspy) October 30, 2013
You lost your insurance when we said you could keep it? Whatever.
— Nancy (@Of_Angelis) October 30, 2013
— Jon Ward (@jonward11) October 30, 2013
— Stacey 'ST' Matthews (@sistertoldjah) October 30, 2013
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 30, 2013
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) October 30, 2013
Even as Sebelius was compelled to embarrass herself in defense of President Obama’s indefensible failure, however, the president is busy trying to make her his designated scapegoat:
An agitated President Obama has expressed frustration to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius about the faulty ObamaCare enrollment website.
A visibly annoyed Obama behind closed doors has made clear to Sebelius that it’s her responsibility to fix what has become an unwanted second-term blunder, according to senior administration officials.
White House officials say the strong words from Obama don’t mean Sebelius is necessarily in the doghouse but that she’s responsible for fixing the problem.
In the words of one senior administration official, “She’s in a tough spot. She’s on the hook.”
These petulant children deserve each other.
Posted on | October 30, 2013 | 48 Comments
Bradley Wilcox has an excellent article at The Atlantic showing the data that correlates marriage to economic outcomes for children. This is reminiscent of one of the most best articles ever published by The Atlantic, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead’s 1993 “Dan Quayle Was Right.”
You may remember the controversy referenced in the title: Vice President Quayle criticized the CBS comedy Murphy Brown for glamorizing unwed motherhood. There was fierce feminist criticism of Quayle who, supposedly, was against Progress and Equality. But the social science then, as now, was perfectly clear: Marriage is a good thing, and is especially beneficial to children.
Whitehead expanded her thesis into an excellent book, The Divorce Culture: Rethinking Our Commitments to Marriage and Family, which I strongly recommend to anyone who wants to understand the social, economic and cultural forces that hurt families.
Divorce and unwed parenthood are correlated with bad outcomes for children, but we must remember that correlation is not causation and that a demonstrable statistical trend — e.g., higher incomes for children of intact marriages — does not mean that every child from a broken home is doomed to a life of poverty. Something else to remember: Trends do not make people. Rather, people make trends.
What causes divorce? Most often, selfishness is the reason. Marriage requires generosity and patience, because any two people will inevitably have conflicts. The normal human tendency in any conflict is to blame the other person, and it requires an unselfish spirit to say to ourselves, “Maybe this is my fault or, even if it isn’t entirely my fault, it’s better to just take the blame and end the argument.”
The selfish person is the one who insists on winning every argument, merely to satisfy his or her pride. Such a selfish spirit is unsuited for marriage, because if you insist you are always right, this turns your marriage into a constant humiliation for your spouse.
A domineering personality — a selfish bully who enjoys the humiliation of others — does not want a partner in marriage so much as he wants a handy target, someone he can push around, just to prove to himself his own superiority. A good marriage requires respect and trust. We should strive to deserve the admiration and cooperation of our spouses, rather than seek to coerce or trick them, which is what the domineering, controlling or manipulative spouse does. And because all of us are imperfect, voluntary cooperation within marriage requires an unselfish, forgiving and patient temperament.
We have to know our own needs, and to be able to discern between our actual needs and our mere wants. I sometimes joke that I married a woman mean enough to keep me in line, and there is truth in humor. My wife is a sweet and generous woman, but she is nobody’s doormat. She is ferocious when angry and always willing to tell me when I am out of line — which, of course, I occasionally am.
OK, probably more than just “occasionally.”
My goal in life is to make her happy, and I succeed in this goal far less often than I would wish. As I am proud to have her as my wife, I want to make her proud to have me as her husband. This requires a constant striving, and that in turn requires a determined commitment — the mental will to stick it out, no matter what, even when she’s so angry that she is ready to pack my bags and kick me out.
“If Americans can be divorced for ‘incompatibility of temper,’ I cannot conceive why they are not all divorced. I have known many happy marriages, but never a compatible one. The whole aim of marriage is to fight through and survive the instant when incompatibility becomes unquestionable. For a man and a woman, as such, are incompatible.”
— G.K. Chesterton, 1910
My defense of the traditional family and my criticism of feminism have, I fear, created the impression that I am some kind of Archie Bunker stereotype of a husband, a perception that is quite the opposite of truth. Actually (as my oldest daughter’s husband could certainly testify), our daughters have been raised to be confident and independent. A good woman is not timid or helpless and, in fact, one of the reasons I despise feminism is because it fosters a victimhood mentality that cripples women’s capacity for happiness.
Like all other radical egalitarian movements, feminism degrades the individual in order to promote a sense of collective grievance (on the part of the alleged victims) and collective guilt (on the part of their alleged victimizers). The ordinary unfairness of life — which we all experience routinely, no matter who we are — is rhetorically magnified into systematic Social Injustice, and the radical crusade for collective Equality is promised as the utopian solution. Anyone who buys into such a mass movement mindset thereby surrenders responsibility for their own life, and this is in fact the basic incentive: “You are not responsible! Your unhappiness is not your fault!”
Damn you, and damn your miserable victimhood movement.
Marriage requires mutual respect and cooperation. I refuse to endorse the degradation of women inherent to the feminist mentality.
Posted on | October 30, 2013 | 11 Comments
– compiled by Wombat-socho
DNI Clapper Contradicts White House
Says Obama was aware of NSA snooping on allies
A Year After Sandy, Public Housing Tenants Still Waiting
Storm-damaged apartment buildings still not fixed
Narendra Modi Keeps Up Fire On “Shahzada”
No respite in attacks on Rahul Gandhi
Law limited how medications could be used to induce abortions
THE ECONOMY, STUPID
WTI Declines For A Second Day As US Stockpiles Gain: NYMEX $97.40, Brent $108.59
Wall Street Listens For Cooing Of Dovish Fed
Strong Growth At LinkedIn, But Sober Forecast Sends Shares Down
US Retail Sales Fall Slightly In September
JP Morgan’s $13 Billion Settlement With Justice Department Could Be Falling Apart
Sears’ Lampert Broadens Breakup Plans As Sales Slump
Barnes & Noble Unveils New Nook GlowLight
Apple’s iPad Air Raises The Tablet Bar
New Innings For Nokia
MongoHQ Goes Into Lockdown After Detecting Breach
EA: “Titanfall” To Remain XBox/Windows Exclusive “For The Life Of The Title”
Miami coasts to 107-95 win in season opener
FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
“The Only People Who’d Understand Are Brad And Angelina”
Nicole Kidman dishes on her marriage to Tom Cruise
PRC Police Hunt Eight Suspects In Tiananmen Crash
Prisoner Release Sparks Conflict In Netanyahu’s Coalition
Arab League envoy Warns Of “Somalization” Of Syria
Syrian Refugees Overwhelming Jordan
Saudi-US Rift On Middle East Causing Severe Diplomatic Strain
ROK Lawmakers Visit Reopened Kaesong Industrial Park
Russia Used USB Pen Drives To Spy On Leaders At G20 Summit
Kenyan Soldiers Jailed For Westgate Looting
Aussie Bureaucrat Loses Case For Worker’s Comp From Sex Injury
Three Of Six Suspects Arrested In Patna Bombing Case
BLOGS & STUFF
Dead Republican Party: Cultural Marxism And The “Diversity” Hoax
First Street Journal: Just Who The Hell Is In Charge Around Here?
Blackmailers Don’t Shoot: #Obamacare Is Textbook Bad Economic Policy
Doug Powers: Sebelius Touted “Silver Lining” In O-Care System Right Before It Crashed
Twitchy: Tommy Christopher Sez If You Like Your Health Care Plan, You Don’t Know Sh!t
American Power: Breaking Barack – Obamacare Lies And Obama’s Lies
The Necropolitan Sentinel: Obamacare Watch – While There’s Breath, There’s Hope
Don Surber: Daily Scoreboard, October 29
Jammie Wearing Fools: NY Doctors Resisting Obamacare Mess
JustOneMinute: You’re Damn Right We Ordered The Code Red
Pat Dollard: McCain Says They’ll Try To Pass Immigration Changes After GOP Primaries
Protein Wisdom: Precious Concern Trolling
Shot In The Dark: Watching The Astroturf Grow – Money Changes Everything
The Jawa Report: Group Behind Mumbai Massacre Openly Raising Money In Pakistan
The Lonely Conservative: New Democrat Talking Point – You Can Keep Your Insurance If It’s “Good” Insurance
Megan McArdle: Would You Buy Groceries On Amazon?
Posted on | October 29, 2013 | 58 Comments
Washington State has a facility for convicted violent sex offenders called the Special Commitment Center on McNeil Island near Tacoma.
When Hank Pollock and his transgender bride Rebecca Elmore tie the knot Thursday, they will become the first two residents [of the Special Commitment Center] to marry each other.
“Just because you’re in there, you don’t lose your civil rights,” said Chris Case, a spokeswoman for the Department of Social and Health Services, which operates the SCC. “Washington law says they can get married so they can get married. . . .
Pollock, 47, and Elmore, 57, say their day-to-day lives might not change much but they hope their marriage will pave the way for others, including fellow sex offenders . . .
The friendship between Pollock and Elmore reaches back a decade to when Pollock moved to the SCC.
Elmore was already there after pleading guilty in 1995 in Clark County to second-degree kidnapping and second-degree assault with sexual motivation. When Elmore petitioned to be released in 1999, the state Attorney General’s Office persuaded the judge to deny it based on Elmore’s “sexually-motivated cannibalistic fantasies.”
In 2002, Elmore changed his first name from Keith to Rebecca as part of his transgender transformation.
Pollock, who changed his name from Andrew Drescher in 2002, was convicted of five counts of sex crimes against children in Kitsap and Thurston counties from 1987 to 1993. He was committed to the SCC for being a repeat sex offender. . . .
Wait a minute! A tranny kidnapper with “sexually-motivated cannibalistic fantasies” marrying a serial child molester on a prison island? Is this a news article or a Bravo network reality series we’re talking about? Oh, and it’s going to be a lovely ceremony:
To find a pastor to conduct the ceremony, they wrote the nonprofit organization Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gays. A Seattle Christian pastor agreed to officiate at their wedding free of charge.
They chose Oct. 31 to be wed, because it is Samhain, the start of the Wiccan New Year. Not only is it an important date for their religion, they said, but it also symbolizes a new start for the couple. The ceremony will take place in the visiting room at SCC and be limited to two hours. Seven residents will be allowed to attend, not including the pastor and his partner.
“. . . the pastor and his partner . . .”
(Hat-tip: Pundit From Another Planet.)
Posted on | October 29, 2013 | 24 Comments
Here’s some cheerful, positive, upbeat news:
Authorities are asking for the public’s help in finding a convicted sex offender who had been having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a teenage girl while living with her family.
The Starr County [Texas] Sheriff’s Office is looking for 42-year-old Jorge Luis Dominguez on a sexual assault with a previous conviction charge.
Investigators told Action 4 News that Dominguez is a convicted sex offender but had a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old girl for about four weeks time.
Deputies said Dominguez was living with the girl’s family at their Rio Grande City area home and that her parents consented to the relationship.
Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) records show that Dominguez is a sex offender who was sentenced to seven years in prison for a sexual crime back in 1999.
Investigators said Dominguez is a Mexican national and was deported but came back to the United States illegally.
Immigrants: Screwing teenagers American sex offenders won’t screw.
Posted on | October 29, 2013 | 24 Comments
The mother accused of suffocating her newborn then dumping the body in the tank of a bar toilet will go on trial for the child’s death.
On Monday, Northampton County Magisterial Judge David Tidd ruled that Amanda Catherine Hein should go on trial for criminal homicide.
Hein was charged in August after a baby’s body was found in a restaurant toilet.
Police say that the 26-year-old Allentown, Pa. resident suffocated her baby with a plastic bag and then put the baby in the tank of a toilet in the woman’s restroom inside Starters Pub in Lower Saucon Township. . . .
She could end up facing the death penalty if she’s found guilty of the charges against her. The intentional killing of a child under the age of 12 is a capital offense.
Why are the nation’s pro-choice organizations not rushing to the defense of this woman? Remember, two of their standard arguments in support of abortion is that (a) women are the ones who get to determine when life begins and (b) the government has no legal right to tell a woman she has to have a baby she doesn’t want.
Well, if those things are true, Ms. Hein fits the pro-choice model to a tee. . . .
The fact is, if the body of this little boy had been found in the bathroom of an abortion clinic instead of in the bathroom of a bar, the country would have never heard about it and Ms. Hein would just be another enlightened woman exercising her constitutional right to choose. . . .
« go back — keep looking »