Where Were You in 2002?

In congratulating the Overlawyered blog on moving under the Cato Institute umbrella, Professor Bainbridge used the phrase “take the Boeing,” which in turn prompted Glenn Reynolds to flashbacks on the origins of that phrase in the misty dawn of the blogospheric age when the commercial value of the medium was scarcely understood. And, of course, the adaptation/imitation of the medium by major commercial operations has limited the readership space of the original blogosphere — i.e., individual online writer/commentators connected in informal networks or communities of sites.

This network/community concept seems to have been lost by (or, more likely, was never known to) newer arrivals in the ‘sphere. The idea that each of us is contributing to a common project is not just some kind of “Stone Soup” idealism, but is in fact the only way to build any genuinely meaningful alternative to that pathetic exercise in groupthink we call the Mainstream Media. Bloggers who don’t help build the alternative can complain about the MSM “borg” all they want; they aren’t really making a difference. There are two ways in which bloggers actually help sabotage the blogosphere:

  • Turn your blog into a series of lectures. “Here, let me tell you How to Save the World, because you pitiful mortals are obviously in need of my Superior Wisdom.” It’s one thing to go off on the occasional rant, but if that’s all your blog is about — sermons and lectures, as if you are the Oracle to whom readers turn in need of your delphic prophecies — then you’re doing the wrong thing. No one wants to read that crap.
  • Never link another blogger. It’s weird that some bloggers would rather link a story in the New York Times or the Washington Post than to link a fellow blogger. Why this is, I don’t know. Sometimes it seems like everybody has the same idea: Grab an MSM headline off Drudge, link it, include a brief blockquote and add some political snark. Not only does this effectively surrender content control to Drudge — so that bloggers are merely replicating the headline selection there — but nobody’s snark ever goes beyond their own readership, because no blogger ever quotes another blogger.

Ace of Spades once did a mini-rant — which I can’t find now — about whether your site is a portal or a destination. That is to say, is the reader coming to your site to find links to interesting material (portal) or strictly to read what you have to say (destination)?

The problem is that if every blogger starts thinking of his own site as a destination, then the site’s value as a portal — directing readers to interesting material elsewhere — is necessarily diminished or eliminated. And if this destination mentality takes hold at all the larger sites, then there will be few opportunities for new bloggers to join the community, and fewer incentives for smaller bloggers to participate in the conversation, because nobody with any significant readership will ever link them. What will eventually happen, in such a scenario, is that the independent blogosphere will wither and die from neglect, and be replaced by a corporate simulacrum.

Which is already happening, to an extent. This was what John Hawkins was talking about two years ago as “The Slow, Painful Coming Death Of The Independent, Conservative Blogosphere” (with sequels here and here). Despite the fact that there have been notable successes in recent years — e.g., William Jacobson’s Legal Insurrection has not only succeeded, but has produced a promising spinoff, College Insurrection — the fact is that the original idea of the blogosphere as an informal network of independent sites is being lost, not because independent bloggers are “taking the Boeing,” but because so many newer arrivals in the ‘sphere never even bothered with the concept of collaboration.

Well, this kind of rant could go on forever, but you didn’t come here for my delphic prophecies, eh?

 

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! And, in case you didn’t realize it, the Instawife has a new book out entitled, Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream — and Why It Matters, and which you should buy because if it becomes a bestseller, that’s one less spot available for a liberal book on the New York Times bestseller list.

Sometimes, life really is a zero-sum equation . . .

 


EVIL SHALL NOT PROSPER

Neal Rauhauser was a speaker at the 2010 Netroots Nation conference

“Kimberlin’s associate Neal Rauhauser recently admitted in a complaint to my office that he introduced [Nadia] Naffe to attorney Jay Leiderman . . .
“In the same document, Rauhauser declared that if Naffe is successful, he believes it will put an end to my career as a Deputy D.A.”

— Patrick “Patterico” Frey, Oct. 4, 2012


This is indeed very happy news, my friends:

Ken and I in particular got to face, not just criticism, but “vapid and dishonest partisan hacks” who criticized both of us for standing up for free speech — including “the greasy, demi-literate, demented Hutt who wrote an extended quasi-sexual fantasy about a mob murdering Patrick and me.”
Hi, Bill Schmalfeldt! I understand you were curious about the result of this case. I’m happy to be sharing that with you! And, your sick, twisted fantasies notwithstanding, nobody has yet beaten me or Ken with baseball bats or tire irons. No group of men has thrown us in front of a moving truck as part of a conspiracy to cause our deaths.

Now, it was actually Ken at Popehat who described Bill Schmalfeldt as a “demented Hutt,” but I read it at Patterico‘s so . . .

Why is this such happy news? Because this nuisance suit against Patterico was self-evidently part of a deliberate vendetta against one of Brett Kimberlin’s chosen targets, an attempt to silence Patterico and intimidate others, as I explained in October:

I can’t imagine any court finding Patterico guilty of anything, but this lawsuit is just another typical product of the Kimberlin-Rauhauser “accuse the accusers” strategy. Once they target someone, the accusations proliferate endlessly as part of an orchestrated effort to discredit anyone who might accuse them of wrongdoing.

Off the top of my head, I could name a half-dozen people who have been targeted in this manner by either Kimberlin or Rauhauser or the various sociopathic trolls in their online mob. This is not merely harassment and cyberstalking — although it is that — but it is in fact political terrorism, and this lawfare harassment of Patrick Frey was an effort to silence him for having said so:

Keep in mind that Rauhauser, by inciting Nadia Naffe’s lawsuit against Patterico, has obligated Patterico to avoid writing about this subject on advice of counsel . . .

Well, how’s that working out for you, Neal Rauhauser? Patterico promises to tell the truth — the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help him God — on Monday. Meanwhile, go hit Patterico’s tip jar, and encourage him to plunge the knife of truth as deep as it will go.

Evil shall not prosper, nor will the wicked triumph. Selah.

 

Rule 5 Wednesday: Once More Into The Bleach

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Because Debbie Harry was awesome hot back in the day, when I was a young joey.

Def, blonde, but not dumb in the least.
Def, blonde, but not dumb in the least.

First, some administrivia: there will be no Rule 5 Sunday this coming weekend, but please continue to submit links for the Month-End Double Stuf Makeup Edition on April 29. As for this week’s belated parade of pulchritude, insert the standard disclaimer here.

Laughing Conservative hits the beach with Emily Ratajkowski, Subject To Change has some ladies in the kitchen, and Randy’s Roundtable chips in with Sarah Stephens. Ninety Miles From Tyranny contributes Lingerie Ladies and a Morning Mistress, and Mark Krikorian suggests this Daily Mail article on a controversial brassiere study. FOR SCIENCE! Fishersville Mike notes the imminent arrival of Jana Kramer, and Animal Magnetism is back with Rule Five Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon.  Lowering The Boom adds some Kate Upton to the mix, and EBL remembers Annette Funicello. Also, Everyone Link Dan Collins Day with bonus art by Rubens!

A View From The Beach posted Ana Beatriz Barros, Bras Are Bad, Progress! (Kentucky), Best Werewolf Prank Ever, more on Ashley Judd, Topless Protester Confronts Shirtless President, Japanese Weirdness, and The Big Night.

Soylent Green started with the Monday Motivationer, followed by Afternooner 8, Tuesday Titillation Bambi, Humpday Hawtness, Evening Awesome Red Riding Hood, Falconsword Fursday Vintage, Chain Bra Linky Love Barking Moonbat Early Warning System, Not So Snow White, Overnighty Hillary, Corsetcare Confabulation, Evening Awesome Kimberly, Mornin’ Muffin, and the Chain Bra Linky-Love Reach-Around: RSM.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe was Radha Mitchell, his Vintage Babe was Ginger Rogers, and Sex in Advertising this week is Refreshingly Brazilian! At Dustbury, it’s Paulina Porizkova.

The DaleyGator’s DaleyBabes included Shay Diggs, Zulay Henao, Pat Benatar, Momoka Kanou, Catalina White, random hotness, Marielle Roselli, Lisa Morales, Tamala Jones, Maya Koizumi, Jayde Nicole, Caitlyn Winters, and Christine Nguyen.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Submissions for the April 29 Double-Stuf Month-End Rule 5 Sunday are due in the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox no later than Saturday, April 28.


Colorado Conservative SWATted After Argument With Bill Schmalfeldt?

First, the news from the Hollywood Reporter:

Conservative pundit and author Erik Rush has become the latest victim of “swatting,” a growing trend in which individuals place fake 911 calls drawing police response to a celebrity’s home. Rush, who resides in Fort Collins, Colo., appears to have been targeted following a series of controversial tweets regarding the Boston Marathon explosions.
According to Coloradoan.com, an individual claiming to be Rush called Fort Collins police Monday at about 5 p.m., reporting that two men wielding AK-47 rifles were firing rounds inside his home. But with no additional calls reporting the gunshots and because the call came to 911 through a third-party relay service, police dispatchers were suspicious. Rush was contacted by police via his home phone and confirmed that the call was fake.

Now, the interesting coincidence explained by Patterico:

Schmalfeldt credited himself as being “the first person” to respond to Rush. One of Schmalfeldt’s fellow travelers credited Schmalfeldt as the person who called out Rush, and told Schmalfeldt that she had gotten his screencaps in an email from People from the American Way. Another Twitter user told Schmalfeldt that his tweet had appeared on Turkish TV, to which Schmalfeldt replied: “Man. I’m famous!”

Read the rest at Patterico, and follow Eric Rush on Twitter. Anybody hated by Bill Schmalfeldt must be awesome!

 

Why Is the New York Times Now Campaigning for Anthony Weiner?


First, the dishonest puff-piece feature, now a transparent “news” plug for Congressman Meat-Tweet. What’s going on here? I’ve got a few hunches about their motives, but no time to explain my theory just now. But there was time for Neutral Objective Journalism at ViralRead:

The New York Times has attempted to assist Weiner’s political rehabilitation, publishing an 8,000-word profile feature about the Democrat who resigned in June 2011 after he was caught sending photos of his bulging underwear to women via Twitter.That article in Sunday’s New York Times magazine was denounced by popular conservative blogger Ace of Spades as “a deliberate lie from start to finish” because of how the story by Jonathan Van Meter obscured the role of the late Andrew Breitbart in exposing Weiner. Breitbart.com was the first news organization to report on the so-called “WeinerGate” scandal. Van Meter’s article disparages Breitbart as a “not entirely reputable right-wing blogger.” Monday, Breitbart.com featured on its front page a lengthy account of WeinerGate excerpted from Andrew Breitbart’s book, Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World.

 

 


‘It’s Really Astonishing. It’s Just a Deliberate Lie From Start to Finish.’

So says Ace of Spades about the way the New York Times re-writes the history of the Anthony Weiner cybersex scandal.

In a just world, Jonathan Van Meter of the New York Times — and every editor who signed off on this thoroughly dishonest article — would be fired, and effectively blackballed from the industry like Jason Blair and Stephen Glass, for engaging in such a vicious distortion of facts.

Everyone who knows what actually happened must be outraged by Van Meter’s underhanded attempt to revive the Weiner-Truther “hack” theory, by quoting Weiner’s wife Huma Abedin: “Anthony had told me in the past that there were these sort of trolls on the Internet who were trying to damage him, take him down.” And then this hateful lie:

It wasn’t such an implausible theory; after all, it was the not entirely reputable right-wing blogger Andrew Breitbart who broke the story.

“Here Mr. Disgraced Democrat, let me help you blame this on your enemies by smearing the dead man who exposed you.”

Beyond this, Van Meter deliberately misstates the chronology of revelations, denying Breitbart credit for the impact of his reporting on the Texas woman who had also received Weiner’s dirty pictures, a key development that Breitbart gave as an exclusive to ABC News to break the story first. Ace of Spades nails it:

What they’re doing is mixing up the timing of Breitbart’s scoop — that there were other women, and one was talking on the record with ABCNews, and that the case was now entirely proven– by mentioning Breitbart’s scoop and then June 1, as if June 1st followed Breitbart’s scoop.
Nope! Breitbart’s scoop came later — just before Weiner admitted it, hours before he admitted it. The scoop forced Weiner to admit it — but only because he had no other options left to him.
This fact is obscured by the Times’ deliberate misstatement of the chronology because they’re now going to pretend that Weiner chose the honorable course of admitting the cybersex, when in fact Breitbart’s scoop left this as the only remaining option, after all lies were rubbished.

Read the whole thing at AOSHQ, because this is simply heinous: The New York Times smearing a dead man, in a transparent effort to revive the career of this perverted self-destructive disgrace.

UPDATE: To explain why this angers me so much, I remember quite clearly what it was like during the first four or five days of the WeinerGate scandal, which broke over the Memorial Day weekend when Andrew Breitbart had promised his wife and family they’d get a vacation from the news. Instead, of course, he found himself up to his eyeballs in arguably the biggest story of his career.

Breitbart was the first news organization to report it, and Weiner’s office then used the hostility toward Breitbart as a defensive weapon to convince reporters that the infamous meat-tweet was a “distraction” fabricated by a hacker.

For the first 36 hours of this bizarre story, a lot of us — including right-wingers like myself — were treating this as essentially a technology story: Was it possible that Weiner’s account was hacked? Or, as I thought at the time, was it possible that a staffer who had access to Weiner’s Twitter account might have accidentally sent that picture to the Seattle coed? The first thing I was trying to do, in other words, was to figure out if there could be an innocent explanation, simply because the idea of a member of Congress sending dick-pics to a college girl seemed so wildly implausible.

I was scratching my head over this stuff on the afternoon of Sunday, May 30, when I thought, “Hey, I’ll call Andrew.”

Now, calling Breitbart was like using the Bat-signal. Andrew was totally accessible — he actually once gave out his personal cellphone number during a speech at a Tea Party rally — but you didn’t want to waste his time or make a nuisance of yourself by calling him unless it was really important. Over the five years I knew him, I probably only called him about two-dozen times. And on this Sunday before Memorial Day when I called Breitbart, he was supposed to be spending time with his family and we only talked for about three minutes.

So I was trying to figure out if there could be any innocent explanation for Weiner’s meat-tweet and tried to suggest such a possibility when Andrew cut me off: “No, Stacy, trust me — there’s more.”

Well, I didn’t know the backstory at that point, and Breitbart didn’t want to discuss the details, but it was that assurance — Breitbart already had the goods and was just biding his time to let the story play out — that made me understand it was only a matter of time before Weiner would be forced to confess and resign in disgrace.

That’s why, during all the crazy drama that ensued — the press conferences, the silly “Betty and Veronica” nonsense — my own coverage of WeinerGate was based on a confident knowledge of how the story would eventually end.

And now this lying swine, Jonathan Van Meter, is trying to deprive Andrew Breitbart of his due credit.

Like the man said: “Fuck you! War!”

UPDATE II: To help you remember how the deal went down, here’s the Fox News WeinerGate timeline, which is not exhaustive, but which does make clear what it was that led Weiner (who spent the first 10 days of the scandal telling lies) to finally confess the truth on Monday, June 6:

The scandal escalates as Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com website publishes photos purportedly from a second woman who said she received shirtless shots of the congressman. The site says the pictures were in a cache of intimate online photographs, chats and email exchanges the woman claimed to have. The website does not identify the woman.
Responding, a tearful Weiner makes a profuse public apology at a Manhattan news conference. He admits sending a photo of his underwear-clad crotch to a young woman over Twitter and then lying repeatedly to protect himself. . . .
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi calls for a House ethics investigation into whether he broke the rules. Democratic leaders voice disappointment and embarrassment, reflecting an erosion of support for Weiner.
Weiner insists he did nothing wrong, and begins making calls to Democratic colleagues to apologize. He says he has no plans to resign.

Well, Weiner may have had “no plans to resign,” but just as Andrew Breitbart had told me: “There’s more!”

 

 


E-Mail From a Former Maryland Resident to Howard County (Md.) State’s Attorney

REQUESTING STATEMENT ON HARASSMENT POLICY
Monday, April 8, 2013 1:22 PM
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Dear Sirs:
As I am certain you are now aware, it has been reported that the office of Howard County State’s Attorney has refused to prosecute persons accused of online harassment, in apparent contravention of Maryland Criminal Statutes 3-803 and/or 3-805. In fact, it has been reported that a member of your staff, Assistant State’s Attorney Jim Brewer, advised persons complaining of such harassment, “If you’re so concerned about your safety, don’t come to Maryland,” and, “Stay off the Internet if you don’t want to be harassed.”
While I understand that authorities have wide discretion in choosing which complaints to pursue as criminal matters, these reports of official indifference to online harassment are certainly disturbing, and I wish to verify their accuracy. Has your office issued any statement clarifying your policy on this matter, or do you intend to issue such a statement in the future?
I ask this question as a reporter, a career journalist with more than 25 years in the news industry, but also as a former Maryland resident who left the state last year to escape the increasingly hostile climate of harassment that is apparently tolerated by officials there. While I am not a lawyer, and thus not qualified to state whether any particular action qualifies as a crime under Maryland statutes, I know right from wrong, and the harassing behaviors complained of in these reports would seem clearly wrong.
If you have any comment, please contact me via this e-mail address, as I hesitate to include my phone number or address in communication with your office.

Sincerely,

ROBERT STACY McCAIN
Editor-in-Chief, ViralRead.com
Correspondent, The American Spectator
Blogger, TheOtherMcCain.com

————————

Today is Everyone Blog About the Howard County State’s Attorney’s Office Day. John Hoge lists the participating sites:

Monitor’s Access
R. M. Nixon (Deceased) / Dead Republican Party
Tanny O’Haley
The Other McCain
Batshit Crazy News
Grumpy Opinions
Ameryx le Gallois
The Lonely Conservative
Raging Against the Rhetoric
Joyce Junior
Allergic to Bull
Patterico’s Pontifications

Certainly, this list will grow longer before the day ends. Dustyn at Monitor’s Access reports that the number at the office of Howard County State’s Attorney’s Dario J. Broccolino is (410) 313-2108; the number for Wayne Kirwan, the public spokesman for the office, is 410-313-3002.

My object is to get some kind of official statement from Broccolino or his spokesman, as to why there seems to be no legal redress for those complaining of harassment. Readers communicating with Broccolino’s office should be civil and polite.

 

Bill Schmalfeldt, Violentacrez, Barrett Brown and the Scourge of ‘Troll Rights’

“Arrogant sociopathic punks think they can go around threatening people and if you dare say a word back to them, you’re the bad guy.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Sept. 4, 2012

Donald Douglas at American Power reminds me of the deranged cyberstalker’s irrational grievance: “Troll rights.”

A basic problem of online life: People Who Don’t Understand How the Internet Works, No Matter How Often You Try to Explain It to Them.

Back in the day you could — and, in many places on the Internet, you still can — say anything you want to say in the comments. People who habitually frequent such places become accustomed to unleashing their id at will, and believe that this is a basic First Amendment freedom, which it is — as long as the proprietors of the site don’t care what people say in the comments. But one way or another, that online space is owned by someone, and the proprietor makes the rules.

Try going over to Democrat Underground or Daily Kos, spewing out GOP talking points, and see how long it takes them to ban you.

Trolls don’t understand this. They believe that having access to the Internet confers on them the inalienable right to say anything they want anywhere they want to say it, and any site operator who refuses to acknowledge that right is a fascist totalitarian.

To which I customarily reply: Get your own damned blog.

Here in my space, I will say what I want to say and — while disagreement and criticism from commenters is tolerated — there are clear limits to what can be tolerated without destroying the value of the site as a community of readers. Some of our regular commenters regularly disagree with me, and disagree with each other, and that’s OK. But what is not permitted is intentionally disruptive behavior, or personal attacks impugning the character of the hosts or the integrity of the site, which is inevitably the kind of “argument” trolls want to make.

This rule is a matter of hospitality and courtesy. You don’t accept an invitation to a party then show up and start harassing your fellow guests, complaining about the food and saying rude things about the hosts. Well, maybe you do that, but decent people don’t.

If you hate me, there are lots of places on the Internet where you are free to express that hatred. The comments of this blog are not such a place.

The classic example of the troll mentality was Michael Brutsch, a.k.a. Violentacrez, the notorious “jailbait” troll on Reddit.

In the free-for-all environment which the proprietors of Reddit seemingly encouraged, Violentacrez’s domineering id-monster act flourished. There were no limits he would not transgress, no sensibilities he failed to offend, and anyone who tried to get in his way was denounced as a crybaby, a “pussy.”

Well,  it was anonymous, you see?

Except for a few trusted friends, nobody knew who Violentacrez actually was, and so there were no consequences for his deliberately vile behavior until, one day, consequences happened.

One of his “few trusted friends” finally had enough of his outrageous bullshit and narked him out to Adrian Chen of Gawker:

Last Wednesday afternoon I called Michael Brutsch. He was at the office of the Texas financial services company where he works as a programmer and he was having a bad day. I had just told him, on Gchat, that I had uncovered his identity as the notorious internet troll Violentacrez (pronounced Violent-Acres).
“It’s amazing how much you can sweat in a 60 degree office,” he said with a nervous laugh.
Judging from his internet footprint, Brutsch, 49, has a lot to sweat over. If you are capable of being offended, Brutsch has almost certainly done something that would offend you, then did his best to rub your face in it. His speciality is distributing images of scantily-clad underage girls, but as Violentacrez he also issued an unending fountain of racism, porn, gore, misogyny, incest, and exotic abominations yet unnamed, all on the sprawling online community Reddit. At the time I called Brutsch, his latest project was moderating a new section of Reddit where users posted covert photos they had taken of women in public, usually close-ups of their asses or breasts, for a voyeuristic sexual thrill. It was called “Creepshots.” Now Brutsch was the one feeling exposed and it didn’t suit him very well. . ..
“My wife is disabled. I got a home and a mortgage, and if this hits the fan, I believe this will affect negatively on my employment,” he said.

Alas, too late. Within a week, Michael Brutsch was fired from his job.

There are many words to describe Brutsch’s online behavior, but the important word is antisocial — a hostility to rules, a defiance of authority, an unwillingness to cooperate with others. Rules exist for a reason, and if you have a problem understanding why “distributing images of scantily-clad underage girls” is against the rules . . .

Dude, do I even need to finish that sentence? Continue reading Bill Schmalfeldt, Violentacrez, Barrett Brown and the Scourge of ‘Troll Rights’ →