Category: Blogging

Just Hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar

Posted on Comments

Gratitude requires generosity and vice-versa. Having fallen drastically behind on my thank-you notes to tip-jar hitters, I am nevertheless grateful for the continued support, and when Pete Da Tech Guy rattled his tip jar, I immediately hit it. Given the circumstances of our friendship and his many acts of generosity toward me, Pete’s explanation of his circumstances is entirely unnecessary. All I needed was to know he was in need. January is usually one of those hard months in Bloglandia. People go overboard on Christmas and, when the New Year arrives, they look at their bank balances and say, “Uh-oh.” So it’s scarcely surprising if there is a need to rattle the tip-jar a bit extra as February arrives.

I can’t stop thinking about the $53 million that Sheldon Adelson pissed away on Republican “super PACs” in the 2012 election cycle. It makes me angry, but I can’t do anything about that.

Pete has done a rather elaborate calculus of how much he would require annually, but (a) I’ve never been one to worry that far in the future, and so (b) let’s just deal with the immediate need. Let’s hope everyone else feels the same: Go hit Pete’s tip jar, please.

 

News Flash: Crazy People Are Dangerous

Posted on Comments

Bill Schmalfeldt of Elk Ridge, Maryland, a.k.a. “Liberal Grouch”

Aaron Walker discussed the most recent evidence that Bill Schmalfeldt is a deranged sadistic sociopath, as if more evidence were necessary. But I think people are taking too lightly the menace to public safety posed by this swarm of obsessive Internet cyberstalkers whose persistent harassment has targeted Walker, Lee Stranahan, Patrick “Patterico” Frey, Mike Stack and others.

If you have the stomach to read the vile things Schmalfeldt was Tweeting about Lee Stranahan’s family, you will notice that Schmalfeldt portrays himself as a Courageous Seeker of Truth. This is a common pose — The Last Honest Man! — favored by a certain type of Internet harasser who engages in a Walter Mitty fantasy of being an “investigative journalist,” thinking of himself as exposing the Hidden Evil he attributes to the Sinister Enemies he fanatically pursues.

The Last Honest Man posture is, of course, deeply ironic because Schmalfeldt is habitually dishonest (he got canned by the Examiner for his compulsive lying, and he’s persona non grata at Daily K0s) and this is where the factor of psychological projection figures so prominently in the bizarre vindication fantasies of such cyberstalkers: By exposing the Hidden Evil of Sinister Enemies, the cyberstalker seeks to prove himself heroically trustworthy: “See? They are the liars — not me!”

Schmalfeldt’s persistence in directing this kind of anti-social harassment at his chosen scapegoats (he’s been stalking Aaron Walker since June) reveals the insane depths of his obsession, because no amount of negative feedback can dissuade him from this behavior. He is incapable of restraining his impulses. A tendency toward sadism is intrinsic to Schmalfeldt’s disordered personality; he uses the Internet as a means to indulge his sick craving to inspire fear in others.

This is particularly relevant today, because it seems the New York Times is concerned that it is “unfair” to focus on mental illness as a contributing factor in crime, even while they find themselves forced to admit that kooks are dangerous:

Most mental health experts agree that the link between mental illness and violence is not imaginary. Studies suggest that people with an untreated severe mental illness are more likely to be violent, especially when drug or alcohol abuse is involved. And many rampage killers have some type of serious mental disorder: James E. Holmes, accused of opening fire in a movie theater in Colorado in July, was seeing a psychiatrist who became alarmed about his behavior; Jared L. Loughner, who killed 6 people and injured 13 others in Arizona, including former Representative Gabrielle Giffords, was severely mentally ill.

Look, I’m not a psychiatrist, but I know what crazy looks like. Recall my September warning to Anonymous spokesman Barrett Brown:

You don’t need a lawyer, Barrett. You need a psychiatrist, or perhaps a priest to exorcise your demons. You are traveling a road to destruction, as harmful to yourself as to any of your chosen enemies. Get help.

About a week later, Barrett Brown melted down and was arrested after recording a bizarre YouTube rant in which he threatened an FBI agent. And it was scarcely surprising to learn, from Brown’s appearance in federal court this week, that he is being treated with the anti-depressant Zoloft and the anti-psychotic drug Risperidone, used to treat symptoms of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Like I said: Get help.

The problem with crazies like Barrett Brown and Bill Schmalfeldt is that they are able to persuade some people that what they are doing is politically motivated “activism” or “journalism,” and their political allies act as enablers who validate their dangerous delusions.

When will law enforcement start taking this problem seriously? Will we have to wait until one of these cyberstalkers finally kills somebody? A couple of weeks ago I warned about John Tiessen, who went on a bizarre rant after being exposed as a convicted sex offender:

“You people who kicked me to the curb because of my lifestyle, you’re doing the same thing that you’re fighting against. . . . You want these people to get out of prison and . . . you want them to be ridiculed, laughed at, made fun of. . . .
“I still have a hard time with what I did. I know I’m guilty. . . . The coke whore that I picked up promised me a blow job if I gave her coke and then she tried to renege on it, and I said, ‘No, you’re going to do it.’ . . .
“I’m a f–king true freedom fighter. I’m not one of these f–king wannabes. . . . You want to grow some f–king cojones and be a true freedom fighter? Stand up like Jesus did. Stand up to these kings and these so-called f–king religious leaders. . . [Tell them] ‘You’re not speaking for God.’ I don’t care who you are — Obama, Putin, on and on — I don’t care. You’re speaking for the Devil, man.
“You ain’t speaking for the people. You’re speaking for the Rothschilds and the J.P. Morgans and the f–king banks of this world.”

Diagnosis: Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. I joke about it, but people like that can be seriously dangerous, and ignoring them won’t make them go away.




 

PREVIOUSLY:

Israeli Jets Hit Convoy in Syria; Also, People Are Mean to Matt Lewis on Twitter

Posted on Comments

Big stories have been breaking all day:

So you’ll forgive me if I got so busy that I forgot to blog about the most important news today: Matt Lewis has given up on Twitter!

It’s hard to pinpoint the exact moment it happened — but at some point, Twitter became a dark place.
It’s a lot like the transformation of the 1960s. It started out being about free love, sharing ideas, and changing the world, but somehow we ended up being more about Altamont and Charles Manson.
Somewhere along the line, our optimism faded.
Once everyone was on Twitter, everyone’s problems were on Twitter. The early adopters might have been tech-utopians, but the succeeding waves were angry cynics and partisan cranks who used the technology to make the world even louder and worse than it was before Twitter.

Hmmm. This happened “at some point,” perhaps shortly after Lewis decided to call Michelle Malkin “execrable,” maybe?

Just a wild guess there.

What gets into people’s heads to make them do stupid stuff like that? Damned if I know. Of course, I’ve done stupid stuff before, but . . .

This is one of those things that defy explanation. It’s permissible to disagree with Michelle Malkin, but to lump her into the same category of odium with someone she hates? And then to write a Daily Caller item calling Ben Howe a troll? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Never mind your motives. How does it look? Petty and narcissistic, and also as if maybe you’re suffering from testosterone deficiency.

Maybe I’ve become so used to being dissed, snubbed, screwed over, backstabbed, stalked, harassed and defamed that I consider it routine. Maybe I should object to it more often than I do. But in the long run, you’re either on the team or you’re not, and if you’re going to be on the team, there are some irritations you just have to learn to put up with, as a necessary condition of membership. Meanwhile . . .

Israeli jets strike convoy along Syrian border
— CNN

SYRIA CONFIRMS ISRAELI JETS
BOMBED MILITARY SITE
— Associated Press

Arms Shipment Was Target as
Israel Bombed Syria, U.S. Says
— New York Times

This could actually be more important than “why we can’t have nice things,” but don’t tell that to Matt Lewis. You might hurt his feelings.

Anonymous Spokesman Barrett Brown Is Sane Enough to Stand Trial, Judge Rules

Posted on Comments

September 2012: Barrett Brown threatens an FBI agent in video

In September, Barrett Brown was arrested after a bizarre video meltdown in which he threatened to “destroy” an FBI agent. Brown is a former spokesman for the Anonymous hacking group, and his paranoid rant about HB Gary and alleged FBI informant Jennifer Emick was apparently inspired by an IRC chat with Neal Rauhauser. In October, Brown was indicted for threatening the FBI agent. In December, Brown was charged in connection with the LulzSec hacking of Stratfor. Last week, Brown was indicted against for an obstruction of justice charge.

Now facing as much as 100 years in prison on these charges, Brown appeared in federal court today in Dallas, Texas:

In a brief hearing this morning, United States District Judge Sam Lindsay found former self-proclaimed Anonymous spokesperson Barrett Brown mentally competent to stand trial. . . . At the same time, Brown was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to his newest charge, concealing evidence, for which he was indicted last week. . . .
In response to questions, Brown told the judge that he understood he was there in order for the court to determine his mental competency after a prison psychologist at the Federal Correctional Institution in Fort Worth recently issued a report recommending he be found competent. . . .
Brown told the judge that in Fort Worth he was “under the sporadic care of a psychologist,” after spending a week and a half under medical supervision while undergoing withdrawal from Suboxone, a drug used to treat opiate addiction. “I was addicted to Suboxone,” he told the judge.

Brown will face two separate trials, one in April and another in May, on the federal charges against him. More reporting from the Dallas Morning News and the Associated Press/KFDM.

In a brief phone conversation, Lee Stranahan — who attended today’s hearing in Dallas — told me that the question of competence was essentially uncontested by Brown’s public defender. Brown is reportedly being treated with Zoloft, an anti-depressant, and another drug, Risperidone, an anti-psychotic medication used to treat symptoms of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

Is it possible that, while not contesting Brown’s current mental health condition as competent to stand trial, his attorney is prepared to argue that Brown was psychologically impaired at the time he recorded his threats against the FBI agent?

The video rant that led to Barrett Brown’s September arrest:

PREVIOUSLY:

 

Debating Gay Marriage With Cynthia Yockey On Da Tech Guy’s Radio Show

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

I’ve been invited to debate my dear friend Cynthia Yockey of A Conservative Lesbian on Da Tech Guy’s show tomorrow afternoon, on 26 January 2013, from 2-3 PM EST, if the technical gremlins are smiling.

My arguments will consist of pure, heated denunciation, in the style of that 18th century fire breather Jonathan Edwards using that immortal chestnut Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God as an outline. Why make the rubble bounce, when you can pulverize it into a brimstone-scented incense? I ask you.

Of course I’ll be doing none of that. Cynthia and Pete Da Tech Guy have been friends for years, and this is an opportunity both to showcase his new, syndicated format, to encourage Cynthia on a project that I understand is in progress, and to exchange ideas where we vary substantially in the kind of rational way you used to think possible with the Left. One does not intend to offer religious arguments, at least as a going in position.

DaTechGuy syndicated run begins at a temporary time on the Money Matters Radio network from 1-3 PM EST bringing you Matt O’Brien talking about a new initiative to stop Obamacare in its tracks in our the first hour and in our second hour the great debate. Chris Smitty Smith of The Other McCain on one side and Cynthia Yockey from A Conservative Lesbian on the other with the topic, Gay Marriage!

The call in number is 888-205-2263 the live stream for the Money Matters Network is here and or you can listen live via TuneIn.

Woo hoo!

Fear and Loathing at the #NRISummit: Can We Survive the Sarcasm Deficit?

Posted on Comments

Perhaps National Review‘s famed cartoonist Roman Genn can do a savage caricature of the donnybrook brawl I’ve been trying to incite for this weekend’s National Review Institute “Future of Conservatism” Summit at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C.

Was it a smart career move to kick Jonah Goldberg in the knee? No, of course not, but there are a lot of things I’ve done over the years that could be characterized as the diametric opposite of “smart career moves.” I’ve always preferred the Eric Stratton Philosophy of Life:

Boon: I gotta work on my game.
Otter: No, no, no! Don’t think of it as work. The whole point is just to enjoy yourself.

Some readers misunderstood my purpose in subjecting Jonah Goldberg to the kind of blunt sarcasm I habitually aim at liberals. Do I want a fight with Jonah? Oh, hell, no — he’s the size of a linebacker, and I’m not enough of a journalistic celebrity to rely on the “David Gregory Loophole” in D.C.’s strict gun-control policy. So I’ll be unarmed and defenseless when I show up at the National Review Summit this afternoon.

Although I understand they’ve hired heavy security at the Omni Shoreham to deal with any troublemakers, what’s to stop Jonah Goldberg from slipping the guards $100 to look the other way while he pounds my head up against a brick wall?

No, I don’t want to go mano a mano with that savage giant. My point in depicting the NRI Summit as a conclave of effete snobs was to incite grassroots resentment, to inspire a populist mob to pay their $250 and show up at the Omni Shoreham howling for blood: Stir up some kind of controversy — “fireworks” as the headline-writers say — that will provide an approximation of actual news for me to report.

Readers who contribute to the Shoe Leather Fund aren’t paying me to go down to D.C. so I can write up the tedious proceedings of a series of panel discussions. No, the tip-jar hitters want some real news: At least a couple of angry shouting matches, if not indeed a brutal mob beatdown on Joe Scarborough. It was a smart idea to invite America’s Least Popular “Republican” TV Personality™ to this event, if only on the basis on the venerable principle that there is no such thing as bad publicity, except your own obituary. Speaking of obituaries . . .

When I told a certain investigative journalist friend of mine I was coming to town for the NRI Summit, he said, “You mean the one with the panel on ‘what’s wrong with the Right,’ where the answer to the question is, ‘The people on stage’?”

Panel: What is Wrong with the Right?
Moderator: Reihan Salam, National Review Online
Bill Kristol, The Weekly Standard
Yuval Levin, National Affairs
John Podhoretz, Commentary Magazine
Joe Scarborough, MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’
Ross Douthat, New York Times

Notice — and I hate to be the one to point this out — that there isn’t a single female or Latino on that panel? So there’s one answer to your question: “Intellectuals who are clueless about optics.” This is not to endorse a tokenistic system of affirmative action among the rightward intelligentsia, but when you exclude key demographics and the closest thing to a “youth” presence you can offer is 33-year-old Harvard classmates Reihan Salam and Ross Douthat . . .

Finish that sentence however you want.

If the proprietors of Conservatism, Inc., want to run their operation as an Old Boys Club for Ivy Leaguers, who am I to object? It’s a free country. My advice was never solicited, and it’s unlikely the heirs of the Buckley Legacy would listen if I offered unsolicited advice. So I kick ’em in the knee, give ’em free publicity, and hope maybe some of our readers will pay $250 for the right to ask a few pointed questions.

And, honestly, it won’t be a totally lame snobfest. A few of the participants in this weekend’s NRI Summit proceedings:

Mark Steyn, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, Charles Krauthammer, Laura Ingraham, Michael Barone, Kathryn Lopez, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Mona Charen, Mia Love, Peter Thiel, Mark Krikorian, James Pethokoukis, Amity Shlaes, Kevin Williamson, Robert Costa, Jay Nordlinger, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, John O’Sullivan, Larry Kudlow, Ed Whelan, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, John Fund, Tim Phillips, Heather Higgins, Kellyanne Conway, Cleta Mitchell, Jim Geraghty, Jim DeMint, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, Arthur Brooks, Maggie Gallagher, Brad Wilcox and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal

Maybe you think all of those people are part of the problem, and you can pay $250 to get in their face and tell ’em so. But surely any conservative could look at that list and see at least a few names that might be part of the solution, and you can pay $250 to show up and cheer them.

The point is that I’m not anti-NRI Summit. I am anti-boredom, however, and even if the angry dissent and controversy — “fireworks”! — are as dramatically phony as professional wrestling, we need some infighting and bloodletting and perhaps even random violence among the panelists, if only to justify my spending a weekend in D.C.

If you’re not going to pay $250 to attend this event, it would be absurd for me to expect you to hit my tip jar for $10 or $20 just so I could write up a bunch of intellectual navel-gazing and tepid policy discussions. No, you want some real live action for me to report:

WASHINGTON, D.C.
Conservative journalist John Podoretz is “expected to recover” from the critical injuries he suffered during a savage fistfight that broke out Saturday afternoon during a panel discussion on immigration policy at the National Review Institute Summit.
Podhoretz was “conscious and responsive,” said a spokesman at George Washington University Hospital, where the Commentary magazine editor was rushed by paramedics after he charged the stage during a presentation by Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies.
“It was totally unexpected,” said Krikorian, who was questioned and released by Metropolitan Police. “All I did was defend myself.”
Stunned witnesses said Podhoretz seemed to become agitated when Krikorian made several sarcastic references to the “open borders lobby” and “gutless neocons” whom he blamed for recent political setbacks suffered by the Republican Party.
“John started trembling and then his face became contorted by rage,” said Jim Geraghty, a National Review staffer who was moderating the panel. Geraghty said that Podhoretz shouted “anti-Armenian slurs” before charging across the ballroom at the Omni Shoreham Hotel and attempting to attack Krikorian, who responded by slamming Podhoretz into the floor. . . .

Could that really happen? We certainly can’t rule it out. Bad blood between Krikorian and the “gutless neocons” has been brewing for years. Everybody knows who he’s talking about. Podhoretz’s irrational Fear and Loathing of Armenians isn’t exactly a secret, either.

That’s why readers want to contribute to the Shoe Leather Fund and send me down to D.C. for the weekend: If there’s going to be trouble — and it’s at least an outside possibility these vicious internecine rivalries might lead to an all-out riot at the National Review Institute Summit — you’re gonna want me to provide an on-the-scene report of this epic battle. Because I’m strictly a Neutral Objective Journalist.





 

 


New Federal Charges Filed Against Anonymous Spokesman Barrett Brown

Posted on Comments

September 2012: Barrett Brown threatens an FBI agent in video

For the third time in four months, a federal grand jury in Texas has returned indictments against Barrett Brown, the former spokesman for the hacking group Anonymous. Brown was arrested in September after a video rant in which he threatened to “destroy” an FBI agent.

Brown was indicted in October on charges stemming from those threats and indicted again in December on multiple charges related to the “LulzSec” hacking of Stratfor. Now, the grand jury has returned an indictment on two obstruction of justice charges, accusing Brown of concealing evidence in a March 6 raid (at the same time that the feds arrested several members of the “LulzSec” hacking group).

In an interview with Wired magazine, Brown’s former attorney Jay Leiderman portrayed the latest indictments in a conspiratorial light:

“Clearly they’re more worried about what they perceive as his egging people on to go after defense contractors and secret spy organizations. . . . Barrett believes in privacy for individuals and transparency for corporations and government. The government doesn’t like his belief system. And Barrett was effective in expressing that belief system.”

Leiderman compared Brown to Aaron Swarz, the Reddit co-founder who committed suicide after being prosecuted for hacking an MIT database:

“I would have thought in the wake of Aaron Swartz that the government might have learned something and might have thought twice about bringing the weight of the entire [United States] down upon someone when it wasn’t warranted,” says Leiderman.

The Dallas Observer reports:

Brown is due in court again next Wednesday, in the case related to his alleged FBI agent-threatening. At that time, U.S. District Judge Sam Linday will rule on a prison psychologist’s recommendation that Brown be founded mentally competent to stand trial.

The video rant that led to Barrett Brown’s September arrest:

PREVIOUSLY: