The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Grief Tends Not To Transmit Far

Posted on | February 21, 2013 | 8 Comments

by Smitty

Jerry makes a good point here:

It’s interesting to note where priorities lie for people. I clearly recall after my brother passed away unexpectedly last year feeling not a little anger toward those too self-preoccupied to express condolences even after having been directly notified about what was happening. I also heard from more than a few conservative new media types that I needed to “get over it” and was grieving far too much whenever I mentioned this. Such individuals make this whole forgiveness thing quite the challenge, but it’s a work in progress.

I’ll link this post by way of apologizing for being in the “too pre-occupied” category last September when he wrote it. I recall that we’d made a trip to Germany around then, and were just back. I (looking at YouTube uploads) that I was over at LibertyCon around then.

But the excuse “I was too busy” isn’t really the point. No, the real issue is that, in the detached online world, working up significant emotion for unmet people is a Hard Thing. One’s immediate family, co-workers, members of the community of faith: when they pass, we’re moved. Heroes, statesman (that dwindling breed), artists: when they go, we write a blog post.

For people I haven’t met or don’t know of, genuine emotion just isn’t there. Sure, there is the general honor afforded all veterans, and the comfort of knowing that those of faith may be encountered in the next world. But in a firehose of online information, things like Benghazi draw the attention. The sheer volume of data moving through makes being online a “best effort” endeavor at best, short of contractual obligation.

To our detriment. The Internet was supposed to be a digital utopia, helping the truth get out, and allowing time to focus on Important Matters. Well, that didn’t happen. Jerry, I’m sorry your brother passed, and further sorry about the slow reaction. I’m not sure how the overall situation can be improved.

Category: Uncategorized

Consulting the Legal Department

Posted on | February 21, 2013 | 16 Comments

My previous observation that no one could be sued for libel for merely describing the self-evident fact of Bill Schmalfeldt’s derangment drew a mildly critical e-mail from a lawyer friend:

Not to be a pedant, but the reason it’s not defamatory is that it’s a statement of opinion based on disclosed facts, and therefore not subject to defamation analysis.
Statements of opinion (except for those implying that they are based on hidden, false facts) can’t be defamatory.
Like if you called me a jerk. That can’t be defamation.

To this, I replied:

“Opinion”? Don’t try to fool me with all your high-falutin legalistic argle-bargle, sir!
I’m a professional journalist. I deal with facts, and the Neutral Objective Fact is, this guy is a certifiable nutjob.
Any journalist who says otherwise should turn in their press credentials, clean out their desk and find another line of work.

On at least one previous occasion, Bill Schmalfeldt suggested that certain lawyers he doesn’t like deserve “to have their knees broken with baseball bats.” (You could look it up.)

It it merely an opinion to say that Schmalfeldt’s nuttier than a fruitcake, loony as a goony bird, a few fries short of a Happy Meal?

No, I state as a fact that Bill Schmalfeldt is neurologically impaired, mentally defective and psychologically abnormal.

The kook  is ranting about Lee Stranahan’s teeth, for God’s sake!

Your Honor, I rest my case.

However, aware that a federal judge has recently declared notorious lunatic Barrett Brown mentally competent to stand trial, I wish to reserve my right to the “satire” defense, which Schmalfeldt himself used to defend his statements about anal rape.

Yeah, they banned Bill from Daily Kos for that. And anybody who’s too crazy for Daily Kos will have a hard time proving libel merely because I state the obvious truth that he is bonkers, unhinged, off his rocker, daffy, mad as a March hare and not in his right mind.

 

Category: Bill Schmalfeldt

Jonah Goldberg: ‘Cheer Up, The Worst Is Yet To Come’

Posted on | February 21, 2013 | 14 Comments

by Smitty

This first seven minutes is stand-up (but good if you’re a fan), so you can skip that if pressed for time:

One great quote, I guess due to Charles Murray: “One of the problems with the elite is that it refuses to preach what it practices.”

Another crucial point, he calls it a category error that the Left always makes, the Right sometimes makes, and Libertarians never make: the government cannot love you.

via Mataconis

Category: Uncategorized

Ed Markey’s ‘Legitimate Rape’ Moment?

Posted on | February 21, 2013 | 13 Comments

Washington Free Beacon:

Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), who is running to replace recently appointed Secretary of State John Kerry in the Senate, compared the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision to the 1858 decision to uphold slavery, according to BuzzFeed.
Markey made reference to the Koch brothers and Karl Rove spending undisclosed amounts of money before saying, “The constitution must be amended. The Dred Scott decision had to be repealed, we have to repeal Citizens United.”
BuzzFeed notes Markey has accepted more than $2.5 million from business, labor, and ideological PACs since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Will anyone hold Markey accountable for his hypocrisy and his offensively reckless language? He’s a Democrat. It’s Massachusetts. Which is to say, not bloody likely.

Category: Democrats, Election, Massachusetts, Senate

Weird Headline of the Day

Posted on | February 21, 2013 | 12 Comments

Your 14-Year-Old Daughter Is
Probably A Child Pornographer

Yeah, that got your attention in a hurry, didn’t it? It’s “Advice Goddess” Amy Alkon’s reaction to a report from Massachusetts about a prosecutor who is fed up with teenagers using cellphones to send each other naughty pictures of themselves:

“When they start sharing photos like this, we are going to start charging people with the manufacturing, dissemination and possession of child pornography, and they’re going to go to court.”

Shame on you for suspecting that Berkshire Second Assistant District Attorney Robert W. Kinzer III‘s interest in the evidence of these crimes is not entirely a matter of professional duty.

Kids: Don’t send naked pictures to your friends. Your photos could end up on the hard drive of a prosecuting attorney’s computer.

 

Category: Crime

Austin Gates Is a Victim of Abuse, Homophobia, and a Really Bad Haircut

Posted on | February 21, 2013 | 50 Comments

Perhaps this video requires no introduction. Perhaps I’m wrong to suspect that readers will fill the comments with insensitive sarcasm. At any rate, if we rule out the possibility that this is some kind of twisted parody of a “coming out” confession, I’ve got a feeling that Austin Gates is destined for viral video stardom:

 

OK, sarcastic commenters, do your worst. H8rs!

 

Category: Gays

Bill Whittle’s Virtual SOTU: Guns

Posted on | February 21, 2013 | 10 Comments

by Smitty

Set aside ~8 minutes and watch this. Then tweet/post/email it around to all who understand the English language.

via Instapundit

Category: Uncategorized

And Now, Helpless Victim Bill Schmalfeldt Heroically Suffers Glorious Martyrdom

Posted on | February 21, 2013 | 41 Comments

Bill Schmalfeldt: Not cropped to ‘look positively demonic’

“Let’s talk about R.S. McCain, as well — Robert Stacy McCain. Here he writes column after column after column about me, in which he refers to me in the most defamatory ways, about being deranged . . . and he takes that picture of me that was taken several days after surgery . . . crops it to make me look positively demonic, and then when I ask him to denounce this death threat, I get a ‘don’t contact me’ e-mail back. Where’s your humanity?”
— Bill Schmalfeldt, Feb. 20 podcast

“Stranahan would f–k you up the a– while picking your pocket, then wipe his d–k on your t-shirt.”
— Bill Schmalfeldt, Feb. 11 on Twitter

Perhaps there is no need to point out the contrast between Schmalfeldt in attack mode and Schmalfeldt in victim mode. Da Tech Guy isn’t buying Schmalfeldt’s fainting-couch act:

Really, you have a guy on twitter with under 150 followers who has his tweets “protected” and people are trying to silence him? Who is actually going to pay money to silence somebody that nobody hears?

The demonstrable insignificance of Bill Schmalfeldt certainly provokes the question, “Why does anybody even notice him?” And the answer is, because of his relentless harassment, he requires attention — preferably, the attention of qualified professionals in the field of forensic psychology, but until such time as the profilers at Quantico take an interest, he’ll just have to settle for whatever attention he gets.

Most people have never had to deal with a deranged cyberstalker, and therefore have no idea what one obsessed kook can accomplish in terms of online harassment. Over Thanksgiving weekend, Schmalfeldt sent me more than 200 unsolicited harassing Twitter messages in the span of 48 hours, including threats to contact my wife.

This was relatively mild in comparison to the months of nearly constant harassment Schmalfeldt has directed at Lee Stranahan. Imagine the effect when Bill Schmalfeldt sends disturbingly obscene messages — dozens of them, scores of them — every day for weeks on end, directed at one person. And because Schmalfeldt cyberstalks his targets, obsessively monitoring their online activities, anyone publicly communicating with his targets is liable to be included as a CC recipient of these kinds of messages, as in this Tweet that Schmalfeldt CC’d to blogger John Hoge (click the image to enlarge):

Stranahan repeatedly asked Schmalfeldt to cease this behavior, but Schmalfeldt persisted, which is why Schmalfeldt was charged with online harassment last week, and this explanation from Aaron Walker really should not be necessary:

Folks, do I have to explain this to you? Well, in case I do, this is not the case of Lee Stranahan v. Bill Schmalfeldt. This is The State of Maryland v. Bill Schmalfeldt. . . .

Anyone familiar with stalking knows how difficult — indeed, perhaps sometimes impossible — it is to dislodge the stalker’s psychological fixation on the object of his obsession: Bill can’t help himself.

Thus the absurdity of Schmalfeldt claiming it is “defamatory” for me to describe him as “deranged.” His derangement is self-evident, and I have merely described it. When someone behaves in ways that are demonstrably crazy — and keep in mind that Schmalfeldt has been relentlessly harassing Lee Stranahan for months now — you don’t need an advanced degree in psychology, and are not at risk of being sued for libel, if you say they are daft, zany, bonkers, wacko, demented, warped, nuttier than squirrel farts and cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

 “The sky is blue,” according to the National Weather Service.

Now that Lee Stranahan has brought Bill Schmalfeldt’s dangerous craziness to the attention of authorities in Maryland, suddenly we are asked to believe that Schmalfeldt is a victim. Schmalfeldt accuses Stranahan of “inciting unstable people” (click the image to enlarge):

Lee Stranahan describes Schmalfeldt’s victim motif:

Bill Schmalfeldt has been predicting for days that my pointing out things he’s currently saying about me and family would create an atmosphere of hate. . . . And sure enough; his predictions came true as he’s gotten two mysterious threats that he is blaming on…me.
This is more harassment from Bill Schmalfeldt; a game of accuse the accuser.

“Accuse the accuser” is a tactic Schmalfeldt seems to have learned from his friends Brett Kimberlin and Neal Rauhauser, and if you suspect that this is not entirely coincidental, you’ll probably want to see where Schmalfeldt had a chat with his “buddy” Neal.

The charges against Bill Schmalfeldt are a matter of public record, and Schmalfeldt’s continuing harassment of Lee Stranahan is both (a) legitimate news, and (b) additional evidence.

Would you be surprised to learn that Schmalfeldt now claims to have proof that Stranahan was responsible for the death threats?

How amazing this is — not.

Part of the “accuse the accusers” game is the You Can’t Catch Me move that Neal Rauhauser has repeatedly employed: Using proxy trolls and sockpuppets to accomplish his purposes, then pretending innocence and claiming that anyone who suspects him of involvement is paranoid. Because you cannot prove that Neal did it (and keep in mind, Neal has written lengthy online treatises about methods of Internet deception), therefore your suspicion toward him is irrational — and thus evidence that you lack credibility.

Ah, but who laughs last? Little did Neal Rauhauser suspect the mind-blowing announcement that Lee Stranahan got his teeth fixed:

How will Bill Schmalfeldt explain to a neutral third party why topics like my teeth or my wife’s sex life are legally valid areas of obsession for him? I don’t know.

Stranahan’s prediction that the “haters will blow their gaskets” at that news was presented by Schmalfeldt as evidence that Stranahan had advance knowledge of the Twitter death threats against Schmalfeldt, and now the Heroic Victim of Glorious Martyrdom will have something new to explain to his handful of followers.




 

 

PREVIOUSLY:

 


 

Category: Bill Schmalfeldt
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin