Actually, that's only rarely the case. Far more often such battles are what I like to call "scumbag on scumbag violence." The war between Hitler and Stalin is the most famous example of this, but hardly the only one.
Christ, even I forget that from time to time and find myself wanting to jump in on the side of who I perceive to be "the good guys." I was certainly prepared to do so this past spring when the story of Brett Kimberlin and Aaron Walker exploded on the blogosphere. And after I read this, I really wanted to get involved.
As you might have noticed, I didn't. Here's why.
First, too many of the main players on "my side" of the psychodrama were involved with the Brietbart empire. And anyone who has paid attention over the last four years knows that they are chronic liars. They've broken multiple stories that were later discredited, in whole or in part, within weeks if not days. Brietbart's Boy Wonder, James O'Keefe, was facing the very real prospect of federal prison time because of his sleazy tactics, which even Andrew Brietbart himself had to distance himself from.
I decided years ago to wait for the other shoe to drop before commenting on a Brietbart story. And there's always another shoe waiting to drop.
Second, I became uncomfortable with the narrative that was building around Kimberlin himself. You couldn't read anything coming from the right about Kimberlin that didn't describe him as a "convicted terrorist," which is weapons-grade nonsense.
I'm of the firm opinion that Brett Kimberlin is a Very Bad Man indeed, and his criminal history seems to back that up. He was convicted of major drug importation and perjury before he apparently decided to get into the big time. That resulted in what became known as the Speedway Bombings, and that's where I have a major problem with the narrative.
According to contemporaneous mainstream media sources, Kimberlin was having an odd relationship with the underage daughter of his then-girlfriend. The girl's grandmother objected and was shortly thereafter murdered. From what I understand, the Speedway Bombings were conducted to distract the police from investigating the murder. It's important to note that Kimberlin wasn't charged with or convicted of having a sexual relationship with the girl or the grandmother's murder. But he was convicted of the Speedway Bombings.
However, that conviction wasn't under any domestic terrorism statute that I'm aware of. Nor do the Speedway Bombings constitute "terrorism" as anyone who speaks English as a first language would understand the word.
Dictionary.com's primary definition of "terrorism" is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes." Nobody suggests that the Speedway Bombings were a political act. If the court proceedings and the media are to be believed, they were an attempt to obstruct justice. That's awfully bad, but it isn't generally accepted as terrorism.
The Sppedway Bombings would make Kimberlin a murderous asshole (because nobody sets bombs without understanding that they could kill somebody, and one of his victims later committed suicide as result of his injuries,) but that does not make him a terrorist.
I've lived my life convinced that words mean something, and I tend not to trust anyone that doesn't share that conviction. Phrases like terrorism either mean something, or they don't. And Brett Kimberlin wasn't exactly Timothy McVieigh or Abu Nidal.
So the Breitbart folks began losing me right at the starting gun. Kimberlin is plenty bad, but they worked their hardest to make him even worse, which further raised my suspicions.
Kimberlin is also wildly litigious in a way that the left has made a staple of their discourse. A previously unknown liberal blogger named Seth Allen was sued by Kimberlin for writing about him, which is where Aaron Walker comes in.
Kimberlin v. Allen was litigated in Maryland. Walker was a claims compliance lawyer from Virginia, without standing before the Maryland bar, who decided to act as Allen's lawyer (or not, depending on who you believe or on what day. Walker has repeatedly referrred to Kinberlin's attempt to get him to "break privilidge", which wouldn't apply.).
Kimberlin sought the identity of Walker (who writing under the name Aaron Worthing at the time) in an attempt to silence and discredit him. As most of you know, Walker was subsequently "outed" and he and his wife were fired from their jobs at Professional Healthcare Resources, Inc. According to Walker and his allies, this was due to Kimberlin's "harassment."
Walker however has proven to be an untrustworthy narrator. His other blog, Everybody Draw Mohammad - which was written under the name Aaron Worthing - becomes important in judging his character at this point.
Even though my real name is out there for anyone interested enough to find it, I write under a pseudonym, mostly because it amuses me and I'm too lazy to change it. I have absolutely no problem with anyone doing exactly the same thing.
On the other hand, I don't ask anyone to do anything under their own real names that I myself wouldn't do in public, without the cloak of anonymity. If you don't believe me, Google away!
Everybody Draw Mohammad operated under a different model. Walker asked his readers to submit what would be considered blasphemous cartoons under their real names and locations, while suggesting that they would invite violent retribution. In fact, he invited said violent retribution to be directed his way. He actually dared them to, saying "Come on, bitches. Aaron Worthing, Manassas, Virginia. But if you bring it be ready; we practice the Second Amendment here, newly reinforced by the MacDonald decision."
The only problem is that he never disclosed that he wasn't really Aaron Worthing. He says that he did this because his wife wouldn't let him, which is among the most piss-poor excuses for anything that I've ever heard. Walker's subsequent writings, both private and public, indicate that he thought the prospect of violent reprisals were very real and he asked his contributors to undertake them while he lied to them about his own identity.
That, I thought, was the beginning of the other Brietbartian shoe dropping. Even though I had then decided that Walker had engaged in one of the sleaziest blogging tactics imaginable and that I didn't trust him, I still gave the rest of his story the benefit of the doubt and kept my mouth shut. The fact that I had determined that everybody in this story was swine certainly helped.
For reasons that still strike me as being beyond the edge of sanity, Walker decided to sue Kimberlin. And that's where the Walker narrative falls apart, since it was only a matter of time before discovery materials leaked. Liberal blogger Bill Schmalfeldt started publishing them this week.
Lest I start being accused of being in the tank for anybody here, I should offer my opinion of Schmalfeldt, which is that he's a coward and a pain in the ass. He has no compunction after going after whomever he sees fit, but defensively warns his targets that retaliating is unwise because he has Parkinson's. And he does this repeatedly. Hardly an article of his can be read without hearing about Parkinson's and his suffering of it makes any of his antagonists look like shits.
Schmalfeldt uses his infirmity as both a sword and shield, making him at least as much of an asshole as Walker is. Both of them are operating from their self-perceived victimhood and seeking to be rewarded for it.
Having said that, Schmalfeldt's discovery dump (which I can't help but believe is illegally obtained. His arguments to Walker's lawyer are, in my opinion, nothing short of a mockery of common sense) are invaluable in further determining both the merits of Walker's case and his character.
As it happens, Walker's separation from Professional Healthcare Resources, Inc is a little more complicated than he would have you believe.
Throughout this mess, Walker has maintained that this is about his "First Amendment rights," which is categorical nonsense. In this case, Congress isn't stopping him from saying anything, which is sort of what the First Amendment protects him from.
In fact, if Walker has anyone to blame for infringement of his First Amendment rights, it's his former employer. When he notified PHRI of his predicament (apparently well before before Kimberlin did,) Walker himself said that he wrote under an assumed name so as to "keep this from affecting me in real life," a consideration he encouraged his contributors at Everybody Draw Mohammad to disregard, in large part because they thought he did.
In most states, employers retain non-contract empolyees "at will." That means that they can fire them for any reason, including "off-the-clock" activities, like blogging. I wholeheartedly don't agree with this premise, but most Brietbatians do until it bites them on the ass, especially if that ass happens to be liberal. I also think that it's a major breach of Internet protocol to snitch to employers what you've said online but so far as I'm aware, it isn't actionable.
Walker ends each and every one of his posts with, in part, this: "My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin."
That also turns out not to be true, at least not according to his correspondence with PHRI's outside counsel, Jim Hodges. Walker first notified PHRI of his blogging activity, including Everybody Draw Mohammed, the morning that he learned that Kimberlin discovered his identity. There is nothing in the discovery dump that indicates that Kimberlin or his associates had notified PHRI of Walker's activities before he was terminated. In fact, the first mention of "protests and formal diplomatic actions" comes 31 days after Walker was fired.
I will grant you that Bill Schmalfeldt might not be releasing all of the documents that he has, and I'm almost willing to bet that he's not. He's every bit the partisan hack that everybody else is in this shitstorm and he very much has a dog in this fight, in so far as he he doesn't often describe what Kimberlin was convicted of "40 years ago," which isn't exactly true. And Kimberlin wasn't convicted, as Schmalfeldt will have you believe, of a crime. He was convicted of dozens of them.
According to Hodges' email to Walker, Walker wasn't fired for Everybody Draw Mohammad, although it points out that it was in itself more than enough cause. Walker was dismissed for, quite literally, sloppy lawyering. From what we've seen thus far, that's incontrovertible. Furthermore, our boy Aaron was handling his blog-related legitation in his office, on company time. If you can show me an employer who thinks that's kosher, I'll show you somebody that every blogger on earth should go to work for right away.
Walker has also taken multiple stands on the possibility of radical Muslim violence against him, depending on his interests at the time. He actually invites it under his supposed name at Everybody Draw Mohammad, but minimizes the possibility it in his correspondence to PHRI
He says in public that he bought a gun to protect himself from both fanatical Muslims and Brett Kimberlin, but minimizes the danger of both to his employer.
Once PHRI had access to his writing, what were they supposed to do? If "terrorist" Muslims or the "terrorist" Kimberlin were going to threaten his life, as he said in public that they were going to do, where better to do it than where they can reliably find him during daytime hours? Does Aaron Walker's "First Amendment rights" also guarantee him the right to endanger everybody who happens to be in a building with him?
Again, I'm not trusting everything that Bill Schmalfeldt is putting out there as concrete fact. I don't trust him any more than I trust Aaron Walker. But Schmalfeldt is putting up some documentary evidence (no matter how illegally gained or, possibly, published.) That's something Walker hasn't done. He's asked us to take everything he says on faith and that faith is increasingly ill-deserved.
The fact is that the narrative that Aaron Walker has spent months putting up is rapidly falling down. Despite the fact that I don't like him or his politics, the Schmalfeldt narrative makes sense and the Walker one simply doesn't. I have no doubt that if Walker himself had a subordinate in his position, that he wouldn't hesitate to fire him.
The only reason I care about this story at this point is that well-meaning conservatives are being expected to finance this fraud and score political points from it. And it's nonsense, from beginning to end. Pretty much everyone who has inserted themselves in this tawdry, dumb drama has an interest in it that they're not telling you about.
Both sides are using it to drive up readership and donations to their respective cause. Both sides hiding important, material facts that you ought to know before you separate yourself from your hard earned money. And both sides are using "lawfare" to mitigate their retarded Internet pissing matches.
If you give money or support to either side, you pretty much deserve what you get, which is bound to be ripped off.
Caveat emptor, folks. Caveat emptor.
The Full Disclosure Part of the Program:
1) I had a pissing match with Aaron Walker on Twitter a few months ago about Mitt Romney's tax reform plan, which ended with him blocking me because he thought I was talking to him like he was an idiot, which he was. I'd show you that transaction, but he blocked me before I could finish.
In my personal opinion, Aaron Walker isn't especially bright and wildly touchy about it for somebody who insists on being a loudmouth blogger. I get called all kinds of shitty things. I only block people for it when they bore me.
2) I also got into it with Lee Stranahan, who I believe is the worst person walking the Earth today, on Twitter.
During the Treyvon Martin clusterfuck, Stranahan took it upon himself to name a woman who had accused George Zimmerman of molesting her, even though the statute of limitations had long expired. The allegation became public due to leaked grand jury testimony, but so did Stranahan's identification of the witness.
It was then that I first said in public that I was glad that I hadn't involved myself in the Kimberlin saga and Stranahan immediately blocked me.
Weeks later,Schmalfeldt republished Stranahan's address on the web and ol' Lee ran to the police like a pussy and started begging people on the Internet to buy him a new house, mere weeks after revealing a potential molestation victim's name. So fuck him. He might be the worst scumbag of all.
3) I follow pretty much everybody's allies in this stupid story on Twitter (except for Walker and Stranahan, who blocked me because they're dipshits,) I don't, however, interact with Kimberlin's allies because I don't want to associate myself with people willing to defend someone willing to commit murder, however long ago that was. I'm pretty "pro-life" that way.
4) I linked to Walker's arrogantly self-described "blockbuster post," but nothing from Kimberlin for the simple reason that Kimberlin hasn't bothered put anything out there under his own name. What I won't do is let Kimberlin have an internet sock puppet make his case for him.
5) the use of Brietbart or any variation thereof should not be taken to mean that those I ascribe the term to are employees of Brietbart,com (although several of then were) or acted with Andrew Brietbatrt's knowledge. Most of the activities contained in this article occured after his death on March 1, 2012. The descriptor should be taken to mean known associates of his or those who engage in his style of sleazy journalism.
6) I'm of a mind that convicted criminals - particularly those convicted of perjury or fraud - should be prohibited from being involved in the operation of tax exempt organizations in any way. The Breitbratians are more than willing to imply that Kimberlin should be barred from doing so, but aren't willing to say the same about, say, Ali Akbar of the National Bloggers Club, which makes them massive hypocrites. Republicanm criminals are still criminals and, given the party's "tough on crime" stance, are probably worse.
My position is that if you're convited of a crime that inherently involves dishonesty, the government shouldn't later allow you to operate a tax-exempt organization that depends entirely on honesty and transparency. And that should apply to both Brett Kimberlin and Ali Akbar. Neither should be in the positions that they are, in my opinion.
If you can't vote, you shouldn't be heading a 501(c)(3) and since most Republicans feel that convicted felons shouldn't vote, ever, that puts Mr. Akbar in a precarious position, shouldn't it?
In fairness, if either Aaron Walker or Brett Kimberlin (or their legal representatives) want to respond to anything that I've said in this space, I shall let them do so, unedited. It should, however, be understood that I will assume no liability for anything that is said in their responses and shall indicate so in same. If I have made any factual errors, I will be glad to correct them, provided that on the record evidence of such is provided to me.
So far as I'm aware, neither side has afforded this opportunity to the other. My impartiality is guaranteed since I believe both sides are whining cunts, neither deserves to win, and both are wasting valuable court resources.
Having said that, any communication to me in this regard should be considered for publication. I don't like any of you, nor am I willing to be serectly spun by you. "Off the record" and "Deep background" won't apply in this case. If you write to me, do so expecting that you'll be writing to the public.
More likely than not, I'll unfollow everyone involved on Twitter and in Google Reader sometime next week. This isn't a "free speech" case as much as it is moron-on-moron violence, and I can visit my ex-girlfriend's old neighborhood to see my share of that.
0 comments:
Post a Comment