Women of the Year

I don’t find it the least bit ironic during Women’s History Month that a man (Rachel Levine) has been named Woman of the Year by USA Today or that a man (Lia Thomas) has beaten a woman olympic medalist at an NCAA swim meet.

Irony stems from a disconnect between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result. We’re getting what we (allegedly) voted for. What should we expect when, for example, we allow cowardly men to bully women at sporting events?

This is disgusting but not ironic.

Standing Up to Bullies

The woke crowd that is ruining everyone else’s good time are basically a bunch of bullies, and time and again, it’s been shown that best way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them. Glenn Reynolds has a piece over at the NY Post about how to deal with the current crop of little monsters.

Does this mean we should be less tolerant of our own minoritarian tyrants? In a word, yes.

I don’t mean that they should be forced into camps, or even driven from their jobs and from polite society, as the woke are all too willing to do to their opponents. But they need to be deprived of the thing that is most important to their self-image: moral credibility.

Part of what is wrong with bullies is that they have an overabundance of self-esteem. They imagine their superiority, moral or otherwise, entitles them to enforce their desires on the rest of us.

The woke think of themselves — and want everyone else to think of them — as deeply moral. If they have a flaw, it’s that they just care too much. They’re too idealistic, too empathetic, too eager to make the world a better place.

That’s bulls–t (pardon my French, Pepé!). If you look at what they do, rather than what they say about themselves, it quickly becomes obvious that the woke are horrible, awful, people, and they should be treated as such and reminded of this whenever they raise their head.

Indeed. It’s all about power, the power the wokies want to have over our lives and culture, power they hope will fill in the empty spaces in their lives.

I propose this strategy—DON’T let the wokie win!

On Bullies

There were three attempts to physically bully me when I was a kid. None were successful because I responded by beating up the bullies. That kind of response is always considered unfair by a bully and his supporter/enablers, but it works. It seems to me that President Trump is using a similar approach to dealing with politically correct attacks, and Keith Koffler has a piece over at the Washington Examiner that examines Trump’s tactics.

With the midterm elections less than a week away, a handy, reliable, and vicious ally of Democrats has reared its head and is taking no prisoners. It seeks to roll through the opposition, ending debate before it can even begin and stigmatizing Republicans for even trying to make an argument.

Trump glories in controversy and criticism. It gives him some kind of peculiar satisfaction and plenty of publicity. Few conservatives can be Trump. But they should applaud and follow him as he disarms their enemies of one of their most fearsome weapons.

Read the whole thing.

I should note that one difference that I hope exists between Donald Trump and me is that I hit bullies back whereas he often strikes a likely bully preemptively.

UPDATE—Meanwhile, WaPo reports Tree of Life rabbi says he saw a ‘warm and personal side’ to Trump that surprised him.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Three years ago, Karoli Kuns joined in Team Kimberlin’s effort to spin a false narrative about me and my interactions with Bill Schmalfeldt. That resulted in a chain of posts three years ago today that began with this one.

* * * * *

I see that Karoli Kuns has a long piece up at Crooks and Liars. Clearly, it was not subjected to fact checking. Consider this typical paragraph which I will fisk:

To a large extent, it succeeded. Hoge filed numerous requests for peace orders which were routinely rejected by the Court. [I filed two.] After they were denied, Hoge appealed. [Only the first one.] Finally, Hoge scored on appeal and found a sympathetic ear in Judge Thomas Stansfield of Carroll County, who had no experience with online social networks or blogs. Judge Stansfield granted Hoge his peace order under Maryland’s domestic violence laws. [No. The peace order was granted under a Courts & Judicial Procedures statute. Protective orders, which are not the same thing, are granted under a Family Law article.] Schmalfeldt was ordered not to contact Hoge at work [No. The order does not mention my workplace because I was retired at the time it was issued.] or contact him by phone. (None of these things had ever happened or could happen because Schmalfeldt does not have the physical ability or desire to visit Hoge anywhere at any time.) He was also barred from contacting Hoge via email. [He is prohibited from contacting (by any means), attempting to contact, or harassing me.]

I’ve been told that accuracy in reporting has never been Karoli’s strong suit. After reading stuff like this, I’m inclined to believe that characterization.

She is no more accurate in her description of the state of the law in Maryland.

But Maryland also needs to evaluate how they’ve structured their peace order process. A simple refinement to the law which limited peace order requests to those where there was an established domestic relationship or closer physical proximity would have eliminated this problem and ended a lot of stress and aggravation for Schmalfeldt. As it stands now, any Maryland citizen can invent the idea that a criminal act has been committed against them online, take that idea to the courthouse and turn it into a peace order. This entraps people in a litigation net who do not belong there while depriving them of the same protections other citizens receive.

In fact, Maryland has two different procedures for dealing with conflicts outside of the criminal justice system. The first, Protective Orders, deals conflicts between family members or domestic partners. This is what Brett Kimberlin sought to use against his wife, unsuccessfully in the end.

The second, Peace Orders, deals with conflict between non-related parties. To obtain a peace order, one must prove (to the “clear and convincing” standard) to a judge during an adversarial hearing that one is the victim of one or more of a specified list of crimes. In my case against Schmalfeldt that was harassment. Harassment via the Internet is harassment. There is not an exception because blogs or Twitter were used.

I am not amused by this either.

sir robin shieldUPDATE—Karoli has taken down comments to her post that relate to the actual facts of the situation with Bill Schmalfeldt, and she has announce that she will not permit any more such comments. She claims that her post is really about how screwed up Maryland’s laws are. If they were as she describes them, I would probably agree. However, she does not correctly describe Maryland’s Peace Order stature or how it works.

Not only does she have her facts wrong, she has her facts about the law wrong.

* * * * *

That post prompted Matt Osborne to butt in and me to post this in response to him.

* * * * *

Matt Osborne attempted to comment here at Hogewash!:MO201404271221ZI did and found these questions which I present with my answers.OsborneEmailWhy do I get the feeling that this is not a benign inquiry?

UPDATE—MO201404271300ZSome questions are so nonsensical that they do not deserve an answer, but I’ll make an exception for this one.

What Matt Osborne is lamely trying to do is appeal to everyone’s inherent sense of justice. Human beings are wired to favor fairness, and, of course, it would be unfair for me to engage in sadistic harassment. One of the problems with the question is its being based on the false premise that I am the harasser in the Hoge/Schmalfeldt interaction.

There is an important theological problem with Osborne’s question as well, and I intend to deal with it in a longer post later today.

Stay tuned.

* * * * *

And I wrote about that theological problem in this post called On Justice.

* * * * *

“No fair!”

Every one of us has said it beginning from the time we were small children. Human beings seem to be wired with a predisposition to fairness. Indeed, evolutionary psychologists like Jonathan Haidt believe that the moral sense of fairness is a universal human trait. Outrage is a normal, heathy response to unfair treatment. We want the world to be set to rights. We want justice in what seems to be an unjust world.

As a Christian, I believe that the source of justice is God. It says in Genesis that we were created in His image, so it makes sense to me that more we allow ourselves to be led by the Holy Spirit to be what God intends for us to be, the more we would desire justice. Sometimes Christians are called to deal with the grander problems of the world—think of William Wilberforce, Desmond Tutu, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Martin Luther King, Jr.—but, most of the the time, most of us deal with the seemingly smaller injustices of the world. Sometimes a Christian is called to stand up to a bully.

Bill Schmalfeldt is a such a bully. For years, he has harassed others on the Internet, and no one was able to bring him to justice. That task seems to have fallen to me.

Schmalfeldt’s surprised reaction has been to whine, “No fair! You hit me back.” However, even that’s not strictly true. I haven’t taken personal revenge on him. I’ve reported him to the proper authorities and left any action taken to them.

The real question I face is not what Jesus thinks of my allegedly sadistic treatment of Bill Schmalfeldt. That question is based in the false premise that I am the sadist in the interactions between us. No, the real question is what Jesus would think of my failure to stand up a thug like Schmalffeldt who is bullying others.

Has my response to Schmalfeldt been perfect? Probably not. But my conscience is clear. It would not be if I had failed to step in between him and some of his victims.

* * * * *

I’m not done with him yet.

What Would Jackasses Do?

I’m a bit bemused by the recent attempts by admitted atheists and a rather blatant heretic to lecture me on the tenets of my religious beliefs. I’m a Christian, and those critics seem to think that they can hold me to a non-Biblical standard of their imagined Jesus.

Let’s get one thing clear up front. Jesus is not a wuss. That bit about turning the other cheek is often taken out of context by people who’d rather not remember that Jesus took a whip to the money changers in the Temple. Twice. (John 2:17 and Matthew 21:12) Jesus is one of the Persons of the Trinity. He is God, the source of Truth and Justice.

Gentle Reader, do you believe that it is just to let someone cyberbully a grieving family that has just lost a child? Do believe that it just to allow a convicted violent felon to stalk a family? Or is it just to oppose those sorts of actions?

Jesus told a parable about a crime victim. A bunch of goody-two-shoes types looked the other way, but one guy helped the victim. Do you remember who in the story Jesus praised?

UPDATE—I seem to have stirred up a bit of a tempest in one tiny portion of teh Twitterz with this post. The Gentle Reader should note that I have not identified anyone by name. However, the following observations by Jesus and Paul may be useful in sorting out who’s who.

First, Jesus, from the Sermon on the Mount:

By their fruits you will know them. Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree produces good fruit; but the corrupt tree produces evil fruit. A good tree can’t produce evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit. Every tree that doesn’t grow good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

Second, Paul, from his Epistle to the Galatians:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts. If we live by the Spirit, let’s also walk by the Spirit. Let’s not become conceited, provoking one another, and envying one another.

… Don’t be deceived. God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption. But he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. Let us not be weary in doing good, for we will reap in due season, if we don’t give up.

Of course, Christians are not perfect. We are still works in process. If God were finished with us at this point, he would not have taught us to pray “… and forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.”

UPDATE 2— Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control …@PatO201405031924Z

On Justice

“No fair!”

Every one of us has said it beginning from the time we were small children. Human beings seem to be wired with a predisposition to fairness. Indeed, evolutionary psychologists like Jonathan Haidt believe that the moral sense of fairness is a universal human trait. Outrage is a normal, heathy response to unfair treatment. We want the world to be set to rights. We want justice in what seems to be an unjust world.

As a Christian, I believe that the source of justice is God. It says in Genesis that we were created in His image, so it makes sense to me that more we allow ourselves to be led by the Holy Spirit to be what God intends for us to be, the more we would desire justice. Sometimes Christians are called to deal with the grander problems of the world—think of William Wilberforce, Desmond Tutu, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Martin Luther King, Jr.—but, most of the the time, most of us deal with the seemingly smaller injustices of the world. Sometimes a Christian is called to stand up to a bully.

Bill Schmalfeldt is a such a bully. For years, he has harassed others on the Internet, and no one was able to bring him to justice. That task seems to have fallen to me.

Schmalfeldt’s surprised reaction has been to whine, “No fair! You hit me back.” However, even that’s not strictly true. I haven’t taken personal revenge on him. I’ve reported him to the proper authorities and left any action taken to them.

The real question I face is not what Jesus thinks of my allegedly sadistic treatment of Bill Schmalfeldt. That question is based in the false premise that I am the sadist in the interactions between us. No, the real question is what Jesus would think of my failure to stand up a thug like Schmalffeldt who is bullying others.

Has my response to Schmalfeldt been perfect? Probably not. But my conscience is clear. It would not be if I had failed to step in between him and some of his victims.

A Simpler Time

I read something on the web yesterday about how things used to be simpler. That’s true. Let me tell you a true story of a simpler time.

Around 1925, a Klan organizer showed up in the little Tennessee town where my parents grew up. My grandfathers stopped by the place where he was staying. One had a feather pillow. The other had a pail of roofing tar. They told the fellow that if he were still in town the next night they would be back with several friends and a fence rail.

Problem solved.

Neither side of my family has ever had much use for thugs or bullies.