The New, Hysterical McCarthyism

I was a little leery of tackling the Tom Hackbarth story last week.   

Not because I didn’t think I had the story right; Hackbarth’s behavior was unseemly, as was that of those who piled on to add detail to the story based purely on innuendo and supposition.  

No, I was leery mostly because whenever the topic of Planned Parenthood or any sort of offense against women is concerned, there are not a few people out there who would toss rationality to the wind, if they ever had it in the first place.  

I don’t know Rachel Nygaard, and she damned sure doesn’t know me.  Can she approach this, or any, issue rationally?  Well, she writes for Minnesota Progressive Project, which isn’t a good sign.  But that’d be a smear by association, and judgment by innuendo, and that’s the sort of stuff I condemned in my original piece on the subject.  

Of which more later.  

For better or worse, Nygaard does capably summarize the core of the local Sorosphere’s meme on the subject:  

“I understand why the police and the security guard thought what they might have thought, but it really was insignificant to me.” – Representative Hackbarth  

Tracking down a woman you met once while carrying a gun is an insignificant act? Even if you remove the fact that he was carrying a gun, a man that felt the need to track a woman down when he felt she wasn’t being completely honest with him is stalking behavior  

And if you leave aside the facts that Hackbarth was accused of no crimes, that there is no evidence that the target of his misplaced interest ever knew Hackbarth was looking for her, and that  the gun is irrelevant (Hackbarth has a permit, and permit-holders are two orders of magnitude less likely to commit any kind of crime than non-permittees like, well, Rachel Nygaard, among others), she’s right.  Hackbarth, by his own admission, was at the very least exceptionally clingy; at worst…  

…well, we don’t know, because there was no “at worst”.   Hackbarth parked his car – near Planned Parenthood.  He got out and changed jackets; a security guard saw Hackbarth’s legal, holstered gun, and called the cops.  But for that chance encounter with a closed-circuit camera, we’d have likely have known nothing of the story…  

…and, Rachel Nygaard will no doubt remind you, Hackbarth could have gone on to shoot the woman in a fit of rage.   

Which is, really, all she has.  Could-haves.  

Could-haves and dogma, of course:  

The ‘boys will be boys’ dismissal of his actions by the conservative bloggers astounds me.  When is this type of behavior ever okay?    

This is the GOP blogger Mitch Berg commenting on the Hackbarth issue.

Remember – in the world of domestic law, including “abuse”, “domestic violence”, “stalking” and the like, men are considered guilty until proven innocent.  

Going on to say that

Everything Is Stalking

He later qualifies his more offending statements (not those listed above) but the misogynistic attitude seethes from his post. 

Go ahead and read the article.  It’s nonsense, of course; there is no “misogynistic attitude” – not in the sense that a rational person would understand.  The only “offense” would be to those who find any questioning of The Narrative offensive.  

I won’t say “Nygaard is lying”, because “lying” implies knowing that she’s spreading a falsehood; I think that to Nygaard’s perspective, which (I’m going to go out on a short limb and guess) comes from marinading in Big Feminist dogma for an entire adult lifetime, men are guilty of misogynism, stalking, abuse, or whatever until proven innocent – and furthermore they can never be proven innocent! 

Of course, to Big Feminism (and I think it’s fair to say Nygaard is acting as an agent of Big Feminism), defending a man against even the most facile, unsupported innuendo, by introducing fact into the discussion (or, in this case, pointing out the lack of facts behind the innuendo thrown at Hackbarth), is itself “anti-woman”.   

Clearly, Mitch Berg and Rep Hackbarth have a different moral compass than the rest of us. 

Clearly. 

I believe that the guilty should be punished – and that people are innocent until proven guilty, and that “proof” means a lot more than innuendo, narrartive, and ideology-based assumptions.  I believe in empirical, observable fact, not dogma.  I believe that people are individuals with their own motivations and backstories and strengths and weaknesses and the dignity (and degradation) that comes from the exercise of their own free will  – not facile cartoons that follow pre-written narratives.

 And it’d seem that Nygaard believes that I’m a cartoon.  She puts it in as many words:

I truly hope that they educate themselves about domestic abuse and difficulties protecting women, men and children from domestic assault. 

Dear Rachel Nygaard; keep your prejudices, your narratives, your bigotry off my body.  You don’t know me.  You have no idea where I’ve been and what I’ve done in my life (and I’m not going to tell you any of it here, anyway).  Just as your idiot friends rushed to judge Tom Hackbarth based (as I showed) entirely on narrative, screed and innuendo, so you’re doing with me.  

That’s OK – I can take care of myself just fine, and it’d seem to be all you are equipped to do anyway, and we should expect no more.  

As I said in my original post; stalking is wrong.  Clinginess is a bad idea.  Separation and divorce are a bitch, psychologically as well as every other way.  

All clear?

51 thoughts on “The New, Hysterical McCarthyism

  1. So let me get this straight…

    This woman takes issue with Mitch saying “everything is stalking”… and then suggests that everything is misogynistic.

    Boy, when she said, “Mitch Berg and Rep Hackbarth have a different moral compass than the rest of us,” she let on more than she intended.

  2. Mitch, I ran the pertinent details of this past every woman I could think of between the ages of 20, and 65. EVERY single one agreed that Hackbarth acted in an objectionable way which concerned them.

    If a woman had been checking up on you after such minimal contact, I’d think SHE was wrong as well.

    Given the statistics of domestic violence, and gender violence, the police and the security guards acted appropriately. How they acted is not only specific to this instance, but to the degree of confidence that women, or anyone for that matter, can have in their performance if something seems wrong, or if there is a possible threat to their safety to be determined.

    EVERY single self-defense class for women indicate that if something is ‘off’, odd, or creepy, both men and women are best served by contacting the police to determine if there is a real threat. All courses advocate to err on the side of caution and safety, to ‘trust your gut’. No harm was done to Hackbarth, his questioning was appropriate.

    Did the GOP over-react? Maybe. Maybe not; presumably they have more information than we do for their decision, and if not, shame on the GOP.

    Being ‘clingy’ is an emotional state, and therefore Hackbarth’s own private business. Acting on it to intrude on this woman’s privacy is not. People in emotional states sometimes act badly, whether they carry a gun legally or not legally.

    I would point out to you that the recent felony sentencing of Charles Alan Wilson for making death threats to Senator Patty Murray, including over the subject of abortion, involved in part his actions while carrying a gun, legally.

    While most people who have a permit to carry do so responsibly, it is not a guarantee, or some kind of absolution for their actions. Please don’t try to portray it as such.

    Whether the woman Hackbarth was looking for – despite claiming he didn’t know her name and ‘couldn’t’ describe her car to police (which calls his honesty into question for me) knew about it at the time, or only knew about it later when it made the news, that woman is I’m sure unhappy with Hackbarth’s conduct. I don’t see much consideration for her feelings in all of this from you.

    I would remind you that a mutual acquaintance of you, me, Pen, and Bill Haverberg at one time similarly annoyed me. He also was representing himself to be a member of the MN Highway Patrol, when he was not, and frequently carried a gun. I had a permit, a .45, the skill and will to use it, and very large protective pets. I did not go to the police, wishing to avoid making an unpleasant situation even more so – but I considered it. I did dump the problem in the lap of a mutual large protective mutual male friend of ours, instead. I don’t know how he handled it, and I don’t care; the creepy behavior stopped. I did later make a formal complaint about the misrepresentation of being a Highway Patrol officer. I was told I should have brought it to their attention sooner – all of it – and not relied on a friend.

    I do still remember how the experience felt.

    I’m guessing that Hackbarth’s online dating options are pretty much over though….

    I DO know you. I think you are a perfect gentleman towards women, in every way, and I know you to be a very gallant and chivalrous man towards women in my experience.

    I think the world is a safer place with you in proximity to fire arems.

    But while I won’t go as far as Nygaard, you are wrong on this one my dear friend.

  3. Mitch you offending, misogynistic blogger you! Did you run “the pertinent details of this past every woman (you) could think of between the ages of 20, and 65”? If not, SHAME on you. You are obviously NOT a “perfect gentleman”.

  4. Dog Gone said:

    “I ran the pertinent details”

    Won’t you run them by us? Just so we know what you said to them. We’ll need to FACT CHECK them, of course.

    “EVERY single one agreed that Hackbarth acted in an objectionable way which concerned them.”

    Did they also all agree that he should be charged with a crime based on your “pertinent details”?

    Not that it matters. The “pertinent details”, how you present them, who they are, and their relationship to you all make this a free form quasi-poll and a useless exercise.

    “presumably they have more information than we do”

    What?!?! Your “pertinent details” are incomplete? How non-surprising.

  5. Nate: “Is this the person in question?”

    MN Retard Project: “Yes, that’s Thomasin Franken (a regular reader, btw) vamping for our pic. All we asked for was a pic with her, but this is awesome.”

    Nate: “If so, you might still win that Comment of the Year award, but it’ll be in the Learned-Foot-In-Mouth category.”

    LearnedFoot: “Oh snap!”

  6. Mitch, I ran the pertinent details of this past every woman I could think of between the ages of 20, and 65. EVERY single one agreed that Hackbarth acted in an objectionable way which concerned them.

    What “pertinent details”?

    The ones that we actually know to be fact? Or the extra innuendo that the leftyblog community has tacked on?

    It makes a difference.

  7. Yeah, what Troy said.

    If by “pertinent details” you omitted the facts (as far as we know) that Hackbarth and the woman in question never made any contact whatsoever – indeed, didn’t find out anything about the event until it came out in the news – then you did not give them the “pertinent details”, you gave them a prejudicial, innuendo-laced, self-serving sample of factoids.

  8. If a woman had been checking up on you after such minimal contact, I’d think SHE was wrong as well.

    I’m not sure how many times I have to repeat this. Nygaard missed it (or ignored it because it didn’t fit her template for conservative men); Hackbarth was wrong. I said it in the original post. I said it above. I say it now.

    To be a leftyblogger means, it’d seem, to be cripplingly imperceptive.

  9. ” there is no “misogynistic attitude” – not in the sense that a rational person would understand.”

    But that is the question – what is a “rational” view of the situation? Basically Nygard thinks it is very hard to get the police to take action against stalkers and you think it is very easy. If Nygard is right, then you are wrong and vice versa. If you are wrong i.e. not rational, then, by your own admission, it would be fair to label them “misogynistic”.

    The fairness of the label “misogynistic attitude” depends not on how well Nygard knows you, but on which one of you is right about the underlying factual disagreement. A disageement, for all of all your huffing, you do nothing to addess.

  10. Given the statistics of domestic violence, and gender violence, the police and the security guards acted appropriately.

    WHAT?

    He was not picked up for “domestic” or “gender” violence! NOT AT ALL!

    He was picked up for having a visible gun in the vicinity of Kinderschwitz. He told the cops what he was doing. The cops editorialized about the contact, saying it was “stalker-like”, which is both seemingly accurate (hey, everyone! No stalking!) and more or less legally meaningless. There is no law against being “stalker-like”.

  11. How they acted is not only specific to this instance, but to the degree of confidence that women, or anyone for that matter, can have in their performance if something seems wrong, or if there is a possible threat to their safety to be determined.

    Possibly true, and utterly irrelevant to my point. The beef is not with the SPPD. It is with the leftybloggers who’ve substituted innuendo and dogma for fact.

    As you seem to be doing.

  12. Dog uses over 600 words… to say, in part, the same thing as Mitch. Maybe this guy Hackbarth was wrong… but is it stalking? Was it dangerous?

    In that part, Dog is more than willing to do just what Mitch observed with a number of folks left of center… conjecture, assumption, guesswork, and filling in the blanks.

    Thanks, Dog. You could have summarized a bit more… and you could also have provided some facts to help your case.

  13. EVERY single self-defense class for women indicate that if something is ‘off’, odd, or creepy, both men and women are best served by contacting the police to determine if there is a real threat.

    True – and exactly what I’ve taught my daughter.

    And, again, utterly irrelevant to the situation. The woman involved never saw Hackbarth that night. Had the police not picked him up for an unrelated incident, the evening might have ended up with Hackbarth trolling around Highgland Park all night, thinking and stewing and seeing nothing. It might have ended with a bunch of phone messages (kinda creepy) or an argument (dumb), or perhaps with Hackbarth drilling into the ground to vent the gas lines into the air to create a huge impromptu gas-vapor bomb killing hundreds in an act of insane revenge (not likely).

    But none of it happened.

    But you’d never know that reading the – I’ll be charitable – pack of scabrous cretins that clog the local leftyblog community.

  14. There is no law against being “stalker-like”.
    Finally, I have been vindicated!!! Now if I could just recover from Learned-Foot-In-Mouth syndrome I might have a shot at a gig over at Penigma.

  15. “but the misogynistic attitude seethes from his post”

    I don’t think it is possible for the foremost feminist in Minnesota to write anything that seethes misogynistic. Obviously this woman doesn’t know you from Adam.

  16. All courses advocate to err on the side of caution and safety, to ‘trust your gut’. No harm was done to Hackbarth, his questioning was appropriate.

    Where did I ever say it wasn’t?

    If you find any such instance, let me know, because I don’t believe I did, and if I did I’d like to correct the record.

    And if I didn’t, please pass the word to your hysterical fellow leftyblogger.

  17. “It is with the leftybloggers who’ve substituted innuendo and dogma for fact.”

    What is the factual dispute? The dispute is over what can be infered from the facts and value judgements about the appropriateness of certain behavior.

  18. Did the GOP over-react? Maybe. Maybe not; presumably they have more information than we do for their decision, and if not, shame on the GOP.

    Why?

    They needed to get their facts together. And they knew that whatever the truth was, the local left and media (pardon the redundancy) would make sure that only the most prejudicial facts would reach the public, so there was a potential PR nightmare, whatever Hackbarth did or did not do.

  19. Being ‘clingy’ is an emotional state, and therefore Hackbarth’s own private business.

    Well, no. I mean, sure, but if a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, did it happens?

    Is there a better term than “Clingy” to describe being excessively obsessed with having contact with someone, to fill an emotional need or void? “Stalking” might be just a tad inflammatory for the purpose.

  20. I would point out to you that the recent felony sentencing of Charles Alan Wilson for making death threats to Senator Patty Murray, including over the subject of abortion, involved in part his actions while carrying a gun, legally.

    Which is of absolutely no relevance to this incident.

  21. While most people who have a permit to carry do so responsibly, it is not a guarantee, or some kind of absolution for their actions. Please don’t try to portray it as such.

    Strawman. It absolves nothing. I pointed it out because a) leftybloggers were acting like it was in and of itself some sort of perversion – it’s not – and b) it is an empirical fact that carry permit holders commit actual, chargeable crimes of all types at a rate two order of magnitude less than the general population.

    That is all.

    Whether the woman Hackbarth was looking for – despite claiming he didn’t know her name and ‘couldn’t’ describe her car to police (which calls his honesty into question for me)

    Um, why?

    If they’d only met once, how would he know anything about her car?

    How on earth do you find that implausible?

    I suspect you’re falling back on narrative here.

  22. knew about it at the time, or only knew about it later when it made the news, that woman is I’m sure unhappy with Hackbarth’s conduct. I don’t see much consideration for her feelings in all of this from you.

    Nothing in any of my posts focused on her in the least, other than the (apparently-accurate) observation that she never knew anything about Hackbarth’s activities that evening.

    There would be no point.

  23. I would remind you that a mutual acquaintance of you, me, Pen, and Bill Haverberg at one time similarly annoyed me. He also was representing himself to be a member of the MN Highway Patrol, when he was not, and frequently carried a gun. I had a permit, a .45, the skill and will to use it, and very large protective pets. I did not go to the police, wishing to avoid making an unpleasant situation even more so – but I considered it. I did dump the problem in the lap of a mutual large protective mutual male friend of ours, instead. I don’t know how he handled it, and I don’t care; the creepy behavior stopped. I did later make a formal complaint about the misrepresentation of being a Highway Patrol officer. I was told I should have brought it to their attention sooner – all of it – and not relied on a friend.

    Right – but then, as I recall, in that situation the stalking was real, tangible, ongoing, and actually came to your attention on a continuing basis.

    Considerably different.

  24. I DO know you. I think you are a perfect gentleman towards women, in every way, and I know you to be a very gallant and chivalrous man towards women in my experience.

    Which is, apparently, also a construct of the patriarchy, designed to keep womyn down.

  25. I think the world is a safer place with you in proximity to fire arems.

    But while I won’t go as far as Nygaard, you are wrong on this one my dear friend.

    Well, thanks, but I’ll beg to differ.

  26. What is the factual dispute? The dispute is over what can be infered from the facts and value judgements about the appropriateness of certain behavior

    Accurate, as far as it goes.

    Certain parties were inferring things that were in no way supported by the facts in evidence.

  27. Regarding Doggone’s comment, if indeed Hackbarth admitted that he was already jealous about his now-former girlfriend, the phrase “stalking” is not entirely out of line. It may not be entirely correct, but it’s also not entirely out of line.

    For me, the thing that sticks out is that Hackbarth is apparently dating seriously enough to get seriously jealous while he’s still technically married. Something is going on with the guy, and to be honest, I’m somewhat glad he’s not heading committees.

  28. Bubbasan,

    As I pointed out in my original post on the topic, being “separated”, especially for people who’ve been married a while, can be incredibly emotionally turbulent. Different people react to it different ways and – trust me on this one – if you haven’t been there, you don’t get it.

    No, not even if you dated someone for years and had a nasty breakup.

  29. “can be incredibly emotionally turbulent”
    Which is probably not the best time to carry a loaded handgun.

  30. Maybe, maybe not. Different people react different ways. It varies.

    Not that “indivicual variations” matter to the typical leftist.

  31. Foot, you’re a little confused on how the whole Fact Check thing works.

    You suggest that a woman who writes for the Minnesota Progressive Project might be a porker.

    I show you a photo from the Progressive site of a non-porker. In fact, I assert I ran that photo past no fewer than a three non-gay guys and all three agreed she was a non-porker.

    BAM! You’re Fact-Checked. Slink away, now. Go on, go.

    Help me out, here, Dog Gone – explain it to him, willya?

    .

  32. I showed the link to every male I know between the age of 20 and 65, everywhere in the world.

    And every single one of them, myself included, refused to comment -because saying “she’s ugly” would be a sexist reference to the misogynistic western model of female appearance (as well as boorish and, for those who observe the outdated patariarchal concept, ungentlemanly), while saying “she’s kinda a babe” would objectify her and, to some observers, be a form of rhetorical sexual abuse.

  33. Mitch, I’m thankful not to get it–though having watched my parents’ divorce, I’ve at least seen the responses that can be typical–but I do think it appropriate to point out he’s dating quite a bit before the divorce is finalized, and Scripture does point some things out about that.

  34. Troy wrote:

    “Did they also all agree that he should be charged with a crime based on your “pertinent details”?

    The pertinent details I used were the ones that appeared to be agreed upon in all versions of the story – that Hackbarth was following or ‘checking up on’ (to use Hackbarth’s words), surveilling, whatever you want to call it, a woman he knew only casually by his own description, not a woman with whom he had any significant relationship.

    I didn’t suggest nor did anyone else I spoke with that he should be charged with a crime for his actions, and so far as I am aware, he hasn’t been. I do understand now however the police have turned this over to the city DA on the basis of Hackbarth not answering their questions truthfully. I will leave it to others who know more about that to elaborate what crime that involves if any.

    No one has been able to get the woman’s side of events -until today’s KSTP midday news that is. Apparently, per KSTP anyway, Hackbarth was not truthful with the police. There was a tip made to the St.PPD to that effect, and it turns out that the woman allegedly has a different name and other aspects of her identity, is a state worker in the Ag Dept (not sure if their relationship was internet based at all or not), and that Hackbarth was not checking up to see if she was at a restaurant in the area with a friend, but rather she lives a block or two away from where he was stopped.

    Hackbarth lying to the police is creepy…creepier than what we first learned.

    Further, Hackbarth is now making the statement that he is gettin help to get his life back under control. So, yes, someone ‘out of control’ (his words) with a gun doing this is skin-crawling creepy.

    Mitch wrote:
    “Which is, apparently, also a construct of the patriarchy, designed to keep womyn down.”

    Not you, Darlin’, you are not patriarchal in any way. I think you hit the perfect balance between being well mannered, and a gentleman, while treating women with respect and recognition for their abilities and competence, and encouraging them to do anything they want to do. I will go further, while you are clearly heterosexually oriented, from my experience you also genuinely enjoy women’s company platonically as well. Some men don’t, their friendships are limited to other men, and they don’t relate well to women as people. You DO.

    Anyone who sees you as mysoginistic, or anti-feminist really doesn’t know you. It is one of the aspects of your character that I most admire. Please accept that as a sincere compliment.

    I’ll happily stand up and give you a glowing, unsolicited testimonial anytime.

    Mitch wrote:
    “Right – but then, as I recall, in that situation the stalking was real, tangible, ongoing, and actually came to your attention on a continuing basis.

    Considerably different.”

    That stalking was the same kind – intrusion in my privacy, observing my comings and goings without a relationship basis for any accountability of my choices. It was creepy and unpleasant the very first time it happened. And he didn’t think anyone would catch him at it, least of all me. That was part of the power trip in him doing that, part of why it creates such strongly vulnerable and uncomfortable feelings for the victim. They can see you, but you can’t see them.

    It’s not like I’m some sort of a ‘shrinking violet’ timid woman, not by any stretch; far from it. Not knowing when someone is watching you, not knowing if it is going to escalate beyond that, not understanding really why they are doing it violates important boundaries, it restricts your sense of independence and autonomy. You are stressed not only for yourself, but the safety of your pets, your home and vehicles, your friends and family – anyone or anything that someone could use to strike back at you if they chose to do so. Following you is part of gaining access to that as well. That is the best I can manage to explain.

    We don’t know if Hackbarth did this only one time or not. One time is creepy enough. If he is ‘out of control’, his words, it may very well NOT be the first time, only the first time he was caught at it. Part of what makes something obsessive can be doing it more than once.

    I’ve been through a divorce as you have. I sympathize with that pain, yours, Hackbarths. But some responses to pain are positive, and some aren’t. This is not a positive response from him to that pain. I’m glad for him that he is now getting help to deal and heal from it.

  35. Dog Gone said:

    “Hackbarth lying to the police is creepy…creepier than what we first learned.”

    “it may very well NOT be the first time”

    Still living in the land of make-believe, at least with regard to stories concerning Republican officials?

    That’s fine, but please don’t believe your opinion of the real and “imagination enhanced” facts at hand is of consequence. *shrug*

  36. RickDFL said:

    “can be incredibly emotionally turbulent”
    Which is probably not the best time to carry a loaded handgun.

    Ok how many times in you life can you be said to have been emotionally turbulent?? In my experience I can think of a number of times that I was.

    Ok in all those experiences did you start punching people?? In my experience, I can count zero times (your experiences may differ but I doubt it).

    Why is that?? Because just because you are emotionally turbulent, doesn’t mean you automatically reject all rational reasoning. It doesn’t mean you complete revert to animal instincts. Sure you may say things you later regret. You may even do thinks that seem stupid in retrospect. But you probably didn’t go off and assault someone.

    So if we know emotionally turbulent does NOT necessarily equal violent assault, what makes you think it automatically means the much more severe attempted homicide??

    Especially when we’re dealing with a man that by virtue of his carry permit has already demonstrated he does not have a history of violent outbursts or mental troubles.

  37. Doggie averred “Not you, Darlin’, you are not patriarchal in any way. ”
    Which is complete nonsense. Mitch is the very model of patriarchal in both his personal and blog life.
    And that, my dear, is a good thing.

  38. my two cents, either next week or the week after this will be a cover story on Shitty Pages. I mean this week they profiled a cop-killer and tried to make us feel sorry for him. They will make Hackbarth look like Satan himself I bet. Sorry just a random tangent.

  39. Kevin:

    No one said all or even most, emotionally turbulent people commit assault. But emotionally turbulent people do things they regret and sometimes that includes assault and/or murder. People in an emotionally turbulent state are more likely to commit assault then they would be otherwise. Mitch is right that people varry in their capacity to control themselves. The problem is that those most likely to judge themselves in control are most likely to lose it. Especially when distrurbed, we are not very good judges of our own case. Thus, carrying a weapon when headed towards what might be a confrontation with a spouse or lover, is a bad idea.

    The essential point is that you can not, as Mitch tries to do, invoke emotional turbulence as an excuse or rationalization for bad behavior but then dismiss concerns that the same person is carrying a weapon when seeking a confrontation.

  40. Funniest line of the week:
    The problem is that those most likely to judge themselves in control are most likely to lose it.

    Followed by:
    Especially when distrurbed, we are not very good judges of our own case.

    I think we have just been provided with some insight.

  41. RickDFL said:

    “carrying a weapon when headed towards what might be a confrontation with a spouse or lover”

    “carrying a weapon when seeking a confrontation”

    Is that imagination, or a lack of ability to stay on topic?

    “you can not, as Mitch tries to do, invoke emotional turbulence as an excuse or rationalization for bad behavior”

    Mitch seems to have taken pains to avoid doing that, but that is still what you have gleaned from this post. Your density knows no bounds.

  42. KR wrote:
    “Without using his words against him, what exactly did Hackbarth do wrong?”

    Hi KR! I’ve missed interacting with you here! Hope deer hunting season has gone well for you!

    I see no reason not to use Hackbarth’s own words, as being the most generous to his side and the least biased against him.

    What Hackbarth did that was wrong was to spy on a woman who was not accountable to him for her wherabouts or company.

    What Hackbarth did wrong was to lie to police, about the circumstances of his action and about who he was trying to spy on that evening, and the actual nature of the relationship.

    What Hackbarth did wrong was apparently go down a dark alley, armed, at night, to sneak around this woman’s house, like some peeping Tom, acting out of what he described as jealousy, and while he himself described himself as ‘out of control’.

    Mitch wrote:
    “Remember – in the world of domestic law, including “abuse”, “domestic violence”, “stalking” and the like, men are considered guilty until proven innocent.”

    That is sometimes, but not always true, and it is likewise, sometimes but not always true that courts have the ‘men bad / women good’ bias.
    I don’t agree with that bias, and I don’t condone that kind of thinking – which I think Mitch will affirm.
    Sometimes doesn’t mean every time. That bias exists because sometimes men who are emotional act badly. Sometimes women do as well, including behaving abusively towards men who are too much the gentleman to hit back any woman.

    Spying on people is a bad thing. It doesn’t matter if it is a man spying on a woman, or a woman spying on a man, or a man spying on another man, or a woman spying on another woman.

    I can appreciate that women sometimes behave badly towards men, and then use – or try to use – the men bad/women good bias to their advantage, because my favorite cousin was on the receiving end of that behavior from his wife during their divorce. I know that, because I encouraged him to take a contracting job as an electrical engineer in China during their hydro-electric dam construction, and I volunteered to act on his behalf with his power of attorney (volunteered as in ‘Oh, let me let me, please please please, please, please, please! I REALLY REALLY want to!) precisely so she could not continue to do that. When I went into court with a box containing 82 answering machine tapes full of recorded threats from her, I left with a criminal restraining order, and that was when I first got my gun permit and my .45. Because having someone spying on you, especially at night, including sneaking around your house, IS really creepy.

    So, no, I have no particular bias about men or women, either can be bad, either can be good.

    Hackbarth was acting creepy, he was invading this woman’s privacy, and he lied to police. I call that ‘bad’.

  43. The content of all Dog Gones comments on this topic, summarized:

    “Hackbarth bad”

    Thank you for your input, Dog Gone.

  44. Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » The 2010 Shootie Awards!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.