|Luther Strange and Jessica Medeiros Garrison|
The answer is yes, and while I'm not qualified to pinpoint such a disorder, even a non-professional can see signs of illogical thinking, derailment, and racing thoughts--plus a serious dose of narcissism--in Garrison's article at marieclaire.com, plus an analysis at Lagniappe Mobile.
We've already shown that Garrison has a tendency to use what might be called "high-anxiety" language. But what makes her thinking disjointed, hard to follow, and . . . well, wacky?
Consider these words, as told to writer Liz Welch, at marieclaire.com, regarding Garrison's claims that I had stalked her:
Shuler posted photos of my home on his website, which felt like a threat, not to mention a huge violation of privacy. Had he been at my house? Was he stalking me? I installed a home security system and put the police on notice. I was so paranoid that I called the cops in tears one night, convinced someone was outside, and was relieved—and slightly mortified—to learn it was the police doing a drive by.
Never mind that the photo in question was from a real-estate Web site and almost certainly was taken long before Garrison lived in the house. But as you can see, Garrison is highly unnerved by the notion that I might be obsessively watching her. Then we have this, from the same article, about a hearing where we both appeared in her defamation lawsuit:
When Shuler was served with the papers from my attorney, he was already in jail for another defamation case. (Robert Riley, a lobbyist, sued Shuler for alleging he'd had an affair with lobbyist Liberty Duke.) When we met in court for a preliminary hearing, Shuler came in wearing an orange jumpsuit. He sat directly across from me, but never looked at me. He didn't seem to care that his lies could have destroyed my personal and professional life. I can only assume that his goal was to damage Luther politically, and that he thought using a woman who worked closely with the AG was the best way to do that. He didn't realize that he'd bitten off more than he could chew.
Now, Garrison seems to be upset that I was NOT looking at her. Which is it: Am I eyeballing her on a regular basis as a stalker or am I ignoring her? Either one seems to upset Garrison. There is no consistency, or logic, to that kind of thinking.
Garrison considers me callous, it seems, for not expressing great remorse that my "lies" had harmed her personal and professional life. It apparently never occurred to Garrison that I don't consider my reporting to be "lies," that I consider it to be based on facts, and that I had no reason to show remorse for practicing journalism as allowed under the First Amendment. It also must have never occurred to Garrison that at no point in the proceedings did she come close to meeting her burden of showing that my reporting was false and defamatory at trial, before a jury. Thanks largely to her machinations, there was no trial and there was no jury.
Want another example of Garrison's peculiar thinking. Consider these words from her marieclaire.com piece:
There is no second place in politics—you either win or you lose—and this ridiculous little blog was being used as a tool to try to gain a competitive advantage. I was livid.
OK, we've established that, in Garrison's mind, Legal Schnauzer is a "ridiculous little blog." But in almost the same breath, she recounts a story of meeting an executive from Apple Inc. in Cupertino, California, who said he had looked her up online prior to their lunch meeting. Garrison says her "heart stopped beating" out of fear that the exec had read my reporting on her affair with Luther Strange.
Hmmm, sounds like my blog isn't so "little" and "ridiculous" after all.
In Rob Holbert's article at Lagniappe Mobile, Garrison said she was "on business" in Portugal when someone asked her about my posts. (Question: Why does Garrison, the executive director of the Republican Attorneys General Association [RAGA], have business in Portugal? Some entity in Portugal has an interest in the actions of state attorneys general in the United States? Why would that be?)
Then, we have this from Holbert's article:
Speaking with Garrison last week, she said the reason she decided to talk about her experience is to help others understand the effects lone wolf bloggers like Shuler can have on others and the rather low threshold of proof they appear to have before publishing something as potentially damaging as allegations of an affair.
“The effect of one stroke of the keyboard is amazing,” she said.
Now, all of a sudden, I have "amazing" powers--ones that resonate across oceans and time zones--with "one stroke of the keyboard." Again, Garrison seems to have decided that Legal Schnauzer isn't so "little" and "ridiculous" anymore.
How are we to know Garrison's real thoughts on certain issues? Beats me. Her thoughts seem to change from one paragraph to another.
As for narcissism, consider these words from Garrison in the marieclaire.com article:
I've worked since I was 16, was the President of the Student Government Association in college, and got a job out of law school at a firm where I worked for nine years before starting on Luther's campaign in 2009. Now, it felt like all that hard work was under threat.
It's as if Garrison is unique in having worked hard, from an early age, in an effort to make a life for herself. Newsflash for Jessica: Lots of people have done that. I started making money by hauling hay (one of the hardest, hottest, dirtiest, sweatiest jobs on earth) when I was 15. I started mowing yards before that. When I was in college I worked during the summer at a factory that made rubber V-belts (used in cars, lawn mowers, refrigerators, all sorts of machinery). It was not uncommon for a worker to lose a limb, or more, in that factory. While I was there, one guy had his arm dragged into a machine and sheared off at the elbow.
Before the rubber-factory job, I worked at a drive-in theater, cleaning up the parking lot from the previous night's showings. You'd be amazed at what you find in a drive-in theater parking lot the morning after shows. At age 16, I didn't even know what some of those objects were.
My wife, Carol, started working when she was 16. Later, she worked eight hours a day at Alabama Power while carrying a full academic load at UAB--and she made straight A's for grades.
Carol and I have busted our buns for decades to try to have a life. But almost all of it has been stolen from us by Jessica Garrison's colleagues in the legal profession. I have little doubt that Jessica knows for sure who cheated us out of our jobs, who cheated us out of our house via a wrongful foreclosure, etc.
Has Jessica spoken up about that, as anyone with the slightest hint of a moral compass would do--as Jessica is required to do by the rules of her profession? Of course not. Having your personal and professional life threatened is only a concern when it affects Jessica.
What kind of "thought disorder" does that point to? I'm not sure, but I would suggest it probably points to something more serious than that--it's a sign of "character disorder" also known as a "personality disorder."
Regardless of the proper scientific term, Jessica Garrison reveals herself to be extraordinarily shallow. No wonder she found a home in the conservative movement.
I"d watch it if I were you, accusing her of having a thought disorder, for much of the same can be applied to you. You have a way of simply not mentioning small details that might convey a different message than the one you are wanting to state. You seem to have issues with the police (refusing to accept service out of your car) and the legal system (not showing up for hearings, claiming you didn't receive notice, when you didn't notify the courts of your change in address), and anybody whom you perceive as disagreeing with you.
I try to stay fairly neutral on this kind of stuff, but I must admit that Garrison sounds like a fruitcake. Surely, she's smarter than this in most circumstances.
Try reading the post, @12:02. I'm not "accusing" Garrison of having a thought disorder; I'm pointing to a pile of evidence that suggests disjointed thinking and a possible thought disorder.
Why don't you give some examples of what you think points to a thought disorder in me? I would be interested in reading them. Pretty much everything you've written in your comment is false, and none of it remotely points to a thought disorder. In fact, I see no sign that you even know what a thought disorder is. It's explained in the post, but I guess you can't be bothered to actually read something before commenting.
Ahhh...so the puppet masters are hiding in Portugal, eh? Maybe she delivered the paychecks!
Garrison's problem is that she's both a lawyer and a political figure, so she is incapable of dealing in the truth. Luther Strange can't deal in the truth either. He's been saying Bentley's legal advisor said Strange could move forward with appeal to AL Sup Ct., and recent reports now indicate the advisor said no such thing. Lies, lies.
My favorite part is where Garrison calls you a stalker, but then whines that you didn't look at her in court.
By any definition, that is nutty.
Big question: What was Garrison doing in Portugal? What kind of "business" does the head of RAGA have in Portugal?
Jessica Garrison seems to be in a yappy mood these days, so why doesn't she open up about her business connections to Erik Davis Harp, the guy who was indicted as ringleader of an illegal offshore gambling ring?
Why is Jessica close-mouthed about Erik Davis Harp and his ties to the Gambino and Genovese crime families. That gives her connections to organized crime, doesn't it?
Interesting point, @3:14, but I think the public should be even more interested in her sealed divorce file. Why is it sealed, and why didn't she have it unsealed to help prove her "defamation" claims?
Do people not know how to use the internet? No one should believe anything they see, read, or hear on the internet. I have seen unicorns, aliens, etc. and it is not as though the information is peer-reviewed, scholarly, substantiated and so forth.
People also need to know about Fair Use. If you do not want something attributed to you, do not post up pictures, writings, or anything else because it can be used for or against you. There is no expectation of privacy on the internet. The closest anyone comes to privacy is having a private server and e-mail . . . I'm not mentioning any names.
When one is a public figure, they have an even lower expectation of privacy. Also, if she is so worried about her privacy, why is she granting interviews re-hashing the information that she wishes to remain private?
I highly doubt there is business in Portugal. This is irrelevant and may appear to be profiling, but Medeiros is a very popular Portuguese surname, so maybe family business.
Post a Comment