The Pot, the Kettle and the Wahkiakum School District Personnel File

There is something genuinely weird about watching a grown man repeatedly insert himself into conversations that were never about him in the first place. Joel McEntire seems to have developed a particular fascination with conversations involving Britney Brown’s friends and supporters. He doesn't simply disagree with them. He seeks them out, jumps into their discussions, attacks their credibility, redirects the conversation toward himself and then apparently becomes offended when people respond. At some point, you have to stop calling that engagement and start wondering whether it is an unhealthy need for attention. He does seem rather thirsty. Perhaps even parched.

The latest example is almost comical. Sherry Thompson made a post discussing Terry Carlson and the accusations surrounding his decades-old divorce and custody dispute. Joel wasn't the subject of the post. Nobody was asking Joel a question. Nobody needed his commentary. Yet, there he was. Joel McEntire proves, yet again, that he cannot read the room.

Serious Accusations Require Serious Evidence

Joel then started making extraordinarily serious accusations about Terry. He repeatedly characterized Terry as an abuser and, in one comment, stated that “nobody wants a guy who beats his wife.” That is one serious accusation and Joel better be able to back that one up.

Then Joel's lapdog, Kevin Strang, went even further, writing that “Terry fcked with kids.”* That statement came from Kevin, not Joel, and it is important to keep those two speakers separate. Kevin has no proof of this. There are zero convictions. Terry was never charged with anything. 

There is a rather important problem with all of this. Terry Carlson was never criminally charged with the conduct Joel is now presenting as established fact.

An allegation is not a criminal conviction. An accusation is not a finding of guilt. A police report is not a verdict. A disputed allegation in a decades-old divorce or custody proceeding does not magically become an adjudicated fact because somebody repeats it often enough on Facebook.

Those distinctions apparently become optional when Joel is talking about someone he doesn't like. If Joel has documentation establishing a criminal conviction, he can produce the conviction. If there is a final court finding establishing the allegations he is making, he can produce the court order. If there was a criminal charge, he can identify the charge.

What he doesn't get to do is take allegations and convert them into definitive statements of fact simply because it makes a better political talking point. That is especially reckless when you're talking about allegations of child abuse and domestic violence.

I've seen the nonsense from CCN. They think they are sure proving some point. I'm not sure what, but I will say that they are committed to whatever it is that they do. They are posting an accusation and putting it forth as proof and whipping up their base in the hope that the people that follow their page are too uneducated to know the difference between an allegation and a conviction. 

The Irony Is Almost Impossible to Miss

Joel spends an extraordinary amount of time telling everyone else that they don't believe women. Yet here he is, using allegations from a highly complicated family and custody dispute as a political weapon against Terry Carlson.

Sherry pointed out another obvious problem in the thread: Joel has repeatedly accused Terry while simultaneously demanding that everyone else accept his interpretation of the situation as fact. Meanwhile, Chris Carlson responded to Sherry, thanking her for her support and saying they stood by their statements.

Then, predictably, Joel inserted himself into that conversation too.

This is becoming a pattern. Sherry and Chris were having a conversation. Joel inserted himself. Someone else responded to Joel. Joel responded again. Someone criticized Joel. Joel responded again. It is almost as if he physically cannot watch a conversation happen without climbing into the middle of it.

At one point, Chris essentially explained that she doesn't even read the particular “news” site involved (CCN) because she had already blocked it and didn't have time for the nonsense. Sherry agreed, describing it as more of a propaganda site than a news organization.

Joel still had to respond.

Apparently even being told that someone has no interest in your source material isn't enough to make you leave them alone.

Then Came the Financial Attacks

When the conversation continued, Joel moved into another favorite tactic: attacking someone's finances. He went after Bann Hammer over alleged sealed medical documents and made comments about Terry's finances and collection issues. Bann raised the question of whether possessing or publishing sealed medical documents concerning someone who wasn't a party to the case could constitute an ethics violation or worse.

Joel's response? “Do a complaint.”

This is another fascinating feature of the Joel McEntire approach. When someone raises questions about conduct involving him or his allies, he wants complaints, investigations and accountability. When someone raises questions about his own conduct, suddenly everyone else is supposedly part of some political conspiracy.

That standard seems remarkably flexible.

Austin Crouch-Hadley even asked Joel what motivates him to spend so much time attacking people and pointed out that his behavior appeared petty and immature. Joel responded that he had been tagged and therefore had every right to respond.

Technically, being tagged gives you the ability to respond. It doesn't explain why you keep inserting yourself into virtually every subsequent conversation. There is a difference between responding to a tag and spending hours fighting with everyone who doesn't agree with you.

Then There Is the Christian Morality Problem

Austin also challenged Joel on the biblical language he regularly invokes. He quoted Proverbs about controlling one's temper, Galatians about the fruit of the Spirit and James about being slow to anger.

The question was essentially this: If you claim to follow Christ, where exactly do insults, rage, harassment and perpetual online combat fit into that picture?

Joel didn't really answer the theological question. Instead, the conversation continued in the same direction it had already been going.

That's the thing about public displays of morality. Eventually, people start looking at the behavior rather than the slogans. You can quote Scripture all day. People are still going to judge the fruit.

Then Came the “Bann Hammer” Revelation

Joel also seemed particularly proud of discovering Bann Hammer's real name and repeatedly using it. Sherry pointed out that this wasn't exactly the earth-shattering revelation Joel appeared to think it was.

Calling someone by their name isn't a great “gotcha.” It certainly doesn't establish the moral superiority of the person doing it. It just establishes that someone knows someone's name.

Congratulations, I suppose.

Paul Bromm described Joel as sounding like a parrot who had learned a new word. Another commenter compared his behavior to a cockroach emerging when the lights go out. The colorful descriptions are entertaining, but the underlying point is more important.

People are noticing the pattern.

Then Cody Campbell Walked Into the Conversation

Cody Campbell offered perhaps the most interesting counterpoint in the entire thread. Instead of blindly defending either candidate, Cody essentially said he wanted the complete records. He pointed out that Terry is running for public office and that documented allegations concerning his own conduct and judgment are legitimate subjects for public scrutiny.

That is what seems to be a perfectly reasonable position. Appearances can be deceiving, however. 

If the final records ultimately establish something, report it. If they don't, report that too. You don't get to decide the outcome first and then cherry-pick whatever supports your preferred narrative.

Then the Conversation Took the Usual Political Detour

Then Penne Olson Connatser entered the discussion and immediately pivoted into a completely unrelated attack involving Democrats, Joe Biden and allegations of hypocrisy. I'm still trying to figure out why she is named after pasta. Is her middle name Orzo or Spaglini?

Apparently, no Facebook argument is complete until somebody brings Joe Biden into a conversation that had absolutely nothing to do with Joe Biden.

Lori Pressley correctly pointed out how bizarre that was. Penne's response was essentially to accuse everyone else of hypocrisy while continuing to drag unrelated political grievances into the conversation.

Again, the pattern is remarkably familiar. Stay on the subject? Apparently not. Discuss the actual evidence? Only when convenient. Attack the other side? Absolutely.

The entire thread became a perfect illustration of what happens when a discussion about actual documents and actual allegations turns into a political food fight.

Joel's Real Problem Seems to Be Relevance

Strip away all of the insults, political talking points and accusations and there is one thing that keeps jumping out from these screenshots: Joel cannot seem to leave Britney Brown's circle alone.

He continues to insert himself into conversations involving her friends. He attacks people who defend her. He attacks people who criticize him. He attacks people discussing Terry Carlson. He attacks people discussing his own conduct. He jumps into conversations between other people.

Then, when people respond, he portrays their response as evidence that they are obsessed with him.

That is quite a trick. It's like walking into somebody else's kitchen, starting an argument, getting yelled at and then announcing that everyone in the house is obsessed with you.

At some point, the common denominator becomes difficult to ignore.

There Is Also a Remarkable Double Standard Here

Joel has repeatedly presented himself as someone concerned about protecting women and holding people accountable for mistreatment. Yet he is simultaneously making extremely serious accusations about another man, including claims of domestic violence, without the criminal charges or convictions that would establish those claims as fact.

There is another rather glaring problem with the way Joel throws around the word “abuser.” When it comes to Terry Carlson, there is no criminal charge or conviction establishing the accusations Joel is making. Yet when we look at the documentation actually available, there is a documented incident involving Joel himself.

According to documentation from the Wahkiakum School District, Joel was reprimanded over his conduct toward students in detention. The behavior was serious enough that it resulted in a written reprimand being placed in his personnel record.

That doesn't make every accusation anyone could possibly make about Joel automatically true, nor does it justify inventing facts. It does, however, create a rather uncomfortable contrast: Joel is publicly labeling another person an abuser without a criminal charge or conviction, while there is actual employment documentation showing that Joel himself was formally reprimanded by a school district for his conduct toward students. If we're going to start handing out character labels, perhaps we should begin with the facts that are actually documented rather than the allegations that are merely being repeated on Facebook. 

Bullying students is a form of child abuse after all. This also tracks for what he did to Britney Brown that resulted in her obtaining a protection order against him. Let's face it. The man has an established pattern. I'll repeat that bullying is a form of abuse.

It's extremely ironic that Kevin Strang went radio silent about kids being abused and pivoted to telling Sherry to not comment to him. Mind you, this is on Sherry's own Facebook page. I have to wonder if Kevin is Joel's self-appointed lapdog. He certainly seems to follow him around and carry Joel's proverbial slippers for him. 

That doesn't mean allegations should be ignored. It means they should be described accurately. If the evidence establishes wrongdoing, report the wrongdoing. If the evidence establishes an allegation, report the allegation. If the court ultimately makes a finding, report the finding.

Don't skip straight from allegation to “abuser.”

That isn't accountability. That's advocacy disguised as certainty.

When you're running for public office or involving yourself in local politics, the standard should be even higher.

Maybe the Insecurity Is the Simplest Explanation

I can't tell you what is going on inside Joel McEntire's head. I'm not a mind reader, and frankly, I have enough trouble understanding my own species without attempting to conduct psychological evaluations through Facebook comments.

What I can observe is behavior. A man who repeatedly inserts himself into conversations among the friends of someone he has a long-running public dispute with and, of whom, they had to resort to putting a restraining order against him. This is the first time in Washington State history that a constituent has been granted an anti-harassment order from a sitting state representative. We're talking about a man who appears unable to resist responding even when nobody is addressing him. A man who repeatedly attempts to shift conversations back toward himself.

This is a  man who attacks the character of people who criticize him while demanding that everyone else accept his own characterizations of their opponents. A man who keeps telling everyone else to move on while demonstrating an impressive inability to do exactly that himself.

That doesn't look like confidence.

It looks like someone who desperately needs to remain relevant. I'd even go as far as saying Joel McEntire looks beyond thirsty and is looking pretty arid.

Perhaps that's why Terry Carlson has become so useful to him. Terry isn't just another political opponent. He is another opportunity to keep the conversation alive, keep Britney's circle engaged, and keep Joel McEntire's name in the middle of the discussion.

The irony is that the more he inserts himself into conversations that aren't about him, the more obvious the behavior becomes.

Nobody has to make Joel relevant.

He keeps doing that all by himself.

The rest of us are simply watching the spectacle and shaking our heads at the sheer buffoonery.

Show the Records

When someone repeatedly demands that everyone else be held accountable while insisting that allegations against his political opponents are established facts, there is a very simple solution: Show the records. Show the final findings. Show the convictions. Show the evidence. Until then, an allegation remains an allegation. Facebook comments don't turn accusations into convictions, no matter how many times somebody types them.

Calling a man an abuser or a wife-beater when he was never criminally charged or convicted of those offenses isn't accountability. It's defamatory.

It is a serious accusation, and one that the person making it should be prepared to substantiate.