Profile of a serial panderer: "Dr." Schulman-Kauflin

Parent Cafe
1

<p>A post about the entirely fictitious “million sex crimes by illegal aliens” alerted me to this particularly distasteful example of shameless self promotion. “Dr.” Deborah Schulman-Kauflin bills herself as an “expert profiler”, although she apparently feels no need to identify the source of her Ph.D; nor does she mention any actual experience or training in the field. Her pathetic mangling of basic statistics (and logic) in her “study” made me curious, and I wandered around her website at <a href=“http://www.drdsk.com%5B/url%5D”>www.drdsk.com</a>.</p>

<p>Jumping from fad to fad, she positions herself as an “expert” and has been introduced as such by the equally odious Nancy Grace. Her primary claim to fame appears to have been “profiling” the BTK killer, which she claims on her website “was very accurate.” Well, she did correctly guess that the serial killer was in his late 20’s when he started his murderous activity (all together now: duh) but as to the rest of her “profile”, she was just a little off. Examples:</p>

<p>

BTK was married for 34 years - throughout the period of his crimes and arrest.</p>

<p>

Nope - no BTK murders between '74 and '77</p>

<p>

Wrong! The BTK killer did the 80’s jobs too.</p>

<p>

BTK was the subject of several harassment complaints.</p>

<p>Not exactly a bullseye. But in addition to making up bogus statistics about unauthorized immigrants she’s also moved on to “profile” terrorists, now! Nothing like hitting the latest trends. Here’s an excerpt from her website:

[quote]
Terrorists inflict fear. They are cunning and constantly changing to outwit their enemies. In their ever growing arsenal of minimizing identification, terrorists have taken a page from brutal serial killer Ted Bundy. … He knew that in order to catch his intended prey, he had to come up with a rouse [sic] which would make the girls let down their guards [sic]. Thus, he pretended to be injured when he approached them… In this way, he could get close to the girls while raising less suspicion. …</p>

<p>Terrorists have taken notice of the sympathy card, and they have smartly decided to play it. They believe in the mantra that people are fundamentally unaware of danger and likely to overlook security risks when dealing with the weak. …</p>

<p>In Iraq, terrorists have used handicapped children as suicide bombers. In fact, a child with Down’s syndrome was used to blow up a polling site in Baghdad. A bomb was placed around the child’s body, and he was marched to the polling location. His handlers then goaded him to walk to the target. But the terrified child paused. He became confused, and as a result, he turned and began walking to the terrorists who had sent him. The infuriated psychopaths immediately detonated the boy, furious that he had failed. <a href=“Much%20purple%20prose%20edited%20out.”>/quote</a> Of course, the idea that “terrorists” are an identifiable subspecies of humans, who can uniformly be “profiled” is stupid on its face. The story about the boy with Downs syndrome is mostly fabricated (a boy with Downs did die in an explosion in Baghdad, as many other people have, but the rest of the “story” is an invention.) </p>

<p>In short this “Dr.” is an opportunist and a phony, following the latest fad, scaring people, and making a buck at the same time. Barnum said it best: there’s one born every minute. But in this internet age all it takes is one lazy reporter from a “respectable” news outlet and a cloak of instant respectability is placed over the shoulders of phonies like “Dr.” DSK. And besides Nancy Grace, some bozo from CNN also interviewed DSK. So now the Dr. and her one-woman “Institute” can pump out as much misinformation and claptrap as she likes, and it will be dutifully repeated to a gullible populace.</p>

2

<p>

Got that right, kluge! She makes me shudder. And thanks for the expose on the, um, “doctor.” </p>

<p>What is CNN thinking?</p>

3

<p>Seems CNN saw the word “institute” and “sex” and that was that</p>

<p>I emailed CNN (makes me feel better) and aksed, What indeed were they thinking…</p>

4

<p>Dr. StickerShock here. I’m getting a strong image of terrorists and water. Travel over water?? Bathe in water?? Drink water?? Hmmmm…and the letter “M” plays an important role.</p>

5

<p>With a little more googling I guess I can’t only blame the media. It seems that the staff of the then-majority party on the Homeland Security Committee in the House in 2006 drafted a report in which they cited the “study” of the “Violent Crimes Institute” as evidence in a highly partisan document issued two weeks before the 2006 election. The Committee report “A Line in the Sand” seems to have disappeared from the official committee records after the election, accompanied by a stern letter from what became the majority party in Congress after the election. I guess if a government agency prints it it’s news…</p>

6

<p>If you continue, you will find that some others on the same committee commented about the rerport, I quoted that on the other thread</p>

<p>they basically said the reprot was done by one person for an institute that was run but that one person, with no peer reivew nothing and in essence slammed the report</p>

<p>If a congressional staffer can’t find any more information than we did, guess there is little there</p>

7

<p>I checked. This lady is not licensed to practice anything that I can find in the state of Georgia, where her supposed “institute” is located. No clue what that “doctorate” is in.</p>

8

<p>“Dr. Schurman-Kauflin has a Ph.D. in Criminal Justice/Forensic Science” per a posting on the net, however I have not yet located the institution granting the degree</p>

9

<p>as I said, if a congressional staffer can’t find anything, wellll…</p>

10

<p>My guess is that the degree is from some mail order “institution.”</p>

11

<p>And her site has typos! Check this out:</p>

<p>

</p>

12

<p>Is this source of other statistics on illegal alien criminal activity more credible?</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html[/url]”>http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

13

<p>From what I’ve read here, I’d say, yes it would be more credible. Then again, from what I’ve read here, my kid’s pet gerbil’s opinion on this is more credible.</p>

14

<p>Okay, Barrons, here’s a brief primer for making a quick determination regarding the likely credibility of a source:</p>

<p>1) Is the author a right wing nutball? (Heather MacDonald - check.)
2) Is there an improbable statistic quoted with no source but which is repeated in every right wing nutball website on the internet?

Okay - LA averages about 500 murders a year. So where did the “95% of 1200 - 1500” “estimate” come from? Someone’s, uh, “thin air”.</p>

<p>It’s not that complicated, Barrons - the Mellon/Scaife, Bradley and Koch Foundations have been pouring millions into right wing propaganda outlets for years now. When all of your information sources are repeating crap like the junk “Dr.” DSK and Heather MacGoofball pass off as “facts the mainstream media won’t tell you” you are being manipulated.</p>

<p>You would do better spending your time trying to figure out why they want you to believe the stuff they’re trying to convince you is desperately in need of your undivided attention.</p>

15

<p>fun to read about these think tanks, like the Manhattan Institute that Heather Mac Donald is part of…very anti immigration group btw</p>

<p>just an FYI</p>

16

<p>nice work kluge!! beat me to it</p>

17

<p>Your right winger is my centrist. Has she ever been judged to be misleading in a court of law like your hero Al Gore?</p>

18

<p>mymymy barrons…that took 17 posts for you to try and distract us from your panderer, I applaud your restraint</p>

19

<p>Heather MacDonald a right wing nutjob??? Sorry, Kluge, you lost your credibility there. And I agreed with you up till that last post…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Ms. MacDonald is a brilliant writer & in no way can be compared to “Dr.” Shulman.</p>

<p>Actually, SHulman is a pretty smart cookie – she’s selling controversy & effortlessly fooling a major news organization with her one-woman-thinktank con. CNN looks foolish; she looks richer. She can join the ranks of clever conmen who make an easy buck.</p>

20

<p>you ever READ anything about the Manhattan Institute, stickershock, its funders, etc</p>

<p>as for the Bradley Prize, well gee, its a right wing propoganda prize, given by the Bradley Foundation</p>

<p>And just cause you went to Yale doesn’t mean you aint a rightwing nutjob</p>

<p>what we have here is a conservative group of funders creating “intitutes” and “foundations” and then giving each other prizes</p>