Anarchy in Humbug County – WHY?

The reason is, the people have spoken!

This was never more illustrated today than by this latest sick maneuver by some CHP officer and our illustrious District Attorney to legitimize murder. Or is the word a "killing"? It amounts to the same thing. Someone died at the hands of another. But, what else could they do?

We're talking about the latest in the saga of Allen Bear's “accused hitting and killing a cyclist last summer.” His name was Gregory Jennings. Read the article and NOTE: First, it's “Hoopa driver,” then is “Hoopa man,” and next it's “accused,” and “a cyclist.” To continue it is “reporting officer,” and “officer's opinion,” and we finally find out who the “cyclist” is half way through the article. This is the “Thought Police” at their best. Dehumanize, depersonalize and neuter the issue to abstract object entities and worthless opinions that devalues life.

Everyone can blame the California Highway Patrol and Paul Gallegos the District Attorney. God knows, the share responsibility. My question is, will any of them stand accountable? Doesn't seem likely, but the answer is – they and their families are already paying that price right along with everyone else that 'takes their lives in their hands' and ventures out on any city street, county road or state highway. These lawless anarchist assault us all.

The laws governing how we conduct ourselves when driving a motor vehicle are worthless. Not because the police DON'T enforce them. Well, mostly don't enforce them – apparently only when convenient. The laws are worthless because MOST drivers refuse to comply. The DEFACTO reality determines the law. When 90% of drivers treat stop signs as if they are non-existent the majority voter has redefined the law governing stop signs either non-existent or something else. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!

How then does the courts, the District Attorney or any police officer hold anyone accountable for failure to stop, let alone resulting deaths? They can't and they don't.

Allison White reports in the Times-Standard that: “Gross negligence, as defined in California statute, is an act done with such careless disregard for the safety of others' lives that it is likely to cause foreseeable injury.” The problem is with anarchy, when the majority vote, in this instance that stop signs don't mean stop and drive, or vote them as something ornamental, THEY MEET THIS STANDARD. What about the driver that consistently runs the Safety Corridor between Eureka and Arcata at 60 plus MPH? When one or two cars race by at that speed other drivers speedup to follow. By the time you get to the 65 MPH sign approaching Arcata everyone one of them is going 70 plus MPH. Every driver that deliberately and purposely drives this way or drives 35 MPH or better in a 25 MPH speed zone, rolls through a stop sign without even slowing down or only noticeably reduces speed because the turn requires it, is GROSSLY NEGLIGENT!

The sad truth is many of these lawless people I observe, driving without regard for life or property, have vehicles full of young children. What do they think they are teaching their children? To be safe on the streets and watch out for people like themselves? Hardly! And those that don't have children in their cars racing around like lunatics, how many of their children are playing Russian Roulette with people just like them?

Is it because life has no value? These people are more important than everyone else? Laws are only for the old and the stupid? These drivers are basically right-wing bullies? Left-wing socialist, pinko commies? Illegal aliens and foreigners that are ignorant of the law? Or American Indians that are citizens of sovereign nations and are exempt? Regardless! Anarchy or people that drive like Allan Bear are a loaded gun or a bomb, ready to explode.

Every driver that races through a stop sign is a driver trying to hurt or kill some innocent person. It's a no man's land out there and everyone is on his own. When the elected and appointed authorities don't do what decent, law-abiding people that believe in our system justice and civil order put them their to do, people do what people do – they live! That means when they see someone deliberately run a red light or a stop sign or any other gross negligent act and kill an innocent pedestrian, bike rider or mother and small children on their way to school, they take matters into their own hands and make that person accountable – the ultimate expression of ANARCHY.

[Image Source]

--Joe

Wolves In Sheep's Clothing

As It Stands and the Times-Standard newspaper

Jesus said: "Beware of the false teachers--men who come to you in sheep's fleeces, but beneath that disguise they are ravenous wolves." So, how do you know a wolf in sheep's clothing when you see one? You look at their tracks and the crap they leave behind.

Jesus also said deceitful liars, people that make false lying accusations are murderers: "You are of your father the Devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of liars." In other words, according to Jesus Christ, liars are the Devil's spawn.

Hate speech is defined in the Wikipedia as follows: "Hate speech is a term for speech intended to offend a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability." Of further interest is the purpose hate speech is used: "Critics have claimed that the term "Hate Speech" is a modern example of Newspeak, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct." "As It Stands" defines the Joe Blow Report, in particular, the writer or writers, he's somewhat confused, as paranoid, hostile, hate-filled, extremist, cowards and blow-hards personally threatening him.

Notice the how Wikipedia describes paranoia:

Paranoia is a thought process characterized by excessive anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat towards oneself. In the original Greek, παράνοια (paranoia) simply means madness (para = outside; nous = mind). Historically, this characterization was used to describe any delusional state. (Emphasis added)

"Persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat towards oneself" defines Dave Stancliff perfectly. To publicly denigrate someone the way Dave Stancliff has, accredited and substantiated by the Times-Standard is beyond "simpleminded." It's just plain STUPID. And that was my point. Why would anyone want to threaten this guy? He's made an absolute fool out of himself without any help from me.

Dave Stancliff, according to what's printed under his "As It Stands" column in the Times Standard is a "columnist" for that paper. They also say "he is a former newspaper editor and publisher." When you consider the staff and management's stand regarding Stancliff then it begins to make sense their love affair with him and why he can do no wrong. So, who are the REAL WOLVES in sheep's clothing?

After posting "Trolls versus The Thought Police" article Dave Stancliff came into our web and posted six comments. What he said speaks for itself -- everything is personal! Nothing about the central premise of our article. Only verbal abuse, foul lying accusations, insults, diatribe -- nothing worthy of someone writing weekly columns in the local newspaper. Everything that was exemplified in the article was born out by what Dave Stancliff wrote on our blog. All of that personal crap was easily erased, but why do that? It was the proof in the pudding; it proved and justified the original intent of the article.

That all changed when he went on his own blog and posted his accusations. There he accuses the writer of threatening him, commenting on our "little hate-filled blog," of being a "paranoid lot of losers," "thinly veiled threats warning him" are proof of "hate that is spewing out from The Joe Blow Report blog" -- NO examples of hate speech -- Only his accusations.

But, that wasn't good enough! On June 15, 2009, apparently in response to our article "Conspiricy of Silence" he posted another personal attack on his As It Stands web. To show the racism and hate-speech we added the word "kike" in bold text.

Monday, June 15, 2009

Joe Blow (conspiracy) Report staff bawl like babies!

Well readers, this is what I have to contend with sometimes. "Kike" Extremists tend to attack anything that doesn't fit their world view. There's a "Kike" group at the Joe Blow Report blog that decided to attack me on May 31st and who posted a hate-filled rant about a column I did on trolls (of all the ironies!) This is a "Kike" group that has the mind-set of a steel trap.

Now they (these Kikes) have their crying towels (it took them two weeks to think of a reply) out and are blubbering to all that will read their raving. I'm not going to be intimidated by a bunch of "Kike" cowards who are whining about a conspiracy between me and the Times-Standard to attack trolls! Good grief! Get a life you blowhards.

I don't know who you think you are, but I do know that you seek to impose your will upon others by reading your past posts. Now you think you can silence me by making outrageous accusations and trying to get the newspaper to drop my column. Guess again "Kike" gang. You'll never be able to silence me. You best bet is to change your soiled diapers and to find someone else to pick on!

What he wrote under his column "As It Stands" is as offensive as modified by us for clarity as noted above in bold and is exactly why he wrote it, to offend. The purpose of accusing someone of being a "troll" is to shut them up. That's what all racist, extremist hate-mongers do. Today, the law defines such as "Psycho Terrorists."

As noted in our article, "Conspiracy of Silence," we had notified the staff and management at the Times-Standard newspaper of Dave Stancliff's web posting about us. Because his web is titled "As It Stands" and his newspaper column has the same name, the Times-Standard has a vested interest in what he says and does. The newspaper management approve his columns and that gives him credibility and legitimacy. What he wrote on his web, attacks the Time-Standard's credibility and legitimacy equally. We waited to see if their relationship was a marriage made in heaven. When no one at the newspaper responded, we posted the article and sent another more extensive email. You can read that email and Ms. Wear's reply here. This time Ms. Wear answered and then ran the "As It Stands" column Sunday, June 21, 2009. We heard the both of them loud and clear. Lets see if the local businesses want to be associated with this kind of sick racist behavior. The Basij are alive a well in Eureka, California!

[Photo] [Some interesting background on the Basij on Democracy Now today]

UPDATE: Tuesday, June 23, 2009

When I wrote “Trolls versus The Thought Police” I had spent months observing commentary by Dave Stancliff on other local blogs I frequented. I had a fairly good idea his motivation for the article; I'd seen him in action. On the face of it, so-called “Online Trolls” are a good mark to disrespect and disrepute. Whenever someone says something of which others do not agree, the first thing they do is try to shut the person or persons up by changing the subject to the object. Frankly regarding Stancliff, as far as I was concerned he could yak away all he wanted. He had his blog and newspaper columns and even I would occasionally read what he had to say. It was his knee-jerk reaction to justifying accusations that I took exception to, specially to being published as if there was some legitimate reason. Not to say Online Trolls do not exist, they do. Dave Stancliff's posted comments on my blog are a good example; he is self-defining. That was not my issue in writing the article. My issue was how easy it is to make false accusations against someone, in this case an Online Troll, in other cases an Online Terrorist or just your neighbor. The consequences in our society are overwhelming.

It was my contention that he was arguing ostensibly for the same right President George Bush, his government administration and his supporters had made justifying the permanent detention of people based only upon, what turned out to be in many cases, coerced, false lying accusations. How this atrocity, designed to extract counterfeit witnesses and produce phony testimony to justify a “War On Terror,” is codified by Andy Worthington. He is a British journalist and historian and the author of “The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America”s Illegal Prison." In his interview this morning on Democracy Now he explains exactly how falsely accused, innocent men were held prisoner for nearly a decade when the Bush government and the military knew, all along, they were totally innocent. You can read or listen to his interview, Judge Orders Release of Guantanamo Prisoner After Seven Years, Saying Government Position “Defies Common Sense” here.

We all know that, to a large extent, the news media sold out the American people for the “government” line. Dave Stancliff's demagogic tirades and baseless accusations are racist, hate-speech for sure, but they pale in significance compared to the Times-Standards approval of his conduct. Without much help from the Joe Blow Report, well not much anyway, he did a real number on his own credibility – his big worry – his legitimacy as a newspaper columnist. In the end, however, he's doing a number on the newspaper's, at least the staff and management, objective credibility. It's what's called “biting the hand that feeds you.”

--Joe

Conspiracy of Silence

On Sunday, May 31, 2009 Dave Stancliff wrote in the Times-Standard newspaper in his column called “As It Stands” the article titled: “Trolls Exposed: What kind of troll is disrupting your online community?” Like everything in life, not everything is as it seems. Dave Stancliff has a presence on Internet Blogs and over time we've observed his commentary. Did he have an ulterior motive in writing that article? Who knew. How about the Times-Standard staff, did they agree with his premise? Who knew?

Well, we wrote about our observations here on this Blog. The tendency to vilify the writer, attack the messenger, when the subject being discussed touches a little too close to the truth, has led to some serious conditions, not only in America, and subject right here in Humboldt County, but around the World. We pointed out that Stancliff's approach to this subject was rather simplistic and in its totality largely responsible for causing the loss of media credibility and factual reporting. In that, we alluded, one person's efforts to illicit thought or thoughtful consideration was another person's “troll.”

Dave Stancliff's assault in his column was upon the person he tagged or simply claimed was a “troll.” In that, he assaulted their personal credibility, and suggested that they be starved to death -- ignored. In that he assaulted their legitimate right to exist in whatever manner they chose to present themselves. We witnessed a good example of this form of discrimination and bigotry with the active assault some months back by a gang of local blogger thugs on Steve Lewis. This is same tactic the United States in league and complicit with the United Nations has done to North Korea for more than 50 years simply because they refuse to recognize the North Korean people's right to sustain a totalitarian government. What's our point? Dave Stancliff didn't assault “trolls” he assaulted people, people he merely accused of being “trolls.” His definition of "trolls" detailed nearly everyone that posts and comments online and allowed him and his kind the freedom to accuse just about anyone at any time. What made this matter doubly serious is that he is published by the newspaper and writes under the same title: “AS IT STANDS.” As It Stands could just as easily be written, “As It IS.” Why is that important? The name itself speaks to a permanent, factual and truthful reality based upon his personal credibility and legitimacy to do so propagated by the Times-Standard newspaper. He's somebody in this community! And the Times-Standard backs that up by publishing him under his brand, “As It Stands.”

If there ever was some question about the Report's integrity regarding our observations, Dave Stancliff by his unsolicited demagogic tirade on our blog and his slanderous hate speech posting on his blog, “As It Stands” removed all doubt. As bad as that is, that fact that the Times-Standard continues to run his columns makes this issue far more serious. Whatever he writes under the name “As It Stands” is sanctioned and approved by the Staff and Management of the Times-Standard newspaper. Therefore the bigotry, prejudice and hate speech written by Dave Stancliff is legitimized by the Times-Standard. Consequently, we sent, in behalf of the Joe Blow Report, the following email to three people at the Times-Standard, Dave Kuta Publisher, Kimberly Wear Managing Editor and James Faulk City Editor:

Dear Mr. Kuta,

I would like to bring to your attention the latest blog commentary about me and my online blog, the Joe Blow Report, by Dave Stancliff. As far the the Report is concerned normal blog commentary and article postings are laissez-faire. They bring with them limited legitimacy and credibility as compared to published media. Whatever Mr. Stancliff writes for your newspaper, you approve. You can relegate what he says to "opinion," yet I contend ultimately you or someone representing your newspaper approves, therefore you stand behind what he says as if you said it yourself.

The Joe Blow Reports were designed to avoid the kind of personal diatribe and hate mongering that comes from assaulting the writer. Unfortunately, Mr. Stancliff was personally affronted by my observations regarding his Sunday, May 31, 2009 "As It Stands" article and the part that he played in writing it. He came into by blog and expressed that effrontery in graphic terms by formulating a false accusation to revile the integrity of me, backed up by days of ever more egregious personal accusations. The ensuing conversation, if that's what you want to call it, over the next days speaks for itself. What he wrote is easily erased and bears no ultimate threat as a consequence of some of the accusations he makes. That all changed, however, when he posted on his blog, As It Stands, accusations against me of operating a "hate-filled blog" and of being "paranoid," among other things, but more importantly of personally "threatening him." This goes way beyond the pale.

What was their response? They ran Dave Stancliff's column in the Sunday, June 14, 2009, issue of the Times-Standard. Anyone familiar with what's been going on here knows exactly what the staff and management of the Times-Standard thinks of the Joe Blow Report and everyone associated with it. Well, read what Dave Stancliff accuses us of being here. In that same Sunday newspaper on page A4 is the article, "'Lone Wolf' terrorists are harder to defeat." Who are these "terrorists"? They define three people as "an elderly man" in a museum, "a young man in Arkansas" and "another man opens fire in a Kansas church." -- All Americans! The article goes on to say:

"Each apparently was driven to act by beliefs considered by some as extreme." "It could be anyone. It could be the guy next door, living in the basement of his mother's place, on the Internet just building himself up with hate, building himself up to a boiling point and finally using what he's learned."

Now tell me that this is exactly what Dave Stancliff with all his published authority is saying about anyone associated with the Joe Blow Report?

--Joe

Psycho Terrorists

(UPDATE BELOW - Update II)

The World and its people are facing an ever expanding and never ending War on Terrorism. That War is fought, according to some, against ideological, religious extremists, sometimes these are governments or regimes, but mostly against people. All it takes to be guilty of being a terrorist is for someone to make the accusation. These people are held in a cage indefinitely, some for nearly a decade, psychologically, emotionally and physically tortured. Even when ordered by the Courts they continue to hold them. Most astounding in all of this is that these lawless criminals do all of this with impunity.

There are many forms of terrorism. To name a few, there are Civil Disorders, Political Terrorism, Non-Political Terrorism, Quasi-Terrorism, Limited Political Terrorism, Official or State Terrorism, and Structural Terrorism. There is Democratic and domestic terrorism, Islamic Terrorism. Add to this: Christian Terrorism, Communist Terrorism, Counter-terrorism, Cyber-terrorism, Domestic terrorist (United States), Eco-terrorism, Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, Islamic Terrorism Jewish Terrorism, Narcoterrorism, the Patriot Act and that's just from Wikipedia.

Add to this list the latest from the Huffington Post: Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism -- Shanny Moore concludes her article by saying:

The "war on terror" needs to include domestic religious, fundamentalist terrorists.

You can add to that list Socio and Psycho Terrorism.

It's time for people to recognized terrorism for what it is in all of its insidious forms. Terrorists, by their very nature, exist in the dark. They hide behind good and decent people and appear normal, average and common. They talk the good talk, they put on a good facade. In truth, however, they are the worst of the worst; they are traitors in the fullest meaning of the word. They are deviant, lying, murderous cowards. They butcher innocent women and children to get at the men. They attack people where they live without remorse or conscience.

A good definition of Social Terrorism by Louis Komzsik in his book of the same name is:

Social terrorism is a subversive activity in which a small segment of the society, in order to gain or retain control, arrogates its philosophy onto the majority of the society, while completely disregarding the good of the society as a whole.

Socio Terrorists are a new breed. They attack society at its most fundamental framework and legitimate reasons for existence. They preach freedom, but practice discrimination, prejudice, bigotry and terrorize by lies, false accusations, slander and all kinds of innuendo. They demand the right to protection of law, but at heart they are lawless anarchists that assault the law in every way possible.

In many ways Socio Terrorism is like Psycho Terrorism and Psycho Terrorism is like Psychological Warfare.

The U.S. Department of Defense defines psychological warfare (PSYWAR) as: "The planned use of propaganda and other psychological actions having the primary purpose of influencing the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of hostile foreign groups in such a way as to support the achievement of national objectives."

During World War II the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff defined psychological warfare more broadly stating "Psychological warfare employs any weapon to influence the mind of the enemy. The weapons are psychological only in the effect they produce and not because of the weapons themselves." (Emphasis added) [Wikipedia]

Frankly, this article on Psycho Terrorists is mandated by what resulted from the Report article titled, “Trolls and the Thought Police” based upon the Time-Standard newspaper article written by Dave Stancliff in his Sunday, May 31, 2009, “As It Stands” column. When he was unsuccessful bullying us into doing what he wanted, he personally attacked and vilified us on his Blog. You can read what he accused us of being and of doing here. It seems there is a certain class of people in this country that have the right to say these kinds of things and worse in public, on the TV, in Internet Blogs, Newspapers and magazines whereas if this was someone from the Ku Klux Klan, some Nazi militia talking about the Jews or one of any other radical extremist Believer they'd be arrested and thrown in jail in a heartbeat for hate crimes under old laws and terrorism under the Patriot Act.

Yet, they are not. The question is, why not?

That very question was asked by Dr. Warren Hern in his Democracy Now interview today. In fact, he makes the very point of our observations discussed in the Report about “Trolls and the Thought Police.” This is just one of his comments:

But I think that it’s—the glee expressed by the anti-abortion fanatics is just grotesque. It’s ghoulish. These people—this is a violent terrorist movement in this country, and the American people need to understand that there’s a great deal more at stake here than the activities of one doctor, of the services of one doctor. Of course, this is a great loss for women, but this means that we have a very highly organized, active, well-armed and well-funded terrorist movement in the country that opposes the basic premises of American society. These people are opposed to constitutional democracy. They’re opposed to the rule of law. They’re opposed to a democratic government, representative government. They’re opposed to basic personal freedom. They’re opposed to thought. And this is a tremendous step backwards. [Emphasis added]

Louis Komzsik says these terrorists, "in order to gain or retain control, arrogates its philosophy onto the majority of the society." Arrogate is an interesting word. It means, "to claim unwarrantably or presumptuously; assume or appropriate to oneself without right" the authority to make one's worthless opinions fact. This is done by repeating the same lies over and over until everyone accepts it as truth. In other words just "BS" propaganda. While Blog articles and commentary are a dime-a-dozen, the problem is when posted, they become or have the potential to become volatile.

Real terrorism is a lot closer to home in America than most of us would want to believe. Our article on the Thought Police touched a real nerve. As, perhaps, it should.

UPDATE: Thursday, June 11, 2009
A good article by Joan Walsh, "Can right-wing hate talk lead to murder?"
Some think it already has.

UPDATE: Monday, June 22, 2009
Racism, Hate Speech, Extremism, bigotry, worthless opinions and lies are self-defining. Whether or not the person or persons making these statements are racist, hate mongers, bigots, or worthless liars is probably a personal judgment. Or is it? When you see a duck do you say, "there goes a turkey"?

Dave Stancliff has posted two "As It Stands" blogs accusing me of "spewing hate" in my May 31, 2009, "Troll's versus Thought Police" article about one of his Time-Standard, "As It Stands" columns. You can read that article and make up your own mind. When you find that "hate" I'd like someone to point it out. Or you can read what he said and tell me if it's a turkey?

Monday, June 15, 2009

Joe Blow (conspiracy) Report staff bawl like babies!

Well readers, this is what I have to contend with sometimes. Extremists tend to attack anything that doesn't fit their world view. There's a group at the Joe Blow Report blog that decided to attack me on May 31st and who posted a hate-filled rant about a column I did on trolls (of all the ironies!) This is a group that has the mind-set of a steel trap.

Now they have their crying towels (it took them two weeks to think of a reply) out and are blubbering to all that will read their raving. I'm not going to be intimidated by a bunch of cowards who are whining about a conspiracy between me and the Times-Standard to attack trolls! Good grief! Get a life you blowhards.

I don't know who you think you are, but I do know that you seek to impose your will upon others by reading your past posts. Now you think you can silence me by making outrageous accusations and trying to get the newspaper to drop my column. Guess again gang. You'll never be able to silence me. You best bet is to change your soiled diapers and to find someone else to pick on

Posted by Dave Stancliff at 3:37 PM

--Joe

Hate What Is Evil

“Hate What Is Evil. Hold on to what is good.” These are the Biblical words of a great student of Jesus Christ. Many people believe Jesus Christ to be the savior of all mankind. As such, Jesus said, “Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you, insult you, and slander your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.”

The Joe Blow Report, as is the writer, is dedicated to the above commandment. Hate what is bad, wicked and evil. The Bible defines these words in great length and proficiency. Jesus Christ once said, “But evil words come from an evil heart and defile the person who says them. For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, all other sexual immorality, theft, lying, and slander.” Jesus equates lying and hatred of brother with murder.

So, if the Joe Blow Report was to hate anything, it would be malicious lying and slander. Notice I did not say “malicious liars and slanderers.” Realize, however, that you cannot have malicious lying without malicious liars. If a person is proven to tell a lie, then that person is a proven liar. One of the purposes of this blog is to ferret out the truth of issues, not people. However, sometimes it is rather hard to separate the two when people insist upon enforcing their own personal opinions as fact or truth on others. Even so, identifying a proven liar is not “name calling.”

It is for this reason that the two Joe Blow Reports stand on their own merits and speak in behalf of themselves and not for or in behalf of the writer. In other words, what is written is the subject and the writer is the object. The Joe Blow Report is written by Joe Blow, an essential John Doe, and is totally about the subject. The legitimacy and credibility of these Reports are garnered or earned in and of themselves, and bear no basis on who or what the writer might be. This is similar to newspaper editorials. Most people, I'm sure don't know who wrote the editorial, probably don't even care; I don't. All they know is that the newspaper says it. Thus it doesn't take readers long to understand where the “newspaper” stands on relevant issues. Whether we agree or disagree is irrelevant to our continued reading of the newspaper. As long as that paper continues to meet the standard by which we purchased that paper, we shall continue to read it. That standard, by the way, is what the paper says it is committed to doing as a paper and then actually does.

What is needed to know about Joe Blow is put forth for all to read. Suffice to know that he and his family have a vested interest in this community and in this country that is generational. Members of my family fought honorably and some died defending the rights expect of all Americans. To demean this Constitutional inheritance is to denigrate the value of their sacrifices. Strong words and powerful ideas do not equate anger, threats, hostility, paranoia, or even hatred. Neither do words of truth. Yet, in conclusion, the history of Jesus Christ tells a different story: “The Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We observed His glory, the glory as the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

That didn't seem to stop members of his peers from trying to personally denigrate and insult him, or try to murder him because truth assaulted their lies and malicious intent. The Joe Blow Report and it's writer hardly meet the standard of Jesus Christ. We do, however, attest to the fact that what he said is the truth.

--Joe

Trolls versus The Thought Police

(Updated below - Update II)

It seems innocent enough -- the latest Dave Stancliff tirade against Internet TROLLS!

If you don't know what an Internet Troll is, you can read what he says about this aberrations on his blog, in the Sunday, May 31, 2009 Time Standard newspaper and on the Internet. What you'll find there is a good example of the "Thought Police" at work.

By the way, this is Wikipedia's definition:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

Everyone with a blog, at one time or another, has run afoul of these blessed critters. You can't write about anything relevant and meaningful that you don't attract someone trying to muddy the waters. Nor can you make intelligent, meaningful and relevant comments that some moron doesn't take exception. Mr. Stancliff's description of these aberrant souls, however, really doesn't do them justice. What he fails to note is that not all "Trolls" are online commentators. I encountered several bloggers (blogs) that are nothing less then TROLLS disguised as normal folk. I guess you'd call these blogs (Humbug Blogs?) Troll Lairs. Or is it Troll Liars? Sometimes it's hard to keep it straight.

I was reminded, as I read through his definition of online trolls, that he was speaking of just about everyone that ever made a comment on someone's blog. The fact is, especially with most of the Humbug Bloggers, that if you can't read their minds and don't meet their "standards" -- the kind of thinking that they consider to be stereotypically acceptable you immediately run afoul of the Humbug Trolls, a good example, to wit: Mr. Stancliff. Most of these bloggers run what has revealed to be nothing more than Blog Whorehouses. These are blogs that invite everyone in for fun, pleasure and a good time. Come in, speak your piece, have fun, enjoy yourself, talk to everyone; you know, get to "know" everyone. Never you mind that there is absolutely no mention or nothing posted in big bright letter about how to think and how to talk to everyone. You know, like don't get too rough, too radical, too physical, get emotional (NEVER ANGRY) or violate any of their unposted rules. Should you happen to tweak any of these bloggers fragile sensibilities or any of their clientele naughtily yapping merrily away, you not only DON'T GET FED, (talked to or accepted [bedded]) you get beaten mercilessly, without any way to defend yourself, thrown out into the streets of blogger hell and ostracized forever from all their blog whorehouses.

All this foofaraw about trolls and the Thought Police might be funny except for on thing: Two Thousand years of Dark Age thinking. That World and religious empire ruled with such draconian contempt for humanity, one wonders how anyone survived until today. Today we have people only "accused" of thinking like "terrorists," held and tortured indefinitely, coupled with the deliberate annihilation of the civilian populations because "someone that might think like a terrorist" might be hiding somewhere within all that population. Anyone wonder where and how it all got started?

It got started with simpleminded people like Dave Stancliff and compatriot people that are willing to believe his kind of dogma and impose their thoughts on others all in the name of freedom.

Trolls and the Thought Police? Really! They're one and the same. So, be aware! Watch Out For The Trolls! None of us want to become Troll Bait.

UPDATE :: Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Not everyone gets a free pass to write lengthy columns several times every week in newspapers. Dave Stancliff does. For one thing, he brings a certain value or credibility to what he writes for the simple reason he's being published. That ability comes with a double-edged reality; responsibility and accountability. Furthermore, most bloggers and their commentary, with few exception, rarely meet the same standard-producing credibility. As far as the Report is concerned all we know about or rather we should say, knew about him, was what we read in the newspaper. The questions we ask now, is Dave Stancliff a member of the Thought Police? Or, is he actually revealed to be a simpleminded troll trying to divert attention?

So, was his newspaper column as innocent as he claims where he says, “I advocated ignoring a pest”? We suggest you read our conversation and make up your own minds. Was it all as simple as trying to advocate ways to deal with an online “pest”? Or, was he overtly and covertly trying to justify controlling free speech by personally attacking those “HE” defines as “Internet Trolls,” some aberrant species of "pest"? Too bad Mr. Dave Stancliff didn't leave matters there. He certainly would have revealed a whole lot less about himself if he had only practiced what he preaches. More importantly, however, when you have the right to lock away in a two-by-four box forever anyone you merely “believe” thinks in unacceptable ways, whether they be so-called “troll” or “terrorist,” the deprivation of such tyranny has reached a point of corruption no decent person can withstand. Mr. Stancliff concludes his demagogic tirade with the following comment:

“This Thought Police stuff you're talking about makes it sound like your group is real paranoid about something.

Opinion aside...by the way.”

To that the Report concludes by saying: “The first thing all totalitarian, fascist, Nazi, communistic, extremist fundamental religious, regressive and repressive thinking people do is accuse ANYONE and EVERYONE that doesn't meet their socially acceptable standards of being paranoid or mentally ill. When he accused me or "my group" of being mentally ill he changed the rules from simple Internet conversation to a full-blown personal assault.

If he honestly thought I or any of us were actually paranoid and hostile as he claimed, I doubt he would have had the temerity, let alone the courage to say it directly to me. Why it is he thinks he can come into my Internet home and post his bile on my blog with impunity is beyond any of us. Problem is, he doesn't have a clue who he is talking to. I or we, on the other hand, have his face plastered all over the Internet and news media.

If that's not simpleminded, I don't know what is!”

UPDATE II:
It should be first noted that I am not in Mr. Stancliff's blog or at his home ranting and raving and making all kinds of wild unsubstantiated and abusive accusations for all his neighbor's to hear. He's in my home. And frankly, he won't leave.

Second, there is a difference between accepting someone's worthless opinions as fact and truth just because they say so or seeing what those facts and truths are for yourself. The reader can accept his angry, hate-filled demagoguery about me or you can accept him for what he is, and that according to his own definition about people who do what he has clearly come into and done on my blog. Truth is self-revealing. All I did was give Dave Stancliff opportunity to reveal his true nature.

It should also be noted that this blog is not written to garner anyone's agreement or make converts. Neither are we interested in anyone's worthless opinions or personal beliefs, for whatever that's worth. Whether we agree or disagree is irrelevant. Whatever you choose to believe, think or hallucinate about and make public is your problem. To hate, show hostility, be angry, be offended or manifest any other emotional response presupposes that person takes everything personally. We do not. We realize that what others do, and in this particular case Dave Stancliff, has nothing to do with either Joe Blow or the person writing this blog for him. We understand that what others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. Dave Stancliff has clearly demonstrated this manifest truth in his continuing foolish tirade.

To conclude, despite answering his question, Dave Stancliff continues to assert and repeat his accusation that my blog article was a personal attack in hypocritical contravention to our own posted wishes, to wit: “Diatribe personally attacking the messenger, is not welcome.” Our written observations were about the messenger, of which he is one, and freedom of speech versus prejudice, bigotry and selective censorship. He identified himself when he wrote that article, “Trolls Exposed: What kind of troll is disrupting your online community”? He sets forth the definition, in part: “They repeat themselves and say stupid off-focus things to disrupt conversations.” Which is exactly what is revealed for all to see. Rather than confront the thesis of our article, he tried to change the focus and tried to get personal. Unfortunately, Dave Stancliff was writing about himself.

--Joe

Defecating Dogs and Worthless Leash Laws

Defecating Dogs with their superior, arrogant masters together with the Editorial: "Honoring the fallen" seems appropriate, right?

I live in a fairly nice neighborhood, in a fairly nice home with mostly manicured lawns and nicely landscaped flower gardens. Since there isn't a lot of motor traffic, people love to walk and walk their dogs in the neighborhood. I rarely see a dog that is not leashed. What I do see are lots of piles of dog crap on my lawns. Wondering why, I began to pay attention. First, I noticed some of my neighbors turn their dogs loose at night and early morning. Other people, with leashed dogs let them use my laws for toilets and just walk away.

I've debated several options for dealing with this abuse. I figure deliberately letting your dog crap on my property is like spitting on me. You can't ignore the fact of what someone thinks of you when they do that, now can you? After rejecting most of my options, because they were probably illegal, I decided upon installing an automatic water system that would come on whenever there was a toilet call in progress. That way I could get both the human defecator and the dog defecator.

What's appropriate about the cartoon? Change the caption in the cartoon from, "My dog can go any where he wants." to "My army can go anywhere it wants." and I think you get my point.

Letting your dog crap on my property tells me exactly what you think of me and you don't even know me! But, I sure know you. If you ever wondered how people could live together for generations and then when they get the chance become genocidal to one another like they have in Iraq, well you don't have to look very far for reasons why.

Like leash laws there are littering and other appropriate laws dealing with unwanted dog crap and crappers, but that would require some law enforcement and I'm sure they've got more important things to do than cite people for dumping their garbage wherever the urge takes them.

--Joe