Happy New Year

Wishing everyone a happy, safe and prosperous New Year.

[Source]

--Joe

Show Me The Difference

The following excerpt is about an exchange that is altogether too reminiscent of exactly what happened to me when I wrote an observation regarding a Times-Standard "As It Stands" opinion by Dave Stancliff. I've enclosed the links at the end of this article and I'd like someone to show me exactly what the difference is in what these two guys are trying to do to Glenn Greenwald and what Dave Stancliff and Ernie Branscomb tried to do to me and the Joe Blow Report. Read the comments too. See who commented and what they said, it is almost word for word what Greenwald defines.

WEDNESDAY, DEC 29, 2010 09:30 ET
Wired's refusal to release or comment on the Manning chat logs
BY GLENN GREENWALD

Last night, Wired posted a two-part response to my criticisms of its conduct in reporting on the arrest of PFC Bradley Manning and the key role played in that arrest by Adrian Lamo. I wrote about this topic twice -- first back in June and then again last Sunday. The first part of Wired's response was from Wired.com Editor-in-Chief Evan Hansen, and the second is from its Senior Editor Kevin Poulsen. Both predictably hurl all sorts of invective at me as a means of distracting attention from the central issue, the only issue that matters: their refusal to release or even comment on what is the central evidence in what is easily one of the most consequential political stories of this year, at least.

That's how these disputes often work by design: the party whose conduct is in question (here, Wired) attacks the critic in order to create the impression that it's all just some sort of screeching personality feud devoid of substance. That, in turn, causes some bystanders to cheer for whichever side they already like and boo the side they already dislike, as though it's some sort of entertaining wrestling match, while everyone else dismisses it all as some sort of trivial Internet catfight not worth sorting out. That, ironically, is what WikiLeaks critics (and The New York Times' John Burns) did with the release of the Iraq War documents showing all sorts of atrocities in which the U.S. was complicit: they tried to put the focus on the personality quirks of Julian Assange to distract attention away from the horrifying substance of those disclosures. That, manifestly, is the same tactic Wired is using here: trying to put the focus on me to obscure their own ongoing conduct in concealing the key evidence shining light on these events.

Here's the link that got it started: "Trolls versus The Thought Police" and a copy of the As It Stands: "Don't feed the trolls" article I wrote about. Here's the link from Ernie Branscomb's blog article, "Not Fair." Be sure to read the comments.

Greenwald's referring article: Response to Wired's accusations - concludes by saying:

But now that I've written critically about Wired, I'm suddenly converted into a dishonest, ethics-free, unreliable hack.  That's par for the course.  That's why so few people in this profession are willing to criticize other media outlets.  Journalists react as poorly as anyone to public criticism; it doesn't make you popular to do it; it can terminate career opportunities and relationships; it's certain your credibility will be publicly impugned.  But journalists need scrutiny and accountability as much as anyone -- especially when, as here, they are shaping public perceptions about a vital story while withholding important information -- and I'd vastly prefer to be the one to provide it even it means that the targets of the criticism don't like it and lash out. 

Ultimately, what determines one's credibility is not the names you get called or the number of people who get angry when you criticize them.  What matters is whether the things you say are well-supported and accurate, to correct them if they're not, and to subject yourself to the same accountability and transparency you demand of others. [Emphasis added]

--Joe

Who Killed Roger Rabbit a.k.a. The Free Press?

My question is, why are we routinely subjected to unchallenged demeaning and degrading opinions and outright lies produced in the newspapers and on TV as if it is the God's gospel Truth?

Notice the subtitle in the picture: "THE ROBIN HOOD OF HACKING"? Look familiar?

The following article "Opinionator Assassinator Strikes Again" is about the latest local hack attack on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks where the local Times-Standard newspaper and their use of wannabe authority, to pump out consensus propaganda as "natural matter of fact and truth." If Julian Assange is the kind of a person Dave Stancliff says he is then PRODUCE THE PROOF to back it up. The Times-Standard needs to enforce, if not show, a little common consideration and respect for the reader. We'll decide what kind of a person he is. That worthless "opinion" is nothing more than gossip-mongering. Everyone that reads such tripe should be offended and disgusted. So far I haven't found ONE letter to the Editors complaining about this public insult.

The following article by Glenn Greenwald on this subject is not only an "Update" continuing to refute this unchallenged propaganda, but to demonstrate a non-offensive presentation of the facts. Here's the link:

The merger of journalists and government officials

The following excerpt is offered here because it directly addresses our local problem:

(2) From the start of the WikiLeaks controversy, the most striking aspect for me has been that the ones who are leading the crusade against the transparency brought about by WikiLeaks -- the ones most enraged about the leaks and the subversion of government secrecy -- have been . . . America's intrepid Watchdog journalists.  What illustrates how warped our political and media culture is as potently as that?  It just never seems to dawn on them -- even when you explain it -- that the transparency and undermining of the secrecy regime against which they are angrily railing is supposed to be . . . what they do.

--Joe

Seasons Greeting for a Safe New Year

The Joe Blow Report wishes everyone a safe and sane new year. If 2010 indicates anything, this new year looks to be even more interesting and, perhaps, earth-shaking. From our perspective, that snowball someone kicked loose at the top of the snow-covered mountain is growing bigger and bigger and picking up more and more speed as it heads for the valley full of sleeping people way down below.
[Source]

--Joe

Opinionator Assassinator Strikes Again

[UPDATE Below] [UPDATE II]

After weeks of serving up servile pablum to the readers of the Sunday Times-Standard's so-called "Opinion" As It Stands they all collaborated to take a shot at trying to murder the character of someone with more guts and courage then the whole pack of them put together. Herein lies the wisdom for, and the lesson on, "how to cut your own throat and blame it on someone else for the despicable act of killing you."

So, let me introduce you to the Local Master's latest lesson on Character Assassination: "Is Assange a Robin Hood trying to take the high road by thievery?" This is as pure and as rank a personal attack on an individual person as you could ever want. Take lessons! He pushes all the right buttons, but not one comment on the undisputed facts, the so-called "leaks, that speak for themselves. Maligning, lying and falsely accusing the messenger, trying to destroy the credibility and reputation of decent, honest and worthy people, so as to justify their murderer, is as age old as Jesus Christ, the Garden of Eden and the original murder who killed by lies and filthy false accusations. Might as well put a gun the their head and pull the trigger - there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE.

On that same A5 page the editors managed to post the perfect counterpoint with Amy Goodman's "'Assangination': from character assassination to the real thing" - The Report could have let her commentary on this issue be the indirect answer, but the very publishing of Dave Stancliff's allegoric attack by the Times-Standard newspaper requires additional consideration for their responsibility for conduct not dissimilar to the New York Times. They justify such abhorrent conduct hiding behind the First Amendment while that very conduct works to delegitimize that very Amendment.

If you haven't read Amy Goodman's article in the newspaper, here's the link. Amy concludes by asking this very important question, a question that goes right at the heart of this article's real agenda.

WikiLeaks, for that matter, is not just Julian Assange, but a geographically distributed network of people and servers, and it has promised that the work of facilitating the release of documents from governments and corporations will continue. The U.S. Justice Department, if it pursues a case, will have to answer the question: If WikiLeaks is a criminal organization, what of its media partners, like The New York Times?

While that's an important question for the Nation, what about here locally? How complicit is the Times-Standard and their editors for publishing Dave Stancliff's As It Stands wanton character assassination that assaults the very legitimacy of the U.S Constitution? When the U.S. government can accuse, prosecute, convict and throw people in jail and torture them for life for what they "supposedly" think, not do, character assassination is extremely serious and potentially life-threatening.

Normally, the Joe Blow Report is only interested in observing facts and related issues - NOT PERSONALITIES - asinine, belief-motivated, worthless opinions. But since it is a proven fact that the writer is incapable of making the distinction and since what he says on the record is personal and all about character assassination, and is so totally corrupt and craven in its attack on decency and reason, it behooves me to address a couple of issues without, hopefully, giving any kind of credence to the writer or the paper it's written on.

Notice his use of the word "thievery." Anyone that knows anything about WikiLeaks knows for a fact that Julian Assange never stole anything, but that's atypical of this guy. He asks, "Is assange a moderern-day Robin Hood stealing information for the masses?" Where's his proof or evidence to substantiate this lie?  He quotes the words of some "law professor's" opinion as if this "opinion" is the last word and asserts with total conviction, because of that opinion, that for an absolute fact "the initial thief" (as yet ONLY accused Pfc. Bradley E. Manning) is for a fact a convicted and guilty "thief." According to their brilliantly convoluted deductive reasonings based upon their worthless opinions they conclude WikiLeaks and by inference Julian Assange are "thieves and co-conspirators in the theft." Absolutely no evidence or proof provided, only perverted and disputed opinions. More importantly, not once does Stancliff talk about what the United States is doing to Bradley Manning as they try to torture some kind of incriminating accusations from him that they can use against Julian Assange.

He also says, "His (Assange) followers threaten governments and corporations with impunity." Another ambiguous statement! Who says these people are "his" "followers"? What is it that he says threatens "governments and corporations with impunity"? Is it people, so-called, unidentified "followers" or INFORMATION, FACTS, OR TRUTH that threatens? Information that has absolutely nothing to do with Julian Assange or WikiLeaks.

As someone that has felt the closeness of the missiles of this guy's many attempts to assassinate my character whiz by, I can speak with some authority when I tell you the following statement is classic. Without a shred of proof other than his all-knowing, manifest god-complex he says: "Even calling him a whistle-blower is misleading, because he's pursuing a personal agenda against the United States." No where does Julian Assange assert that "agenda." There are many outright lies and false lying accusations made against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, most of them identified, exposed and refuted by Glenn Greenwald over the past weeks in his articles posted on Salon.com, so I'm not going to repeat any of that here.

The tragic reality of these kinds of useless imbecilic tirades is they directly attack all our First Amendment rights and do irreparable damage to the legitimacy of the U.S. Constitution. A fact the Local Master Assassinator readily acknowledges when he makes his first three lies in his second sentence, "He spread illegally obtained raw classified information on his website for the world to view." "He" did not "spread" anything. The information was not "raw" and the information was published in major newspapers first.

If Julian Assange is a thief, a criminal, a terrorist or a spy then so is the New York Times along with a half-a-dozen or so other major newspapers and all their collaborating news reporters. The greatest threat to everyone and everything this country was founded upon is viciously attacked by these kinds of people and their supporters. The greatest threat to the "journalism world" is defined by the very actions of these kinds of opinionated hacks that believe in and fight for the Darkness using lies, innuendo, false accusations and murder.

The following is a compilation of links to the many Glenn Greenwalds articles dealing with this specific issue. First, consider this posted today: 1) Why Julian Assange is a journalist - And why WikiLeaks is entitled to the same First Amendment protections as The New York Times. By Scott Gant. 2) The government's one-way mirror.

Here is the list of articles:

1. Joe Biden v. Joe Biden on WikiLeaks
2. Getting to Assange through Manning
3. The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention
4. Attempts to prosecute WikiLeaks endanger press freedoms
5. The media's authoritarianism and WikiLeaks 
6. The crux of the WikiLeaks debate
7. Anti-WikiLeaks lies and propaganda - from TNR, Lauer, Feinstein and more
8. The lawless Wild West attacks WikiLeaks
9. WikiLeaks debate with Steven Aftergood
10. More Joe Lieberman-caused Internet censorship
11. Joe Lieberman emulates Chinese dictators
12. The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics
13. WikiLeaks reveals more than just government secrets
14. The wretched mind of the American authoritarian
15. More on the media's Pentagon-subservient WikiLeaks coverage
16. NYT v. the world: WikiLeaks coverage
17. How propaganda is disseminated: WikiLeaks Edition

The war is engaged and the conspirators and their enablers are self-identifying. It isn't just a war of the Power Elite against the American people, looting their money, their right to own property and ability to feed themselves, but a war against everything they hold dear, truth, honor, honesty, dignity, pride, ability-granting freedom to think for themselves and the self-worth of their individuality that makes them a people of value.

[UPDATE :: Friday, December 24, 2010]
A Christmas gift from WikiLeaks via Glenn Greenwald: What WikiLeaks revealed to the world in 2010 - 
This blog article about the As It Stands newspaper article's assault on the messenger is typical of a more widespread disease as illustrated in the following quotes. They demonstrate, to a large extent, why I shined a light on the character assassination by the As It Stands opinion:

To understand why I've (Greenwald) done so, and to see what motivates the increasing devotion of the U.S. Government and those influenced by it to destroying that organization, it's well worth reviewing exactly what WikiLeaks exposed to the world just in the last year:  the breadth of the corruption, deceit, brutality and criminality on the part of the world's most powerful factions.

As revealing as the disclosures themselves are, the reactions to them have been equally revealing.  The vast bulk of the outrage has been devoted not to the crimes that have been exposed but rather to those who exposed them: WikiLeaks and (allegedly) Bradley Manning.

*** Greenwald's expose defines why I had to engage this issue with local newspaper, the Times-Standard.

It's unsurprising that political leaders would want to convince people that the true criminals are those who expose acts of high-level political corruption and criminality, rather than those who perpetrate them.  Every political leader would love for that self-serving piety to take hold.  But what's startling is how many citizens and, especially, "journalists" now vehemently believe that as well.  In light of what WikiLeaks has revealed to the world about numerous governments, just fathom the authoritarian mindset that would lead a citizen -- and especially a "journalist" -- to react with anger that these things have been revealed; to insist that these facts should have been kept concealed and it'd be better if we didn't know; and, most of all, to demand that those who made us aware of it all be punished (the True Criminals) while those who did these things (The Good Authorities) be shielded. 

To see the list of just some of what WikiLeaks has offered, click this link.

---

[UPDATE :: Saturday, December 25, 2010 - What is a "HACKER?"]

The following excerpt from an essay by Bruce Sterling, The Blast Shack, is well worth reading the whole essay. It adds a lot of context to the above article. He concludes by saying:

Well… every once in a while, a situation that’s one-in-a-thousand is met by a guy who is one in a million. It may be that Assange is, somehow, up to this situation. Maybe he’s gonna grow in stature by the massive trouble he has caused. Saints, martyrs, dissidents and freaks are always wild-cards, but sometimes they’re the only ones who can clear the general air. Sometimes they become the catalyst for historical events that somehow had to happen. They don’t have to be nice guys; that’s not the point. Julian Assange did this; he direly wanted it to happen. He planned it in nitpicky, obsessive detail. Here it is; a planetary hack.

I don’t have a lot of cheery hope to offer about his all-too-compelling gesture, but I dare to hope he’s everything he thinks he is, and much, much, more.

--Joe

What's Wrong With This Picture?

This is the Saturday, December 18, 2010, Times-Standard newspaper's front page. The headline reads:
Yurok Tribe gets $19 million state (interest free) loan - "Money will be used in 22,200 acre purchase from Green Diamond timber company."

Right next, the second headline reads: Design flaws? "Redesigning California course (at College of the Redwoods) may fall prey to state budget troubles."

This is just an example of how skewed and broken all systems of government are. After years of budget battles in Sacramento with draconian cuts in all kinds of programs, the State of California conveniently finds $19 million dollars of interest-free money. NO money for college courses though. There certainly are DESIGN FLAWS alright. Big Corporations win again.

Lord knows Indian people deserve a break. I am the last one to say that they DO NOT deserve to get back what was and is rightfully theirs. Green Diamond Resource Company could give them back the full 47,000 acres of land and still not cover all that was taken. In many ways, the indigenous peoples are America's own Palestine and Palestinian occupied territories.

If the Yuroks had just a small portion of the old-growth redwoods Simpson Timber Company, Green Diamond's predecessor, working in collusion with the Bureau of Indian Affairs basically took for a song, they wouldn't need to borrow from anyone. But then, that goes right to the very heart of the "design flaws" doesn't it?

[UPDATE]

Maybe it's a good thing this land and loan deal is going through when it is. With the Republican's taking over governments everywhere this is the projected and planned outcome, at least for California as reported from Calitics:

House Republicans Plan to Force California Into Bankruptcy to Bust Unions

by: Robert Cruickshank

Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 13:30:00 PM PST

---

[UPDATE II - More DESIGN FLAWS]

What's more important? This: North Coast towns can’t ban military recruiters.

OR

This: Coastal turmoil: Cities won't nominate Lovelace for coastal commissioner seat.

Read the comments and see what local people are saying and you will find out in short order the root-cause of the Design Flaws. The system is broken at it's source - the people.

--Joe

Ron Paul and WikiLeaks

The following was highlighted on MEDIAite.com and says an awful lot about Ron Paul:

Ron Paul’s Passionate Defense Of Julian Assange And WikiLeaks On House Floor

Mr. Paul concluded his speech with a list of questions for the American citizens to consider, the transcript of which is below (via FromTheOld.)

Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?

Number 3: Why is the hostility directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?

Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?

Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?

Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?

Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?

What are your answers?

--Joe

Who Voted For This Scum?

The following is from The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare website:

Cutting contributions to Social Security Signals the Beginning of the End

By NCPSSM

December 7, 2010

Payroll Tax “Holiday” is Anything But

“Even though Social Security contributed nothing to the current economic crisis, it has been bartered in a deal that provides deficit busting tax cuts for the wealthy. Diverting $120 billion in Social Security contributions for a so-called ‘tax holiday’ may sound like a good deal for workers now but it’s bad business for the program that a majority of middle-class seniors will rely upon in the future.”… Barbara B. Kennelly, President/CEO
Conservatives have long dreamed of a payroll tax holiday because it fulfills two ideological goals, lower taxes and weakening Social Security’s finances. The White House claims the 2% payroll tax cut won’t impact Social Security; however, we disagree.

• There’s no such thing as a “temporary” tax Cut. If Congress is unwilling to allow tax cuts for wealthy Americans to expire in the midst of economic crisis now, then why would it allow this so-called “holiday” to end in one year? The short answer–it wouldn’t. Americans should expect that when this tax “holiday” ends, restoring Social Security’s funding will be portrayed by those opposed to the program as a massive tax hike, rather than the legislated end of the “holiday”. That leaves Social Security permanently dependent on general fund revenues rather than worker contributions which have successfully funded the program for 75 years. If extended, this payroll tax cut would then double Social Security’s 75 year projected shortfall.

• This 2% payroll tax cut is the beginning of the end of Social Security as we know it. Worker contributions have successfully funded the program for 75 years and that critical linkage between contributions and benefits is what keeps Social Security a self-funded program. Proposals like this threaten the program’s independence, forcing Social Security to compete for limited federal dollars.

• Cutting contributions to Social Security isn’t the best way to stimulate the economy. The Tax Policy Center reports the wealthiest 40% of households benefit most from a payroll tax cut. According to The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, extending the “Making Work Pay Tax Credit” is a much better and targeted stimulus.

For all of these reasons, the National Committee does not support proposals to cut the payroll tax. America’s seniors understand the vital role Social Security plays during these difficult economic times and they’re not willing to trade promises of possible short-term economic gains for real and measurable damage to this vital program which would impact generations of Americans to come.

--Joe

Majoritarianism

Today I was introduced to a new word that I occasionally exchanged for "majoritarian." Wikipedia says:

Majoritarianism is a traditional political philosophy or agenda which asserts that a majority (sometimes categorized by religion, language, social class or some other identifying factor) of the population is entitled to a certain degree of primacy in society, and has the right to make decisions that affect the society. This traditional view has come under growing criticism and democracies have increasingly included constraints in what the parliamentary majority can do, in order to protect citizens' fundamental rights.
This should not be confused with the concept of a majoritarian electoral system, which is a simple electoral system which usually gives a majority of seats to the party with a plurality of votes. A parliament elected by this method may be called a majoritarian parliament (e.g. the British parliament).

Under a democratic majoritarian political structure the majority would not exclude any minority from future participation in the democratic process. Majoritarianism is sometimes pejoratively called ochlocracy (commonly stated as mob rule) or tyranny of the majority by its opponents. Majoritarianism is often referred to as majority rule, but which may be referring to a majority class ruling over a minority class, while not referring to the decision process called majority rule.

From my point of view it's all about anarch and mob rule and George Wills has a good article on this subject and how it is affecting this country in his New York Times: The case for engaged justices - Herein lies the argument for why this country should leave WikiLeaks and Julian Assange alone.

Wills starts out by quoting: "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written." - Marbury v. Madison (1803)
The American people are faced with a clear choice today. Either support and defend the Constitution or delegitimize themselves as a  people and a nation.

--Joe

As It Stands II

[UPDATE Below]

After Thanksgiving, you'd think all this Report has to do is write about Dave Stancliff's Opinion “As It Stands” in the Sunday Times-Standard. Not true. After taking a couple of weeks off I needed something easy to deal with. His artful article for November 28, 2010, is: As It Stands: Thank you, Janet Napolitano, for saving us from pot terrorists – a rather satirical commentary and good for a laugh or two.

He makes a valid point or two and concludes:

As It Stands, forgive my sarcasm, but sometimes I have the feeling our government marches to a different tune than the rest of us.

Since “our government” is a representative democracy, I wonder what “government” he's talking about. It certainly couldn't be that one a majority of voters put into office a couple of years ago, now could it? Or maybe it was the one just put in and recently finalized a major change. So, who's really marching “to a different tune than the rest of us”? That minority that didn't vote for the present administration? In a Democracy their supposed to roll-over and submit to the will of the majority, aren't they? Of course, in the Obama Administration that means he does everything the Republicans want.

We all know that President Barack Obama has done everything he promised America that he would do – been a bastion of HOPE & CHANGE for the country. Everyone that bought into his spiel deserves what they get. Personal accountability starts with and ends with the VOTER. If it actually is, and it certainly seems to be, as Dave Stancliff alludes, then maybe it's time to start holding these voters accountable. Maybe next time they'll demand a choice of substantive people they can actually believe in. A good place to start is right here in Humboldt County with EVERY elected official.

The reason why is outlined in this interview with Noam Chomsky where he show how the WikiLeaks cables reveal a “Profound hatred for democracy by US and Israeli political leadership.” And we certainly know who they represent, the political and religious Elite.

Dave Stancliff's satire is well taken, but there are some serious SUBSTANTIVE issues confronting everyone of us in this country that needs to be thought about, considered and addressed. Ultimately Democracy works when responsibility and ACCOUNTABILITY are applied to the people. Maybe it's time to start thinking about your authoritarian, mean-spirited Republican neighbor that wants to take away your Social Security and Medicare benefits or your complicit, gutless, milquetoast Democrats in the looting and destruction of America.
[Source]

[UPDATE :: Tuesday, November 30, 2010]

Glenn Greenwald in his WikiLeaks reveals more than just government secrets - lays out what some of these "serious substantive" issues are. He begins by saying:

The WikiLeaks disclosure has revealed not only numerous government secrets, but also the driving mentality of major factions in our political and media class.  Simply put, there are few countries in the world with citizenries and especially media outlets more devoted to serving, protecting and venerating government authorities than the U.S. [Emphasis added]

His sober assessment of what's happening in America should be a real eye-opener. He lays the fault right at the feet of those responsible for the ongoing war on Democracy. Be nice to see local Dave Stancliff types step up and substantively distinguish themselves here on the North Coast for a change.

--Joe

Happy Thanksgiving

[Source]

--Joe

As It Stands

[UPDATE Below] [Update II]

Pot Kills

As It Stands: Dave Stancliff and the Times-Standard's Number One Opinion for a Sunday Morning: “America's unstable neighbor poses greater threat than Taliban.”

After weeks of basically meaningless, irrelevant dribble from Mr. Stancliff he comes back with a vengeance. (I know he doesn't think it's “meaningless dribble,” but that's really beside the point.) There are some really serious issues facing all of us and week after week he – well, I guess he was taking a “tea break” – you know, a respite, charging his batteries. Good for him. I'm glad to see that he's actually got some of that moxie he keeps telling everyone he has. I'd really like to see more of these kind's of substantive “opinion” commentary from him. Good job Mr. Stancliff.

If I had a critique, which I don't – merely an observation for another “opinion” article from him is that he doesn't touch the reason or the cause of the problem for this “war” – STARVATION.

The root cause of that problem is NAFTA. A tool in America's Elitist's war on all people's right to be self-sustaining. What the Elitist fail to understand this that “people have to live.” One of the lessons of Vietnam: People have to live even if it costs them millions of lives. This is a price no American is willing to pay. Except the very few of us that STAND FREE!

[UPDATE :: Monday, November 15, 2010]

I find it curious that he doesn't mention the American War On Drugs that this country is enforcing on the Mexican government and that it is ALSO part of the root cause of this “war” he writes about. The consequences are directly attributed to the “spill-over” into the U.S. The Elitist’s Solution: put the people in a military or para-military vise. Squeeze them dry, then blame them for why they are dying. So, what's the solution here? “[P]rotect American's from the war next 'store,' [I assume he means 'door'] and that takes money.” “Money” seems to be in rather short supply today when President Obama is seriously considering engaging in another “war” on Social Security and Medicare. I guess America's elderly can pay for this border “war' with Mexico. Anyway, what's the solution offered? “[G]et our politicians to recognize the war in Mexico endangers American more than the Taliban?”

I wonder what the “Taliban” has to do with this? Obama has made Netanyahu an offer he can't refuse. - America has made Israel an offer they can't refuse. Part of this offer, the fighter jet deal alone is an out and out gift of 40 planes at 130 million each, plus additional support:

“To date the security package has included emergency stores that are available to the Israel Defense Forces, a $205-million grant to purchase Iron Dome systems, and a significant stepping-up of joint missile defense training programs. The list of items to come, at least on paper, is impressive.”

It's just BILLIONS of dollars! I guess the Mexicans aren't as dangerous or as big a threat as the Palestinians.

---

comme ci comme ca
Israel's Shabbas Goy
Why America will come to regret the craven deal Obama is offering Netanyahu.
By Christopher Hitchens
[Source]

--Joe

Join Hypocrisy Watch

[UPDATE Below]

“Hypocrisy Watch” is an idea, something people are playing around with today and have in the past. There are only a handful of people that make it their business to talk about the rampant, ingrained hypocrisy. Even less with the stature of a Glenn Greenwald. Fewer yet are willing to go on record to call out these hypocrites.

Hypocrisy is defined by Random House Dictionary as:

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

Word Origin & History says:

"Hypocrisy is the art of affecting qualities for the purpose of pretending to an undeserved virtue. Because individuals and institutions and societies most often live down to the suspicions about them, hypocrisy and its accompanying equivocations underpin the conduct of life. Imagine how frightful truth unvarnished would be." [Benjamin F. Martin, "France in 1938," 2005] -[Emphasis added]

If you want to be a part of this action, make note in your blog, or make a comment identifying either the hypocrite or the person that identifies the hypocrite. This Report is always on the lookout for someone exposing hypocrisy.

Lying hypocrites seem to be the norm today. They are corrupt to the gut and are totally illegitimate bastards. It's time to recognize them for what they are and treat them accordingly. They want you to treat them like they are honest, decent, and truthful people. Stop cooperating with them.
Join the ad hoc team of Hypocrisy Watchers.

[UPDATE :: Tuesday, November 16, 2010]

The Ultimate HypocrisyThe root cause of the problem is well illustrated in Glenn Greenwald's “Two presidents and their justifications” - When politics trumps law. When gutless Americans worry more about perception than the Rule of Law - "Look forward, not backward." The Call to Justice falls to the World and to the Universe.

When the American people refuse to enforce established Constitutional Law they act, by a de facto unanimous vote, to abolish the Constitution. When that happens America becomes an illegitimate, ungovernable mob.

--Joe

Hypocrisy Watch

In our own limited way, the Joe Blow Report participates in and is proud to do so, Hypocrisy Watch.

Click the link and read the complete interview for
RADIO FREE DYLAN

EPISODE 7 - GLENN GREENWALD OF SALON.COM
http://www.dylanratigan.com/

Here's how it starts:

DYLAN: ... Hypocrisy watch. The gap between that which is said and that which is done, that which is promised and that which is delivered. Why are there so few of you?

GLENN: Well, I think hypocrisy has enabled -- let's look at it on a couple levels. First is just the domestic political level, where democrats criticize republicans for doing certain things when they're in power, then end upwhen they're in power doing exactly the same things that they criticized the republicans for, and vice versa.

I think one of the reasons why that that's so permitted is because this
loyalty that people have to their tribe means that they object only when
certain things are done by the other side, and not by their own side.
They're not applying consistent principles. What they're doing instead is
supporting anything their side does, and opposing what the other side
does. Just sort of a blind, partisan tribe loyalty.

DYLAN: Sort of like a religion.

GLENN: Yeah. It's religion, ...

And our bleak future:

DYLAN: Or, other vehicles. I look to the currency market and the bond

markets and the bond market -- for me, the ideal leverage to force this to
be dealt with would be a 50% drop in the dollar, a 20% spike in interest
rates, that would then force acknowledgement of the fact that the entire --

GLENN: That the entire apparatus is corrupted at its root and needs to be
basically uprooted and overhauled.

DYLAN: That's it.

GLENN: But what's remarkable about that -- and it really is remarkable --
that if that 2008 financial crisis did not accomplish that, it's hard to imagine
a level of disruption that would be sufficient to cause that to happen while
not engulfing everything in it's wake. I mean, you almost get convinced that
the only way they're going to acknowledge that something needs to be
fundamentally changed is by the time it's far too late. When the destruction
is so widespread that it's irreversible. And that would be on some levels
sweet justice for the people who are responsible. But the problem is it
would potentially suck up everyone else in it's wake. So, what you want to
do is find a vehicle, a method for changing it short of waiting for that to
happen. Because it does seem like that's inevitable, absent some change
and intervening cause. 

This interview is well worth the time to read. It's an eye-opener! Hypocrisy Watch.

--Joe

Boohoo!

[UPDATE Below]

This is what greeted me this morning: Legalize-marijuana measure loses in California

Supporters of Proposition 19 are out in force trying to explain why the measure FAILED.

Here's an excerpt from the AP report:

“Prop 19 supporters blamed the outcome on the older, more conservative leanings of voters who participate in midterm elections and pledged to try again in two years.” [Emphasis added]

There may be some truth to that analysis, but I think, when you consider the worry everyone feared, as projected in this article posted on MSNBC: Reefer sadness for pot farmers – there's an even more pragmatic reason.

Here's a list of some of the local blog articles and follow-up comments:

1. Here's what Eric Kirk and some of his followers say here: Why did legal pot lose last night?
2. Kym Kemp: The Emerald Triangle’s Response To Prop. 19–Flowers Among The Weed?
3. NC Journal: Conservative Sweep?
4. A fair sampling of local comments at Humboldt Herald.

There's probably a more on this subject, but I got tired looking. This article poped up on Twitter thanks to NCJ's Ryan Burns: Minds Don't Change That Much, But Voters Do -  A good article about why people vote the way they do. In the end, really just an exercise in futility.

So, why did California voters shoot down Prop. 19 when all the polls showed it would pass? Money. It's as simple as that. When you can NET $150,000 to $200,000 plus a year AFTER you pay for all the hard lifting, there is a vested interest in all businesses that profit off this large amount of tax-free money coming into these communities. Even the small 10 to 15 plants a year anyone can grow nets a tidy sum. Regulating and taxing these growers would expose their lucrative operations. No one really wanted see that happen either.

Apparently with all the local buzz on the possible adverse benefits of legal pot growing some people are put out at the Humboldt Grower's prices. Here's what Kym Kemp thinks the growers need to do: Attitudes Towards Humboldt Growers - Join forces as one big corporation, then lobby and advertise.

My idea use some of all that tax-free money to buy representatives that will serve your interests first. The way the laws are today, no one would know where the money originated. That way everyone associated with this criminal so-called industry could be legitimate mainstream crooks and become active members of the ruling elite.

[UPDATE :: Friday, November 5, 2010]
Kym Kemp's latest take pot matters consequences as she sees them: Smokers Calling For A Boycott Of Emerald Triangle Growers? Problem is, she lives in a fantasy world. Think she'd get a clue if she understood why voters across the U.S. voted in a majority of conservative, Tea Party Republican types? Think she'd admit this was part of the backlash I talked about?

--Joe

Joe Blow Walks In Tall Clover

In many ways it is always nice to know that there are others out there in this world that share similar experiences as you - both good and bad. So, when I read Glenn Greenwald's latest article, More on the media's Pentagon-subservient WikiLeaks coverage dealing with The New York Times' John Burns and his non-story about the latest WikiLeaks revelations: WikiLeaks Founder on the Run, Trailed by Notoriety, I began to wonder if some of our local Opinionators were taking lessons from John Burns.

Glenn Greenwald deals with the same kinds of issues as I have and he lives in Brazil. I guess not everyone thinks he's a "media critic." Glenn updated his article with this comment:

I don't have much to add to what either reporter said there, as I think my critiques stand on their own, and I've already addressed most of the excuses offered. I will, however, note two points: (1) one the cheapest, most slothful and most intellectually dishonest methods for refuting an argument is to mockingly slap the label of "conspiracy theory" on it, as though the argument then becomes self-refuting; that's virtually always a non-responsive strawman, and that's exactly what Burns does in purporting to address my criticisms even though, manifestly, nothing I said qualifies as such; and (2) it's a very significant -- and positive -- change even from a couple of years ago that these reporters are not only loudly exposed to criticisms of their work, but feel compelled to expend substantial efforts engaging them and responding.

Sound familiar?

The picture? That comes from Wikipedia and the Study of Saints, "Hagiography." Glenn explains:

"Hagiography" is exactly what the American establishment media does, when it comes to powerful American political and military leaders.  Slimy, personality-based hit pieces are reserved for those who are scorned by the powerful ..."

"Powerful." Like local newspapers, their reporters and Opinionatores that "feel compelled to expend substantial efforts engaging them and responding" to their critic's "criticisms of their work"? Glenn's point, if they had any personal integrity or loyalty to the truth, they wouldn't need to defend themselves, now would they?

---

Integrity:
1. adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.
2. the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished.
3. a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition.

--Joe

Blow's It Off

The Best They Can Do

Probably one of the more important historical events that's happened in decades, took place over the weekend, at least as far as America and it's allies are concerned, and all the Times-Standard could manage to do was publish a cartoon depicting the poor Pentagon getting pissed on. Never mind the more serious reality that the American forces reported and recorded, during this specific time period, 66,000 civilian deaths. 

That event, if you didn't already know, was the Wiki Leaks' publishing of the Iraq War Logs:
[from their website - http://wikileaks.org/ ]

At 5pm EST Friday 22nd October 2010 WikiLeaks released the largest classified military leak in history. The 391,832 reports ('The Iraq War Logs'), document the war and occupation in Iraq, from 1st January 2004 to 31st December 2009 (except for the months of May 2004 and March 2009) as told by soldiers in the United States Army. Each is a 'SIGACT' or Significant Action in the war. They detail events as seen and heard by the US military troops on the ground in Iraq and are the first real glimpse into the secret history of the war that the United States government has been privy to throughout.

The reports detail 109,032 deaths in Iraq, comprised of 66,081 'civilians'; 23,984 'enemy' (those labeled as insurgents); 15,196 'host nation' (Iraqi government forces) and 3,771 'friendly' (coalition forces). The majority of the deaths (66,000, over 60%) of these are civilian deaths. That is 31 civilians dying every day during the six year period. For comparison, the 'Afghan War Diaries', previously released by WikiLeaks, covering the same period, detail the deaths of some 20,000 people. Iraq during the same period, was five times as lethal with equivalent population size.

This, of course, is consistent with their role as “establishment media.” Glenn Greenwald defines their role in providing our Constitutional rights of “free speech” in his October 25, 2010: “NYT v. the world: WikiLeaks coverage.”

Here's an excerpt on how the Sunday news shows responded:

UPDATE III:  Michael Calderone of Yahoo! News documents how the Sunday news shows barely bothered to discuss the substance of the WikiLeaks documents at all.  Even worse, on ABC News, Diane Sawyer demands to know whether WikiLeaks -- but not the U.S. Government officials responsible for perpetrating and sanctioning torture in Iraq -- will be arrested.   To paraphrase that exchange:

WikiLeaks documents: There was mass torture, abuse, government deceit, reckless civilian deaths in Iraq.

Diane Sawyer: Will WikiLeaks be arrested?

As I wrote yesterday:  "serving the Government's interests, siding with government and military officials, and attacking government critics is what they do. That's their role. That's what makes them the 'establishment media'."

It's been nothing but lies and more lies right from the beginning. It's apparent that President Barack Obama's Presidency is also based on nothing more than one lie after another. Here is a very good article by Ellen Knickmeyer, who was there, on the deliberate lying reported in The Daily Beast.

[Source - TS]

--Joe

Lost Logger Redux

One of Joe Blow's afterlives was a logger. In the mid-seventies he became aware of an ever-growing adversarial change in attitudes and in the law regarding the logging and timber industry. Most of this negative impact was believed to be caused by the ever-expanding population growth, including retired people and environmentalist-motivated, pot growing, so-called “back_to_the_land” transplanted Southern California Hippies. It was the Redwood National Park sale that really impacted his business and got his attention. The environmental movement, widespread propaganda against old growth timber harvesting, political glad-handing, new restrictive laws and new invasive agencies, he soon learned, were far more destructive and threatening than a few “pot farmers” trying to enforce a new way of life.

Joe fought the good fight, but in the end lost the battle and went the way most old loggers go. In Joe's case, in an effort to retain some dignity, he took his businesses out of state. Since “home is where the heart is,” throughout those years away Joe remained aware of how the timber industry and his remaining friends were managing. One of his concerns was how the directly affected communities were dealing with, what he considered a hostile takeover by the environmentalists and big timber companies. Where was the anger and the backlash? It seemed like the rough and tough timber man and woman just rolled over like a cowed dog. They took their generational losses as if it was ordained by God. Most local business people's attitude was, “Oh well, what can we do?” But, somethings apparently changed in thirty years. All that anger didn't just go the way of "old loggers." Thirty to forty years of constant battles and the struggle to stay alive and to defend and protect your family from repressive attitudes, laws and the narrow-minded, thin-skinned, changes people.

It seems turnabout is fair play. At least that is what's being reported by Heidi Walters for the NC Journal: Unhappy Camp - Reliving the bad old ’80s way up in there the hills – An excellent article on some of the “local” signs of the times.

Why it took 30 years for short-sighted business people to stop voting their pocket books must have something to do with the fact their Ronald Reagan experiment in capitalist domination didn't work for the small business person and land owner like they believed it would.

Frankly, this is a lesson all the pot growers, a.k.a. “pot farmers” should take to heart. Some people have long memories and deeply buried resentments. Lets not forget all the people that exploited all that easy money, either. Since they are the ones that ran interference for the growers and made the whole process possible. Now, according to the news in today's Monday, October 18, 2010, Times-Standard paper, 'A neighborhood problem': Eureka neighbors take to courts to fight grow house -- and win, you can run a commercial, in-house grow operation with 79 or more plants right in the middle of a Eureka residential neighborhood and the police won't bother you even when everyone complains. Why did it take 14 “plaintiffs,” people in the neighborhood, filing suit in court to get the operation stopped even when the Judge said:

“The evidence supports a conclusion that the nuisance conducted on the premises interfered with plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property,” Reinholtsen wrote in the ruling. “The plaintiffs suffered substantial actual damages, and the use of the premises by defendant and his tenants was unreasonable.”

EPD Detective Neil Hubbard concluded by saying:

With the seemingly ever-increasing gray area of the state's marijuana law, Hubbard said frustrated neighbors may be wise to follow the Hillsdale Street neighborhood's lead. He said this is increasingly a problem that falls outside of police hands, noting that the tenants at Ebenstein's house were not arrested nor charged for the grow operation.

Hubbard said he's never heard of a small claims case like the one brought forward by the Hillsdale neighbors, but would like to see more of them. [Emphasis added]

“The grow houses are really not so much of a police problem anymore,” Hubbard said. “It's a neighborhood problem. I'm glad to see (the Hillsdale neighbors) stepped to the plate and took this on. ... It's going to take that kind of thing to improve these properties. I'd like to see more of it.”

When Judge Reinholtsen concludes “that the nuisance conducted on the premises interfered with plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property,” and “suffered substantial actual damages” and the use of that property was “ unreasonable,” I'd like to know what is police business these days?

What does it mean when the local police start telling citizens, that when they've got a problem that threatens their health, children, life, and property that it's time for them to start taking matters into their own hands? Maybe our city fathers know something we don't and when it comes to cutting back on so-called “public safety” their only doing what's obvious and necessary. If so, we live in a rather convoluted mess, that's for sure.

If that's the case, then maybe it's time to take another look at California gun laws and concealed carry permit issues. If we can't count on the police, then the only ones left are “us.” Old loggers know what that means.
[Source]

--Joe

Lessons in Twisting the Facts

 
How to twist the facts to suit your beliefs.

Here are some news headlines for Wednesday, October 13, 2010 – Too bad it isn't Friday the thirteenth.

How the news media interpreted the Rand Corporation's Report on: Reducing Drug Trafficking Revenues and Violence in Mexico. Would Legalizing Marijuana in California Help?

Please note what the Rand Corporation says about itself; what motivates their reports,

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world.

Here are four examples of one version of this report:

1. AP: Study: Legalizing pot won't hinder Mexican cartels - By MARTHA MENDOZA (AP)
   
   
2. KPBS: Study Says Proposition 19 Unlikely To Affect Drug Groups’ Revenues
   
   
3. Los Angles Times: Study: Legalizing marijuana in California would not make a big dent in Mexican cartels' profits
   
   
4. Miami Herald: Study: Legal California pot wouldn't undercut Mexican cartels
   

Then there is this at FireDogLake – Just Say NOW that says the very OPPOSITE!

1. Rand Study: Marijuana Legalization Would Markedly Cut Mexican Drug Cartel Profits - By: Jon Walker
   

For something local take a look a what Eric Kirk's posting, FBI to Arab-American Student – “Don’t worry, you’re boring” brought up in the comment section starting with this brilliant statement of the 1960's grammar school propaganda machine from [Ernie Branscomb]:

The war for independence was a winnable war, a wise war, and a war, with almost universal support from the populace. A good example of a good decision. One man fighting the F.B.I. is stupid. Surely, you can see that?

We are close to being in another war to take back the country. What side are you on? Or are we all going to wait until all the jobs are gone.

Signed: Wise Pussy

Continuing to read the comments will reveal a similar bias towards to opposing views or conclusions from the same facts. Pay attention to the Branscomb – Jim Bouy interchange on American history:

If you're wondering why or how this happens, one of the more intriguing and revealing statements for this phenomenon was made by Branscomb in this [comment], “But you will be hard pressed to convince me that the war of independence wasn’t a winnable war. Even given the odds. ”

This is a rather insightful statement because it reveals what primarily motivates, screens and deduces facts in this person's mind: his belief system. People motivated and governed, that are operated by their “beliefs” discount facts as irrelevant and, at most, simply bothersome. Unless, of course, if they support their beliefs.

Logic motivated, rational thinking people are always stymied by the “believers” intransigence. It's similar to a religious motivated society versus a secular motivated society. Or like Republicans versus Democrats.
[Source]

--Joe

The Virtues of Mary J

[UPDATE Below] [UPDATE II]

These are the "virtues" of Mary Jane and her rag-tag band of ...  Future Farmer's of America?

Here's Mary's definition for “virtue” – something seriously lacking today:

1. an immoral or evil habit or practice.

2. immoral conduct; depraved or degrading behavior: a life of vice.

3. sexual immorality, esp. prostitution.

4. a particular form of depravity.

5. a fault, defect, or shortcoming: a minor vice in his literary style.

6. a physical defect, flaw, or infirmity: a constitutional vice.

7. a bad habit, as in a horse.

What's wrong with growing, buying, doing business with growers, and selling marijuana? To hear it said today, there's nothing wrong with marijuana – except for one minor problem, it's illegal. So, everyone's that has profited from marijuana in one way or another has a “virtue” problem. Virtue goes right to the heart of “character.” This is the definition of “character”:

1. the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing.

2. one such feature or trait; characteristic.

3. moral or ethical quality: a man of fine, honorable character.

4. qualities of honesty, courage, or the like; integrity: It takes character to face up to a bully.

5. reputation: a stain on one's character.

6. good repute.

7. an account of the qualities or peculiarities of a person or thing.

8. a person, esp. with reference to behavior or personality: a suspicious character.

Good character doesn't sound much like lawless, criminal behavior, does it? All these pot-growers and their support team-enablers would like everyone today to think of them as simple, respectable, family people doing what was necessary in an unjust and an unfair world to feed, cloth, roof and protect their families. Well, for those few, those of us that did see ourselves as actually “simple, respectable, family people that actually DID feed, cloth, roof and protect our families totally within the confines of the law look upon this scourge as a direct assault on all our families future survival. These people think they are better than we are because they got the money, the property and the businesses to prove it. More than that, they are quite quick to point that out how G** D***** self-righteous they are NOW that Californian's might just prove them right all along. That makes those of us “law-abiding” citizens, those of us that paid the price, made the sacrifices, lived within the law: WRONG as HELL.

The big focus over the years was on the growers and sellers, but for some reason everyone overlooked how these growers and sellers laundered all that cash; tax-free money. The “boom and bust” reality of all that cash greasing the wheels was the real corrupting force behind the facade of respectability. Here's what Kym Kemp at the Redheaded Blackbelt blog recently said to me regarding this issue:

I think both types (growers and non) contributed to make Humboldt a wonderful place to live. It is just that most people who are not growers don’t value their contributions and what they have provided. SoHum for instance would not have a vibrant arts and non-profit community if it weren’t for the growers. Also our volunteer fire depts are often staffed and supported by many growers. Our rural roads are maintained by growers.

The costs of growing illegally are often ugly–increased violence and lack of accountability. But those are because of the laws against marijuana not because of marijuana.

You might note, the "non" growers she's referring to are the money launderers, all the respectable, upstanding people and their businesses that made all these so-called "mom and pop" growers or more respectably, pot farming possible. The corruption runs deep in Humboldt County.

Here relevant post: Humboldt Grower’s Association On Al Jazeera and my comment she answered.

That is an absolutely amazing statement, even if I says so myself.

To reaffirm that reality is the Times-Standard newspaper article, "My Word: Going legit, if Proposition 19 passes" published Friday, October 8, 2010, written by Jordan Anderson, owner of NCCFA (Northern California Cannabis Farmers Alliance).

“If you are like me, you are one of thousands of commercial medical marijuana growers in Northern California, and you, like me, are concerned about what Prop. 19, the “tax and control” initiative will do to our economy. You have thrived in a community that supports and even depends on the (variably legal) medical marijuana commerce. If you are like me, when you first heard about the initiative, your first desire was to vote against it. You have exhausted hours discoursing with friends, acquaintances, and probably even strangers about how this will hinder our community and its economy. You, like me, are scared of change and the end of our day in the sun.”

And so does Kym:

Hopefully, the local supervisors are working already to provide a framework that will allow our local growers to create a niche market that allows them financial success when competing against the mega factory grows in Oakland.

Because what it may take to eradicate most marijuana from Humboldt is not an act of God but a failure of our local government to create a friendly place for mom and pop growers to farm.

He and Kym would like everyone to believe that he and his kind are some kind of pioneers that made growing, selling and smoking marijuana legal in California. Yeah! But he has worries:

“The threat of legal loopholes and corporate commercialization will swallow up our small private farms (now considered full-scale, commercial grow-ops), and our way of life will come to an end.”

From where I stand that sounds like Divine Justice to me.
[Source]

---

[UPDATE :: Wednesday, October 13, 2010]

An interesting virtue discussed at Greenchange: Legal marijuana may improve public safety
Prop. 19's legal marijuana could improve safety
Chip Johnson | San Francisco Chronicle |

[UPDATE :: Thursday, October 14, 2010]

A really sobering perspective that I've tried to enunciate. Some people think that I'm against legalizing the growth, sales and consumption of marijuana. That's not true. It should have been legal for the past 50 years. My problem is, people should be clear about the consequences of their actions and the irreversible and intrenched damage done to society for whatever their reasons. There's blood on cannabis and people should step up to that reality. Coming along well after-the-fact and saying that what everyone did was for altruistic reasons is pure BULL SHIT.

That said, Glenn Greenwald, says in his indomitable way, why marijuana needs to become legal. More than that, why everyone has a vested interest in see that it does. Here's why:

The Wars on Drugs and Terror: mirror images. Here's a portion of what he said:

The most important commonality between these two wars is that they continue -- and will continue -- for reasons having nothing to do with their stated justifications.  Both wars ensure an unlimited stream of massive amounts of money into the private war-making industries which fuel them.  By itself, the increasingly privatized American prison industry -- fed a constant stream of human beings put in cages as a result of drug prohibition laws -- is obscenely profitable.  Add to these powerful profit centers the political fear that officials have of being perceived as abandoning any war before it is "won," and these two intrinsically unwinnable wars -- unwinnable by design -- seem destined to endure forever, or at least until some sort of major financial collapse simply permits them no longer.

It's the perfect deceit.  These wars, in an endless loop, sustain and strengthen the very menaces which, in turn, justify their continuous escalation.  These wars manufacture the very dangers they are ostensibly designed to combat.  Meanwhile, the industries which fight them become richer and richer.  The political officials those industries own become more and more powerful.  Brutal drug cartels monopolize an unimaginably profitable, no-competition industry, while Terrorists are continuously supplied the perfect rationale for persauding huge numbers of otherwise unsympathetic people to join them or support them.  Everyone wins -- except for ordinary citizens, who become poorer and poorer, more and more imprisoned, meeker and meeker, and less and less free.

--Joe