Time To Change The Rules – Disagree to Demonize

[UPDATE Below] [UPDATE II] [UPDATE III] [Update IV] [Update V] [Update VI]
NOTE: As of June 1, 2010 the Times-Standard has ran four consecutive Sunday "As It Stands" articles without comment. Perhaps these people should consider Stancliff's latest conclusions in a similar issue: "As It Stands, it's hard to see any winners emerging from this social revolution with its dire economic consequences and threats against our Constitutional rights." He and they should know.

---

It is very rare anymore that I, the person using the pseudonym Joe Blow, of the Joe Blow Report on Blogspot and The Joe Blow Report 2 on WordPress make any comments on other blogs. When I do I always make sure that my avatar picture links me to my blogs. That's what make's this Joe Blow identifiable. So when I, by chance, happened to come across a link on Google of an obscene and disgusting commentary about me I hadn't seen before on Dave Stancliff's blog, As It Stands, I revisited the issue of Stancliff personally attacking someone for making observations about things he says and does. Of course Stancliff couldn't restrain himself, he had to come over to my home on the Internet and add some more to his long list of Ad Hominem vitriolic personal assaults.

That posting on his blog nearly a year ago caught my attention. What was written there was not about me, none of it was true, yet it was made to look like it was. So, when he said, “All a person has to do is look at your comments here, and at the Times-Standard reader's forum where you constantly troll around looking for trouble.” Well, that caught my attention again. First I didn't engage him in any “comments” there on my blog. You could say I made that mistake before only to learn I didn't need to draw him out to prove what kind of a person he is. All I had to do was go over the the [Times-Standard reader's forum] and take a crash course. There are 171 comments on that thread and all the Dave Stancliff anyone could ever want.

Nevertheless, when he accused me of “troll(ing) around looking for trouble” on the “Times-Standard reader's forum” I had to take a second look because I've never been to that forum or ever made a comment. Sure enough there is someone using the name “Joe Blow” making comments. I noticed at the comment section of the blog ANYONE can make comments using any name they want. No one is required to register with a valid email address. Anyone can use whatever name they want or anyone's name they want. So if you think that's me over trolling around looking for trouble, you got the wrong guy. I, frankly, wouldn't waste my time.

What I found on that forum thread was Dave Stancliff quoting something I was supposed to have said. Here's what he quoted that I was supposed to have said:

Stancliff you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Your gross generalizations are absurd if not outright slanderous. This is the kind of vile garbage that continues to divide this nation. Tea partiers want no New taxes and no New Governement. They are not anarchists. They are not represented under the current governement. Unlike people such as yourself the Tea partiers are those who actually pay taxes to pay for your failed progressive entitlements. You may have just sealed your own fate with that article. Whatever crumb of credibilty you had before is gone now. You are a disgrace.

This is NOT me. Even so, this is what Jesus Christ was talking about when said what would happen when you cast pearls before swine.

This is why you will not find me “talking” to people like Stancliff. Read his [reply]: “Look who crawled out from his troll cave. If you weren't such an idiot I'd reply to your rant. Based upon PAST EXPERIENCE with you I know that's a waste of time.
Here's a cookie....now go back into the darkness.”

Of course this pseudo Joe Blow didn't take the hint, Stancliff just made the conversation about the person, and call him on the things he said and deal with him as he is for what he is. Notice how he used that person's statement to make one of the most personally demeaning, and insulting things a person could say to someone. And he calls me a cyber bully?

The problem is, people making comments and blog site owners tolerate these kinds of personal animalistic attacks. Stancliff personally attacks people like he does because he can. If he tried talking to people like that in real life, out on the street, he'd darn sure find out what he can and can't do. The Times-Standard forum and all the people commenting in that forum tolerate that sewer garbage. You go along with that kind of crap, you support and condone it. So, despite all the people commenting, you get a forum that's nothing but filthy debauchery that mirrors their true agenda. And that's my nice way of saying it.

That's why I changed the rules. When the conversation ceases to be about the “SUBJECT” and becomes about demonizing the “OBJECT” direct engagement STOPS! An old logging boss was fond of saying, “You can't reason with an idiot.” What is proven true here is that when a person is unable to determine the difference between what they think, say or write from who and what the are as a person they cease to be cognizant of any reality and any further discussions are dictated and dominated by them. So, no matter what you say about what they think, believe, write or say you are attacking them. More importantly you are attacking their very reason for existence; their fantasy dreams they created in their small immature, uneducated and unliberated minds. Like all threatened animals they viciously attack. Notice how Stancliff dominates that forum with his obscene Ad Hominem, slanderous bullying accusations, personal insults and vile hatred for anyone that dare question HIM. Joe Blow of the Joe Blow Report didn't make his living in the timber industry most of his life without learning how to deal with mouthy juvenile bullies. You just plain don't give them any energy. They're like a mean dog. All it takes is a little eye contact and they bite you.

That said, mean dogs get contained so they can't bite people. On my Grandfather's ranch pups that grew up to become mean got summarily put down. As long as Dave Stancliff writes for the Times-Standard and they stand behind this kind of the debased behavior and conduct of the type I witnessed on their Forum you can be sure we'll be observing. Probably pay more attention to the Arcata Eye now that Kevin Hoover got my attention. [source]

[UPDATE :: Sunday, May 9, 2010 – Mother's Day]

Dave Stancliff Rides High

People ask me why I leave Stancliff's filthy personal attacks on my blogs for everyone to read. He clearly violates the posted rules for making comments on the Report. They say that the “proof is in the pudding.” Only dogs care about how it looks; pudding, that is. People care about how it smells and tastes.

People can sample Stancliff for themselves. He says more about himself than he could ever say about this writer. His vociferous public diatribe defines him; more accurately it defines his ego. More than that, it defines all those that support and enable his continued self-exploitations at the expense of all those people that are decent and care about this world we all share.

When I realized, as a consequence of something Stancliff said, that the Times-Standard management, in particular Dave Kuta and Kimberly Wear, were not only supporting his kind of behavior, they were enabling him as well. When I saw how prolific his personal attacks were I wrote them a letter to make sure they knew and understood their involvement and what their paper's involvement was with “As It Stands.” Here is their reply.

T-S continues to publish and support “As It Stands”:

1. May 9, 2010: Oil politics legacy: Destroying gulf coast ecosystem since 1950s.
2. May 16, 2010: How to get in trouble for telling the truth -- be a Whistleblower.
3. May 23, 2010: Why Humboldt County will survive marijuana legalization.
4. May 30, 2010: Arizona immigration law creates deeper racial divide among Americans.
5. June 6, 2010: Researchers claim to have solved the mystery of life -- now what?
6. June 13, 2010: Presidential memorandums, or how to stay under the media radar

In the face of all the public commentary, what does the continued printing of Dave Stancliff's “As It Stands” column say about the moral and ethical standards of the Times-Standard newspaper? What does all this self-promulgating propaganda serve to prove? It may serve Stancliff's pious ego to tell everyone how to think, but it certainly doesn't do much for the newspaper's credibility when they engage in “opinion” reporting. Respect and consideration for the reader is demonstrated when they are allowed to decide for themselves what is and what is not. Just stick to the facts.

--Joe

Support for Ad Hominem Attack

[UPDATE Below] [Second UPDATE Below]

Do you know what an "Ad Hominem" attack is?

You can bet the people at the Times-Standard newspaper do. If not, they will after reading what's written below:

Dictionary definition for, ad hominem:

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Also: adj. Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives. And under Usage Notes:
"The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason."

 
The following definition is from Wikipedia:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person"), is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem argument is not a fallacy despite there being fallacious instances of the argument.[2] Fallacious instances of the ad hominem argument are presented below.

Structure of the argument - An ad hominem argument has the basic form:
Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false

The first premise is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The contention is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. The fallacy does not represent a valid form of reasoning because even if you accept both co-premises, that does not guarantee the truthfulness of the contention. This can also be thought of as the argument having an un-stated co-premise.

Figure that out.

---

So, an ad hominem attack is about making it personal - attacking the person without any proof or substance to backup the personal accusations. Because I'm a bastard everything I say is worthless!

Here is a classic example left on this blog by Dave Stancliff, owner and writer of the "As It Stands" blog and Times-Standard newspaper column by the same name.

1) Dave has left a new comment on your post "The Face of a Pompous Thug":

Sure did Joe,
You made an anonymous post and said "it raised the hair on your neck," when you read it.
Fact.
You are conducting a personal vendetta despite everything you claim.
Fact.
Look at the things you called me and tell me that they aren't an opinion on your part.
Fact.
The reason you seldom get anyone to comment here is because you attack them. Note, I'm the only one to respond to this post. Scroll down.
How many more posts have comments? (Emphasis mine)

---

The reason people make ad hominem attacks is because they are devoid of reality; they are conflicted. They can't separate what they think, believe or say from who or what they are. This is Stancliff's latest:

---

The following is a classic example of either a deviate liar or paranoid psychotic. In this case the facts indicate a combination of the two. He first trys to make everyone, including me, think he's really dealing with the issues, about what he wrote, then he immediately assaults me for attacking his person as if what he wrote is really about him. What kind of a person does he say I am? What is the reason no one comments on my blog? "Because you (I) attack them (you)." What does that make me in this day and age? A radical, extremist terrorist that attacks innocent people because they don't agree with me? Here's how it breaks down:

Dave has left a new comment on your post "A Lightweight Makes Heavyweight":

Don't be shy Joe. Go ahead and just subscribe to my blog.
As you are a regular reader of my newspaper column it should continue to provide you with things to atatck. (Here he says I'm attacking things he wrote.)

Read the comment section in the T-S The only one that agrees with you is your buddy Joshua who wrote the piece. You and he spend a lot of time attacking anyone that doesn't agree with you. (Here he changes his accusation. Now he says I'm personally attacking him, when at the same time he said I was attacking what he wrote.) That meets the definition of paranoid psychosis.

what fun it must be to attack people anonymously. See ya soon. (Now, since I personally attacked him, he has the right to threaten me.) Threatening me for not agreeing with his right to tell me and everyone else how to think.
BTY - I hope your not threatening me when you say you "wouldn't want to be in my shoes."

The authorities frown at bad boys like you... (And finally, a not so veiled threat to report me to the police.)

---

There are more examples of his ad hominem personal attacks in the comment section of "Trolls versus The Thought Police."

Considering that the current management of Times-Standard newspaper's continues support of this kind of ad hominem, substance-free ranting as legitimate representation of them and their advertisers, perhaps the time has come to take this matter to the next step. When I read this, How a law student used Twitter to pressure dozens of Glenn Beck’s advertisers into dropping their support -- the next step revealed itself.

The last time I tried to communicate with Dave Kuta, Kimberly Wear or James Faulk, the Times-Standard's management, I got ignored or a form denial. If the local business people and readers believe they are being well served by the Times-Standard, its reporting the kind of facts they tell us are "facts," subvert and pervert public opinion to their kind of dictates, then informing advertisers shouldn't be a bother to anyone.

Considering what Dave Stancliff has publicly said about me, and the integrity of the Joe Blow Report, he is not to far off from a Glenn Beck. He could have defended what he wrote at any time. He did not. He took deference to himself and personally attacked me for what this Report observed in his writings. It's clear from what he said above that he is incapable of separating himself as a person from his written worthless opinions. If that's the quality and character of Time-Standard writers, then perhaps it's time the community was informed of the facts so they could make an informed decision about their continued support.

Maybe it's time to find out if Joe Blow is the bastard they say he is.

--Joe

[UPDATE :: Thursday, April 22, 2010]

Another example of an Ad Hominem personal assault.

People that read my blogs ask me why I let Dave Stancliff continue say the things he does and leave it right out there for everyone to read. Frankly, because I want people to see who the bully is. I want people to see and understand from his own actions what his obscene diatribe and vitriol reveals about him and about what he writes and has to say anywhere on the Internet and in the newspaper.

One thing about law, is it cuts both ways. If the Times-Standard wants to support this kind of Ad Hominem behavior and justify it to their advertisers, that's there business. Those of us who do not, however, do not need to business with these people either. All I did was bring to their attention what he said about me for making my observations on one of his As It Stands “opinion” articles in the Times-Standard newspaper. That's taking responsibility for what you do and say.

Read the latest example from Dave Stancliff: 

A Lightweight Makes Heavyweight

UPDATE Below :: There IS a Difference Between Disagreement and Demonetization

Nearly a year ago I picked up my Sunday, May 31, 2009, Times-Standard newspaper and began reading. In time I came to the the Dave Stancliff “As It Stands” weekly article. This week he was telling everyone who and what he says is an Internet Toll - Trolls Exposed: What kind of troll is disrupting your online community? (Dave Stancliff/For the Times-Standard - Posted: 05/31/2009 01:27:12 AM PDT)

Right at the start he was telling people what to do and what not to do, “Don't feed the trolls.” That's what the "Thought Police" do.

That wasn't the first so-called “opinion” diatribe from Stancliff that I'd read in the Times-Standard nor, unfortunately the last. It was, however, the one where he stepped over the line and required a Report observation. The Report posted: Trolls versus The Thought Police. Stancliff took what I wrote personal, and has tried to make it personal ever since. Frankly, I don't know the guy fram Adam and could care less who he thinks he is. He put it out for everyone to read. No one at the Report asked him publicly express his simpleminded worthless "opinions."

The Report article started by saying:

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

When you consider Dave Stancliff's response to this article you know without a shadow of a doubt, we touched a nerve. We exposed his hidden agenda.

At the conclusion the Report said the following:

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.

Stancliff defines himself by who and what he is. What his opinions are publicly expressed make the definite statement about him, his character and integrity as a person, a man and a newspaper writer. Most people, as illustrated by his so-called “opinion” articles, hide their true character, their bigotry, prejudices, and their real agenda behind fancy, flowery words, all jumbled up in their prosaic discourses. He portrays himself sophisticated, intelligent, smart, exceptional, a person of good character and a man of experience and good integrity; his intentions are above question.

It took very little to expose his true nature for all to see. Notice the words above, “It got started with simpleminded people like Dave Stancliff” - that's all it took for him to do exactly what he was condemning in others. There are ten comments at the base of that article that expose Dave Stancliff for exactly what he is. What the Report wrote about in that posting was NOT about "simpleminded" Dave Stancliff despite his assertions to the contrary. It was about his hidden agenda express by what he wrote.

Now comes his Sunday, April 11, 2010: As It Stands: Tea Party Utopia: no taxes, no government -Ridiculing and demeaning these people and everyone that supports them by doing exactly what these kinds of people do and what he accused me of doing to him. They go right at the person or persons they believe are vulnerable to public ridicule and contempt with their insidious, personal accusations of hate, anger, racism, anti semantic, some sort of terrorist, and radical extremism as if they can read the minds and hearts of everyone that dares impugn what they say or think they stand for. Problem is, in this situation, Stancliff's doing it and being sanctioned to do it in the Times-Standard newspaper. Whatever he says in his personal blog by the same name, “As It Stands,” carries the same weight as what he writes in the newspaper.

Well, today, Saturday, April 17, 2010, amid all the earthquakes, the Joe Blow Report's heart was blessed with some little rays of sunlight producing JOY! It took Dave Stancliff going after the Tea Party movement to get Mr. Joshua Kinch's back up enough to write the article in: My Word: A glib, belittling opinion on tea party - It seems there are others in this community that don't like being told what kind of people they are by the likes of a Dave Stancliff and the Times-Standard newspaper.

Unfortunately Mr. Kinch's litany of the Tea Party movement and why it exists gives Dave Stancliff far too much consideration for the status he's accused of occupying. Mr. Kinch ends his article, of which we totally agree, saying:

Light weights like Dave don't care to further the cause of social understanding, or intelligent dialogue. Like many shallow rooted celebrities in our shallow rooted mass media, he is content to make a living highlighting disagreement, or discord, while offering no substantial thoughts to further honest debate.

What Mr. Kinch says, while true at its essence, and based upon Stancliff's personal assaults upon the Joe Blow Report as demonstrated and those that support it, Dave Stancliff is ONLY about himself and his ongoing efforts to justify his legitimate right exist as an American Exceptionalist with the God-given right to dictate to and tell others how to think, what to believe and how to live. And if they don't agree or go along with what he wants, then they are free to wage undeclared war on them and anyone that has anything to do with them. Apparently, the Tea Party movement crossed the line and posed some sort of a threat – If only in his mind.

To conclude Stancliff says,

As It Stands, with the next presidential election coming up in 2012, not only do we face worldwide doomsday predictions from the ancient Mayans and a Russian mystic; now we must consider the possibility tea partiers might achieve their dream of no government at all.

When you consider that it is the purpose of the Excptionalist Elite through their Corporate Governement to wage war and enslave the common man, maybe the Tea Party folks are on to something, Dave Stancliff and his kind not withstanding.

Mr. Kinch and people like him are showing signs of getting this situation figured out. Personally, when they do, I wouldn't be in Dave Stancliff's shoes for all the tea in China.
[Picture Source - Source]

UPDATE ::  Sunday, April 18, 2010

How can you express your opinion, make an observation or flat out disagree with someone when they try to pick a fight with you; accuse you of personally threatening, assaulting and attacking them as an individual when you do? What good are your First Amendment rights when for exercising them you are relegated to the pits of hell – demonized?

What you think, what you say and what you believe IS NOT THE SAME as who you are. There is a distinct difference. Yet the Dave Stancliff's of this world are totally unable to distinguish their thoughts, beliefs, essentially their dreams FROM their self-worth and moral integrity as an individual person. That is why Stancliff accuses me, the writer of this Report of personally “attacking” him. People that confuse what they think and believe from reality, who and what they are as a person, by definition, are deluded and paranoid.

Just as there is a difference between facts and opinions there is a difference between men and women. Respect for the legitimate rights of other individuals starts by allowing them to decide for themselves. In the example below, Stancliff tells all readers what he says the “facts” are, but nowhere does he produce the truth or evidence to define and justify what he says those facts are. He is demanding that everyone accept his opinions, thus justifying his inherent RIGHT to tell everyone HOW and WHAT to think and believe; what are fact and what are NOT facts. You can readily see by what he says below that it isn't just the writer of the Joe Blow Report that consumes his vitriol, it is everyone that he perceives as a threat; anyone that produces facts that he perceives as an assault on his personal credibility and integrity.

Read for yourself, Dave Stancliff and all those that support him are a far worse threat to the peaceful viability of this community then his wanton bullying threats to this writer and the Joe Blow Report. Just to set the record straight, the writer of this Report nor anyone associated with it personally knows Dave Stancliff or any of his family. We do not know what his political views or his religious beliefs are. What we know of him is what he writes in the paper, on his public blog and what he writes on my blogs. Neither are we affiliated with the Tea Party movement. Or, for that matter, personally know anyone that is. Nor do we personally know Joshua Kinch.

The following are two comments posted on this blog by Dave Stancliff. They speak for themselves.

1) Dave has left a new comment on your post "The Face of a Pompous Thug":

Sure did Joe,
You made an anonymous post and said "it raised the hair on your neck," when you read it.
Fact.

You are conducting a personal vendetta despite everything you claim.
Fact.

Look at the things you called me and tell me that they aren't an opinion on your part.
Fact.

The reason you seldom get anyone to comment here is because you attack them. Note, I'm the only one to respond to this post. Scroll down.
How many more posts have comments?

2) Dave has left a new comment on your post "A Lightweight Makes Heavyweight":

Don't be shy Joe. Go ahead and just subscribe to my blog.
As you are a regular reader of my newspaper column it should continue to provide you with things to atatck.

Read the comment section in the T-S The only one that agrees with you is your buddy Joshua who wrote the piece. You and he spend a lot of time attacking anyone that doesn't agree with you.

what fun it must be to attack people anonymously. See ya soon.
BTY - I hope your not threatening me when you say you "wouldn't want to be in my shoes."

The authorities frown at bad boys like you...

---

Be Wary of Energy Suckers!

Stancliff reacts this way because his life or legitimate right to exist in whatever form he wants or dreams up totally depends upon getting people to “agree” with him and submissively and meekly go along with whatever extreme desire he wants or imposes. His newspaper columns and blogs are merely tools to accomplish or fulfill his needs. So, kudos to Joshua Kinch for objecting. This is the behavior and conduct of an Energetic Vampire folks. So, BEWARE!

Postscript:

By the way, one of the very few ways of defeating the psychic parasite is to oppose or object to their wants and demands; their personal judgments. You literally stand against them, you don't hang your head and acquiesce in silence. For those of you that might be interested, this is what Jesus meant when he said, “love your enemies.” - Luke 6:27, 35.

--Joe

Truth to Power

Our purpose is to stimulate thinking by offering the real message behind the many words.

Anyone that reads the Joe Blow Report and The Joe Blow Report 2 will readily accept the fact that our stated purpose is rigorously enforced with honesty, decency and integrity. In order to understand the real message we consistently listen to the intent behind the words. While we may slip and offer an opinion on a very rare occasion it is our most sincere "intent" to offer only observations based upon as much factual material we can find.

One of the reasons the Report was resurrected had to do with finding Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez and their TV program, "Democracy Now." Their courage and resourceful efforts to report truth to power were an inspiration to contribute in whatever way possible. Readers of the Report will note that there are other writers that are featured in the Report – information, ideas, conclusions and news that, to be informed, need to be read and considered. In that regard and in due course, another one of these people came to the Report's attention: Glenn Greenwald. Glenn writes for the blog: Salon.com. When you read what he writes today you'll readily understand why we were and remain attracted to his commentary and cutting-edge reporting.

Wednesday, Apr 14, 2010 02:15 EDT
Blog news
By Glenn Greenwald

Ever since I began writing about political matters, reader support has been a vital means of enabling me to maintain independence and devote the vast bulk of my time and energy to what I do here.  As I noted during last year's blog fund-raiser, this model of readership support for journalism and commentary is, in my view, very healthy.  It permits one to remain accountable only to one's readers, which in turn means that no external agendas or interests can influence what is written, and the only real obligation is to maintain credibility with one's readership by offering honest, reliable, well-documented and completely independent analysis.

You can read the rest of his article here. We here at the Report find Glenn's words to be true in our past dealings. That is not something I can say for many local bloggers or Newspaper media. Glenn:

As always, I genuinely appreciate anyone who contributes here in any way -- commenting, reading, email feedback -- and deeply appreciate everyone who has helped to fund blog activities here in the past.

In order for the Report to maintain itself, legitimate within its own right, what is offered is "accountable only to one's readers." In other words, what is written stands on its own, not because of who wrote it, but because of what it says. The writer or writers remain anonymous inorder to maintain that objective independance. Read the Report or don't read the Report, that is your free choice. We do not solicit opinions, one way or the other, nor do we ask you to read, agree or disagree. We leave the door open and offer the opportunity for considerate, decent and respectful commentary. We discourage "Anonymous" commentary because, based upon our observations, few such individuals understand the aformentioned principles. In fact, very few local bloggers do as well.

For the many that pass through our domain, we consider your silence and affirmation and thank everyone that reads the Report.

--Joe

The Face of a Pompous Thug

I personally keep and practice these Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz:

1. Be Impeccable With Your Word
2. Don't take Anything Personally
3. Don't Make Assumptions
4. Always Do Your Best

Now there is a Fifth Agreement:
Be Skeptical But Learn To Listen

Don't believe yourself or anybody else. Use the power of doubt to question everything you hear: Is it really the truth? Listen to the intent behind words, and you will understand the real message.

If you look to the top of the left sidebar you will see the words, "Everything Is About Something Different" and a short explanation about the purpose of this Report. A little further on down the page that is explained more under the heading: "More About Joe Blow" -- all consistent with the Fifth Agreement.

Nearly a year ago after this report posted our observations on a Times-Standard newspaper, so-called "opinion" column called "As It Stands" written and as it turns out, supported, endorsed, protected and defended by the paper's management, the Joe Blow Report came under an assiduous, scathing, vilifying and demeaning attack by the guy pictured, Dave Stancliff. Here is a sample:

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!

This gangster hit-man didn't us a knife, a gun, a club or even a garrote. He used the power of false, lying accusations and the prestige and position in the newspaper to justify his personal assault. Read some of what this highbinder's kind are saying about President Obama, in particular at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference here and here, compare it to what he said and you'll soon get the picture of what the Times-Standard is promoting through Dave Stancliff.

The question, within the context of keeping the Five Agreements is, what are these Republican gangster's intent? Experience reveals that their intent is to obfuscate their own personal agendas. Whenever someone shines a light on their dark ways they immediately attack the integrity of that person. They accuse their victims of the very insidious and vicious behavior and conduct they are committing themselves. They preach peace and practice war.

So, why does the Report revisit this issue? Because the kind of words these warmongers are putting out inevitably leads to action. And secondly, because his filthy crap continues to adorn the Internet. I happened to be doing some research yesterday when I came across this on Google:

1.AS IT STANDS: Joe Blow (conspiracy) Report staff bawl like babies!
Jun 15, 2009 ... 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 ...
www.davesblogcentral.com/.../joe-blow-conspiracy-report-staff-bawl.html

 Having clicked on the link I noticed there were comments, so I thought I look to see who voiced their opinion when I came across something in his comment section that made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. The final Anonymous posting left on that blog comment is Stancliff's validation of what is written there is the truth for anyone to read.

"Hate-filled rant" sound familiar? There are some serious and potentially very dangerous problems facing this community and our country at large. To be blunt, main-stream media thugs like Dave Stancliff are at the root of some of these problems. If all Stancliff was doing was writing his own worthless opinion blog, I'd consider the source, make my observations and move on (which I did) – depending upon how vile he got. That said, this kind of filthy garbage, low-life slander is the handiwork of a prominently recognized writer for the Times-Standard newspaper. Every Sunday you can see him and his “opinion” articles right out there for everyone to read under the headline: “As It Stands.” At the same time he also has a blog by that same title where he posts the same articles. Consequently, what he writes on his blog directly reflects for good or for bad on the integrity and value of the Times-Standard newspaper and everyone in this community that supports that paper. But then, the newspaper's record for honest and unbiased reporting is extremely questionable anyway, so supporting this worthless bum is not an unreasonable expectation.

By the way, here's the link to his latest: "As It Stands: Tea Party Utopia: no taxes, no government" - Written and posted to the Times-Standard, Sunday, April 11, 2010. See if you can get his "real" message. Is it about him? Or is it about something called the "Tea Party"?

Stancliff would probably say this Report is violating it's own principles by attacking the messenger, him. What is he the messenger of? What he is is defined by what he says and does, as is this Report and the person that produces it. There is a difference between disagreeing with what someone says or does and respecting their right to do or say it. That's the clear difference between the two of us. I am NOT what I observe and report, Stancliff obviously is what he writes. We are what we are and to verbalize that truth is no personal assault. It becomes an assault when the intent is to personally harm the integrity and credibility by personal slanderous lies and malicious false accusations. What Dave Stancliff said and did is a matter of public record. If the Times-Standard intends to maintain their support and justify their existence within this community, they need to reconsider the status of their own integrity.

"Don't believe yourself or anybody else. Use the power of doubt to question everything you hear: Is it really the truth? Listen to the intent behind words, and you will understand the real message."

Well reader, did you get the "real message"?

--Joe

Ernie Branscomb and Publican Justification

OR: Everything Is About Something Different


When I first moved back to Humboldt County and started up my blog here, I first became interested in what was going in Southern Humboldt. There were three primary bloggers, not necessarily in this order of preference, but: 1) Ernie Branscomb – Because I knew the name and family and there was some history. I had some trouble placing him until I found out he is younger than I am. While he may know me, I certainly had no interest in him back then. Probably because he hasn't changed one whit in over 50 years.

2) Redheaded Blackbelt – Kym Kemp, because she lives up Salmon Creek and seemed to be more broadminded and accommodating than most.

3) SoHum Parlance II – Eric Kirk. He seemed knowledgeable and served a good counter-point to Ernie's word-worrisome litany.

I remember the first time I commented on his blog, I asked him if “he had just crawled out from under a rock"? Ernie, as a would-be local historian manages to put his rather biased point of view on what he says is supposed to have happened in the Eel River Valley. His blog caption says, in part: “Dedicated to remembering how it was “back then”, and Tales about the Eel River Valley, and the wisdom of the people that live there.”

Be assured, I'm not saying that what Ernie says, per se, is not true. Nor am I saying that his perspective is not true. If nothing else, Ernie is, most of the time, rather informative. But then again, neither am I saying that he is HONEST in everything he says, either.

His latest litany that caught my attention was: “Anna Hamilton, Friend Of Us” where he really struggles with the truth.  Here he struggles with his longtime part as an independent businessman concerned about the viability of his local community and how he perceives it's degeneration caused by the influx of criminal “hippie” pot or marijuana growers taking over Southern Humboldt. This wasn't the first time he's broached that subject and how he moralized his part in it and why he had to do business with these criminals.

Regardless of how Ernie and all his supporters, including all the longtime local and not so local businesses and business people, that would like to justify decades of amoral conduct and behavior, not to mention the serious social consequences of their acts in support of their perceived success, reality has caught up with Southern Humboldt. That's not my observation, that's Ernie's.

That leads to something Ernie said that stuck with me for several weeks; something I never knew and if I did, had put it on a shelf somewhere. This is what he said:

The flood gates opened, and there was no stopping it. The loggers and ranchers tried spraying to get rid of the “hippie weed” that they grew here. Out of that futile attempt, the environmental movement took over the north coast. The “Back to the landers” claimed all kinds of rashes and birth defects caused by the spraying. Some claims were real, and some were bald face lies that worked just as well, because nobody questioned the thought that “chemicals had to be bad”. (Emphasis mine)

My family had property in Southern Humboldt when this so-called “weed” spraying took place. Fortunately, during the years when this spraying took place everyone was gone. I say “fortunately” because most all the neighbor's suffered severe health problems afterwords. What we were told, however, is that the spraying was to knock down the hardwood so that the confer money trees could grow. If it actually was as Ernie says, then the crimes of Vietnam were brought right back to the North Coast all justified by lies. When you consider the long term residual effects of contaminated vegetation, soil and water on everyone's health, making money off of pot may have come with a rather expensive price tag.

As an old logger, spraying timberland to overcome the supposedly negative effects of timber harvesting seemed justifiable. Justifiable, that is, until reports of serious health maladies and other environmental disasters and loss started cropping up. To use herbicide spray on land to attack pot growers like some North Vietnamese insurgency in unconscionable. We're not talking about someone “ being overrun by a crowd of long-haired militant people bent on “taking back the land for the people.” We're talking about our own families and children; yours and my American born neighbors. When you consider that “hippie loving” Judge all these hypocrite do-gooders tried to get rid of with the police sabotaging him and the community as well, everyone, including Ernie Branscomb, might just consider the fact that it took a judge like Charles Thomas to stop defoliant herbicide spraying. Someone that actually cared about all the people and the actual community he was responsible for protecting. Branscomb and his ilk made sure such a judge never made back to Southern Humboldt.

So, all you folks inhabiting Southern Humboldt, chafe and squirm all you want, you brought all of this upon yourselves. Ernie would like everyone to think, as he tries to split hairs, that there are “bad apple” pot growers just like there are “bad apple” politicians, judges, cops and local business people. As far as this Report is concerned, everyone that did business with these criminals is complicit in their crimes. They are in fact, collaborators and enabler's and deserve the same sanctions.

Now to his honesty, he says:

After the “Back to the Landers” became established, and became ingrained, they started openly growing marijuana, to the point that they were walking all over the local people, I personally had a grower tell me, as a merchant, that I should “just plain kiss his ass, because if it weren’t for people like him, I would just plain dry up and blow away”. I always thought that was particularly unfair, because he, and people like him, drove the local people that we used to depend on out of here, and killed all of our local industry, making local merchants almost completely dependant (sic) on them. (Emphasis mine)

The pot growers most certainly did NOT kill the local industry. That nonsensical re-write is Ernie Branscomb trying to justify why he supported and enabled that criminal element while trying to come off in the community as a law abiding citizen supporting by-the-book law enforcement and good moral and social values. Local industry WAS timber with some ranching. Most of the timberland was owned by timber companies and ranchers; NOT loggers per se. When the timberland was devoid of timber THE local industry and the people that supported that industry either left or found another way to support themselves. The ranchers explicitly satisfied their need by subdividing and selling their logged off property to all the so-called “hippies” from Southern California. Most of them after selling their homes only had enough money to buy the land and build some sort of home, but had no way of supporting themselves. Then you had the returning Vietnam Veterans finding themselves in a similar situation. Most all were familiar with marijuana and thought to advantage themselves of that burgeoning market in Southern CA and elsewhere.

Brancomb has had ample opportunity to repudiate his part in decades of double-dealing in Southern Humboldt. None exists here; only his vain attempt to justify and excuse, i.e., lots of “squirming”. Then there's his description of what was done to “try to stem the tide.” Nothing he talks about doing required any sacrifice from him or any of his fellow local business people. The one thing that was required of each and everyone one of them, that would have given the local police and judicial enforcement a chance to do their job, local “hippie loving judge” aside, was NOT done. What they tried to do was sit on the fence and whine about “squirming.” They are all responsible for the decades of fomenting the amoral criminal society that has spawned in their current reality. Legalizing pot won't do anything about that. But, then true to Ernie's nature, and many others of his ilk, what do they worry about? The positive social effects of legalizing pot?

---

Here is a link to Kym Kemp's latest on this issue that I considered when writing this commentary:
Grieving the Change

Here is her latest April 1 posting: The Future of Cannabis in Northern California–Mendo’s Marijuana Organizers Hold their own WAP Meeting

A quick scan of Eric's latest on SoHum Parlance II didn't produce anything he's had to say.

Here are a couple of links of herbicide spraying and their effects:

http://science.jrank.org/pages/1391/Chemical-Warfare-Use-herbicides-during-Vietnam-War.html

http://www.gmasw.com/ao_note1.htm

http://www.umaine.edu/mafes/elec_pubs/techbulletins/tb192.pdf

Long term effects:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1971/3/2/the-effects-of-herbicide-use-in/

[Picture Source and link]

---

--Joe