Dave Stancliff Versus Joe Blow - Will it Ever End?

[UPDATE Below - Doesn't look like it...] [UPDATE I]

Sancliff: "Would you like me to interview you for a future column"?

On Wednesday, 23, 2010, the following comment came in from Dave Stancliff:

Dave said...

I've met,interviewed, and published columns on some fascinating people over the years Joe.

Would you like me to interview you for a future column? Seriously. I have a column coming up in August on a guy I met back in 1985. People love to read about people.

It would give you an opportunity to reach more people with your observations on people and life. As a blogger, you have demonstrated an interest in sharing your observations on issues.

I'm not dis-respecting you Joe.

If you have no desire to share your observations with a wider audience then that's up to you.

June 23, 2010 6:56 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another Answer – Another Offer

Guess what? Dave Stancliff DID NOT simply walk away. He really wants to know who writes the Joe Blow Report. Regardless of whatever Dave Stancliff believes, thinks or fantasizes, people like him never ever impressed me.

Well, I've been expecting a column on me or my type of blogging from Dave Stancliff anyway. This offer under different circumstances might even be intriguing. It could also be just a ruse to find out who writes this blog. Unfortunately, there's a couple of problems.

I'm not averse to identifying who the Joe Blow Report writer is if I thought we (Joe Blow and I) could continue to keep our objective, non-personal perspective WITHOUT getting into the same kind of a situation Dave Stancliff has subjected me (us) and this Report. I could identify myself, but then I'd probably have move to Brazil. Publicity? People and publicity comes with quality, when the product is worth reading, when it's something people are interested. Most people are just not used to a really impersonal, objective perspective.

Then there's Dave Stancliff, himself. What has he done lately, except make this offer, to cause me think he really cares about my interests? Even in this latest comment (above) he sets the tone for the way he really thinks about me. He says, as if to assure me: “I'm not dis-respecting you Joe.” Then notice the condescending, permissive and dismissive attitude where he's trying to tell me how to think and what to do: “If you have no desire to share your observations with a wider audience then that's up to you.” Like, if I don't take him up his rather expansive and generous offer, I'm somehow really just blogging as a excuse or a means to get at him for some “personal grudge.”

So, what would it take to resolve these “differences”? Probably for heaven and earth to move. Something just as hard for Dave Stancliff would be to reconcile all of his personal invectives and threats he's leveled at me for the past year or so. That would be a start. To do that he'd have to crawl down off that elitist stool he's perched on and stop trying to talk down to me and everyone else like he's some kind of opinionated, know-it-all jerk. When Dave Stancliff can show me and everyone else that he can accept people for who and what they are without recriminations or filthy accusations – when Dave Stancliff can prove to me and the rest of the world that he's a man worth of our respect, we'll talk.

Joe Blow: Until then he's irrelevant.

---

[UPDATE :: Monday, June 30, 2010]

I wonder how well Joe Klein and Dave Stancliff would get along?
It is extremely refreshing and heart-warming to see what good company I am in keeping.
For the record, Joe Klein is TIME's political columnist and author. Just like Dave Stancliff and the Times-Standard newspaper, what Joe Klein says in his Vacation Interruptus article in Time says more about the magazine's integrity and value as a legitimate media source than the small-minded invectives and ad hominem assaults of a Dark Age Joe Klein. Too bad these editors aren't smart enough to figure that out.

[UPDATE I :: Monday, June 30, 2010]
Now you can another, ''falsehood-spewing war propagandist" to the list. This one is  Jeffrey Goldberg is a national correspondent for The Atlantic. Another national media outlet.

--Joe

What Is A Sandbagger?

What! Sandbagged again?

According to and sourced at the Dictionary of American Slang and Colloquial Expressions, Online Etymology Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary:

1. to force someone to do something. : I don't want to have to sandbag you. Please cooperate.
2. to deceive someone; to fool someone about one's capabilities. : Don't let them sandbag you into expecting too little.
3. To downplay or misrepresent one's ability in order to deceive someone.
4. A bully pretending weakness to affect a sneak attack by ambush.

Also involves the idea of: "Ambush" -- The Thesaurus main word is: "robber" = "a person who steals."

So here we have sneaky, deceptive, conniving, bully or thug, a thief that works in the dark, lays in wait, that uses force to stab you in the back, to make you comply with what they want.

The following is a brief history and description of a "sandbagger" taken from a golfing website called, of all things the, Sandbagger. 

Sandbag and Sandbagger are terms used in three primary fields of endeavor in this article:
1) Golf.
2) Gangs and street toughs or thugs. (how it is applied here)
3) Poker

Golf:
1. Generally, any golfer who misleads others about his ability level, claiming to be worse than he actually is at golf.
2. More specifically, a golfer who artificially inflates his handicap index in order to better his chances of winning tournaments or bets.

A sandbagger is considered by many to be the lowest form of life on a golf course. Sandbaggers can inflate their handicap indexes by selectively leaving out their best rounds of golf when they post scores for handicap purposes.

Then, when the sandbaggers enters a tournament, they show, for example, a handicap index of 18 when, in fact, their true “Sandbagger” handicap might be closer to, as an example, 12. Voila, they've just bought themselves 6 extra strokes off their net score, and lowered their odds for winning their flight or the tournament.

Sandbaggers are, at base, cheaters and hustlers.

Golfers who are found out to be sandbaggers are often ostracized and always berated and looked down upon. Winning a tournament or bet in this fashion is called "sandbagging." A golfer who has won by sandbagging is said to have "sandbagged" his opponents.

What is the Origin of the Term "Sandbagger"?

A sandbagger is a nasty species of golf vermin who lies about his true playing abilities - making himself seem worse than he is - in order to gain advantage in tournaments or bets. We all know what a sand bag is, but how did bags of sand enter the golf lexicon?

First, the word doesn't derive from the type of sand bags we're all familiar with. It's not the defensive sand bags - those used for flood control, lining foxholes, and so on - but the offensive sand bags that give us the word "sandbagger."

Gangs and street toughs of the 19th century used sand bags as a weapon of choice. Take a sock or small bag, fill it with sand, wrap it tightly, and wail away on someone (well, don't actually wail away on someone, but imagine that you are) and you'll see how effective a weapon a small sand bag can be.

Gang members used such weapons to intimidate their foes or average citizens. To threaten and bully the populace.

This definition of sandbagger - a person who uses a sand bag as a weapon - can still be found in many dictionaries; it's the first definition for the word in most older dictionaries.

But the word didn't go directly from its gangland origins into golf; there was an intermediary step in its adoption by the sports world, and golf, to mean someone who misrepresents his ability to gain an advantage.

According to the website Word-Detective.com, that intermediary step was:
Poker.

Say you're in a poker match and you're dealt a fantastic hand. If you place a huge bet right off the bat, you might scare most of your poker mates into folding. Instead, you might choose to bet small amounts, hoping to keep your opponents in the match, increasing the pot, up until the moment you show your cards.

As Word-Detective.com puts it, the poker meaning "... described a player who held off raising the stakes in order to lull the other players into a false sense of security. The poker sandbagger would pounce late in the game, clobbering the other players with his good hand."

The poker player, in other words, misled his opponents about how good his hand was ... until it was time to whip out the "sand bag" and beat those same opponents with it.

And that's how "sandbagger" came to have its golf meaning.

Would-be Sandbaggers come in all forms, sizes and shapes.  I wonder if we got one sneaking aroung the Report? [Source]

--Joe

True Price of Medical POT

Again, we see the real cost of so-called medical marijuana. "Medical marijuana" is supposed to help sick people, people with medical problems and no doubt it does. But, at what cost. Everyone that uses medical marijuana is endebted to these dead people. This is what happens when, for whatever altruistic reasons, people ignore or try to circumvent or get around the legal, legitimate existence of another or their handywork. It's also what happens when people are irresponsible and refuse or fail to deal with serious, potentially life-threatening issues.

The local impotent hypocrits worry about how much legalizing marijuana is going to cost them. So, they waffle around and try to formulate strategies. Well, take a good hard look. The cost is in lives, not dollars.

Read this article and tell me that medical marijuana doesn't bring crime into the community -- crime that threatens everyone. How can anyone aford to allow dispensaries or anything else related to marijuana as long as it illegal?

The Times-Standard's North Coast & State section for Saturday, June 26, 2010, the article from the Associated Press: L.A. Police investigate marijuana dispensary killings. Online, Fox News has this: Los Angeles police probe fatal shootings at 2 medical marijuana dispensaries. 

Marijuana dispensaries handle large amounts of money, which could make them targets for robbers.
****
Crime was among the concerns that prompted the City Council to crack down on pot dispensaries, which have flourished since California voters legalized use of marijuana for medical reasons in 1996.

The medical marijuana initiative did not address actual sales of the drug, and communities up and down the state have struggled to craft laws. Some have outright banned pot clinics, which call themselves collectives and supposedly only sell to members with medical problems.

If you like the Nanny State solution to these kinds of problems, the don't bitch about the consequences.

Tazer Torture

[UPDATE Below]

Death on the North Coast

As reported in the Times-Standard newspaper, Wednesday, June 23, 2010: Del Norte man dies in Taser incident.

Incidentally, the Times-Standard also tweeted: @eurekaTS: Our most-read story today is about the Del Norte man who died from a Taser incident.

Here again a sick person is killed by the police incompetently trying to affect an arrest. According to the Times-Standard as told to them by the Del Norte Sheriff's Office, “...the deputies found Daniel Sylvester, who became violent and assaulted the deputies.” Why is the report always the same? They knew going in, again as reported, “...a 911 call regarding a man with a history of psychological problems who was 'out of control' – when they got there “the reporting party” ... “were scared and had left.” Uniformed and armed police officers confronting such a person in such a situation always pose a threat to the sick person. So, why is it that the very first thing they do is “deploy a tazer”? Even sane normal people when really angry are not prone to immediately submit to some officers order when they believe the officer is unreasonable. Hell, you can't even ask one of the guys a question without threatening them or their perceived authority.

Here again is a classic example of the standard use application of tasers by the police. Taser guns are often used by police as a compliance tool on unarmed individuals who pose no deadly threat, who are drunk or on drugs and simply quarrel with officers.

This idea that this or any other person is guilty of some crime just because a police officer decides to confront someone is taking our normal relatively peaceful communities into the same reality that this country brought to Iraq and Afghanistan – Shoot first and explain it away after. Personally, while I and my family support the police and always look to them as our first line of defense, we certainly do not want to live is some sort of bastardized police state.

Two well-trained, able-bodied police officers BEFORE receiving Tazers, where there was absolutely no justification for lethal force, would have simply taken control and enforced that sick man's arrest. Why? Because they weren't there to protect their thin skins as a first priority. They were there to HELP that sick person. And not by first torturing that poor person to death because he or she didn't respect and instantly comply or obey their every command and dictate. Those two deputy Sheriff's officers might as well have done the same thing the two Eureka Police officers did to David Sequoia, simply put a gun to his head and execute him. It amounts to the same thing – they're both dead and for the same reasons.

As long as the police are unable to do their jobs without people first giving them that right, there are going to be many more unnecessary deaths. The police, the individual police man or woman are NOT the Law. They enforce the law. There is a difference. They are not accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury or executioner. So how it, that is how they conduct themselves when they enforce their legal mandate when someone refuses to immediately so what they want?

Websites of interest:

1. Police Brutality (and Atrocity) Blog
2. Electrocuted While Black  "Tracking and reporting on pre-trial, extra-judicial death penalty, because it's 21st century lynching, by another name."
3. Tazer International Advisory Bulletin - Issued to police October 12, 2009.
4. Use of Force Continuum - 6 level specific process police follow.
5. Amnesty International's continuing concerns about Taser use. U.S.A. use of taser.

[UPDATE :: Tuesday, June 6, 2010]

Mother of man Tased and killed in Del Norte speaks out – now we get the other side of the story.

Why are the witness accounts always different than the police official reports? The Times-Standard's John Driscoll reports that the mother, who initially called the police and told them of her son's mental state of mind before the engaged him says, “her son was backing away from deputies.” So what obscure, nonsensical reason could this person possibly be doing that made these officers believe he was attacking them, that they were “fighting for their lives”? You think maybe he raised his voice a little and told them to stay away? Fear can do that you know?

 --Joe

Joe Blow Report Gets An Answer

[UPDATE Below :: Another Offer]

The Answer:

Dave said...

"Constant tirades" = constant non-constructive comments.

It's too bad you're so suspicious Joe. Meeting over coffee could have been beneficial to us both. We might have found out that we do actually have common ground on some subjects.

If you change your mind let me know. The offer still stands.

I really don't want to ask you to stop commenting on my stuff, because that's your right.

On the other hand, no one enjoys having a constant critic and not knowing why the person is so personal in their attacks against them.

In other words, try reversing our situation.
How would you feel if you were the writer being followed around by an unknown personal who appears to have a personal grudge against you?

You'd wonder why wouldn't you?

June 23, 2010 6:47 AM

I guess there wasn't as much respect here as you indicated, was there? The word “Tirades” is considerably different than “triads.” Perhaps, you should have just said it straight out: “constant non-constructive comments,” but then, thats not the definition of "tirades," is it? How is it that you can offer to sit down over coffee to ostensibly discuss differences "like civilized people" when YOU are constantly leveling personal uncivilized accusation at me? How many unsubstantiated accusations did you make in these two postings? Lets see...

1. Constant triads (tirades) – No examples. – Hint. Probably should have stayed with "triades."

2. Following your every move – implying some sinister criminal conduct.

3. Hoping to pick on something – implying some personal vendetta.

4. Tirades or constant non-constructive comments – No examples.

5. Constant critic – No examples.

6. So personal in their attacks – No examples.

7. Be followed around by unknown person - Personally following you around? – Paranoia.

8. Has a personal grudge against you – Personal grudge for writing about your "stuff"? – More paranoia.

And you expect to sit down with me or anybody else after making all these PERSONAL unsubstantiated accusations and discuss anything civilly? Your offer was disingenuous, you knew it and all I had to do was give a chance to show it. Civilized people do the works of civility. You show none of that here. If you really “wonder why,” then ask. It is as simple as that, if you were actually sincere. But then you would really have to accept my answer and recognize me and that is not something you are capable of doing, is it?

The more insidious aspect of what you've demonstrated right from your very first posting and elsewhere are your plethora of personal threats. Take it for what it's worth, you not knowing who I am is my personal gift to you. Remember, Mr. Stancliff, YOU changed the rules and continue to enforce them in these two latest postings personally directed to me. When I tell you that my observations are about what you write and NOT personally about you and you totally disregard me or even consider anything I tell you, then continue to insist that I have some PERSONAL issues with you and you'd like to know why, as if you are totally innocent and justified in everything you say and do, you demonstrate the symptoms of a conflicted, disparate sick person. Your persistence in enforcing the victim demonstrates a delusional persecution complex that severely delegitimizes you.

For the record, if I have a problem at all in this regard, it is with the Times-Standard newspaper and their so-called reporting. Frankly, some of these local reporters insult their readers with their so-called mainstream media type biased renditions. All you do is overtly exemplify what they do. That ill-serves this community and certainly doesn't speak very well of someone or something that is as longstanding in this community as that paper.

Finally, it is as you say, my “right” to comment on your “stuff” and that is all I did until you made it personal and tried to take away my “right.” Accept responsibility for your actions and simply walk away. Do that and there is no need to sit down together to discuss non-existent “differences.” Irregardless, you've made yourself irrelevant anyway.

---

[UPDATE :: Thursday, 24, 2010]

 Dave said...

I've met,interviewed, and published columns on some fascinating people over the years Joe.

Would you like me to interview you for a future column? Seriously. I have a column coming up in August on a guy I met back in 1985. People love to read about people.

It would give you an opportunity to reach more people with your observations on people and life. As a blogger, you have demonstrated an interest in sharing your observations on issues.

I'm not dis-respecting you Joe.

If you have no desire to share your observations with a wider audience then that's up to you.

June 23, 2010 6:56 PM

---

Another Answer – Another Offer

Guess what? Dave Stancliff DID NOT simply walk away. He really wants to know who writes the Joe Blow Report. Regardless of whatever Dave Stancliff believes, thinks or fantasizes, people like him never ever impressed me.

Well, I've been expecting a column on me or my type of blogging from Dave Stancliff anyway. This offer under different circumstances might even be intriguing. It could also be just a ruse to find out who writes this blog. Unfortunately, there's a couple of problems.

I'm not averse to identifying who the Joe Blow Report writer is if I thought we (Joe Blow and I) could continue to keep our objective, non-personal perspective WITHOUT getting into the same kind of a situation Dave Stancliff has subjected me (us) and this Report. I could identify myself, but then I'd probably have move to Brazil. Publicity? People and publicity comes with quality, when the product is worth reading, when it's something people are interested. Most people are just not used to a really impersonal, objective perspective.

Then there's Dave Stancliff, himself. What has he done lately, except make this offer, to cause me think he really cares about my interests? Even in this latest comment (above) he sets the tone for the way he really thinks about me. He says, as if to assure me: “I'm not dis-respecting you Joe.” Then notice the condescending, permissive and dismissive attitude where he's trying to tell me how to think and what to do: “If you have no desire to share your observations with a wider audience then that's up to you.” Like, if I don't take him up his rather expansive and generous offer, I'm somehow really just blogging as a excuse or a means to get at him for some “personal grudge.”

So, what would it take to resolve these “differences”? Probably for heaven and earth to move. Something just as hard for Dave Stancliff would be to reconcile all of his personal invectives and threats he's level at me for the past year or so. That would be a start. To do that he'd have to crawl down off that elitist stool he's perched on and stop trying to talk down to me and everyone else like he's some kind of opinionated, know-it-all jerk. When Dave Stancliff can show me and everyone else that he can accept people for who and what they are without recriminations or filthy accusations – when Dave Stancliff can prove to me and the rest of the world that he's a man worth of our respect, we'll talk.

Until then he's irrelevant.

--Joe

Joe Blow Report Gets An Offer

Here's the offer posted in the comment section of Marijuana World Face below:

Dave said...
Joe,
why don't we get together for a cup of coffee and talk about our differences like civilized people?

Your constant triads tell me that you follow my every move hoping to pick on something.

It doesn't have to be like this Joe. Maybe if we meet, we can learn to respect each other more. What do you say?
I'll even come down to So Hum to meet with you at a coffee shop there.

June 22, 2010 9:19 AM

---

Dave Stancliff Makes An Offer

Get together over coffee (in a public place) to “talk about our differences like civilized people.” Just “like civilized people.” Like let bygones be bygones or no harm no foul? Sounds reasonable, right?

I wonder what those “differences” would be?

First, I'd have to know what “constant triads” are. Whatever it is he thinks they, these “triads” are telling him is of his own fabrication – making. Of course, trying to deny this accusation, that I've got some personal vendetta against him, is a waste of time. Which is a “difference,” unfortunately, that precludes personal one-on-one meetings.

Then there's the part about “learn to respect.” Actually it is, “learn to respect each other more.” So, that seems to indicate that Dave already has a certain measure of respect for me. That's good!

The question is, can we build on that? Why would I want to? What incentive do I have in losing my ability to keep this Report non-personal and objective? You know, if he really doesn't want this Report to comment on his “As It Stands” columns in the Times-Standard, perhaps, he should simply ask.

So, what do YOU say, Dave?

--Joe

Marijuana World Face

[UPDATE Below]


Again we see front page in the Times-Standard the headline: “Medical cannabis industry has an eye to the future.” 

Donna Tam again touts the positive benefits of this so-called bootleg “industry” as local promoters and enablers try to cover over this so-called “industry” with a “medical cannabis” face. Do a quick search on the Times-Standard's web site and you will uncover an ever growing list of articles about this effort to make pot growing, selling and using linked to the more palatable, beneficial “medical” use.

Notice how Donna Tam glosses over and enhances the legitimacy using “cannabis” instead of the more commonly understood name: MARIJUANA. After 40 to 50 years of bootleg operations it's not an “INDUSTRY.” It's a dirty business. The irreparable damage done by a couple of dozen men and their supporters and enablers on 9/11 to what's happened on the North Coast only varies by degrees. This kind of reporting, inferring their own slant on what the so-called reporters, editors and media management want the truth to be, seems to be the norm now with all media outlets.

This is what one local SoHum champions of the movement recently posted on her blog:

“CLMP Meeting Packed with People and Information” (CLMP = Civil Liberties Monitoring Project)

Kym begins her blog article with this masterful description: “The Garberville Vet’s Hall opened its doors much like a overstuffed guest might loosen the waistband of her pants after a particularly wonderful feast. The standing-room-only crowd pushed against the walls as the abundant banquet of information was set before them.” This is RATHER sickening – really. She then concludes by saying:

“Cholewa spoke about the need for people in the industry to “ride the wave” and “remember instability is our friend.” She urged agreeing on values and then working to make them happen. “Your values can become National policy. Your values can become your brand.” [“Kate Cholewa who is currently lobbying for marijuana issues in Montana”]

Notice how she uses the word “cannabis” now that is the new respectable word.

Don't forget to read the self-ingratiating comments for the full nauseating effects. Far too many people died in Humboldt County alone because of these criminals, their supporters and enablers to think today “they” can just white-wash over their criminal lives and massive liability. They can try to cover over or hide behind some semblance of acceptability in the so-called ongoing “medical cannabis industry,” but it is still is a rotting grave filled up with corrupt corpses.

The first person to comment on her article was the local Opinionator, Dave Stancliff. Here's his contribution to the new way:

Dave (Link to Dave: http://www.davesblogcentral.com/) June 20th, 2010 at 13:25 

Thanks for the great coverage Kym. The T-S story on the subject today pales in comparison to your informative piece. They need to start a Pot Blog and have you as a columnist.

He recently wrote about this in the Times Standard: As It Stands: Why Humboldt County will survive marijuana legalization – Like the only way Humboldt County has survived so far is on the illegal pot industry, right?

This Report got in on the fray March 24, 2010, with this article posted below:

No One Survives When They Are All Dead – This so-called “cannabis industry” reminds me of these words: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men's bones and every impurity.”


There is a downside to all of this hype. Here's a little reality-check from NPR: "Medical Pot Can Cost Parents In Custody Disputes." Anyone talking about this locally?

[UPDATE :: Tuesday, June 22, 2010] Interesting. In today's edition on page A3 - North Coast, State & Region -the Times-Standard printed the complete Associated Press article: "Medical Pot Can Cost Parents In Costody Disputes" web links and all.

With all the hype surrounding marijuana legalization after the past half century of these bootleg outlaws sticking it in the faces of their local, state and federal communities, the law, law enforcement and the judiciary they should realize there is a substantial segment of society that is not going to roll out the red carpet for these people.

So here's to Southern Humboldt, where I grew up free from dope and dopes, the new “center for sustainable outdoor medical marijuana grows.  [Source]

--Joe

Thank God For Small Favors

[UPDATE Below]

As I was going through my Father's Day Sunday Times-Standard newspaper I happened to notice the absence of that ever pervading, blinding darkness that always seems to greet me when I get to that infamous "Opinion" page – NO "As It Stands" staring out at me like some big Black Hole. Hallelujah!

Of course this might just be because it's Father's Day and the Times-Standard wants to better its “standards” for only this day's edition. Anything the paper can do in that regard is a positive and we'll take what we can get. Kind of sad really, because once you got past Stancliff's personalized, standard propaganda spiel, his last two articles had some merit. But then, isn't that the Times-Standard's hallmark way of reporting?

[UPDATE :: Tuesday, June 22, 2010]

Well, that respite was short-lived. The Times-Standard ran in today's edition, As It Stands: U.S. schools lead industrial world in violence against children, lawmaker says. -- Typical mammby-pammby as it stands. Maybe Stancliff should have read this before tackling this subject: "Cause and Effect in the War on Terror."

--Joe

Obama Fiddles While the Gulf Burns

.

[UPDATE :: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 – Amount of oil gushing into the Gulf grows worse by the day.]


[UPDATE :: Monday, June 21, 2010 - "either lying or grossly incompetent" - From BBC News: "BP 'estimated higher oil amount' from Gulf well leak." Now 100,000 barrels a day.

---

Do you know what this latest report means? Breaking BP Video: Oil Leaking Through Cracks in Floor of Gulf - It means more oil is gushing into the gulf than what we've been told. It also means President Obama et.al. and British Petroleum have known this all along. What no one sees is what's in the water column and that could be a catasrophic amount with the coming disaster beyond imagination. It also means, "If oil is indeed leaking from the sea floor near the well, this suggests that the well casing has been breached."

This same situation was discussed last week on Democracy Now's "Scientist: BP Well Could Be Leaking 100,000 Barrels of Oil a Day" when they interviewed Ira Leifer, "researcher in the Marine Science Institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and a member of the government’s Flow Rate Technical Group."

This is the scenario he describes:

One of the concerns, which has been released, and so I can actually talk about, but there is concern that the rock structure surrounding the pipe is not strong and could, in fact, give out. And for—I guess many of your very long-term listeners might remember, but in 1969, something like that happened here in Santa Barbara, where the oil, instead of coming up the pipe, went through the seabed and the rocks and came out of the seabed in many different areas. It’s a much harder problem, you know, to do and to solve, because you don’t have a single pipe kind of seal. So one of the very big concerns of such a suggestion is that if that damaged the rock structure around the well pipe, the oil could come right through the seabed, and instead of a leak from a single point, we could have hundreds and hundreds of small leaks spread out over a large area, moving around. Sealing those in 5,000 feet of water, making a cement pad, is so much harder.

If the disaster is known to be worse than everyone, top to bottom, are telling us, then the question I ask is, "Why?" Who or what is President Obama trying to protect? What happens when a hurricane blows through the Gulf?  ****  [Source]

--Joe

The Opinionator

If the Report only makes observations, why does it write about (so-called) opinions?

The fundamental purpose of this Report is to produce objective, non-personal observations. When it comes to “opinions” that's rather hard to do in a society of Opinionators that are unable to distinguish between unsubstantiated conjecture and who they are as a person. By the way, the definition of an Opinionator is: “n. An opinionated person; one given to conjecture.” The definition of “conjecture” is: “n. The formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof; guess; speculation.”

We can easily define an Opinionator as someone that is without any substantive legitimacy. They are essentially psychotic; devoid of reality. As such they are deluded and prone to hallucinations. Put another way they are or become their own dreams; unable to distinguish between the dark from the light. Unfortunately, Opinionators are one of the main tools or means used for dispensing propaganda in the main stream media today. While these 'opinion's may contain some facts or be loosely based upon a fact, these Opinionator's unsubstantiated conjecture is all about disrespecting the reader. The Opinionator's main goal is to get the reader to agree that he or she speaks truth, not guess-work crap, thus becoming legitimate individuals. Respect for the reader requires substantiated facts in sufficient proportion pro and con that allows the reader to decide for themselves what is and what is not.

That is why the Report looks at 'opinion' pieces and sometimes makes observations, to expose the fraud, misinformation, conjecture and mostly outright lies. Opinionators are revealed for what they are, illegitimate and mostly purveyors of knee-jerk stupidity. Consequently, they are essentially irrelevant to this Report. Whatever good service they provide is questionable and probably should be considered as such. Locally, when it comes to serious blogs of substance, there are a few. There are even some serious commentators.

What prompted this article was listening to the interview of Johan Galtung on the War in Afghanistan and How to Get Out with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now today. He said: “I Love the US Republic, and I Hate the US Empire – drawing a clear distinction between the two that's well worth considering. In fact his whole interview is a thinking person's gift. Drawing the distinction between the Republic and Empire, he says America will only become whole when it gets rid of its “exceptionalism” and getting away from the belief that the US has a “separate mandate from God, even a mandate to kill.” This interview was based on his latest book called The Fall of the US Empire, "in which he predicts the collapse of the American empire in ten years, by 2020."

To start he said:

Now let’s look at it from a Washington point of view: pursuing a victory which will never happen. I’ll say why: 1.56 billion Muslims are dedicated to the idea of defending Islam when trampled upon. Some of them are traveling to Afghanistan. Some of them are doing it somewhere else in other ways. Those ways can become quite disagreeable, as you know.

Point two, there is no capitulation in Islam to infidels. It doesn’t exist. To fight against Christians and Jews—you take the mini-empire of Israel, the regional empire—is not an invitation to a violent confrontation that will end with a capitulation. In other words, the time perspective of the Muslim community is unlimited. I don’t think the time perspective of Washington is unlimited. So you can say, of course, who has the longer time perspective will win. (Emphasis added)

Commenting on how Israel, the mini-empire fits into this is an interesting read from by Alexander Cockburn on Jun 11th, 2010, is the “Pariah Nation” in The AVA. He concludes with the following quote for an Israeli Journalist Gordon Levy that sounds like Levy is talking about America:

Israel is plunging into deeper darkness. As the Israeli journalist Gideon Levy recently told one interviewer: “In the last year there have been real cracks in the democratic system of Israel.… It’s systematic — it’s not here and there. Things are becoming much harder.” And Levy also wrote in Ha’aretz, “When Israel closes its gates to anyone who doesn’t fall in line with our official positions, we are quickly becoming similar to North Korea. When right-wing parties increase their number of anti-democratic bills, and from all sides there are calls to make certain groups illegal, we must worry, of course. But when all this is engulfed in silence, and when even academia is increasingly falling in line with dangerous and dark views… the situation is apparently far beyond desperate.”

Then there is Glenn Greenwalds: “The media's understanding of its role” published Tuesday, June 15, 2010, in Salon.com. He concludes by saying:

“UPDATE II: One other point: what Axelrod tried to explain to Gregory about accountability -- "trust" and attempts to understand someone's character are irrelevant; what matters is evidence and "mak[ing] sure that they do what they're required to do" -- is also a good guide for how citizens should think of political leaders, even (especially) their favorite ones.”

Did you decide for yourself?                                                                                          -- [source]

--Joe

Humpty Dumpty Sat On a Wall – SO VOTE EVERYONE!

[UPDATE Below] [UPDATE II] [UPDATE III: Humboldt Herald's latest contribution to local Humpties plight]

Did everyone vote like good little boys and girls?

Good! You can blame yourselves when these people look to their own interests first then their corporate bankster-rollers, and the “good-ol' boy club.” This is what you get when you vote for the Ruling Elite's choices. Their choices are all the same. Only the names are different. The only say the "voter" has in this governmental boondoggal is to pay the bill.

Maybe you should take a lesson from Humpty Dumpty and look outside your box:

The old rhyme goes this way:

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.

That's right! Vote all the “Humpty Dumpties” into office. Try, try as you might, but look out for the Kermit's . . .

Local believers:

1. The Bright Spots :: Eric Kirk - SoHum Parlance II
2. Quote of the Day :: Humboldt Herald for lots more voting stuff.
3. More Nonsense  :: NC Journal
4. Wannabe Believer :: Fred's Humboldt Blog
5. Mixed Metaphor :: Redheaded Blackbelt
6. Crappy Is :: The Humboldt Mirror
7. Litany :: Watch Paul
8. A Dandy :: Eureka Now!
9. Gangbusters :: The Reporta
10. The Best One for last - VOTE! :: Ernie's Place

The real terrorist are right here at home, just call them stupidity, arrogance, irresponsible, liars, etc. When you consider the flim-flam the Obama government and BP has run on America and the world about the Gulf oil blowout, Humpty Dumpty probably has something to say about this too: Scientist: BP Well Could Be Leaking 100,000 Barrels of Oil a Day - Is this the start of Armageddon?

[UPDATE :: Thursday, 10, 2010] Time-Standard's Headline today:

Uncounted ballots leave races uncertain; some 6,000 uncounted votes have host of races hanging in Humboldt County

The newspaper's secondary heading says: “Some 6,000 uncounted votes have host of races hanging.”

The paper reports that Humboldt County Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich says,

“With other pressing election requirements, Crnich couldn't say with certainty when the ballots will be tallied and added to Tuesday night's total.” She continues: “We have 29 days (under the law) and this is day one,” Crnich said. “But, I'm hoping to have them done in the next week or two.”

So, what is everyone supposed to do while Ms. Crnich takes care of “other pressing election requirement”? What's more “pressing” than counting the votes. No doubt, if there wasn't a law setting some date, who knows when these votes would be counted. She is gracious though, she splits the difference or so she says.

This is just another glaring example of a “Humpty Dumpty” government official serving their own self-interests while trying to make everyone believe how efficient and responsible they are serving our interest. That's all the public's interests. Those that vote and those that choose not to vote by ballot.

The most telling statement in Crnich's set of priorities, after explaining her "pressing" requirements" that are secondary to the purpose of elections, is: "The idea is to err on the side of caution and to ensure no one is denied the right to vote because of a mistake." Whose mistakes is she worrying about? This is a typical of the effeminate bent in administrative thinking that hamstrings everyone. Did Kermit dump Humpty off the wall again?

[UPDATE II :: Friday, June 11, 2010]

Another Humpty-Dumpty manifests at Humboldt Herald: “NCJ on the DUI” - A small excerpt:

In case you missed it, North Coast Journal editor Hank Sims gives his 2 pence on 5th District Supervisor candidate Ryan Sundberg’s DUI.  He even touches ever so slightly on the major media failure to bring this important information to the voters.

Read the Comments – That's where the story is.

[UPDATE :: Tuesday, June 15, 2010]

How the local corrupt elite work is referenced by the Humboldt Herald at The Reporta where the real meat of the issue is laid out nicely. - You need to read the comments in both blogs to really get the whole picture of how sick the local system is, from the voter to those voted in.

--Joe

Nanny State Future

Noam Chomsky: "The Center Cannot Hold: Rekindling the Radical Imagination"


Is the “Tea Party Movement” slated for greatness? If you think they're just a “flash in the pan” you might want to read what Noam Chomsky says about what is happening in America. More and more the lines between corporate America and the working poor are being drawn tighter and tighter. Obama's message of “hope” is shown more and more a joke on everyone that voted for him. Freedom-loving American voters believe they have some say in their government. Obama has shown everyone that they do not. Government betrayal of their people is universal. “Radical Imagination” is something nearly beyond reach for most of humanity. For the people to practice actual democracy would require taking responsibility for their actions and then standing accountable what they do or do not do. Continuing to cooperate with these criminals by voting in one corrupt politician year after year rank stupidity or deliberate criminal complicity. As the people start to move so do the thugs that protect and defend the multinationals, the financial conglomerates and their Washington cohorts. Who wins? Who loses? If history has anything to say about it, our future as a free people looks extremely bleak.
 
Move beyond the propaganda and read or listen to Noam Chomsky's speach compliments of Democracy Now: Noam Chomsky: "The Center Cannot Hold: Rekindling the Radical Imagination"
 

---

Or you can read the complete speach here:

--Joe