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

Tyranny versus Rule of Law - Cont.

Glenn Greenwald has an excelent article today on: Opposition to the rule of law.

Here's an excerpt defining how America is degenerating into chaos:

Consider the rationale driving these who object to real trials: it's vital that the Government be able to use information that it obtained by torturing people. It's equally vital that the Government be absolutely assured that it will obtain a conviction against anyone it accuses of being a Terrorist. Because this is a "war," we can waive our usual rules of justice. Any proceeding which imposes limits on the Government's ability to profit from its torture, or which introduces any uncertainty as to the verdict, is proven to be both inappropriate and dangerous. We can and should simply imprison whomever we want in the War on Terror without the need for any charges, but if we do charge and try them, it should only be in newly invented tribunals (i.e., military commissions) where traditional due process is severely reduced and the rules are designed to ensure a guilty verdict, even it means allowing torture-obtained evidence.

People who think this way, by definition, simply do not believe in the rule of law. A system that guarantees guilty verdicts is not one that operates under the rule of law. Those are called "show trials"-- at least they used to be when other countries did that.  And the demand that torture-obtained evidence be admissible not only removes one from adherence to the rule of law, but from the civilized world as well. ...

Read the complete article.

--Joe

Big Difference – Tyranny versus Rule of Law

[UPDATE II :: Thursday, October 7, 2010 - Excellent article on The American Concervative by Daniel Larison: Assassination (II).]

"... If someone tries to sue, the government will shut down the lawsuit by invoking secrecy and national security. This is the very definition of unaccountable, lawless government. Defending the particular instance of targeting al-Awlaki for assassination doesn’t even address the main question, which is the administration’s effective claim to be beyond the law." (Read the article.)

[UPDATE :: Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - Latest News update also related to The Bigot Is Back involving the Times-Standard's "As It Stands" article of September 19, 2010.]

Supreme Court hears case of Marine funeral protests

Baltimore Sun - ‎1 hour ago‎

An emotionally charged case - involving protests at the funeral of a Marine from Westminster - is getting a hearing before the Supreme Court today.

Also: "High court struggles with funeral protest case."

The important words here are "An emotionally charged case." The question remains, will this supposedly conservative-leaning Court uphold the Rule of Law and reaffirm the U.S. Constitutions legitimacy or will they opt for the emotion-driven, hysterical Rule of Man. My bet is they'll cave-in to the hysteria and uphold mob-rule - the essence of "psychological terrorism".

---

Authoritarian Extremists, Tyranny and the Thought Police -
How They Rule the World

About a year and half ago I picked up the Sunday Times-Standard newspaper and I happened to notice “Trolls Exposed: What kind of troll is disrupting your online community?” written by Dave Stancliff. Since I'm interested in the Internet and had recently observed how some local bloggers and commenters had discriminated against another local blogger after bigotedly calling him a Troll, I read what he said. It all seemed innocent enough when I sat down to post some observations on this subject “Internet Trolls” on the Joe Blow Report. When I began to read what he said in more depth, what intrigued me was how slick he was, the subtlety used to incorporate a rather ominous regressive message. It was this all-pervading message and the resultant serious negative consequences affecting American society today which prompted me to include the following comment below.

Consider the seriousness of what I said over a year ago and how that very issue is being debated right here in Humboldt County and all over this country today. I had inadvertently exposed what was really going on; the real agenda. What I said was going on, falsely accusing someone, then acting on that accusation to justify whatever action they take, is exactly what happened. Consistent with the premise of the newspaper article, comments were posted on this blog falsely accusing me of some hidden agenda motivated by some unspecified hate to personally attack the accuser. Amazingly, the more than a year long vicious, personal attack to vilify, discredit and threaten me – to make “me” the issue, proved the legitimacy of my original observations in the article and justification for writing it. Here is the relevant comment:

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.

This past week I was really struck by the example set by Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan in contrast with what happened to me. Both are extensively read people that publicly disagreed on a very serious issue confronting every American and our standing in the World. Each one of these guys respected the legitimacy of the other and stuck to dealing with the issues in contention. Neither one got down in the sewer and called the other one out. Their blog conversations remained NON-PERSONAL. Neither one was trying to rule over the other. Neither did they try to get the other to submit to some pre-conditioned right to judge the other's motives. More importantly, they respected the reader's right to decide for themselves what person's offerings had merit and what person is credible.

I'd like to remind a few people that there's a very big difference between making observations and occasionally critiquing the writings or statements people make from personally targeting them as individuals to harass, threaten and intimidate. There's also a big difference between trying to protect your reputation and defending yourself from vicious personal assaults and deliberately harassing someone that disagrees.

Well adjusted, mature adults understand these differences. There are many examples of such people that post daily articles on the Internet. The one positive example that I've tried to emulate is Glenn Greenwald and his Salon.com blog commentary. Here are a couple of examples of how intelligent, decent, mature and respectful people deal with one another over REALLY serious issues threatening the World and America.

Glenn wrote the following "Obama argues his assassination program is a state secret," then later this follow-up article about President Obama's supposed legal right to assassinate or execute anyone, more importantly an American, simply on the basis of an accusation; an unproven or unsubstantiated lie - a false accusation. The relevance is encapsulated in this quote and the issues he raises here,

“Along with several others, I focused on the DOJ's invocation of the "state secret" privilege because that was most viscerally horrifying: the very idea that the President claims the right not only to order Americans killed with no due process, but to do so in total secrecy beyond the reach of the courts, is -- as Radley Balko and Jamelle Bouie note -- as tyrannical a claim as we've heard in the last decade.”

...go right to the very heart of what's been going on right here on this Report blog.

His article: "Questions for Andrew Sullivan" was in response to his article "The Power To Kill American Citizens At War With The US" is subsequently responded to by Andrew Sullivan in his: "Answers For Glenn Greenwald; Yes, We Are At War." And just today: Sullivan's defense of presidential assassinations. Here is Sullivan's latest, as of this posting, response: "Answers For Glenn Greenwald; Yes, We Are At War, Ctd." People could take a lesson from what Andrew Sullivan says in this last link, even though he hasn't followed up like he said, yet.

The reason I offered these examples is, one, because the basis of Andrew Sullivan's argument is essentially the same made on this blog and other places to justify viciously assaulting this writer -- emotionally driven false or lying accusations as proof to justify, in this case, murder and war. Andrew Sullivan is essentially arguing for tyranny. Here is an excerpt by Glenn Greenwald defining exactly Dave Stancliff's documented course of conduct:

The central rhetorical premise of Bush defenders was that if they just scream "Terrorist!!' and "we're at war!!!!" enough times, and loudly enough, then it would make basic precepts of due process, Constitutional safeguards and the rule of law disappear. If they demonized their targets enough (this is a really bad Terrorist who wants to kill Americans, with nukes if he can!!) -- or manipulatively invoked 9/11 enough times (note Andrew's prominent display of a smoldering WTC photo strategically placed at the top of his argument) -- then it would mean that anything goes, that no compliance with law is or should be required to do anything to them (a claim that always led to the unanswerable question: if it's really so obvious that this is a really bad Terrorist, then why not prove it in court?). [About vigilante law.]

Contrast or compare what he says, "the central rhetorical premise" is "that if" he just screams "hate-filled hypocrite" and "vicious threatening paranoid cowards" "enough times, and loudly enough, it would make basic precepts of due process," or in this case PROVE what you accuse, in harmony with ALL American's "Constitutional personal rights and safeguards and the rule of law,"or in this case, the laws of common decency factually "disappear." They repeatedly scream "hate" and "threats" and the accused becomes a threatening hate-monger - all because they say so - by definition, the essense of tyranny.

This tyrannical lawless conduct is NOT justified or legitimate simply because of President Obama's unconstitutional actions, but because this is the de facto reality of a large section of fundamental, authoritarian extremists enforcing the Rule of Man on everyone. The Rule of Law or the Rule of Man starts at home, with the individual. Enough people enforce mob rule by what they do, you get tyranny.

And two, they simply never get personal with each other. Do you think either one, Greenwald or Sullivan, would become offended if what he did was characterized as "simpleminded"? Maybe, but based upon all the things they say, I doubt they would use it as an excuse to personally attack the other. They stick to the contested issues. They continue to talk to one another like decent human beings. Why? Because the truth is what it is. Because when people believe lawless tyrannical dogma and act on it to cause others to conform to their will, all in the name of freedom and liberty, they are by definition "simpleminded" among other things.

The record is there for anyone to see. It's all a bit tedious and a whole lot offensive. I left it up for anyone that wants to make comparisons. Make up your own mind. Notice the intent, what was done starting with the very first comments posted on this blog at the end of Trolls and the Thought Police about an immediate response, here, and follow-up blogs here and here and finally here.

I decided to post the above article because the comparisons are good examples of what is required to be at peace with your neighbor. In the end you either deal with the reality of each other's existence or one or the other becomes irrelevant. Some believe I'm a gutless coward or have something to hide for writing this blog anonymously behind a pseudonym. Apparently, that is what offered Dave Stancliff the platform he needed to personally and repeatedly assault me with all his false accusations and filthy invectives. The value of the Joe Blow Report is that is stands or falls upon its own merits. People don't read what's written in the Report because of "who" said it, but because of what's written. This is how men recognize the legitimacy of one another. The way to peaceful resolution. The willingness to accredit the other person's right to think or be who and what they are.

The way of the authoritarian extremist, the tyrannical, and the Thought Police is either stop making war on your fellow neighbors to dominate, judge and rule over them or become irrelevant. The day of murder by accusation is at its end. These murderer's are defined, identified and judged by their actions, conduct and attitude. The Universe has always had its way of bringing harmony - one way or another.
[Emphasis added] [Source]

--Joe