Happy New Year

Wishing everyone a happy, safe and prosperous New Year.

[Source]

--Joe

Show Me The Difference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Joe

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

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

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

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

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

The merger of journalists and government officials

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

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

--Joe

Seasons Greeting for a Safe New Year

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

--Joe

Opinionator Assassinator Strikes Again

[UPDATE Below] [UPDATE II]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the list of articles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

--Joe

What's Wrong With This Picture?

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

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

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

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

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

[UPDATE]

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

House Republicans Plan to Force California Into Bankruptcy to Bust Unions

by: Robert Cruickshank

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

---

[UPDATE II - More DESIGN FLAWS]

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

OR

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

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

--Joe

Ron Paul and WikiLeaks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are your answers?

--Joe

Who Voted For This Scum?

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

Cutting contributions to Social Security Signals the Beginning of the End

By NCPSSM

December 7, 2010

Payroll Tax “Holiday” is Anything But

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

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

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

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

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

--Joe

Majoritarianism

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

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

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

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

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

--Joe