Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Stacking the Deck

[UPDATE :: TUESDAY, April 6, 2010:  "Eureka" Slaughter NOT an Aberration Either]
[UPDATE Below]

This is the Report's fourth commentary on the police shooting of David Sequoia. No doubt not the last either. The Times-Standard newspaper continues to tell everyone what happened according to the survivor's as if everything they say is the truth. They continue to refer to Sequoia as a criminal “suspect” in the process of assaulting everyone with a gun; “a grave threat.” That is the unsubstantiated opinion Greenson and the Times-Standard continue to publish made by Chief Garr Nielsen. This Report does not dispute the fact that those officers were put into a threatening situation. To say Sequoia put them there is unsubstantiated nonsense.

Thadeus Greenson continues his reports in the Wednesday, March 24, 2010, Times-Standard another one-sided account of what happened to David Sequoia in his article: “Two officers in Eureka shooting identified.

If you hadn't read all the other reporting with some objective scrutiny or careful consideration you'd think that there was some wild-eyed, pistol-packing criminal type, some thief, rampaging through a peaceful neighborhood, threatening, shooting, attacking and fighting with innocent people, including a local resident trying to protect his family and property, when he was consequentially confronted by the police and subsequently shot when he “twice” pointed “his” revolver at a police officer. All open and above board, totally legal and justified.

Greenson doesn't say that the guy shot in the head execution-style had first been assaulted by the local resident, Kris Coon for simply “lurking about” in the alley. Notice how Greenson twists or slants what Coon earlier reported, “Coon said he wound up in a confrontation with Sequoia, who was still armed with a hand gun.” In another report, Greenson writes, “Once the officers saw the gun, which was still in Sequoia's hands, Coon said they instantly began yelling at Sequoia to drop the weapon.” Nielsen continues, “officers issued numerous verbal commands, and also attempted to physically wrestle the weapon from Sequoia.” Notice now what Coon says about what just transpired, “Finally, Coon said, his grip on the barrel of the weapon began to weaken, and he felt the gun turning toward him.” So what the officers actually saw was NOT a gun in Sequoia's hands, but a gun in both Coon and Sequoia's hands. So why did they jump to the conclusion that the gun belonged to Sequoia and that he was the aggressor? Coon had just said he had jumped Sequoia and slammed him to the ground in the mis-belief that Sequoia was a thief. He does say, however, that when the police officers arrived they found Coon and Sequoia on the ground fighting, as it turns out, over the possession of a handgun. Coon says he had a hold of the barrel, “desperately trying to keep it pointed away from him and his house, where his 12-year-old daughter and wife were inside,” and Sequoia apparently had the gun by its grip, the only way he could fire the gun if he was an actual threat to anyone. Greenson says both officers along with Coon tried to wrestle the gun away and when in the melee Coon supposedly pointed the gun at or near officer Patrick Bishop's face he shot him in the chest. The coroner says that was a fatal shot. When, somehow, Sequoia was still able to bring the gun to bear on Bishop his Sargent Rodrigo Reyna-Sanchez put his gun at the base of Sequoia's head and shot him instantly dead.

On the obvious face of this, what's wrong? First, according to Kris Coon, Sequoia did NOT threaten Coon. Coon “confronted” Sequoia. He freely admits he was the aggressor and jumped without any provocation Sequoia “slamming” him to the ground. Sounds to me like Coon was the stronger of the two. Next Greenson says the police officers, once they too realized there was a gun began wrestling with Sequoia trying to get the gun away from him; immediately identifying him as the “aggressor.” Apparently, this effort was done with only one hand because their other hand held their own guns. Point being, to hear their accounts you would think Sequoia was some kind of super-strong gorilla able to overpower all three men while holding onto the grip or butt of the gun. That would be the part with the least amount of leverage. It seems to me that if Sequoia was able to overpower three men sufficient to threaten their lives, two of the men trained police officers no doubt in good physical condition, he certainly could have overpowered Coon and shot him straight away. He certainly would not have waited to use that gun until slammed to the ground. At that point Sequoia had the legal right to use that gun for self-defense if he so chose. Apparently, according to Greenson, that is what he had just done when confronted in a dispute by two of his supposed friends over on California Street.

This Report is not taking issue with the Eureka City Police officers justifiable right to shoot that man to death given that he was an actual threat. Unfortunately, everything that was said by Kris Coon, the officers involved as reported by John Driscoll, Thadeus Greenson and the concurring statements of Chief Garr Nielsen do not justify that man's untoward death. What they do show is that everyone involved jumped to unsubstantiated conclusions, conclusions totally without merit and acted aggressively on them resulting in the untimely death of that man. That seems to be an inherent problem within the Eureka Police Department that Chief Garr Nielsen has done nothing to fix.

All our lives, regardless of what class, race or religion, are just as valuable as any police officer. No one forced any of these people to be police officers. Doing their job, dealing with ongoing situations of the type involving Coon and Sequoia obviously forces quick, life-changing decisions. That's what they freely and personally took on to themselves. That's part of their job. That is what all taxpayer's pay them to do. That does NOT make them heroes nor does it make them more important or their lives anymore valuable than anyone one else. When people inadvertently or purposely break the law, it is the “LAW” that they offend, not the police officer or the police department. Police officers routinely act like it is a personal affront anytime someone seems to personally impugn them or their integrity. The fact that they wear a badge and carry a gun does not make them god. It's too bad these reporters, and the Times-Standard management, don't understand that fact and report with a little more independent objectivity. In the long run, since it is the responsible thing to do for the community the Times-Standard supposedly serves, they just might save someone's life, even someone like Kris Coon.

[UPDATE :: Monday, April 5, 2010]

Filibuster Lying
What does it mean when we can't get the simple facts from the newspaper anymore? Either the news-conscious public are so inured or dumbed down the media believes they can say anything and everyone will go along. Tragically, the media and their whore-mongering politicians backed up by a corrupt judicial system seem to think they not only have the right to tell people what to think, but HOW to think.

It was this atrocity hitting the American news that began the end to the Vietnam War. That guy with the gun was a South Vietnamese General, Chief of National Police and the man he publicly executed a man in handcuffs ONLY accused of being a Viet Cong soldier. Why? Because the majority of American's couldn't stomach being responsible for such an atrocity. The atrocity wasn't the brutal and summary public murder of that young man, but the blatant, in your face attitude, repudiating rule of law, justice and human rights; everything America used to stand for and that was worth sacrificing your children for. These same atrocities are going on constantly, only this time they are carried out by U.S. forces in other obscure places. This time, because it is American men and women enforcing this despotic system of the wanton butchery of all that is right, decent and legal, while they try to hide behind their so-called rules of a phony war, it's okay to lie, stack the deck and preach incessant propaganda. This is the latest “act” of self-defense in this war against the masses: How Americans are propagandized about Afghanistan - written by Glenn Greenwald and contains the following Headline: U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan are committing atrocities, lying, and getting away with it.
March 22, 2010, by Jerome Starkey, war correspondent for the Times of London. Here's a partial excerpt:
It’s not the first time I’ve found NATO lying, but this is perhaps the most harrowing instance, and every time I go through the same gamut of emotions. I am shocked and appalled that brave men in uniform misrepresent events. Then I feel naïve.
There are a handful of truly fearless reporters in Afghanistan constantly trying to break the military’s monopoly on access to the front. But far too many of our colleagues accept the spin-laden press releases churned out of the Kabul headquarters. Suicide bombers are “cowards,” NATO attacks on civilians are “tragic accidents,” intelligence is foolproof and only militants get arrested.
If you think this kind of crap, lies to justify the murder, only exists in far away places, you'd better open your eyes, look down the street and think again. The local Times-Standard is no better than this:
But far more often, Americans are completely misled about events in Afghanistan by the combination of false official claims and mindless stenographic American "journalism." And no matter how many times this process is exposed -- from Jessica Lynch's heroic firefight to Pat Tillman's death by Al Qeada -- this relentless propaganda machine never seems to diminish.

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Personal Safety in Eureka is an Illusion

[UPDATE Below]

The latest in the Sunday Times-Standard on the killing of a man simply trying to defend himself is offered “below the fold” and shows more police justification for their actions. One thing is for sure, there is NO counter information or argument coming from the dead guy. The headline reads: “Two officers fired weapons in fatal Eureka shooting.” Then quotes, “Chief: There was no alternative to using deadly force.”

“No alternative”? I would guess not when police policy, if not city government policy is to use overwhelming force to protect themselves at all times. Of course Chief Garr Nielsen is going to defend his personal policy within his department. The tragedy in this incident is that everyone of these individuals involved, including the Chief, HAD alternatives. History proves that whenever there is even the suspicion of some sort of weapon involved, the first proven “alternative” is “deadly force.”

This is what's really disturbing about this whole matter, the assumption that the guy supposedly with the gun was the “aggressor.” To quote: “The officers didn't initially know who was the aggressor and who was the victim in the situation.” Notice how quick they concluded who the aggressor was: “He says, (one of the officers says) 'gun, he's got a gun,' and the officers started making verbal demands for Sequoia to drop the gun.” At that point who is to say that the aggressor wasn't Kris Coon and that the gun belonged to him and that Sequoia was simply defending himself from Coon's assault? Who knew that Sequoia hadn't initially gotten the gun away from Coon? What was obvious is that both men were fighting over possession of the gun BEFORE the officers got involved. Based upon what Coon has already said and the Times-Standard has repeatedly reported, the only person actually defending himself was David Sequoia. Notice what happened to him: “'The officer took his gun, put it at the base of Sequoia's head, and fired a round into Sequoia's head,' he said, adding that the second shot ended the struggle and likely killed Sequoia instantly.” That is exactly how you execute someone.

If what Nielsen says was the truth, then no one has the right to defend themselves regardless the weapon, but especially with a gun. “On Saturday, Nielsen reiterated his belief that his officers acted appropriately in the face of a grave threat.” The question remains, Who caused the “grave threat”? Who placed these officers “in a position where they really had no alternatives other than to use deadly force in this incident”? It certainly was not the guy that got killed.

Nielsen continue, “I think the officers were placed in a position where they really had no alternatives other than to use deadly force in this incident,” he said, adding that the officers issued verbal commands and tried to physically take the weapon from Sequoia, who simply refused to comply. That left them with no other option than deadly force because they really felt like their lives were in danger, as was the life of Mr. Coon.” If the police officer's lives were really in danger it was because they put themselves there by jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions the Sequoia was the "aggressor" threatening Coon. Nielsen substantiates his bogus argument when he tells Thadeus Greenson, reporting for the Times-Standard, that Sequoia had “fired the two shots at an acquaintance from whom Sequoia had allegedly stolen more than $1,500.” So what? At the time of the incident no one knew who had fired those shots, certainly not any of those police officers. It could have been Kris Coon for all any of them knew. Nielsen says, “he believes they were en route to the shots-fired call on California Street and just happened to come across Coon and Sequoia.” By going down an alley? Yet, the shooting is justified in his mind because his officer's promptly determined that Sequoia was the “aggressor” because he had the gun, actually he and Coon “had” the gun and they both refused to let go. Coon says he had hold of the barrel with all the leverage, but Sequoia was moving the barrel around threatening everyone. More like Coon was moving the barrel around.

The reason I wrote the above commentary is because from the very first day I was forced confront a bully I became a believer in my inherent right to self-defense. I own property and a nice home in Eureka, am married and we have family that lives and works here as well. I am a retired logger that worked in the woods during the time men physically fought first and talked later. I worked out in the mountains where there wasn't a police officer within two hours. Many times I was forced to defend myself and my family. I always reserved the right to call in the police whenever there was a personal threat to me, my family or my property. They rarely ever let me or my wife down. So, I don't want anyone to get some idea I am anti-police. I am not. I support the police and their legitimate right to exist within our society when they support all the people and that includes me. Their assumed right to use “deadly force” is our same right to self-defense. Sometimes that requires using deadly force. Tragically, the only one threatened here was the poor bastard that got killed for getting too close to Kris Coon.

The real problem here, consequently, is if the Eureka Police Department and the District Attorney leave this matter with Kris Coon unanswered, just to defend what he and the police officer's did in shooting that man, they put everyone one of us, everyone that lives in Eureka, in physical jeopardy to the Kris Coon's and aggressive officers with quick trigger fingers that jump to conclusions when someone doesn't just drop dead when they tell them to.

[Picture source]

[UPDATE :: Monday, March 22, 2010]

I just spent some time reading the 129 comments on “Slain suspect acquitted of murder in 2008” on the Humboldt Herald. []

If you want to see what a sick, pathetic city we live, go there to become enlightened. To start with you don't have to go any further than Heraldo's headline: “Slain suspect.” “Slain” to be sure. More like “executed.” But what made him a “suspect” worthy of being killed? The fact that he was fighting for possession of a gun? For all any of those officers knew that gun could have been the other guy's and the poor bastard that got executed had just got it away from him and was simply trying to defend himself. So, what does the fact that he was “acquitted” of a murder charge got to do with anything?

It's easy to see, when you read most of these comments, how the newspaper coverage of Chief Garr Nielsen in particular, along with such innocent sounding headlines and other comments prejudices and vilifies unjustly. David Sequoia or Barger may have been all the things everyone seems to think he is just because he packed a gun and a jury saw fit to exonerate him of a serious accusation. None of that was prescient or relevant to the decision made to execute him.

During all the years that I logged out in the mountains, every pickup on the road had a handgun under the seat or in the glove box. Do you think that the police, game wardens and the Sheriff's deputies didn't know that? They knew they were dealing with a potential weapon every time they stopped someone. Even so, they didn't make it a matter of policy to shoot on sight for want of personal threat! Of course that was not the police policy for all those pot growing hippies. I guess it paid to be a logger – better class of people, probably. Or, at least, that's what the police officers thought.

Did I have a gun in my pickup all those years? For me, I had a twelve-gauge shotgun prominently displayed in my back window for all to see. When I stopped logging I didn't think I needed it anymore so I got rid of it, that was over 20 years ago. Probably a good thing too. The way policing is done in Eureka, I don't know why I would need or want one again either.

Much safe is a cellphone with the speed dial set to 911. Does anyone think there's the slightest possibility it would be mistaken for a weapon?


Saturday, March 20, 2010

Basic Freedom: No Right To Touch

I opened up my Saturday, March 20, 2010, Times-Standard newspaper to the headlines that said: "I could have been killed so quickly." That statement was made by Kris Coon, the man that attacked David Sequoia. In my book, David Sequoia was the one that was in the right to defend himself against Coon. David Sequoia did absolutely NOTHING to physically threaten Kris Coon and his "family" other than "look scared" and "lurk around" in the alley. The simple truth is the Eureka Police shot the wrong person. They had no way of knowing that the gun was Coon's and that Sequoia was himself fighting for his life. When your involved in that kind of life and death struggle there's no way to hear or recognize a police officer's orders. Both men had a grip on the gun. Coon couldn't drop the gun if he wanted to. The mind is too focused on survival to hear anything. For Chief Garr Nielsen to say, under these circumstances, that Sequoia was pointing the gun at the officers is absolute nonsense.

Coon says, "I was fighting him" WHY? "Because I was thinking he was stealing from my carport." "THINKING" absolutely does NOT justify putting your hands on someone let along FIGHT with that person. Obviously, he was not stealing, he was running for his life. Too bad, Sequoia thought the guy chasing him with a gun was threatening his life, when all the time the real threat was from the guy living on Summer Street that believed he had the right to attack him for lurking in his alley.

It seems there are many people in Eureka that believe they have the right to touch someone whenever they want. Kris Coon, the guy that got David Sequoia or David Barger killed Thursday afternoon in Eureka enforced that right, the right to "search" the young man "lurking around" in the alley near his carport. Coon says he thought Sequoia was trying to steal his tools and demanded the right to search him and his possessions. When Sequoia refused Coon jumped him and threw him to the ground. NO ONE HAS THAT RIGHT! At the least, Coon assaulted that man and at the most caused his untimely death.

Normally, I'd feel real sorry for the EPD officer or officers that shot and killed that boy under these circumstance. They were deprived of their legal right to deal with such issues in a controlled life-saving manner. Normally. Except for the simple truth that these police officers believe, act and enforce the fact that their defacto value superceeds ALL common citizens of this city, county, state or country. Why is it that, in the picture above, that officer is packing an assault rifle?

Not even the police have the right to just walk up and put their hands on someone unless they can prove in a court of law that they had probable cause to do so. Probable cause, in my book, means they have sufficient reason to arrest that person.

My wife and I walk the streets and alleyways of Eureka on a daily basis as do a lot of people, including school children. Does that mean we are all subject to being attacked by worried, paranoid people that simply “think” we are there to harm them? The question is, do we all need a gun and the trained expertise to use it to protect ourselves from our paranoid neighbor's and if so, who is going to protect us from the police that see all guns as a threat to them?

[Picture source]

Friday, March 19, 2010

Who Really Killed David Sequoia?

What we know about this matter is what is reported in the Friday, March 19, 2010, Times-Standard “Man shot by Eureka Police dies” written by John Driscoll. What is obvious, is that, once again, someone reported to possess some sort of weapon, in this case a handgun, is shot to death by the Eureka Police. What's the problem with that? Nothing, if the person was actually threatening someone. Unfortunately, according to the reporting here, the only one threatening anyone was Kris Coon.

The newspaper's secondary headline says: “David Sequoia was reportedly armed and struggling with resident when shot.” The article continues to define this struggle, “Coon said the man pushed him, and Coon wrestled him to the ground, THEN realized the man had a handgun in his belt.” Next he says, “The man refused to comply with officers' orders to give up the gun and an officer shot the man pointblank in the head.” “They gave him every chance in the world to comply.” All this while Coon is holding and wrestling with Sequoia on the ground.

The police arrive in the midst of a violent confrontation with two men grappling on the ground and order the man with a gun to give it up, then shoot him in the head because he was pointing it at them? How do you give a man every chance in the world to drop his weapon while rolling around on the ground in the midst of a fight with a belligerent attacker?

The resident, Kris Coon finds an unknown young man in his carport. He says, "Lurking around, looking very afraid." Next he says the man shoved him. Why was Coon that close to the man? "Coon says he wanted to search him and he was fighting him off when the police arrived." The man was obviously NOT threatening Coon – Coon was threatening him and followed that threat up by “wrestling him to the ground.” If David Sequoia was an aggressive, belligerent threat he would have used his gun to either assault or defend himself when confronted by Coon. He apparently did neither. Later in the article Coon says, “people in the neighborhood don't put up with illicit activity, and that he was only protecting his family when he went into his carport to investigate the commotion. When you consider what he said regarding the “quick response and action on the part of the police” that supposedly saved his life, why did he think he needed to protect his family by physically confronting someone simply in his carport? That's what the police are for and by the results, damned good at it too.

The simple truth is Mr. Kris Coon caused that man to get killed. No different than if he had pulled the trigger himself – “we don't put up with illicit activity” in our neighborhood!

Nothing in this report indicates any “illicit activity” other than someone simply being on someone's property or messing with that property; in this case simply “lurking around”. Nothing, certainly not “lurking around,” indicates any kind of activity by Sequoia justifying a violent confrontation “in defense of Coon's family”. If Coon's rational is justified anyone walking down an ally that gets close to someone's carport poses a threat and is subject to a violent assault.

Couple that with the fact that if the police even think there is some kind of a weapon, like a gun, knife, stick of wood, or a rock within a half a block your life is in serious jeopardy. Just ask a police officer sometime what the hell he's talking about and you will find yourself three words away from being tazered into arrest for threatening and resisting an officer. You never want to raise your hand a point a finger. That finger could provoke deadly force in a heartbeat! Even so, considering the attitudes of guys like Kris Coon, I'd say the police are probably justified dealing with people the way they do. Had Kris Coon left the matter to the police, they probably would have been able, since the man was armed, to peacefully disarm him and deal with that issue in a controlled environment. Coon deprived them of that right and justifies the man's death by trying to say HE was only protecting his family. Even if the man was only rustling around in his garbage, where is the immediate threat?

I listened to Coon's interview on News Channel 3 and he made me sick.

In the News Channel 3 report, Coon says “he wanted to search him” and Sequoia resisted -- “pushed” Coon. What gave Kris Coon that right? Apparently Sequoia was resisting Coon, they were both on the ground and “the cop put his gun up to Sequoia's head and shot him because he wouldn't stop fighting and drop his gun.” That sounds like nothing more than a simple execution. You can view the report here. []

Why is it that the police cannot effect an arrest anymore without getting the person's permission?


Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Protect and Serve. WHO?

     Why, the POLICE, of course!

Catastrophes, calamities, disasters, i.e., floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, even riots all produce interesting lessons. As a resident of Eureka, CA having just experienced the January 6.5 magnitude earthquake I was extremely interested in how the local support infrastructure worked to inform, protect and serve the local community. I tried the TV, radio – both AM and FM bands and basically found nothing relevant. If there were broadcasts on some emergency channel, I couldn't find them. Finally, after securing or satisfying myself that there were no immediate threats of any kind in my immediate neighborhood, I tried the Internet. What I learned is the stark fact that the general public are all on their own. That means you'd better be ready to fend for yourself. Suffer the kind of devastation experienced in Haiti and Chile and we'd find the police and fire departments overwhelmed. At the point the police began to think they might lose control, you will see them act like the New Orleans' police right after the Katrina hurricane disaster. You already see indications of this problem in the way policing is conducted today. Look at how the whole attitude and implementation has changed since 1970. The police are almost incapable of performing their “duties” unless they are backed up by a squad of anonymous, highly trained, militarized and equipped with the latest high powered guns, armor, armored vehicles, etc. You would think they were combating or fighting some sort of insurgency movement. The simple fact is, you cannot alienate a major segment of society and walk around free and unbothered. Couple that with a measured amount of paranoia and the general public begins to present a serious threat. You can see the results starting to come out in this discussion here: “Federal Probe into Post-Katrina Shootings by Police Widens.” (Picture: New Orleans, shot seven times IN THE BACK by police using an assault rifle.)

It is a common misconception that the police work for the people. They do not! They work for the people that supervise them. In the case of the Eureka Police Department, that is the City Council. They defer to that council regardless. In the case of the Sheriff's Department, even though the Sheriff is directly elected by the people and they can ostensibly vote him or her out every four years, that “department” answers to and defers to the County Supervisors. The Highway Patrol, CDF, Fish and Game, etc. all work for the Governor and state legislature. The policing agencies enforce their supervisor's laws on the general public. They serve and protect themselves. A good example of this is posted on the Humboldt Herald here: “Push back against cop assaults.”

The Eureka City Council passed a unanimous resolution to have the DA prosecute to the fullest extent of the law anyone that resists, actually the word is “assaults” the police. Are they going to pass a similar resolution for complete criminal prosecution for a police officer that assaults someone? I hardly think so.

Why is it that the Wednesday, March 17, 2010, Time-Standard newspaper does not have anything on this latest Eureka City Council resolution? How is the general public supposed to know about these kinds of actions if the paper does not report them?

This is a serious issue that needs serious consideration and NOT the knee-jerk simple-minded kind offered by the City Council in support of their servants. We certainly do not need in Humboldt County what happened post-Katrina in New Orleans.  Neither do we need the kind of “push back” enforced in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan that justifies the legal precedent that the police assault no one. Criminal assault is a criminal assault regardless of who commits the act. When it is done by the police it is a far more heinous crime and should be dealt accordingly; with the full force of the law.

[Picture source]


Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Who, me? Yeah! You.

Identifying the secret elite that lurk amongst us.

Some years ago I was reading about China and the comment was made about the 800,000 elitist Chinese that run that country of a billion people. So, I began asking the question, “Who are the elitists running America and how do you identify them”?

First, most American elitists believe they are the “Exceptional People” specially blessed of God. They originate across all spectrum's of society, political, racial, religious, ethnic, class, culture and gender. So, one of the defining characteristics of an elite individual is they think and believe that they are better than everyone else. They only recognize, accept or see someone of their own kind. Everyone else and whatever they may possess is only there to serve them and their perceived needs. In many ways they are no different than the vampires of lore. Like all parasites, they make everyone believe that they (you) cannot survive without them.

Is that not what all the “professional people” tell everyone? We can't survive without them? That's why we have doctors, lawyers, preachers, priests, teachers, judges, bankers, accountants, reporters and policemen to tell us how to think, believe, live, and die. That is the second characteristic that identifies an elitist. They are the only one that knows anything and are always telling all other people what is and what is not right, good, bad, decent, moral and ethical; what is acceptable and unacceptable. The presume the right to tell you who you are and who you are not and to treat you accordingly.

In a nutshell, elitists are egotistical, self-centered, self-righteous, arrogant, self-important, and the only thing they care about is themselves and what they want. The only time anyone exists to them is when they supply sustenance to their voracious appetite. Their next identifying characteristic is their constant effort to get you to go along with what they want. It doesn't matter what idiotic scheme they dream up or what stupid and moronic issue they espouse, just as long as they can get you to agree. The more of your soul they can get you to compromise, the better.

So, who tells you how to think? Well, the “Thought Police” do, that's who. You can get a pretty good idea who they might be when you consider what's going on in the “inner” inner sanctums at County Supervisor's Chambers or at the Eureka City Hall and, lest we not forget, all the Judge's Chambers. Anyone that follows this blog Report knows I have a problem with how the Times-Standard allows their local Opinionators to try to lord it over everyone. A good example of this is by Dave Stancliff in his Sunday, March 7, 2010 mandate: “In a better world we wouldn't keep animals in captivity.” However, when I picked up my Sunday paper this weekend and began looking through the first couple of sections, I began to wonder why I continue to support the newspaper. It sure wasn't for want of something worthwhile and relevant to read, that's for sure. I guess maybe it's because the gal that delivers my paper does such a good job. It certainly isn't because I want to read this: “Hi. My name is Dave and I have a reputation for getting lost.” At first glance, you have to ask yourself, who gives a hoot? Take a second look and if a character flaw, exemplified by this statement, “normally developed adults and children,” is caused by genetic loss, it isn't much of a stretch to advocate, “bad people are born bad because of missing or flawed genes.” “Good people (elitists and their dogs) are born good because they possess “all” their genes. And that, my friend, justifies throwing a 10 year old little boy or girl, for the proper crime of course, in jail for life.

According to Dave Stancliff, a columnist for The Times-Standard and a former newspaper editor and publisher, keeping animals captive is criminal. Well, with the small exception of dogs and cats and a bird or two, maybe. We come now to James Faulk and his Tuesday, March 16, 2010: “Dog-hunting for a perfect pet for mom.” As City Editor, I guess privilege has its perks. With so many important issues affecting our community we should expect community conscious newspaper people to use their space and words accordingly. Getting a dog for one's aging mother may seem real important to the Faulk's. Personally? I could really give rat's ass. That is until I read this:
“And for a man who has had many dogs over the course of his life so far, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Adding a canine to the family is much like adding another sibling, another child -- they have emotional and physical needs, and they demand your time and affection. If you can't offer those things, you've got no business getting a dog.”
Who is going to decide what kind of "emotional and physical needs" a certain dog requires? HIM? Your neighbor or some police officer? Who is going to tell you how much if any affection you are showing you dog? Or how much time you MUST spend with it to justify the right to own a dog? You'd better get with the program folks -- he's the expert! WHY, "He's a man who has had many dogs over the course of his life." 

My grandfather, a longtime cattle and sheep rancher, were he still alive, would laugh this would-be know-it-all all right out of town. Regardless, these are the words of a self-ordained elitist using his position in the community to tell everyone HOW to THINK!

More importantly, this is how the elitist segregate our society into two classes, the general population of worthless wannabees and that select group of high and mighty exceptional people. Finally, there's one simple way to identify an elitist that was exemplified in the movie, "Avatar." They absolutely refuse to recognize and accept you or talk to you; they absolutely refuse to "see you."

This, tragically, thrusts the two classes of people into a virtual state of war.

Picture 1 & 2 sources]


Friday, March 12, 2010

The Godless Jew Reveals Itself

After 60 plus years of illegitimate occupation there can be no doubt what the Jew is. The Jews came into Palestine, took land by force of arms and then declared themselves a nation state. When the United States recognized their legitimacy they became the Nation of Israel we know today. The abject recognition and acceptance by the United States is revealed unworthy and legally unjustified. The United States, Briton and other states have demanded that all nations "recognize" Israel. Any nation that refuses is subjected to war. Israel never intended to recognize the Palestinians. The so-called "Two-State Solution" was a scam from the begininng to make the Palestinians believe that there is maybe some hope of being recognized as equal to the Jew. Legitimate nation-states that derive their power to exist from their people don't have to ask permission to be recognized. The Jew's refusal to recognize Palestinian legitimacy doesn't make or break the Palestinian right. The nation-state of Israel is, in and of itself, a statement of Palestinian rejection. The Jews have had more than 60 years to make peace with the world. It's obvious they never intended to recognize anyone's equality. If Israel, the U. S. and other nations continue to treat the Palestinian people as independent, then it is time they started acting like they are.

I was working on the article when I came across the following well-written and well worth reading commentary written by Johann Hari.

Enough. The Palestinians should now declare their independence

-by Johann Hari

Could the Israeli government make it any more obvious they have no intention of sharing the Over-Promised Land with its other inhabitants?
This week the Obama administration – who give Israel $3bn a year, more than they dole out to any other nation on earth – made a meek and craven request for Israelis to simply have a pause in seizing even more land, and to sit down with the Palestinians. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded with a big concrete slap: the announcement of 1,600 more homes to be built on occupied Palestinian land from which Arabs will be forcibly kept out. He has made it plain he will not loosen his grip by an inch, announcing: "Even if [Palestinian President] Abu Mazen comes along and says he's ready to sign a peace deal on the spot, we will restore settlement construction to its previous levels." No compromise. Never.

How does this look to the Palestinians? Their story is so rarely explained without disinformation that it still seems startling when it is stated plainly. Until 1948, the Palestinians were living in their own homes, on their own land – until they were suddenly driven out in a war to make way for a new state for people fleeing a monstrous European genocide. They lived huddled and dazed in the 20 per cent of their land they were allowed to keep. They hardly fought back: they wept and dreamed of return. Then in the 1967 war, even these small strips were conquered with tanks and platoons.


Who said this?

Sure, the war that I helped sell and cheered on led to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings (at least), the long-term displacement of millions more, and the complete destruction of another country that had done nothing to us. But I'm not interested in clouding my mind with any of that. I don't care about that. That can be talked about once I'm dead. After all, as the great humanitarian Joseph Stalin taught us, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, and as the great scholar and torturer Condoleezza Rice explained, we should just gently shut our eyes and think about the massive slaughter and destruction we caused in that country as mere "birth pangs" on the road to something beautiful.

Back in 2003, I said -- with bloodthirsty sadism rabidly drooling from my mouth -- that the real purpose of the war, what made it the Right Thing to do, was that we needed to make large numbers of Muslims "suck. on. this" in order to show them we mean business, and we randomly picked Iraq because . . . . we could. But now -- to justify the enormous amounts of blood I helped spill and the incalculable amounts of human suffering I helped spawn -- I'm going to pretend that I was motivated by a magnanimous, noble desire to Spread Freedom.
Who did this?

Official dogma: Iraq War a success - Finally! American democracy and freedom.
American-style freedom - Something like the Vietnam veterans brought back home.


Sunday, March 7, 2010

As It Stands – No Sequoia Park Zoo

Dave Stancliff, you can read what he says here in the Sunday, Mar. 7, 2010, Times-Standard, affirms that “In a better world” we wouldn't have zoos. Is this Stancliff's backdoor vote on scrapping the zoo because the city doesn't have the necessary monies to keep or pay for the Sequoia Park Zoo?

Actually he says, “we wouldn't keep animals in captivity.” Does that me we should all turn our dogs loose and get rid of our cats if we want a better world?

Or is this just his unsophisticated (I could say “simple-minded) way of trying to tell people how and what to think again? Opinions are one thing and Stancliff is quick to say, about people that enjoy going to zoos, “I understand they are entitled to their views.” I'll bet you didn't know you were expressing a personal view, or even casting a vote in support thus making yourself complicit in their crime, every time you visited a zoo? Yeah! Crime, cruelty to animals.

He goes on to say, “If scientists want to study them in order to protect them, they should do it in their natural habitat. Captivity is cruel. I don't care what others say in defense of the practice; nothing will ever convince me that capturing animals to study and to entertain people is right.” So, all of you fine folks that want to spend monies that no one has keeping the Sequoia Park Zoo, what kind of people does that make you? He also says, “He (someone that doesn't agree with Stancliff) and others of like mind have a right to their opinion, but I think they are dead wrong.” Questioning the validity of a persons “opinions” is one thing, accusing someone of being “dead wrong” impugns that persons character. Challenging someone's facts is a whole lot different than assaulting that person's character or personhood.

Opinions are one thing and this blog takes the “stand” that they are totally worthless. Stancliff, however, with the Times-Standard's support, goes far beyond a simple opinion. He sets himself up as some sort of elitist judging, alienating, quantifying and condemning the moral and ethical nature of the people in this community that do not necessarily agree with him and his worthless “opinions.” If he was any kind of a man taking a stand on some issue, lets say on, “Sequoia Park Zoo re-enters budget crosshairs; councilman wants Eureka voters to decide” all he had to do was write a substantive column on that subject and make a straightforward manly stand. Leave your judging to God.

The Times-Standard and their readers and supporters would all be better served if Dave Stancliff practiced what he preaches: “Live and let live.”

Yeah, “What a concept”!

Wikipedia article on the capybara. Picture source.


Friday, March 5, 2010

So Hum Schools A Disgrace

[ADDENDUM :: Sunday, March 7, 2010 below]

Everyone agrees: Schools in poor condition.
When I read this in the Thursday, March 4, 2010 Times-Standard,I was disgusted. This situation is unconscionable and corrupt. It says something rather glaring about the Southern Humboldt community.

There is nothing more important than the education of our young people. They need to know that they are valuable and important. The only way you can convince them to trust you is by how much you are willing to sacrifice the things that are most important to you. That's a rather difficult task when you force them to spend most of their time growing up in a sewer. If the community doesn't care, why should they? All you do-gooders, all you parents and community members, Supervisor Clendenen and your wife, and Superintendent Michael McAllister, all of you lost the argument before you ever said a word. Your real priorities are right there fully displayed for everyone to see.

This is a disgrace for the School Board and the District Administration - PERIOD!

To allow these conditions to develop over such a long period of time identifies a serious situation. It is unthinkable that the people of Southern Humboldt would deliberately allow their schools to degenerate and deteriorate without doing something about it BEFORE it got into this condition. I guess that's the way they do business in So Hum - Let things get so bad they are forced to either shut the whole thing down and either start over or bring in Charter Schools. Charter Schools do have some advantages. One, as far as we know anyway, the only one's paying are those with children. No "GO Bond or higher property taxes.

It's hard to believe that if the School Board had worked with the community so that everyone knew where the money went, why there wasn't sufficient funds to fix the problems as they developed that the community would step up and do what was necessary. But that's the problem with these elitist's isn't it? They're running the School District. All the taxpayers need to know is that they need to pay more when told. That's the only value anyone has in the community, the taxpayers, the parents and the children. If the taxpayers doesn't do what is expected, make the necessary sacrifices, then like the worthless bums they are they and their children can take whatever they get.

Well, there is a group of responsible people working on this problem. They are: SOS for South Fork High School. Click the link to go to their website where you can learn about them and their efforts to engage the community and raise the necessary monies.  A friend of the Joe Blow Report received a brochure recently for SOS that said, "Total urgent funding needed .... 73,000." Donations and contributions for any amount can be made payable to: SOS for SFHS at PO Box 650, Miranda, CA  95553. While we share and support this commendable effort by those few people of value, we wonder if there is yet time or sufficient will or resources to turn this around and show our children and grandchildren their real worth.

Culture of Worthlessness - So Hum Legacy

There is an elephant in the room, however, that begs exposing. Here's the question: "Is this what happens when a whole community supports, defends and survives on the criminal production of marijuana for the last 50 years"? The truth as revealed is that these people are diseased within themselves and this situation with the South Fork High School is just one of its physical manifestations. Like most cancer patients So Hum is in total denial; unwilling and unable to accept any responsibility for how they've lived and raised their children for the past 50 years. The acidic smell of death is unmistakable. The immutable reality is: "you reap what you sow" or "what goes around always comes around." I guess it's a time for an accounting. Time to decide what's worse, the symptom or the disease.

[ADDENDUM :: Sunday, March 7, 2010]

There is a somewhat interesting conversation on Ernie's Place that is rather condescending if not self-serving about Southern Humboldt, but still worth reading. Be sure to read the comments.


Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Accident or a Wreck?

When I opened my Tuesday, March 2, 2010, Times-Standard and saw a picture of a Eureka City Fire truck with the heading, "Fees for service" and the looked at the picture of the so-called "accident a H and Hodgson" I had to ask: "Are these elected representatives deliberately running a stop sign, hurting people and calling it an accident"?

Why is it that the first thing "our" elected representatives do when they say they don't have enough money is threaten to cut the most vital services to those with the most to lose, property owners and small business unless they pay up? It's like they have the god-given right to force the other person, in this case the tax payer, to always give-ground. What they want, how they want to live, fulfill thier obligations, and obey the law takes precedence over everyone else, specially those with the misfortune to happen to be in their way.

The report of the wreck says in part, Laverne "Dedrich was attempting to cross H Street eastbound in her Honda Accord when her eyes teared up, obscuring her vision, she said. She did not see the stop sign and continued into the intersection." There was NO attempting to cross H street involved. She was simply crossing the street regardless. She said she couldn't see the stop sign. That means she couldn't see ANY vehicles or pedestrians in the intersect either. She was deliberately running that stop sign; never intending to stop. Since she did NOT stop immediately when she couldn't see, specially a major thoroughfare like H street, she never intended to stop. That was a deliberate assault on anyone that had the legal right to be in that intersection. THAT WAS NO ACCIDENT! That was a pure and simple WRECK!

When it becomes clear that there isn't going to be enough money in the budget to operate, their "eyes tear up" and they continue on as if there are not constraints -- in this case NO Stop Signs, pedestrians or motor vehicles -- This action is to deliberately cause a WRECK and then say, "my eyes teared up," I had a moments lapse in competence, sorry . . .

We'll just tag you with a "fee" -- in this case a wrecked car, higher insurance fees, and don't forget all those hidden costs that just seem to keep appearing. 

It is always about finding ways to charge the already overburdened public; jack on a parcel tax, or raise property tax. Never any way to save, improve, cut costs, or adjust -- Never any thought or inclination to STOP or even slow down.

Start treating these kinds of incidents that involve the police and fire departments for exactly what they are and stop accomodating these people and, perhaps, then we'll all see the costs of these deliberate wrecks come down.