[UPDATE Below: "The Man of Peace" - in a pig's eye.]
That's right! A TOTAL Crock shoveled up by Ernie Branscomb. He posted on his blog what he calls: "
A Long Overdue Explanation." He then followed that up a few days later on January 2, 2011 with: "
One more time.” What really got this triad going was his December 27, 2010, posting: "
Those Confusing Newcomers!"
People apparently asked him what his inspiration is for the things he writes on his blog. Isn't that nice. Sounds to me like Ernie is becoming some kind of SoHum cult figure. This is how he starts out:
"If this blog is about anything... it is about change."
These two articles are about a man, obviously someone that cares, with deep roots in his community and at the later end of his life's experience trying to explain, if not justify, why life did not turn out as he expected and what responsibilities he has, if any, for why. In a way, these two blog articles really sum up Ernie Branscomb's life in a nutshell. What he fails to see is that this so-called “change” never really ever compromised him or his values at all. Nothing was ever his responsibility; he only did what he had to do. His survival always took precedence. So, just remember, everything he writes is colored by that reality.
Here's an honest observation: To write about "change" you must first "experience change," to "know change." So, my question is, has Ernie Branscomb changed in the 55 years or so that I've known him? I remember my first comment I posted to him. I asked him "if he'd just crawled out from under a rock?" Not very encouraging there.
Ernie Branscomb would have everyone believe that he is one of the more standout residual squatters that really cares for Southern Humboldt, its culture and value as a community. Notice his disdain for those that, according to him didn't like the change in the culture enforced upon them and simply "took advantage" of the "opportunity" to sell and moved away - “GOOD-BYE”!
What is he talking about here, change in culture? What I remember was a time when a man's word was his bond and thousands of dollars exchanged hands on a handshake to a time where everyone was inundated with the most foul craven corruption imaginable all brought on by these so-called back to the landers. Yeah, they put down the law to the local business people, law enforcement people and politicians and everyone wilted under that foul stench – EVERYONE!
Most of these Southern CA transplants came to Humboldt County to get away from the growing lawlessness where they lived. After selling their homes, most of them only had enough money to buy unimproved logged-off land. Work was a premium (not enough work to accommodate everyone) and they had homes to build and families to feed. Vietnam war veterans began to populate the scene and they knew all about marijuana – a ready-made “cash” crop. It wasn't legal to grow and sell, but their amoral needs took precedent.
At that point the local communities, primarily business communities, had a choice to make. They could choose to support and enforce the law themselves. They could all band together to protect themselves and their children from this plague of corrupting tax-free money or do business with these crooks. Or they could capitulate, roll over, and enable these criminals. What happened is a matter of record. No matter Ernie Branscomb and others of his kind try to spin and twist and embellish what they did and why, 50 years of corruption's craven tentacles strangle these communities till today.
Notice the distinction Branscomb goes to some lengths to define between the evil, criminal interloper-grower who only "used" the land for ill-gotten gains versus the poor, miserly farms of the "good people," back-to-lander family and community folk that really "cared" for the land. To the distinction, this statement is rather unbelievable and frankly, quite disingenuous:
They didn’t give a damn about the law, the local culture, or even the other new people that had moved here. They are still with us. [Emphasis added]
However, notice what he said just before this defining statement above about the evil, "bad people:
[They] came with their carpet bags in hand, ready to cash in on the big local crop that was valuable because it is illegal.
Growing and selling marijuana
is illegal. Apparently according to Branscomb's "standards" it was NEVER illegal for these "good people" to grow and sell marijuana as long as it was done for amoral or altruistic purposes:
Some of the good people that moved up here, cared about, and cared for, our precious canyon and the environment. They grew a small amount of marijuana to pay for their land and care for their families. They recognized the medicinal value of the herb and promoted it as medicine. But they didn’t destroy the land. [Emphasis added]
Growing ANY amount of marijuana was illegal until 1996. That's 40 or more years after-the-fact. So, regardless how small the amount grown, sold or bought, their activity was criminal; they were all criminals. There is absolutely no way anyone can change that fact. It is this fact why I say Ernie Branscomb never compromised his integrity, because he shows here that he never had any integrity.
Branscomb makes the following judgment when he says, "Some of the people that moved here were “good people.” He goes on to define what he means by “good people.” But nowhere does he say anything about the “good people” being
law-abiding people. For me, "good people" by definition are required, among other fundamental qualities, to
BE INNATELY LAW-ABIDING.
Do you want to know what we were told when gardens began to show up on our property, displaced our water supply and created a fire hazard and we began to investigate? “Best leave well enough alone unless you want to get burned out.” When the matter was presented to the Sheriff's Department, we heard the same warning. “Get over it” Branscomb? Trying to live with the threat of being burned out by a bunch of radical outlaws or gangsters, or worse being arrested, prosecuted and risk losing your home and land for having pot gardens on your property made some of these people refugees in their own country. Yeah, good law-abiding folks alright. You got out if you could or you did business - with rare exception, the people that stayed did business. When the businesses communities decided to do business, there was no more support for the law, law enforcement or anyone else. It was as simple as that. And that is by definition: CRAVEN CORRUPTION.
Craven corruption is what was passed on to the succeeding generations of the old guard and new-comers. Ernie Branscomb's disdain for these so-called new-comer-good people oozes out no matter how hard he tries to camouflage it. Here's just one example that is so remenicent of his self-defining elitist attitude and hypocrisy:
The biggest thing that was different about the newcomers, that I have only been able to recently put my finger on, is that they didn’t seem to have standards!
And he does? These standards?
Our culture was the law of the land. As you might guess, it was often violated, but it was understood that you were going against the rules.
How'e these "standards" work out for all you fine folk? Not too well I would guess. Is it because compromised people are unable to understand the difference between "law" and "rules"? I'd say that, by definition, that is someone that does NOT demonstrate or possess "STANDARDS."
The following excerpt is from here: "
A Long Overdue Explanation."
Some of the people that moved here were “good people“, same as some of the whites that came to California in the 1850s. Some of the back-to-the-landers joined fire departments. They built schools, health care facilities, parks, and community meeting places. They joined service clubs and they honored the local people. They even recorded some of the old-timers history. Most of the people that moved here were “good people”. By FAR the most of them were. But, they displaced the local culture with their own culture. The people that didn’t like that were told to “get over it”. Most of the people that weren’t about to “get over it” moved away. Sold out and left. It was easy for some because they saw an opportunity to sell their land to the newcomers and get out. Good-bye.
Some of the newcomers that moved in, I’d say about the standard 10%, came with their carpet bags in hand, ready to cash in on the big local crop that was valuable because it is illegal. They didn’t give a damn about the law, the local culture, or even the other new people that had moved here. They are still with us.
Some of the good people that moved up here, cared about, and cared for, our precious canyon and the environment. They grew a small amount of marijuana to pay for their land and care for their families. They recognized the medicinal value of the herb and promoted it as medicine. But they didn’t destroy the land.
Others pack tons of fertilizers into the hills, and stream off all of the water to their plants. The river has become so dry and polluted with fertilizers that it kills animals that try to drink from some of the backwaters. The indoor grows leak diesel and crankcase oil into the ground and creeks. I can’t believe that the good people, in any way approve of those methods.
Some of us have an attachment to the canyon that we live in, and an attachment to most of the people that live here. Some of us had already been building schools and hospitals and parks, and belonging to service organizations. Some of us had a big personal investment in our community. Some of us didn’t want to leave. [Emphasis added]
In closing, the Joe Blow Report would like to encourage everyone to read Ernie Branscomb's three articles. Just be sure to put your hip boots on before you do:
(1)
Those Confusing Newcomers!
(2)
A Long Overdue Explanation
(3)
One more time
[
Source]
[UPDATE :: Wednesday, January 6, 2011]
Ernie Branscomb made this comment on his blog a couple of days ago:
January 4, 2011 9:31 PM
Ernie Branscomb said...
I got far more of a positive response than I expected. And, I want to make it clear that I'm a peaceful man. I haven't poked anybody in the nose in years, and even when I did, I did it in self-defense. I have been poked in the nose before, also years ago, and I can assure you that you will change your mind about things when somebody pokes you in the nose. {Emphasis added]
He also posted this blog article about me on Monday, September 20, 2010:
Not Fair!
Read the foul, lying accusations he writes about me and then tell me he DID NOT "POKE ME IN THE NOSE."
Where's his justification for "self-defense." He's defending Dave Stancliff. He stuck his nose in where he has absolutely no business, then typical bully antics says "he" (little ol' innocent Ernie, The Man of Peace) didn't do anything.
--Joe
