The Obama Doctrine

The Obama Doctrine is best expressed in a cartoon: How the Obama Doctrine Works >

Local SoHum (Southern Humboldt County) blogger/lawyer, Eric Kirk posted his thoughts in: The Obama Doctrine: “Interests and Values” - What he calls "[A] very liberal doctrine of interventionism."

"Intervention" - That's his nice word for going to War on baseless threats and lying, false accusations. Whatever justification he wants to tag this anarchy, it's all based upon American "interests" and/or "values," depending upon the need to trump or ignore the sovereignty of all peoples on this Earth on what amounts to a President's whim.

How to you call someone "crazy" then use what they say as the absolute truth to justify attacking that same person, his country and his people? Then turn around and call it "humanitarian"? It is obscene.

If you take the time to read Kirk's article you'll probably be struck by the same overarching assumptions that caught my eye - you'd think he was sitting at Obama's right hand with an inner-insight right into his mind and heart. He's almost godlike in his understanding and explanations - The Absolute Authority. What's most revealing, however, is how Kirk is conflicted and contradicts himself. There is more, but the following statement is extremely revealing:

"I am assuming that Obama, who doesn’t move an inch without overkill in planning, has a sense of the potential and decided this was a good gamble."

"Assuming" ("to take for granted or without proof; suppose; postulate; posit") is NOT what he says or defines next:  "who doesn’t move an inch without overkill in planning," but somehow GETS a "sense" which, by definition, is not any kind of a result originating from "overkill in planning." This statement alone defines the inner conflict within Eric Kirk and everyone else that tries to justify their support for "the Obama Doctrine." "Longing," is that anything like "HOPING"?

---

[UPDATE :: Tuesday, March 29, 2010]

Obama and American exceptionalism

Glenn Greenwald defines why American Exceptionalism justifies the existence of people that believe there is NO hypocrisy in saying and defending their rights over those of others. People like Eric Kirk, since we're discussing his defense of Barack Obama's actions and speech yesterday, is a good example. Glenn explains exactly why it is justifiable for and why America has the right to do what no one or any other country can. He also explains how this belief literally motivates and empowers the individual American.

 The fact remains that declaring yourself special, superior and/or exceptional -- and believing that to be true, and, especially, acting on that belief -- has serious consequences. It can (and usually does) mean that the same standards of judgment aren't applied to your acts as are applied to everyone else's (when you do X, it's justified, but when they do, it isn't). It means that you're entitled (or obligated) to do things that nobody else is entitled or obligated to do (does anyone doubt that the self-perceived superiority and self-arrogated entitlements of Wall Street tycoons is what lead them to believe they can act without constraints?). It means that no matter how many bad things you do in the world, it doesn't ever reflect on who you are, because you're inherently exceptional and thus driven by good motives. And it probably means -- at least as it expresses itself in the American form -- that you'll find yourself in a posture of endless war, because your "unique power, responsibilities, and moral obligations" will always find causes and justifications for new conflicts. [Emphasis added]

Another good example of this self-righteous hypocrisy shrouded arrogant exceptionalism is contained right here on this blog.

It's been my experience in life that this belief motivated attitude is the root cause of all forms of hatred and war. It flies in the face of what Jesus Christ said was the second most important commandment that would follow him and be a Christian: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Notice, Jesus DID NOT say, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" ONLY when you find an "opportunity" that serves your best "interests" and "values."

--Joe

Pot Devil Garners More Souls

The unintended consequences that are a threat to everyone.

The Devil gets his due again. He got three this time and was trying for five. But don't tell the local folks it had anything to do with marijuana. No, they want to keep a pretty face on that harpy.

The first I knew about this incident in Kettenpom, a little community 30+ miles East of Garberville in Trinity County was when I read, "Trinity sheriff's Office denies sending couple to investigate 911 call" in the Saturday, March 19, 2011, issue of the Times-Standard. Apparently, as reported in another article in the Redwood Times, "Three people killed, two injured in Kettenpom incident" a 911 call came into the CHP and a Trinity County Sheriff's deputy was dispatched from Lewiston, over a hundred miles away. Why in such a situation an officer from the Garberville area wasn't dispatched is anyone's guess. I know it is a difference is counties, but is the same state. Two people involved in a "marijuana operation" were killed by a third apparently robbing them. This person later died in a car crash evading Mendocino County Sheriff's Deputies. Two other locals that went to check on the two killed were also stabbed.

This story is typical of a constant litany of such stories resulting from the illegal production, sale and use of marijuana. Whatever medicinal or other positive benefits pot brings to society is totally outweighed by the price everyone pays for 50 years of corruption.

Look at the laissez faire attitude expressed by a practicing attorney, Eric Kirk on his blog, Sohum Parlance II post, Kettenpom Murders:

Kym has done an excellent job of pulling together what information is to be had.  I’ve been content to leave the coverage in her excellent hands.  I don’t know any of the people involved, but it’s all very sad.
And please spare us the posts about how marijuana growers are bring this onto themselves. It’s really not productive. [Emphasis added]

I encourage everyone to read the comments, specially that of “Not A Native,” and the two lawyers, Ed Denson and especially Eric Kirk. These lawyers apathetic justification of the “marijuana” motivated corruption and what that corruption's cost in lives are, speaks for itself – Family sensibilities take precedence here. Besides its just the cost of doing business.

Kirk directs everyone to another marijuana apologist, Kym Kemp's Readheaded Blackbelt blog. In all I counted 8 (eight) postings by her on this story. Be sure to read the comments, paying attention to how unbiased she is on this subject, and what she believes is most important about this matter.

1. Link: http://kymkemp.com/2011/03/14/double-homicide-in-kettenpom-two-neighbors-injured-suspect-killed/ 

2. Link: http://kymkemp.com/2011/03/16/why-call-my-dad-asks-victims-daughter-in-the-kettenpom-murder-case/ 

3. Link: http://kymkemp.com/2011/03/17/one-of-the-victims-identified-in-the-kettenpom-double-murdersphotos-and-accounts-organized/ 

4. Link: http://kymkemp.com/2011/03/17/we-love-sky-please-put-him-up-for-people-to-remember-victim-of-double-murder-in-kettenpom-memorial/ 

5. Link: http://kymkemp.com/2011/03/17/kettenpom-murders-linked-to-marijuana/ 

6. Link: http://kymkemp.com/2011/03/18/press-release-from-trinity-sheriffs-dept-adds-important-information/ 

7. Link: http://kymkemp.com/2011/03/18/kristines-page-photos-and-words-to-remember-her-by/ 

8. Link: http://kymkemp.com/2011/03/19/the-kettenpom-double-homicide-how-to-follow-the-unfolding-story/

A simple lesson I learned driving loaded big rigs is that every time you start up from a dead stop at a stop sign or light there is a lot more work than if you can keep rolling. I also learned that if you intended to go through a light on a yellow or do a “California Rolling Stop” there was NO WAY I could get stopped if there was an emergency need to do so. Intending to stop, made the stopping maneuver easy and safe. Today, I'd say, upwards of 50 percent of the drivers I observe intend to blow every stop sign they can – never intending to stop. They have totally become inured to the purpose of the stop sign or light, and the deadly hazard they've become. Since “everyone does it” the police and emergency responders excuse away the death and mayhem caused as, just another “accident” that couldn't be avoided.

What I see in these anecdotal blog conversations are self-serving, calloused excuses made to justify the direct consequences of the insidious works of corruption. Do I think that all those people that decided the only way they could survive and raise their families was to grow and sell marijuana that either killed someone or died defending their gardens deliberately set out to totally corrupt the very communities they live in, do business and raise their families? Probably not. When that way became accepted and transformed the majority into a “lawbreaking habit,” who thought that corrupting way would legalize ignoring stop signs and lights?

--Joe

The Black Pot Talks Again

[UPDATE Below]

UPDATE TO : The Pot Calls The Kettle BLACK, Again

The following is what Dave Stancliff wrote on this blog March 16, 2011 9:54 AM.

I've taken the time to repost it here because what he says is the absolute proof of why I commented below, "The Pot Calls The Kettle BLACK, Again," on his Sunday Opinion published by the Times-Standard. Apparently it is entirely alright with them (Times-Standards' publishers and editors) that he, again, demonstrates his incapacity to distinguish the difference of commenting upon the issues of which he writes and making "demeaning," "slandering," oportunistic "attacks" on him personally. What he wrote is there for EVERYONE to read. I didn't put words in his mouth. Since he equates his worthless opinions with his personal self-worth and self-esteeem as an individual, EVERYTHING becomes about him. Hence, all his perseptions and resultant foul accusations simply originate within his mind. To talk about what he writes is to talk about him. Disagree with his opinion writings and you demean and slander him. These are HIS rules of engagement as he defines himself.  That is also why he is totally and demonstrably incapable of defending his opinions and what he wrote, opting instead for his repeated ad hominem assaults.

His record for initially attacking me and judging my motives are extensive on this blog and is exactly what he just did - personally attack me again, exactly as quoted below. What's really scary is this statement and what it represents: "Slandering me does not strengthen your position, it merely reveals that you have a vendetta against me and take every opportunity to attack me." By definition, this state of mind as expressed in this statement, is a Persecution Complex. Wikipedia defines this repeated accusation as Persecutory Delusions.

I would encourage everyone to read the thoughtful, non-inciting article by Nat Hentoff in today's (Wednesday, March 16, 2011, Times-Standard) on this same issue and what Dave Stancliff says in the Sunday Times-Stanard and then compare what he says below:

Dave Stancliff:
"This article: “Recognizing when not to die over an issue" is a classic example of how emotional, effeminate blather can motivate people.."

You're showing your true colors again Joe, by personally attacking the messenger (me)with words designed to demean (and thus supposedly weaken my opinion)such as "effeminate." Slandering me does not strengthen your position, it merely reveals that you have a vendetta against me and take every opportunity to attack me.

You say you're not supporting the WBC to summerize...
so is a person supposed to ignore everything you said prior to that claim?

Perhaps you ought to re-read what you wrote.

You expect respect (and howl wehen you think someone has affronted you)but you show NO RESPECT for others opinions.

You're the one who needs to examine your conscience; not the grieving father (Albert Snyder)you've chosen to demonize.

What gives you th right to judge anybody...especially so harshly and mean spiritedly?

I just hope you don't have a loved one who dies someday - and their funeral is disrupted by a hate group (please don't waste your breath saying the WBC is not a hate group - read up on them).

---

[UPDATE :: Wednesday, March 16, 2011]

Here is another unrequested comment from Dave Stancliff. His issue with "me" is clearly stated. Why, is anyone's guess. His comment is quite clear and self-defining, as are his actions. He is totally incapable of understanding "HOW" he "attacked" me? UNBELIEVABLE! Why he is unable to distinguish the difference between his blatant accusatory comment and its self-defining reality, says more about him than anything. Compare Dictionary.com's definition of:

ad hominem–adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

ALSO:
World English Dictionary
ad hominem (æd ˈhɒmɪˌnɛm)
— adj , — adv
1. directed against a person rather than against his arguments
2. based on or appealing to emotion rather than reason
[literally: to the man]

His As It Stands opinion in the Sunday paper is as ad hominem as anyone can get.

--Joe

Pot Calls the Kettle BLACK, Again

[UPDATE Below] [Update II]

Why a civilized society needs “LAW” is, again, demonstrated in the Sunday, March 13, 2011, issue of the Times-Standard, As It Stands by Dave Stancliff. This article: “Recognizing when not to die over an issue" is a classic example of how emotional, effeminate blather can motivate people to deprive others of the very same rights they enforce upon other people. Here Stancliff piously rails against a religious people (Baptists) for enforcing their legal rights that offends his moral sensitivities while he wantonly commits the same sin.

I'd like to point out that everyone one of these soldiers freely chose to put their lives on the line. As such they made themselves morally, ethically and legally responsible for the consequences their actions. Vietnam era military faced a different situation. Most of them were compelled by law as they involuntarily drafted. It took strong moral convictions to stand against the obscenity of that war and the lives lost. History has judged the value of that conflict and everyone that supported it.

When you consider the history of the American military's wanton butchery of innocent civilians from the U.S. Civil War to the present, and the attitude as expressed in this article by Dave Stancliff, it is easy to see how he can justify this kind of thinking when he considers the military, in particular “the fallen” his family; his brothers and sisters. You can also understand the morally corrupt, anarchistic attitude of the father of the deceased soldier, Albert Snyder, justifying the Rule of Man to use violence because he like the Supreme Court's ruling. Alber Snyder should look to his own conscience before judging someone else over his deliberate actions as he tries to justify the death of his son.

What these people are doing may be in bad taste. This Report is certainly NOT supporting them anymore than the Times-Standard and their incitable Opinion. It is for these very kinds of people emulated in this example that we need Law. It's the only protection we have from these hate and warmongers' ultimate tyranny. These are the real "bad people" everyone should fear.

[UPDATE :: Wednesday, March 16, 2011]
To the Times-Standards credit they published, right under a fitting cartoon on page A4 for Wednesday, March 16, 2011, Nat Hentoff's rather lengthy article: “Our First Amendment protects speech we despise, too.”

Mr. Hentoff's approach to this issue is far more evenhanded and levelheaded than Dave Stancliff's regarding the much cherished and sacred right of free speech for EVERYONE.

[UPDATE II :: Wednesday, March 16, 2011]
What happens when you lie to the American people for why they should go to way and the dutiful military fall into lockstep. Death is the ultimate cost of war that EVERYONE needs to face up to. The following is an excerpt from Glenn Greenwald's Wednesday, March 16, 2011, Salon.com article:

[W]hat's even more striking is that a mere 17% of the American citizenry "strongly believes" that the war was worth fighting (see this very good analysis of how dubious is the administration's new positive war spin).

It may be that some policies should be continued as desirable no matter how little public support they command. But war is different. Wars are supposed to be fought only when the citizenry is behind them and they are absolutely necessary. It's almost impossible to imagine a situation where a war should be continued when only 17% of the nation's citizen "strongly believes" it's worth fighting. Almost by definition, a nation shouldn't be fighting a war -- especially in another country -- if such a small fraction of its citizens believe it's truly necessary. What justifies sending fellow citizens off to die -- let alone killing people in the country we've invaded -- if so few people believe it's worthwhile let alone necessary? But this underscores yet again the most ingenious and valuable achievement of the National Security State: enabling endless war while appearing to impose costs on only a tiny percentage of the population, thus ensuring that pointless, unnecessary, unjust wars will continue without much resistance even when the vast majority of the public recognizes them as such.

Read the complete article here.

--Joe

Freedom Of Speech – A Joke and a Joker

[Click to Enlarge]

The “Joke” is today, Wednesday, March 9, 2011, Times-Standard's Editorial and the “Joker” is the person that wrote it. 

The real JOKE is about our so-called “FREE SPEECH and FREE PRESS in this Editorial, “Tainting the message,” is the picture of Sheriff Mike Downey ordering the “media,” an unnamed Times-Standard reporter and photographer to leave the room BEFORE effecting the arrests. Apparently, they (I would guess Donna Tam and Josh Jackson) just tucked their tails between their legs and cleared out without a whimper. 

(I might point out that evidence of a totalitarian police state is that they do everything in secret. Additionally, I don't know why the Sheriff would exclude the local press. They take whatever the police say at face value and publish as if it was the truth anyway.)

This Editorial is about the protest demonstration before the County Board of Supervisor as reported in the Times-Standards front page article: "Richardson Grove protesters arrested for disrupting supervisors' meeting." First a comment about the picture on the front page of the paper, it looks staged and almost farcical. Therein lies the “joke.” I don't think that exactly was the point these “demonstrators” were trying to make. Once again the police make a big production out of arresting and removing six obviously peaceful people from a public building.

“Tainting the message” by “HOW” you say it is just a nice way of blaming the messenger AGAIN! Unfortunately, by their own admission this person is totally clueless as to what that message is supposed to be: “So one has to wonder, what was the point (message)?”

This Editorial writer makes comparison to America's so-called “amazing amount of freedom” to the people in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. If this writer understood what those people were fighting for, AFTER decades of totalitarian, authoritarian, dictatorial rule he or she would know exactly what these six demonstrators were trying to do. Those people are holding their “leaders and government agencies” whatever that means, “government agencies,” some sort of entity I guess, WITH TOTAL CONTEMPT AND DISDAIN.

Where is the freedom to speak when you are told when to speak, how to speak and what to speak? The Editorial says: “The protesters were given the 'opportunity' to speak during public comment. They chose civil disobedience instead and paid the 'usual' price the that choice: arrest.” “Given the opportunity to speak,” so they freely chose to speak by singing, but that is not the way the Supervisor's told them to speak. Apparently these people, according to their letter, had a clear-cut demand, "hold a public forum to discuss this issue," that the Members of the Board refused to address in any manner until these protest demonstrators barked like dog for them. What's the difference between “free speech” and “civil disobedience”? The difference is someone's worthless opinion, that is all. The difference is who controls speech by who defines what constitutes “acceptable” speech and “disrupting” speech.  Why should a person's legally guaranteed free speech rights to “demonstrate” or speak by acting rather than talk, automatically produce criminal arrest? Specially if all they are accused of doing, is nothing more than “child-like theatrics.”

Finally, the Editorial writer should have gotten a clue as to what the protest demonstrators were doing with this statement: “In this case, the protest was not even directed at a decision-maker in the process, ...” So, why didn't they? They, the Times-Standard, knows who these demonstrators are. Why didn't they, in particular Donna Tam, ask one of these protest demonstrators why or what they were hoping to accomplish? Apparently their letter the paper quotes is incapable of explaining sufficiently. Or is it it because she and the Editor would rather speculate? Or, perhaps, is it more likely actually recognizing one of these demonstrators enough to talk to them would be beneath their elitist's sensitivities?

I would point out that right now Muammar Gaddafi and other corrupt despot dictators are saying the same things, different words perhaps, but demonstrating the same demeaning and derogatory attitude, judgments and violent assaults towards the people of Libya and other states that this Editor demonstrates toward members of our community, so-called “free” people trying to express themselves as legitimate citizens and individuals. This statement is extremely insulting and reveals the writer as a corporate demagogue: “Childlike theatrics do little to help promote a message – in fact, they can have the opposite effect.” YEAH, they get you beat – arrested.

This is exactly the same thing an all-powerful, self-righteous and self-absorbed father tells his “disobedient and bad” son just before he beats the hell out of him for trying to talk to his father in the only way the son knows how to talk.

When these protest demonstrators can show me why I should leave the safety of my home and risk a beating for joining their cause, they will have learned the lessons of the Egyptian, Libyan, and Tunisian people's revolt.

--Joe