Open Letter to the Editor - NO FAULT DRIVING

Letters to the Times-Standard
P.O. Box 3580
Eureka, CA  95502

Dear Editor:

Subject:  Time for NO FAULT DRIVING.

Your heading in the Tuesday, June 28, 2011, issue on page A2, “Collision after a missed stop sign” is symptomatic of you constantly reinforcing “assumed realities” and publishing them as truth. “MISSED STOP SIGN” and “COLLISION”?

You can try to kiss off what happened in that intersection as just another miscalculation, brain-freeze, or a Boo Boo if you want. You can even call what Eureka resident Deepak Stokes did in that intersection a “collision,” a "fender bender" or even an “accident.” I call what happened on 14th and F streets a WRECK - pure and simple.

Try calling what happened in that intersection, where they're pulling Kip Green, who was lawfully driving up the street minding his own business and threatening no one, out of his car on a backboard to the hospital, the result of a "MISSED STOP SIGN" and you assume too much. No one in Eureka stops at stop signs. Fact is, they hardly slow down. Even the Eureka Police and Sheriff's officers routinely run stop signs. When you are predisposed to NOT stop, the law and signs become irrelevant, essentially non-existent. That is, until there is a WRECK.

The normal response as assumed in this newspaper report is? Oh well. Sorry. Please forgive me. I simply "missed a stop sign." REALLY? You just assaulted that person with a deadly weapon when you failed to comply with that legal instruction and smashed into them.

Becoming predisposed to ignore the law defines one's intent as deliberate and malicious. People that deliberately and routinely run stop signs intend to cause whatever consequence their actions threaten. At that point the innocent victim is confronted with defending himself or herself against the violent assault forced upon him or her.

Maybe it's time to pull up all the stop signs, put a few roundabouts in major intersections where there are no stop lights and turn everyone loose to run amuck. At least people would not labor under the illusion they are driving with some sort of protection. Since that is what's mostly happening anyway and it certainly would take the pressure off the police and the courts - NO FAULT DRIVING.

Sincerely,

---

--Joe

Unintended Consequences of Firing WITHOUT Cause

[Update Below] [Update II]

There's more on the David Tyson firing of Eureka Police Chief Garr Nielsen in the Tuesday, June 28, 2011, edition of the Times-Standard. Front page headlines. Headlines that are competing with Governor Jerry Brown's gridlock problems trying to balance the budget when trying to deal with Ideological Believers that are beyond any reason. If the truth be known, the same problem is driving this issue. There is one new and refreshing ingredient in the mix this time, at least in Eureka: ANGER.

The headline: Police chief firing draws anger – "Forum highlights public discord; petition calls for firing of Eureka city manager."

Here, Thadeus Greenson for the T-S is reporting on what transpired during a “Community Forum” held Monday night to rally support against the firing.” The following noteworthy comment sets the tone of the proceeding, but really highlights the fundamental underlying problem in the firing of Garr Nielsen:

“I'm really ashamed to be a part of the city of Eureka now,” (current Councilwoman Linda) Atkins said, going on to charge that Nielsen's firing was done to “demoralize the community” and that the city council and Tyson are unresponsive to the will of Eurekans. “I waste time Tuesday nights at city council meetings with the way members of our council don't listen to their citizenry.” [Emphasis added]

Underlying Problem: The highhanded, arbitrary, authoritarian, ideologically driven believer's dictatorial governance and enforcement, neither answerable nor accountable to anyone. Many people in Eureka believed that they had finally got a police department that was actually responsive – actually served the people's needs with Chief Garr Neilsen. Getting that back or even the perception of a responsive police department is virtually impossible now. No man or woman worth a dime would ever take on the Police Chief's duties in Eureka under the present circumstances - The Sword of Damocles hanging over that job. To be sure, they'll fill the position, the moneys too good, but that person will be totally worthless and won't give a pinch of rat crap for the City of Eureka or its people. I'm not saying that Garr Nielsen did either or that he didn't have a skewed understanding of the people's policing needs. He, at least, as far as many people believed brought some positive changes in the past 4 years. If nothing else you at least got some positive response, even if it beggared a solution.

By getting the community to support him and his policies to the extent he was actually garnering, he was doing something else that threatened the City Council and their Manager, David Tyson. He was making the police department and every police officer, in and of itself and in and of themselves, legitimate in their job and in their authority. They didn't need to, either individually or collectively, bully, threaten or coerce anyone into going along with who and what they said they were. As police officers they may of even begun to get a little respect. That directly threatened these conservative believers and they certainly couldn't have any of that.

Are we looking at a little bit of the Arab Spring in Eureka, California? Will the tax-paying residents of Eureka begin to get the responsive and personal consideration required of legitimate elected representatives? I seriously doubt it when their imprimatur can operate in total secrecy to the perceived detriment of their responsive community. 

[Source]

---

[UPDATE :: Tuesday, June 28, 2011]

As usual you can find an interesting cross-section of blogger comments here and again here. (Latest addition here, same blog)  Take them for what they're worth, blogger comments being what they are. Interesting response to Linda Atkins comment. I'd say she put her finger right on the pussy sore infecting Eureka.

I'm not real impressed with Garr Nielsen's responses so far either. The best thing everyone involved in this mess could do is put out the facts so everyone can see. Force the City Council to be responsible and accountable. They will be in the end anyway. That is when everyone in Eureka feels the bite of their totalitarian government. If like Councilwoman Linda Atkins says, "members of our council don't listen to their citizenry" maybe it's time for that "citizenry" to take note of their neighbors that support, sustain and finance;  those that voted these non-responsive people into office that insist on governing in secret.

[UPDATE II :: Wednesday, June 29, 2011]
Two "My Word" articles appeared on the Times-Standard's A4 Opinions Page today. The first one, Perhaps it's time to clean up the city charter was written by Howard Rien, also quoted by Times-Standard's Thadeus Greenson in his report yesterday. Rien says, and since he apparently had a hand in setting up the current Charter, "[T]he city manager can, basically, fire any employee except the city clerk and the city attorney." The de facto reality is that the City Manager runs the city. The implications that had for the Eureka Police Department and in particular, Garr Nielsen are implicit and for the community at large, explicit.

The second "My Word" article is by the aforementioned Chief himself. His little bit of gutless whimpering is the obvious reason he was fired: "Godspeed to EPD and the Eureka community." Anyone purporting an ounce of manhood - self-worth and personal integrity that actually gave a damn about the EPD and the Eureka community would use this opportunity to clear the air. Show everyone some respect by letting them decide what is and what is not. No one is the least bit interested in being TOLD how to think; what is and what is vaguely NOT. This comment, with all his apologies, "taking personal responsibility for all his mistakes," plus this "And I am sorry that the end came in an abrupt and demeaning fashion, but it serves no purpose to abandon my dignity by wrestling in the mud or stooping to the level which seems to have been a remnant of all that was wrong with the police department." totally justifies David Tyson's actions.

What Garr Nielsen, the City Council and David Tyson thought they were doing to improve the EPD and their standing with the Eureka community, what we've all got as a consequence is exactly mirrored in this pathetic and rather arrogant example that sees itself as some sort of parental organization not answerable to anyone. Garr Nielsen's purported beliefs regarding the Eureka Police's standing in this community, as he tries to tell us, is as empty and hollow as he turned out to be.

--Joe

Ever Been Fired Without Cause?

Ever been blocked on Facebook or Twitter? Just terminated and told to go to hell? It's the same thing.
The front page headline in the Saturday, June 25, 2011, Times-Standard was: EPD Chief Nielsen fired after 4 years – EPD chief out after 4 years; Harpham named interim replacement.

When you read what Thadeus Greenson reports how and what happened, you've got to agree that what was done to Garr Nielsen was about as dirty as it gets. It was a personal insult, it sent a clear and concise message, exactly as it was designed to do. Let no one doubt in the City of Eureka who rules.

I suppose that works for the status-quo “good ol' boy network. Yes, there's a good ol' boy network, maybe even two of them. But even more in the sewer category is the fact that it was all done in secret. This case certainly makes it clear who runs the town of Eureka and that this person is NOT answerable to the citizens of Eureka. Nothing and I mean NOTHING ever changes in Eureka or Humboldt County.

Here's a link to another Times-Standard article that gives more background on this "personnel change" that affects the lives of everyone living in Eureka. Here's what Thatdeus Greenson wrote April 26, 2011 in his article: Four years later: Eureka police chief's tenure filled with change, tumult and community praise.

Four years later, officials say some old wounds have been healed and some old wrongs righted, but the ride has been anything but smooth. However, most say EPD is light-years ahead of where it was before Nielsen's arrival. [Emphasis added]

"Light-years ahead" sounds like a "crock-of-crap-snow-job" to me.

By the way, the problem with what happened is NOT with David Tyson. He's obviously doing exactly what everyone wants or he wouldn't still be the City Manager. The problem is with the City Manager type of city government. Based upon Garr Nielsen's public statements it's obvious who the REAL Chief of Police was - David Tyson. In the Report's observations, whether or not Garr Nielsen was either a "good" or a "bad" Chief of the Eureka police is not the issue. Obviously, neither the City Council or their City Manager had any justifiable "cause" for firing him. The irony of this whole mess is that Chief Nielsen got a dose of his own purgative medicine and he obviously didn't like it much.

Did Nielsen leave the legacy he had hoped for? Not when the City of Eureka was looking for and entertaining a Sheep Dog rather than a Shepherd.

--Joe

Think It Will Pass?

[Update Below]
Ron Paul Bill Would End Federal War on Marijuana

Rep. Barney Frank is co-sponsoring the first-of-its-kind legislation, which would permit states to legalize the drug

---

This bill is a real test of state's rights advocates, conservatives and Republicans, in particular to practice what they preach. That is the real question laid out in this article by Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic.

[I]ts states' rights approach is significant, and forces defenders of federal drug policy into their weakest position. It's one thing to argue that marijuana should be illegal. It's another thing to insist that the federal government enforce a nationwide ban even as duly elected state legislatures signal that the people disagree. That is the essence of the matter. Under this bill, marijuana would be legalized only in states where the people and their representatives desire it.

Today's Times-Standard runs the front page article by Josh Richman of the Oakland Tribune: New bill would end federal marijuana prohibition. He makes note:

In November, 53.5 percent of California voters rejected a ballot measure that would have legalized recreational marijuana use ...

The great hue and cry at the time was what would happen to the price of pot and how would that be detrimental to all the local businesses that benefit if totally legalized. Even in Humboldt County pragmatism prevailed. Better the degenerating consequences deleterious to the community than legal.

Will it pass? Considering the fact that the best thing that could happen to American Society is for it to pass, I doubt many legislators have the guts to put the people's interests first over corporate hegemony.

[Source - Image credit: Baz Ratner/Reuters]

---

[Update :: Friday, June 24, 2011]

What price decades of moral equivocation and lawless degradation? Charles Davis puts it very succinctly in his short post on his False Dichotomy. This is what the money-grubbing local businesses, be they legit or illegitimate, settle for when they shamelessly put money over lives and a safe and wholesome community. After a couple of generations of self-justifying a lawless and corrupt lifestyle, these people are incapable of distinguishing the difference between the corrupt and incorrupt.

In the land of the free
One man gets 6 1/2 to 13 years in prison for growing and selling a plant, another shoots an unarmed father in the back -- murders him -- and serves less than a year. 

What, one wonders, could explain the vexing disparity in sentencing? Why would the state, bound by the social contract to uphold liberty and justice for all, treat horticulture as a greater crime than homicide? Because the murderer was one of their own, the gardener one of us. 

What happens when you break your end of a contract?

The corrupt look after, support and protect their own, that's what.

--Joe

Finally!

For some days now, I was spending my free time doing things productive and beneficial. Which in my case requires, among other things, taking a news vacation. In other words no blogging, no newspapers, no emails, no computers, no TV, no radio, no fear-mongering and no imminent end of the World. So, when I began to catch-up on the latest local happenings as reported in the Times-Standard newspaper, I eventually worked my way around to one of my "favorite" Sunday word-meister's commentaries. To my surprise, after weeks of "whatever," low and behold there was FINALLY something worth reading. I am, of course, talking about Dave Stancliff's Sunday, June 12, 2011, "As It Stands: Food conspiracy of government and chemical companies grows every year" - FINALLY!

I'm not sure his string will last. Yesterday's "Remember to honor/humor Dad today, just because" said more about him then it did about Fathers (Day) or the serious lack thereof in America today than it did about him and his "slobbishness." Anyway, fathers are always good to talk about as long as you have nice, positive things to say about and, if you can, to them.

Back to Stancliff's conspiracy theory, he starts out by saying:

Who would have ever guessed a food fight would bring together the alternative health left and the Tea Party right in opposition against anything? But the Food Safety Modernization Act (S510) accomplished that feat when President Obama signed it into law on January 4th. 

Basically, the act precludes the public's right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes. 

This strange alliance of ideological enemies is not that surprising because both sides fear the total control and power government can achieve by regulating our food supply and taking away our ability to feed ourselves. [Continue... ]

Stancliff's commentary is timely and pertinent when you consider what it means to a people when they lose their right and ability to be self-sustaining - able to feed themselves. Most American's sat on their hands as the big Agra-business conglomerates, the IMF, World Bank and Free Trade Treaties gutted one nation's ability after another to feed its people. A good example of this is expanding situation involving speculator's buying up huge amounts of land used by local farmers: Harvard, Vanderbilt, Spelman Exposed for Taking Part in “African Land Grab” - A report called: “Understanding Land Investment Deals in Africa.”

[T]he report by the Oakland Institute claims farmers in Africa are being driven off their lands to make way for new industrial farming projects backed by hedge funds seeking profits and foreign countries looking for cheap food. We speak with Anuradha Mittal, the executive director of the Oakland Institute. “We have heard about the role of these private hedge funds in food speculation and speculation of food prices because they control commodities” says Mittal. “But when they start buying even the means of production, they control labor, large tracks of land, they control water, it is the kind of vertical integration of the food system we have never seen before.”

While Dave Stancliff may very well be a "Conspiracy Nut," as attested to by his many claims against me and this Report, the facts in this matter speak for themselves - Dave Stancliff has good reason to be worried.

What most people fail to understand about GMO's (Genetically Modified Organisms) seed or grain is that they do not possess the ability to reproduce - they are neutered and sterile. More importantly, such parasite "food" directly threatens the food products (grain, etc.) that does reproduce. Existent life on Plane Earth, as we know it to be, is in serious jeopardy by a mutant, sterile parasite.

Dave Stancliff very aptly concludes by saying:

"Something to keep in mind: when ideological opposites unite on the same issue, such as the safety of our food chain, it's no longer about politics. It's about survival." [Emphasis added]

It is more about "survival" than he knows when "ideological opposites unite" to justify a President's personal lawlessness and crimes, protection of and impunity for bankers, banks and war profiteers. Glenn Greenwald offers some insight on how serious the threat truly is: Could Obama Be Impeached for Waging War in Libya Without Approval of Congress? 

[slobbishness]

--Joe

How Your Elected Representatives Work for You

I recently became aware of this porta-potty matter in Garberville, CA when Kym Kemp tweeted her article:  Even Laundry Nazi’s Get Hurt Feelings - Where she lays out the issue fairly well when it comes to dealing with homeless people and the mostly adversarial situation that exists with the business community. In Garberville, a community that prides itself by sustaining its viability and future on the illegal growing and selling of marijuana, these homeless people present a blight to those pseudo prosperous and upstanding folk. These fine people worry that putting a porta-potty in a small, rundown county owned dime-size park at the north end of town will somehow attract these vagrant folk to all flock to Garberville. So, the consequence are, since there are NO public facilities in town, unlike Crescent City where they have permanent facilities scattered all over town, they would rather have human urine and feces all over their town. This is what happens when you have an inbred political system that worries more about appearance, but never about smell. Point in fact, is their requirement for a "permit" to install and use a portable toilet.

Today, a couple of weeks later, Thursday, June 9, 2011, there appeared on the front-page of the Times-Standard this masterpiece by Thadeus Greenson:  Port-a-problem? Portable toilet stirs debate in Garberville - He starts out by saying, "Some deep-seated issues are bubbling up in Garberville, brought to a head by a single unpermitted port-a-potty. " Read the rest of what he says and you will find out that his words, "deep-seated issues" are profoundly accurate and encompassing.

What was not brought into the issue was the general public and what they want and I'm not talking about the "transient and the homeless population." Greenson says the town of Garberville, that being the business community, by and large, has a longstanding problem with what to do with the homeless people. So, when they started using the county owned, but veterans park overseen by a local chapter of Veterans of Foreign Wars and a concerned citizen, Debra Carey, using her own money had a porta-potty installed there she ran afoul of the local business people's weapon of last or is it first resort, NO PERMIT or permission. Personally, I'd think that under the circumstances the local veterans would WANT to see the park with toilet and water facilities.

What interested me what Greenson reported was the people's county representative, Supervisor Clif Clendenen said:

[S]everal things are clear: The area has suffered chronic issues surrounding homeless and transient populations, the community has taken a hands-off approach to the issue and the problems have persisted.

”If we don't do anything, we know what that looks like,” he said. “It looks like the last two or three years, which I don't think have been that successful.”

Clendenen said he's entertaining the park idea, but only if it's done right. The supervisor said he'd like to see a “tough love” approach, with the community agreeing to offer certain services -- a place for people to be, a bathroom and running water -- in exchange for a bit of cooperation, like folks agreeing not to loiter or panhandle in front of stores, to clean up after their dogs and to generally reduce their impact. To that end, Clendenen said, he's been encouraging chamber members and the two veterans groups to set aside their differences and try to come together with a cooperative solution.

Casey's port-a-potty, he said, wasn't part of the plan.

”That's exactly what I had promised the chamber folks that we wouldn't do,” Clendenen said, stressing that whatever is done has to be coordinated and well thought out.

Wasn't part of the "PLAN"? Whose "plan"? He just said NO ONE had done anything in the past two or three years" and that "do nothing" approach was successful. So what "plan" is he talking about? Sheriff's Officer Swithenbank talks about a FIVE year problem.

Clendenen's whole approach to this problem recognizes only the interests of the business community. He wants the "homeless and the transients" to support the business community when THEY do everything to NOT support their needs. What's Clendenen's priority in the face of a local citizen that has the foresight, community concern and wherewithal try to deal with the problem in a minimal way by installing a porta-potty on public county property? The "county" represented by Clendenen removes it.

Then you've got the Sheriff's Department's Sgt. Kenny Swithenbank, a local, laying out their policing priorities, none which really has anything to do with the general public's concerns: 

[H]e said his office receives calls daily relating to the homeless and transient populations in town. It's generally nothing too serious he said, just drinking in public, smoking marijuana, loitering and things like that. (Comment: Which is exactly what people do when they are just trying to live in Garberville, California - "loitering and things like that")

”It has gotten to be way too big of a problem,” he said, adding that populations have exploded over the last five years. “People get that 'overrun' feeling.”

Swithenbank said he'd like to see the area open as a park and wouldn't oppose a bathroom, if it was run correctly and police could enforce the laws there. However, the sergeant said he would strongly oppose anything resembling a homeless encampment.

”Word gets out and they come from everywhere,”

In those words, Officer Kenny Swithenbank speaks the truth and clearly defines the real issue plagueing that community, fear. - “People get that 'overrun' feeling.”

 "HE WOULD APPOSE"? Therein lies the answer to who really is running the county. "Anything resembling" is extremely vague and open to personal interpretation. Well, that fact is Kenny Swithenbank, you've already got a homeless encampment and it is called Garberville, California.

Local businesses sucked off the illegal pot people for decades and never bitched about how that class of people looked and comported themselves, as long as they had plenty of cash dollars and scurried off back into the hills once they paid their way for coming into town.

For more on this issue, Kym has a couple more blog posts worth a read. She belabors the solution as it apparently evades her. Take a look:

1. Today: Homeless Camp or Park in Use?
2. The Times Standard Pee–ks at the Porta Potty Issue
3. …The More They Stay The Same

 To paraphrase Debra Cary, people have to live. A fact the the Garberville and surrounding businesses better get through their heads is that includes "transients and the homeless." That was the total justification for a generation of people to populate the hills and byways of Humboldt, Mendocino and Trinity counties and support themselves and their families outside the law, when they said there was no other way than grow, sell and export marijuana.

What this issues shows is how the county works for the people. At least that's the appearance they want everyone to believe in. All Clendenen worries about is "appearance." That's mostly all the Sheriff's department worries about too. Screw the common needs and the people, just don't look bad while trying to survive. Government is supposed to serve ALL people. That includes all those on the margins of society. This issue is really all about how you successfully "cut off your nose to spite your face."
[Source]

--Joe

“The cruelest lies are often told in silence.”

When I read this man's letter in the Times-Standard newspaper posted June 4, 2011:  Leaving Humboldt in the rearview mirror, these words he quotes caught my attention. He followed with an explanation, perhaps too kind are these words

I am speaking, of course, about the conspiracy of silent bigotry and racism that pervades most all aspects of living and working with those in this region. While many in the area profess an advanced celebration of diversity, the truth is far from that ideal.

Just look at the local blogs and blog commentators including the local opinionators. Unless you support the local status quo and march in lockstep with their brainwashed propaganda you face these same exact conditions this man identifies.

Here's the complete letter to the Times-Standard:

Leaving Humboldt in the rearview mirrorErick Swenson/For the Times-Standard
Posted: 06/04/2011 07:43:57 AM PDT

There's an old maxim that has served me well in more than 45 years, “If you can't say something nice, say nothing at all.” However, as a former, shorter-term Humboldt County resident, I'm compelled to break that rule and borrow words from the late statesman Adlai Stevenson: “The cruelest lies are often told in silence.” I am speaking, of course, about the conspiracy of silent bigotry and racism that pervades most all aspects of living and working with those in this region. While many in the area profess an advanced celebration of diversity, the truth is far from that ideal. Perhaps the desire to “co-exist” is found only on the ubiquitous bumper stickers holding together the fuel-efficient yet broken down automobiles

After a tenure of 18 or so months, I am left perplexed by this dichotomy and wonder if the area's isolation has narrowed people's minds to newer and advanced ideas and practices. It can't just be that a small region makes for small minds; but that's certainly the lesson learned in Humboldt County. And this isn't just a matter of “hippies and rednecks,” as others in more urban areas have tried to convince me. The pettiness runs deep and is endemic in the highest echelons of the area's supposed professionals and seeming academics.

Thankfully, our household's tenure on the “Lost Coast” was a short duration. And, when compared, to other stints -- ranging from metropolitan areas in the eastern and western United States, suburban Northern California and even in the state's rural Central Valley (not often seen as a bastion of liberalism) -- we were happy to run, not just walk, to the nearest exit. The best view of Humboldt County is from the rear-view mirror. Sure, it's a pretty place. The trees and the coastline are lovely. It's a pity, however, that the people living there reflect that natural beauty of the area neither in their thoughts nor deeds.

Erick Swenson, a former Humboldt County residents, now resides in Oakland.

Yeah! It's all about the people. A quick look at local blogs will give a fairly good picture of local people and what they're good for. Don't know where he thinks he going where it will be any better than here.

P.S. I think he got Adlai Stevenson mixed up with Robert Lewis Stevenson.

--Joe

Happy Relationships ala Jennifer Savage

If you're interested in finding out what's going on, Twitter is a real good notifier. Today I happened to spot this: Twitter / @Jennifer Savage: 3 factors in determining a ... http://bit.ly/lePBX9

I'm always interested in local people that have something interesting and relevant to say – even if I don't always see the logic. But, then that's me. I'm first a thinker then a believer. With me facts trump beliefs. That's how I crosscheck my facts with my beliefs and touch reality.

What caught my attention was the word “relationship.” So, I read her post to see what she meant by “relationship.” I've had a “relationship” with my best friend for over four decades. There must be some happiness thrown into the mix for it to last this long. You could say I've got some perspective on what makes a happy relationship. Her first sentence gave me a clue to what she was talking about: “I shared my observations on what three factors most affect a couple’s ability to find contentment in a relationship.” These are her three factors: [emphasis added]

1) Similar attitudes toward money

2)The relationship with the extended family.

3)The number of kids.

When I got to the “number of kids” I realized what kind of a “relationship” she was talking about: The kind that produces life. Because life is valuable, that is where I drew the line. When it comes to making babies, how many women, let alone couples, give the serious considerations Ms. Savage offers in this post? The answer? How many fatherless babies are born into this country every year? Contentment in a relationship is based upon a solid and permanent foundation of respect, consideration and decency. Yeah, I can hear everyone now, where's the LOVE? Love's nice. It makes for a happier relationship. You'll notice Ms. Savage doesn't broach that issue. She does, however, raise some important questions I doubt many relationships that get involved in the responsibilities of making babies ever give a second's thought.

Ms. Savage concludes by saying:

Plenty of people without family or financial resources have kids and are happy they had’em — myself included. Just in case that’s not obvious. Still, presents the aforementioned whole’nother round of challenges. Ideally, at the end of your life, you’re looking back on how much richer and deeper an experience you had for dealing with those challenges… right?

While having a kid or “kids” for a “much richer and deeper (life's) experience” might be a nice prospect and a seemingly worthwhile goal, I certainly would not want to be in the position of having to answer to the source and owner of all life for having botched my responsibilities entrusted to me as fiduciary trustee of that life. So, when it comes to putting a relationship together that can produce children, there is a very serious responsibility that goes with that decision – a decision that involves a commitment that goes far beyond the two individuals involved. Jennifer Savage's article is a good start.

Take a look, her post is pertinent, relevant (It asks good questions.) and is thought inspiring.

--Joe

Peace

What does it take to make peace? Probably the same thing it takes to “make” babies.

Not unlike making babies, peace, it seems, is an illusive reality. You might believe you are at peace, when in reality, you are at war. For example, an embargo or a blockade is an act of war. A physical breach of one's borders or person is also an act of war. By the same token a false, lying accusation impugning your person or character and reputation is the same as a physical slap in the face – you are at war. Violating another's sovereignty is an act of war. Each of these examples possess one characteristic, rejection or refusal to recognize the legitimate existence or legitimate right to exist as an equal of the other, whether it be an individual, a community or a country.

A classic example of this was and remains the underlying reasons that the Jews used to justify taking and possessing by force land that did not legally belong to them and then calling it their country. Getting the United Nations to agree by majority consent granting or decreeing Israel as their nation state. To the Jew, the legitimate land owner, the Palestinian people, were and remain a sub-human race or species. It is solely upon this basis or forced judgment that the legitimacy and continued existence of Israel stands justified. For 63 years the Jews have successfully kept these people from becoming any kind of an entity equal to them. Moreover they along with their “supporter,” intend to keep the world through the United Nations from doing for the Palestinians what was done for them, acquire legal recognition through a nation state. That way they can continue to wage legal war on the Palestinians without any accountability; they're only defending themselves. It isn't a matter of choice and never was. Total and complete rejection of any Palestinian rights let alone statehood is a matter of mutual survival. Unfortunately, for Barack Obama and all of his Israeli supporters the 63 year history of the Jews as they enforce the unenforceable condemns and convicts them exactly for who and what they are – a corrupt, illegitimate usurper.

So what does it take to make peace? I thought this chance encounter with Hussein Ibish was a good example. Mr. Ibish's bio is located on his blog. I'm always impressed when people respond to my observations. You would think that at that first encounter their actions would denote or establish their tacit recognition and acceptance of you and of your legitimacy same as theirs. Here you are doing them a favor by personally acknowledging their actions or statements and they respond by trying to make you justify that right. They refuse to accept you on the terms YOU offer them, rather they demand that you accede to the terms they demand of you. They do this by openly disputing your intentions as offered and make you the deviate liar really waging war with them. Fortunately, they expose the truth for all to see when they act on their lies, accusations and judgmental beliefs.

Apparently, Mr Ibish is some sort of an authority on all matters Jew, Israeli, Arab and Palestinian. For sure from what he says, someone sure thinks he is. I make it a habit to follow certain individuals on Twitter like Glenn Greenwald and Matt Duss among many others for current world and local updates. The other day Matt Duss retweeted something Hussein Ibish said about Benjamin Netanyahu's speech where he asserted the Israel was NOT occupying Palestine. So I tweeted the following response which elicited the following exchange and terminal course of conduct by Mr. Ibish. Some of the Tweets were edited, but you can get the point of the interaction.

Here is my first edited retweet of his comment and second clarifying comment:

1) And NEVER will. Israel's legitimacy to exist precludes that reality. RT @Ibishblog: [] Israel has never recognized Palestine. 24 May 10:01

2) He's right - Palestinians are. RT @Ibishblog: Bibi claims Israel not "foreign occupiers" in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. 24 may 10:05

This is his first reply:

Ibishblog reply: @JoeBlowReport The US, UN, every country in the world and all of international law would beg to differ with that bizarre theory. 24 May 10:06

Now my questioning response:

@Ibishblog Why then did Netanyahu take that position? The de facto reality supports his position. That's why NO peace – ever. 24 May 10:11

And his final reply. Notice he does not answer my question, but personally attacks me. Classic method used by someone unable to sustain or defend what they did or said with an unsubstantiated or totally unjustified personal accusation.

Ibishblog reply: @JoeBlowReport I have nothing to say to a supporter of conflict and war and an opponent of peace and compromise.

What Mr. Ibish demonstrates here is why there is no peace or peace prospects for Israel and the Palestinians.  He gives himself away as a warmonger by his demonstrated attitude. He's totally clueless as to who and what I am and yet he's publicly judging me and my intentions as if he is God Almighty.

More importantly is, one, his inability to see beyond his own narrow point of view and limited understanding. And two, his complete inability or incapability to listen or see six decades of de facto reality. Benjamin Netanyahu is not postulating some "bizarre theory." He's trying to tell people like Hussein Ibish that he and his people have a legitimate position that justifies their actions and their historical actions. It is for this reason, because Arabs and Palestinians, are working at cross-purposes and cannot see how they are working against themselves that they are so totally controlled and predictable.

Consequently, based upon my own personal life's experiences, I'd say the prospect for lasting peace between Arab and Jew is a non-negotiable reality, if not an impossibility. How do you negotiate peace with people like Mr. Hussein Ibish? The fact is you cannot as long as he is dropping bombs on you. You can surrender, but that's all.

Not long after this exchange he wrote the following article on Foreign Policy: Should the Palestinians Recognize Israel as a Jewish State? No -- it's just another delaying tactic by Benjamin Netanyahu.”
 
Then there was the conversation on BlogDog Crosstalk: “Obama, Israel & Peace Illusion” with Daniel Pollak, Paul Scham and Hussein Ibish where Daniel Pollak reaffirmed Netanyahu's assertion and my observation.

*****

The so-called two-state solution was a ruse designed to do exactly what has happened, stall until Israel consolidated everything it wanted as intended right from the beginning. Just like Mr. Ibish, there was never ever any recognition of my legitimate right to dare question him or assert my right to imply individual legitimacy as a human man equal to him. The legitimacy of his whole existence is based upon a dream or a mirage contained within his mind and anyone that questions or threatens that fantasy is at war with him. And so it is with the Jews.

--Joe