A Voice From the Wilderness

A voice from the wilderness is what I thought when I read Linda Atkin's My Word in today's Saturday, July 30, 2011, Times-Standard: Democracy and dissent go together. Once again the newspaper adds another page to the ongoing saga initiated by the firing of police Chief Garr Nielsen for no cause. In a way Linda Atkins had no choice but to confront the personal diatribe and invective assaulting her from those wanton wannabe Eureka Elites, our Gang of Eight.

The contrast between what that self-righteous Gang of Eight hypocritically (“Progress or protest? We need to work together to move forward”) wrote and Linda Atkins said is stark indeed – an open hand versus a clenched fist. What struck me was her reasonable, if not a bit naive, response of a sensitive representative. The voters are ultimately responsible for the government they choose, whether they stand accountable or not. You want corrupt whores telling you what to do, how to live, what to think and how to believe – pay the price. A “though cop” mentality makes you accountable whether you like it or not.

A majority of Americans voted for a Democratic President that said one thing and has an inviolate record of doing the very opposite. Based upon what Linda Atkins says it appears her approach to Democracy is to enforce the people's right to hold such people, their representatives, accountable. What the Gang of Eight and those that support them fail to realize or, perhaps never understood, is that once elected they represent ALL people as their constituents. Not just their monied, philosophical and ideological backers and supporters.

It is curious, however, to see where the newspaper editors placed her My Word article. Week after week Steve and Cokie Roberts' article appeared below the fold. Today their faces appear prominently right under the cartoon. We certainly don't need to guess how or what the newspaper editors think about Councilwoman Linda Atkins. Which would explain why they published the personal, racist, invective, attacking a class of people represented by Councilwoman Linda Atkins in the first place.

---

[UPDATE to Little Foot-Stampers and Fist-Shakers]

Come join the club, because we're just like you - The "club" being our little Nanny Club or Gang of Eight. Conrad Gregory's attempt at satire is worth a read. It's encouraging to see the push-back against the matter-of-fact attitude castigating everyone's rights of citizenship.

[Source]

--Joe

Little Foot-Stampers and Fist-Shakers

Our Little Gang of Nannies

Nanny Speak or Mob Rule was our comment (below) on the Gang of Eight that got the Times-Standard to publish their vocal animus in the July 22, 2011, My Word. In today's My Word: "Authors failed to do their homework on Atkins" Sue Brandenburg takes exception to their assault on Councilwoman Linda Atkins and other pious and self-righteous statements. To quote:

“The firing of Police Chief Garr Nielsen was the last straw for a large group of people who have endured the incompetency and arrogance coming from some of the city management and some of the past and current city council members.”

She then proceeds to explain what she means by, “incompetency and arrogance.” Also, for those that have the stomach to keep up on the Debt Debate going on with President Obama and the Republican, you can get a real good idea what she's talking about. What soon becomes apparent, along with the “incompetency and arrogance,” is the deceptive swindle that's in play backed up by lies and false accusations. Each side is trying to force or coerce the other side. No one is negotiating in good faith. The irony is, that is exactly how the United States and in particular Barack Obama deals with other peoples and countries of the World. Now it is exactly how he is treating his so-called Republican adversaries and is, in fact, being treated in return.

Looking at the primary letters of which were published here, here and here as My Word articles you'll readily see a couple of common themes: ideologues enforcing their personal beliefs as logic facts. Two, never taking personal responsibility for anything they say or do – And conflating their personal opinions with who and what they believe or think they are as a person. In other words they take EVERYTHING personally. More importantly and one of the reasons the Editors of the Times-Standard had responsibility to NOT publish these peoples' letters is that they use every means to viciously brand or label those that don't believe or agree with their right to judge, in this particular case Councilwoman Linda Atkins, as mental, delusional or not sane. Their actions, stated beliefs justifying their actions when compared to paranoia identifies these people exactly for what they are and what their intent is - BULLIES AND BULLING.

To better understand the connection you need to read the interview with: Norway’s Johan Galtung, Peace & Conflict Pioneer, on How to Stop Extremism that Fueled Shooting - Johan Galtung is a man who’s spent half a century pursuing nonviolent conflict resolution. This comment really caught my attention as our goal here at the Joe Blow Report is to stimulate thinking:

I don’t use the word "terrorist." That’s an American vocabulary, which has found much too much usage. It’s a sign saying, "Stop thinking. He’s just simply bad and evil." 

Galtung's granddaughter, who came to the island on the same boat as Breivik and survived, asks: "How can we prevent movements like the movement Breivik participated in?"

Let me give one answer immediately. Challenge these people on the extreme right in debate. Get them out in public space, in the open. Challenge them. Let me only say one thing. If you want to challenge them, you should have been well prepared. These people are well prepared. Don’t underestimate them—point one. *** And I can only say, having done it, it’s very, very easy. But you have to understand them. That doesn’t mean you have to accept them, but you have to go your portion of the way.

Even more noteworthy was listening to what that guy in Norway, Anders Behring Breivik, said motivated him, what his Christian beliefs are and who he attacked and why. The Guardian Newspaper has a relevant article today on this very subject: Anders Behring Breivik: the truth in delusion - “The case of Anders Breivik in Norway reminds us that the relationship between madness and responsibility is complex”

“Paranoia has three classical components. The paranoiac has located a fault or malignancy in the world, he has named it, and has a message to deliver about it. For Breivik, the conviction is that Europe is rotten, that the name of this rottenness is Islam and that it is his mission to expose and excise it. 

Whereas many schizophrenic subjects experience an invasion inside their body, the paranoiac situates it outside: there is some badness out there in the world. Where for the schizophrenic the other is often too close, intruding into their body; for the paranoiac, self and other are rigidly separated: the other is outside. And hence the paranoiac subject is always innocent: it's the other's fault. 

Paranoia here should be differentiated from paranoid. Anyone can be paranoid, but paranoia as such implies a rigid system of beliefs with explanatory power, according the subject a fixed place in the world: for Breivik, that of the "perfect knight" battling Islam. The other common misunderstanding of paranoia is to assume it always involves persecution. In fact, many paranoiacs locate the malignancy not in a person but in some aspect of the world: a disease; environmental problems; danger to children.” **** 

“The paranoiac's delusion here can be false but it can equally be absolutely true.” ****
“The madness lies not in the content of the beliefs here but in the person's relation to the belief. If certainty about the belief replaces doubt, we are in the realm of psychosis.” **** 

“This nuances the old-fashioned idea that the subject is only responsible for a crime if he "knew the difference between right and wrong", since the central feature of paranoia is precisely that the person does know the difference. That, indeed, is why they are psychotic: they harbour not doubt but utter conviction that what they are doing is the right thing.” [Emphasis added]

When the newspaper publishes these people's letters they are enabling them and facilitating their paranoid delusions. All that does is "grease" the way for the "Anders Behring Breiviks" in Humboldt County.
[Source]

--Joe

Murl Harpham's EPD

[UPDATE Below]
Murl Harprham's Eureka Police Department – A Lesson In Toughness

A little over three weeks ago, Eureka Police Chief Murl Harpham in an open letter to the citizens of Eureka published in the Times-Standard newspaper titled: Preserving law and order, enforcing the laws, protecting and serving all citizens. At that time he had just replaced the recent firing of Garr Nielsen  (without cause). To reassure everyone, he laid down a rather vague, but tacit baseline for how his officers would conduct themselves as they served the community and enforced the law.

How does the latest police incident measure up? On Monday, July 25, 2011, at about 5:00 p.m. there was a reported shooting at 14^th and H streets in Eureka. According to the Time-Standard report,

"Shortly before 7 p.m., EPD received a report of a silver car parked on H Street with its back windshield busted out. Responding officers parked on Eight Street and seemed to be keeping watch on the H Street apartment building, calling for backup. By 8 p.m., EPD had closed H Street to traffic and set up a perimeter around the three-block section. The Sheriff's Office SWAT team had mobilized and was standing by in a nearby parking lot before approaching at 11:30 p.m." And, “EPD and SWAT team members moved in on an apartment on the 800 block of H Street at about 11:30 p.m. Monday, after spotting Nelson's Mercury sedan parked on the street. Police began evacuating residents a 11:45 p.m. Police evacuated 16 people from their apartments.” *** “Nelson was not home when law enforcement forced their way into his apartment with a flash-bang device at 1:45 a.m. Tuesday.  EPD and SWAT team members ended their operation at 2:05 a.m. Tuesday without apprehending the suspect.” [Emphasis added to show disparity in Thadeus Greenson's reporting.]

The next day he turned himself in to the Sheriff's Department.

The newspaper reports are rather convoluted if not rambling accounts. The timeline involving the police response is there, you just have look for it. One thing seems sure, the Eureka Police officers didn't shirk from responding. Also they clearly demonstrated their toughness. Unfortunately, Chief Harpham's definition revolved around a singular, individual “tough cop.” Someone I would consider able and capable of serving the people's best interests as well as enforcing law because of their personal authority based upon and empowered by their singular, individual legitimacy. Not as gang of elite officers, a militarized squad comparable to the U.S. military's Special Operations “Hunter Killer Squads” whose first priority is to serve themselves.

The real message here, from my vantage point anyway, is that aggressive people, drivers, neighbors or anyone else should take to heart what happened here the next time they think to bully someone around. The right to self-defense is still a right in this country and in this state. Even though the only one's that seem to believe they actually possess that right are the police.

Lets not forget, from the newspaper report, I was wondering what happened to that "olive branch of peace"? Did it become a "flash-bang device"?
[Source]

---

[UPDATE :: Monday, August 1, 2011]

Notice in the Times-Standard today about: Eureka Council to start police chief hiring process – The empty process of listening to your constituents.

Side Note: Heraldo over at the Humboldt Herald has a decent post on this subject. As usual a lot of moronic comments, salted with a few thoughtful ones thrown in, but a worthwhile read nevertheless. Heraldo's sentiments:

The forums will cost around $3,000 and will be “professionally moderated.” This must mean forum goers will look at faces that appear to be listening rather than the usual smirk à la Councilman Mike Newman.

--Joe

How to Love Your Enemies – A Timely Way

The following article by Deepak Chopra was published in the San Francisco Chronicle and on his own website today. For anyone that believes they are Christians then writes the kind of personal invective published in the newspaper here, here and here. I don't know if you'd call these people extremist, far right, conservative Republicans or what? Their ideology and belief-motivated conduct expressed in their articles match, in spirit if nothing else, the justification by the Norwegian Anders Breivik for his vicious attack on fellow countrymen and women, people he believes are his mortal enemies.

How to Love Your Enemies (Really)

Although devotion to Christianity is often required in modern-day American politics, one of its central teachings—to love your enemy—is overlooked. Former President Bill Clinton has commented on the virulence of the political atmosphere that seemed to drastically increase during his time in office. Instead of winning against your opponent, he observed, the new attitude was that the other side needed to be destroyed. As a result, the sense of being colleagues or of reaching across the aisle was lost—and remains lost. The other party is nothing less than the enemy.

The difficult question of how to love your enemy goes much deeper than this. Many teachings in the New Testament clash with psychological reality. To love someone who hates you, like turning the other cheek when someone hits you, seems like a spiritual ideal that can't be attained except by saints. Who among us is a saint?

We could turn the issue around, however. Saintliness becomes realistic by seeing it as a state of higher consciousness. Christ was talking about personal transformation. That much seems to be beyond doubt. "Higher consciousness" is not a religious term, however, even if Christ does point to the kingdom of heaven being within. My purpose is not to argue that personal transformation is specifically Christian. But it is the key to loving your enemy.

Nanny Speak or Mob Rule

Again we witness conservative ideologue believers using the Times-Standard to promote their demagogue and vitriol to divide and alienate the people of Humboldt County while their hypocrisy and duplicity is as repulsive as a pile of cat shit on your kitchen table. “Progress or protest? We need to work together to move forward” is classic in how these wannabe Elitist say one thing and do another. The whole My Word article by Mike Jones, Jeff Leonard, Virginia Bass, Polly Endert, Mary Beth Wolford, Connie Miller, Cherie Arkley and Nancy Flemming is nothing more that a cheap political attack on “progressive” thinking people, in particular Councilwoman Linda Atkins disguised as some Nanny Elite Dictate telling everyone what to believe, what to think and how to act. They seem to think that just because they were elected to the City Council one time or another they are all some sort of authority as God's gift to the rest of us poor, lowly, ignorant rabble, in particular the apparent lone progressive on that Council. Talk about sheep among wolves!

They, the undersigned, say at the outset of their attack: “Politics is all about compromise and working together.” They then define what they mean by “compromise and working together.” When you are all alone and don't control anything, keep your mouth shut, do what you're told, go sit in the corner and put that damned dunce hat on so everyone can see who and what you really are – stupid and ineffective.

Keep in mind, these people are not just talking to and about Councilwoman Linda Atkins, they are telling everyone else that doesn't think or believe as they do and support them and their current representatives, as a minority without standing, to SHUT UP and GO AWAY – preferably to hell.

When you read their complete statement you will find that they leave absolutely no doubt or equivocation on how they “work together.” Just like any gang of thug bullies, they threaten and intimidate by simple innuendo and mob-rule intent. The "tough cop" way works, in time, everyone knows what the bully wants and expects without a word, agree or not, everyone falls in line and justifies the bullies right to exist and make them non-human, second class citizens.  Example: They say, “Instead of working together and moving forward, we seem to have one out-of-touch city councilmember protesting and challenging most things the current city council tries to accomplish to improve our community. That's not a good place to be for Ms. Atkins if she wants be part of a progressive city council.” Who is this "we" these people speak for? If not you, then are you "out-of-touch" too? Building on the continual drumbeat that there is something wrong with her, that she's conflicted only exposes their own paranoia. How can she claim to be a “progressive” when she's is obviously NOT lining up with the REAL progressives? Poor pathetic Linda Atkins. All alone in the corner.

Example number two: their abject hypocrisy – in their defining these people as a “progressive city council.” Saying it doesn't make it so. Compromise and betrayal of one's principles is certainly NOT the high standard anyone should aspire to, unless and except from those that are without principles, decency or any moral integrity. My father used to always say: “People that live in glass houses should never throw stones.” Since they're all in the business of telling everyone else, specially those that don't agree or believe as they do and in particular, the total failure Linda Atkins, as compared to them and their class of political compatriots, that's good advice. Probably on a par to "get out of town, but don't go to Fortuna."

The only benefit to come from all of this, as I see it, is that the voters get what they want. Not always what they expected, but justified just the same. The problem is the continued effort to justify their failure to vote in decent, honest and magnanimous people to represent their best interests. (Probably because they can't find any self-respecting person.) Regardless, just because you vote for people that would have you believe they are an American Elite will not make you an Elite too. It makes you a dunce the same as them.

By the way, this quote about Nannys defines our Gang of Eight to a "T":

In Nanny's world she doesn't speak English, she uses a mangled mix of bullshit "management speak" and political/socialist double speak when communicating.
Why?
Simple:
1 She is stupid.
2 She doesn't want people to understand what she is talking about, so she tries to be clever.
3 Her arguments wouldn't stand up to rigorous intellectual scrutiny if they were presented in English.

As a final observation, I'd say Ms. Atikins must be doing something right since she's got all of these people running scared. If they weren't scared none of them would of ever shown themselves in the light of day. When the full consequences of their past actions, twelve years and more, come to bear upon everyone, and they are held accountable for their actions - well, let's just say they may wish to be somewhere else at that time.

Just so the reader knows, I read and reread their statement as I wrote these observations. There are statements and issues they made that I didn't followup on since I wanted to address the tone and true purpose of their personal invective and demagoguery; causing divisions, alienation and war. Including the Times-Standard's part in promoting this class agenda.
[Source]

UPDATE:
Here's a link to another, shall we say “nameless blog” that has some interesting comments, mostly supporting Linda Atkins and denouncing the Gang of Eight's assault on the liberal, progressive way.

--Joe

SEE the Tough Cop

Click to enlarge and read.

The Eureka Police Department's “olive branch of peace” is called Vex.


Eureka Police Chief Murl Harpham, in a recent letter to the Times-Standard titled: “Preserving law and order, enforcing the laws, protecting and serving all citizens” said,

“If there are drug dealers in your neighborhood, we will build a case against them, and get them off the streets. When there is gunfire or a dangerous person in your neighborhood and citizens are in fear, we will respond. This, at times, has caused criticism. When dealing with disruptive people, we always first extend an olive branch of peace. Unfortunately, sometimes this does not work, and we have to become tough. No one likes a tough cop until they need one, then they want the toughest cop around.” (070711) [Emphasis added]

In the above quote, Chief Harpham identifies two types of people that are of paramount interest to him and his EPD officers: “drug dealers” and “dangerous” (of the type potentially involving guns, i.e., “gunfire”) causing "citizens" to be in "fear" or afraid. He then identifies a third type of person: “disruptive people.” That category is broad and expansive and can include just about anything. More importantly, since past EPD handling of such “disruptive people” has caused some “criticism,” to ease everyone's minds, he specifies the steps or priorities his officer's will follow when dealing with such people. First, they are to extend an “olive branch of peace.” Second, when that does not work, they “become tough.” At the time he provided these assurances, this Report made some observations listed below. Our interest was in seeing what is actually done - how he and the EPD defined his words by actions.

The question remains, does this incident, as reported, meet his priorities? The words "disruptive," “olive branch of peace” and “become tough” are rather ambiguous, to say the least, unless you take him at his word and look at the conduct history of the EPD. Today, we have the following episode to compare. So, compare what the newspaper said "according to officers on the scene and scanner traffic, neighbors called police stating that three suspicious men were inside a garage to the rear of a residence." On it's face, if three or even one "suspicious" person was in my garage, it's my hope my neighbor's would call. The question, however, is: What makes someone look "suspicious"? Suspicious enough to be held or "detained" at gunpoint when they posed NO threat nor were they guilty of committing any crime? I realize the officers didn't know that at the time, but then NEITHER did the person calling in. Is "detained" the newspaper's fancy word for ARRESTED since they were released on the scene?

So, the "olive branch of peace" is to confront someone going about his or her lawful business, neither bothering nor threatening anyone, at the point of a gun? That situation is a hair's breadth away from someone being dead should that person immediately not accept the "olive branch of peace" pointing at his or her head.

Reading the account, they find after the arrest a 70 year old man that had a “felony drug-related warrant” and clearly posed NO threat to anyone; simply wanting to be left alone. His immediate failure to comply as commanded, however, apparently posed enough of a threat to someone that he was threatened with “the tough cop” VEX. Hiding in the back of a closet where he has to “crawl out” sounds like someone that just wants to be left alone and maybe not found. Either way, we know some history now. We also know that Vex is one tough cop.

I'm not sure about the Times-Standard's reporting. The number of people accounted for in this situation varies since the paper says there were three people in the garage, one ran away, but three people were held a gun point and detained. Then there's the use of the word “barricade” while hiding in “a closet,” but gave himself up when “Vex discovered him.” What are we really talking about here? He closed the door, maybe even locked it, then went and hid in a closet?

So, what did this incident teach us? It's the picture that really says it all.

--Joe

How to turn a 'blind eye' to crime

I'll admit after reading Dave Stancliff's masterful “Opinion” Sunday, July 17, 2011, I had to read it again and skim through it one more time to finally “get” his reason for writing: “Counting the many ways crime does pay.” - His solitary reason for why crime should NOT pay, that is, IF everyone does their part. Or, in other words, why everyone should turn a “blind-eye to crime.”

His reasoning: “As It Stands, the answer is to not buy, read, or listen to any true stories about killers in our society.” REMEMBER, his words, not mine.

Here he conflates crime, murder and murders with the word “killer.” As such, we could add some other words such as “assassin,” “assassinate,” “manslayer,” “manslaughter” to name a few. Of course we also have, something that is “extremely difficult or perilous”: reading all Stancliff's Opinion was “murder.” Then there is, “to spoil or mar by bad performance, representation, pronunciation, etc.”: Stancliff “murdered” that opinion. Next we have, “to engage in a deplorable activity without incurring harm or punishment”: The readers let Stancliff and the Times-Standard Editors get away with “murder.” Next: “to protest loudly and angrily”: Stancliff screamed bloody “murder” at his critique. Finally, the two reasons for posting this article (1), “get away with murder, to escape censure; do as one pleases”: For years, now, Dave Stancliff's gotten away with “murder” by getting the newspaper to publish his lame opinions. Lastly (2), “to destroy; ruin”: He murdered her reputation and good name.

Makes one wonder if Stancliff was talking about himself? Every Sunday the Times-Standard devotes one half page to him and what does he do? Does he write about serious, important local issues that go to the very heart of everyone's lives in the North Coast? His record speaks for itself.

Does he respect his readers and simply lay out the facts so the reader can decide what to do, how to think or believe? He says: “As It Stands, the answer is to not buy, read, or listen to any true stories about killers in our society.” That sounds a whole lot like TELLING people what to do: “not buy, read or listen to any TRUE stories about killers.” Never you mind stories based on factually false propaganda,spouted as the official line, about lies, fantsies and worthless opinions. There's another word for what he's telling people to do: CENSORSHIP.

If you do what he tells you to do the first thing you'll do is stop reading the newspaper. You certainly will not buy it to read the article across the page by Nat Hentoff, “Is there an emancipation day for 'good faith' torturers?” Hentoff is talking about the “true stories” of war crimes that involved deliberate murder and murderers. Crimes that involve the current U.S. President Barack Obama and the past President George Bush and their administrations or governments (Bush/Cheney & Obama/Biden). Better to turn a blind eye to these criminals and their crimes – out of site, out of mind.

The consequences should be obvious. When questionable activities that amount to torture (use of tazers, for instance) or a violent death that occurs at the hands of the local police no one pays any attention. Well, except, maybe for a few mentally questionable, liberal radicals. “Shit happens,” they (the blind) are fond of saying, but these kooks can't accept that fact. What about the killers that make a practice of deliberately running stop signs? If that's the kind of world or community you want to live in, then by all means read what Dave Stancliff tells you to read, listen to, and buy.

--Joe

Lessons in how NOT to support your local police

[UPDATE Below]
Recently Eureka Chief of Police Murl Harpham wrote an open letter to the citizens of Eureka requesting their continuing support in the wake of the recent firing of Chief Garr Nielsen. You can read what he says here in the Times-Standard newspaper: "Preserving law and order, enforcing the laws and protecting and serving all citizens."

This Report posted some observations on what he said in support of his goals and objectives. A quick check of letters to the Times-Standard Editor and you will not find where anyone openly or publicly supports Murl Harpham's request for cooperation. He stated quite clearly his and the department's position regarding the political issues involved in the firing: “There are no politics with law enforcement. We simply preserve law and order, enforce the laws and protect and serve all the citizens of our town.” Our suggestion is, take him at his word, give him and the EPD all the opportunity they need to keep and enforce his words. NOTICE! He clearly made the distinction: He and his fellow police officers ONLY "preserve," and "enforce law and order." They are NOT THE LAW, regardless of how they might think or how they act. They are simpley "protectors" and "servants" -- Protectors of the people and servants of the law.

Too bad people like Bob Williams, John Chiv, Sanna Jane Fase, among the many vociferous bloggers staking out their positions, who clearly did not heed Chief Harpham's request for unity and support. “In my opinion,” (the first three words uttered by Bob Williams, T-S July 13, 2011) that define and are followed by the vitriolic words of "worthless opinions" fomenting and inciting the very conduct, divisions, and hatred that delegitimize both the Eureka City Council, their City Manager and Police Department. All the newspaper does printing these garbage opinions is entrench and solidify the ever growing rift between neighbors. Those I call the Ideological Morons that believe they're gods and the Thinking Dummies that are afraid to take a deep breath. [Emphasis added]

You can well understand Chief Harpham's desire for the community to back and support his efforts to transcend through this interim period until a new police chief is hired, specially when you consider the rancor caused by the way the new City Council terminated the previous police chief. Specially, when they told everyone that was surprised and upset by their actions to flat go to hell when they wanted to know why. The problem with people like Bob Williams ("former EPD officer and retired CHP sergeant who resides in Fortuna") is that their way was un-American and anti-Democratic that produced a failed social system – in other words, for all their self-righteous authority, they did not get the job done. That, however, never seems to keep them from trying to continue justifying their abject failure.

Williams fancifully concludes, "It is my hope that the next Eureka Police Chief is a person of reason, logic and inclusion. A leader who is a morale builder and, by his or her personality, commands respect." Bob Williams, had he practiced what he preaches, would never ever write such a letter let alone send it out to the newspaper for the public to read, if he actually met any of his standards or truly supported the best interests of Murl Harpham or the EPD. His "bogus" words condemn him, expose his motives and identify his intent.

Everyone would be better served if Bob Williams kept his worthless, disrespectful opinions to himself. Short of that, he can keep them in Fortuna, where HE lives. Apparently, Fortuna deserves these kinds of people. We have enough of them living in Eureka.

---

[UPDATE :: Thursday, 21, 2011]

The Times-Standard published yesterday a My Word commentary by a local Eureka resident, Barry Ross, titled: “Dialogue takes more than telling people to go away over differing opinion.” Here Barry Ross takes exception to the “opinion piece” written and published in the paper by John Chiv and Bob Williams.

Barry Ross makes the following observation:

“I may be naïve, but I have understood over the course of my life that people in any given community differ in their visions of its future, what changes may be beneficial to the community, and ways to implement such changes as may be agreed upon. This takes dialogue -- I may wish to know why you have some view or other, not only that you have it.” [Emphasis added]

“May be naïve”? I would say at the very least, considering the tone of his commentary, just a little. Regardless, he does touch on the core issue causing the problem, i.e., “I may wish to know why you have some view or other.” Here Barry Ross assumes these people think or believe as he does; that their interests are the same as his, even though they expound different conclusions derived from a different ideology or philosophy. He assumes their motivating interests are guided by what's most “beneficial to the community.” If that were true, they would be all inclusive, because that is what a “community” is. They clearly are not. People like Linda Atkins and Barry Ross possess absolutely NO standing with these people. For any meaningful “exchange of ideas or opinions on a particular issue” requires recognition and acceptance of each other as equal individuals. If not, then there absolutely cannot be any kind of relationship leading to an amicable or “collegial” dialogue. Believe me, John Chiv and Bob Williams clearly understand their position in this matter. Their actions speak to that truth.

When you consider the major betrayal Barack Obama is perpetrating, the time for dialogue is over.

---

--Joe

Free Speech and the Demagogue

Who the hell is this self-evident hypocrite, John Chiv, that the Times-Standard Editors would publish his nearly 700 word demagogic lecture to their readers on "civility"? Is this a joke? Times-Standard Tuesday, July 12, 2011: "Championing for causes -- and people you represent -- can be done in a civil manner." 

Is what he says Constitutionally protected “free speech, political trash-talking, a bigoted and prejudiced rant or a wild-eyed speech fomenting hatred and discrimination? What's next Kimberly Wear, and John Chiv? We going to experience the consequences of murder-type squads visiting the “certain angry, bitter people” - not unlike you? Councilwoman Linda Atkins the first on your hit list? This is where it all starts, or don't you know?

This guy starts his personal diatribe with a prolonged outburst of bitter, outspoken denunciation, vehemently attacking Linda Atkins and then goes after those that support her and never stops – that is until he says this masterful piece of rotten hypocrisy in conclusion:

“It's time for a few to stop the conservative versus progressive game. Most of us, regardless of our beliefs, want the best for this community. Think how much we could accomplish if we worked together and moved our city forward?”

If anyone wants or needs a lesson in RANK HYPOCRISY read what this guy does and compare it to what he says. The only civility demonstrated by the hypocrite is his use of the word, "civil." Everything else, the whole letter is an exercise in fetid character assassination.

More than that, these are the words of paranoia – deludingly accuse others of the very acts you are committing.

He says “Championing for causes – and people you represent – can be done civilly.” The Dictionary defines “civilly” as “politely; courteously.” Do these words define politely and courteously? “Moments after this pleasant conversation, I watched you turn around and 'attack' your fellow council members and others, and it was personal. They are not just my elected representatives, but my family, my friends and me community members.” His next paragraph is his attempt to depict her as mentally ill - “the level of her anger expressed – and the disrespect shown” questions her true character.

It is here that the Kimberly Wear and Dave Kuta went too far when publishing this guy's personal vendetta. If what John Chiv says is true and there's no reason to not believe it is, then when he says matters are “personal” the place to air his soiled underwear is someplace personal. Not in the newspaper. The stench of this crap puts the Times-Standard right where what Glenn Greenwald calls the “watchdog” media.

That tactic is as old as establishments themselves, though it’s now most aggressively enforced by the “watchdog” media. It’s the media, rather than political leaders, which take the lead in serving most of the interests of the political establishment — not just by depicting opponents of the political order as mentally ill but also uncritically disseminating its fear-mongering campaigns.

"Fear-mongering campaigns." Read the last half of what John Chiv says and you'll see another good example of what Glenn Greenwald is talking about. It's here, publishing these kinds of letters that the paper shows it true agenda - Government for the sake of government. Never for the sake of the people. No responsibility to just present the facts. Just tell everyone how to think, believe and what to do. We get the message.
[Source]

--Joe

Copped-Out City Council

[UPDATE Below]

That's the status of Snow White and the Three Stooges, or is it the Seven Stooges? - So says Kaci Poor writing for the Saturday, July 9, 2011, edition of the Times-Standard: Privacy vs. public's right to know --- a delicate balance.

What's "delicate" about telling the truth?

Either the people, who's rights, lives, families and property were entrusted to Garr Nielsen for four years was well placed and rightly protected or it was not. If not, then David Tyson was responsible for putting everyone's rights, lives, families and property in jeopardy and for allowing the mistrust to foment. If it was not misplaced then David Tyson's actions were irresponsible and incompetent. If so, then the current City Council is also irresponsible and incompetent if they do not fire him - cause or no cause.

Kaci Poor says that the "City officials say their hands are tied." -- "We can't let things out." Eureka Mayor Frank Jager conveniently defers his responsibility to the city attorney's opinion. Whatever "tricky balancing act" exists, it is totally of the City Council's own making. Problem is, they can't hide their votes anymore than they can hide their cop-outs.

The most telling statement in the report, aside from Linda Atkins sashay around the truth, is from Councilman Mike Newman. When obvious self-serving political and ingratiating worthless opinions rule the day you get: "[I]f members of the community wanted more information, they should ask Nielsen." He continues: "Nielsen is the only person that can shed light on it." "It" being his disputed firing, I would suppose.

Newman's remark is probably the most disengenuous statement any City Council member could make. He knows full well Garr Nielsen has absolutely no reason nor any insentive to tell the Eureka people one thing more than he's already said. What he has is every reason to politely tell them to go to hell because that is what they told him. That is the simple truth the City Council and David Tyson knows - Garr Nielsen owes the Eureka people absolutely nothing.

Of course, if the City Council wanted to reestablish their integrity to the Eureka voter they would simply own up to what they did.

---

[UPDATE :: Tuesday, July 12, 2011]
Forgot about HH's contribution to this subject. Be sure to read the comment section. When you get done reading what those people think, providing your constitution can handle that much crap, you'll see why the Eureka City Council members work for the city's best interests. No hidden agendas here.

Quote of the Day

July 10, 2011

“We can’t let things out.” — Eureka City Councilman Mike Newman defending the secrecy behind the city’s firing of police chief Garr Nielsen.

Continue reading "Quote of the Day"

---

--Joe

Open Letter To Murl Harpham



Talk Is Cheap :: Actions Speak The Truth

Murl Harpham is the Eureka City Interim Police Chief. He was just approved by a unanimous Eureka City Council vote after they fired Garr Nielsen. He writes in today's Times-Standard My Word, Thursday, July 7, 2011: "Preserving law and order, enforcing the laws and protecting and serving all citizens." Here Murl Harpham, by his own words is an original veteran EPD officer of 54 years. For the record, everyone must agree, such service says much that is commendable about Murl Harpham and his integrity, loyalty and ability to survive. Without any doubt he is what I would term “Old Guard” and "Professional." He makes a couple of statements that gives that away as well. As I read his words I was reminded of yesterday's My Word, Search warrant folly: An open letter to Paul Gallegos by Jeffrey Schwartz and if he had in mind Murl Harpham when he commented about "ingrained, backward-thinking Humboldt County Law Enforcement."

For instance, it could easily be said that what Murl Harpham knows about police work is what he learned working for the EPD. Nothing wrong in that, but we all know that there are more ways to run a business than just “the” way.  Over time people get entrenched and comfortable in “their” way of doing things and dealing with people. Notice his instructions to everyone: “If there are any problems with ... bring this to my attention via a letter or email and it will be dealt with immediately.” I have no doubt that what he says here is true. Experience requires, however, asking him how effective will he be in his dealings? He is demanding an awful lot of trust from everyone in this community in that what he says is what will be done. Letters and emails are extremely impersonal and disallow opportunity for any followup or accountability. The question remains, will putting our trust in him produce the meaningful change and accountability required of everyone to effect viable, legitimate protection and service?

In that regard, Murl Harpham says something quite revealing: “Fifty plus years ago the chief who hired me said, “You are here to serve all citizens and put the bad guys in jail.” That credo has continued throughout the years.” And there's a good reason that it has. I'm sure the decent, law-abiding citizens of Eureka and Humboldt County fully support that “credo.” I know my wife and I do since we are threatened by “bad guys and girls” on a daily basis just trying to back our car out of our garage.

My question, here however, is what does Murl Harpham really mean by “bad guys”? Fifty-four years ago everyone knew who “the bad guys” were. This is a fairly open-ended label that could apply to just about any police officer's bigotry and prejudice or fear of threat. He couches this issue when he explains or defines how the EPD will respond to “dangerous” people or “citizens in fear.” He says, “first an olive branch of peace is extended” and if that does not work, “they become tough.” He goes on to say: “ No one likes a tough cop until they need one, then they want the toughest cop around.” That statement says something about Murl Harpham and his method of policing. What does an "olive branch of peace" actually mean? What does "become tough" really mean? More important than physically “tough cops” are emotionally and psychologically tough people that are secure within themselves and in their legitimacy as a person and as equal citizens of the community they serve. Only then when they extend their “olive branch” can people accept it. Where in most cases eliminating the need or opportunity to get, become or show how “tough” they are.

Now to the reason I posted the picture in today's Times-Standard: Car runs stop sign, resulting in four-car collision. Murl Harpham asserts, and every citizen in Eureka needs to hold him accountable: “There are no politics with law enforcement. We simply preserve law and order, enforce the laws and protect and serve all the citizens of our town.” That means, at least to this writer, all the people in Eureka that deliberately “run stop signs” violate the law whether they cause wrecks, not collisions, or not.

Murl Harpham also says, and I believe probably the most important thing he said except giving out his telephone numbers, (441-4068 and 441-4095) : In their everyday job, “we do require your assistance as we can't do this alone. Law enforcement is every citizen's duty. Tell us where the problem areas are, and they will be dealt with forthwith.”

“EVERY CITIZEN'S DUTY.” -- "DEALT WITH FORTHWITH.”

For some years the citizens of “our town” were not satisfied with how they were being policed, so they tried a different approach. They voted in a different city council that was willing to hire a supervisor (Police Chief) with a different style of operating. Yet when push came to shove they were not willing to risk fully supporting him in implementing this “new” style of, as some say, “forward-thinking.” Consequently, without the actual, de facto support of the majority voters in Eureka and their Council, neither the Police Chief or the full compliment of officers possessed any authentic legitimacy. Without legitimacy the police officers, same as anyone else, must first protect themselves. Consequently, the citizenry gets the kind of “tough,” gang-type policing Jeffrey Schwartz identified in his Open Letter to the District Attorney.

“Every citizen's duty” is best expressed by simply obeying the law – STOP AT THE DAMNED STOP SIGN. And that includes EVERYONE, police officers as well. This is how you actually SUPPORT your police and legitimize their right to serve and protect. While Murl Harpham and the Eureka Police Department do not directly answer to the people, their very existence is derived from the consent of Eureka citizens. When Murl Harpham says they first offer an olive branch, everyone should realize this is what he's talking about, willing and immediate "consent." No law enforcement officer can tolerate being deligitimized, specially when he believes he's dealing with a "bad guy." The consequences for refusal or failure are obvious. At that point the enforcing officer becomes the law, and matters get personal.

When everyone is thumbing their noses at the law they are impugning the very right and legitimate existence of all those enforcing those laws. I believe Murl Harpham understands this simple reality and is the reason why he is asking everyone to give to the EPD what they were unwilling or incapable of giving to Garr Nielsen - meaningful or actual support.

“Every citizen's duty” from the Police Chief's point of view is to have everyone “tell them were the problem areas are.” Well, Chief of Police Murl Harpham, one BIG problem area is traffic enforcement. No one stops or even intends to stop at stops signs. It may seem like a small thing compared to a “bad guy” threatening someone with a gun. Well, those cars used by those “bad guys and girls” are just as lethal.

What do you see in that picture? What do you think all of those "children" are learning that watched this wreck unfold? Are they learning that the innocent victim, the one that trusted that their fellow motorists will NOT miss a stop sign, let alone RUN one deliberately? Are they learning that it is the innocent victim that always gets hurt or killed? Or are they being taught that people can freely cause a wreck, deliberately injure an innocent person and walk free - not get arrested, handcuffed and taken off to jail and made to answer for their physical assault and the personal damage they cause?

I hope that everyone in Eureka, if not Humboldt County, takes to heart Murl Harpham's offer.

--Joe

Special Delivery for the Times-Standard

HEY! Newspaper Editor do you get it?

Wednesday, July 6, 2011, Times Standard,
Your cartoon by Milt Priggee on page A4 is a perversion that attacks the sensibilities of all free Americans and what is right and just in American Jurisprudence.

In America , everyone is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty in a COURT OF LAW - don't you know?

PS. Actually, the message of the cartoon IS  accurate and correct for a country ruled by men and NOT by law.

If you don't believe me read the My Word commentary printed just below that so-called cartoon by Jeffrey Schwartz: Search warrant folly: An open letter to Paul Gallegos.

Before a judge signs a search warrant, the judge requires that the DA sign off on the warrant with a statement that the DA believes there is probable cause to issue the warrant. Mr. Gallegos should not sign off on these warrants unless -- and until -- the law enforcement agent answers Mr. Gallegos' simple question: “What facts do you have that suggest the suspected marijuana is an unlawful grow.”

Where is the "law" and the "legal" protection afforded by the law entrusted to judges when a judge issues a search warrant totally upon the worthless opinions or beliefs, whether signed or not, "the DA believes there is probable cause" of some man or woman? What happens to the these judges and district attorneys when it is proven there was NO probable cause? Do they manufacture the "probable cause" after-the-fact?

According to Butler Shaffer "the establishment does not get it. Free individuals are withdrawing their consent to be ruled. And it is free people who create the social condition of liberty, not those who simply mouth bromides." Interesting audio where Lew Rockwell talks to Butler Shaffer on the difference between freedom and liberty, and how to be free regardless of the state.

"Withdrawing consent" -- STOP cooperating.

[UPDATE on Mr. Jeffrey Schwartz]
He lays out the actual reason Eureka Police Chief Garr Nielsen was fired, but misfires on who is actually responsible.

Gallegos' candid and public position on medical marijuana is a courageous stand where most of his statewide district attorney colleagues and the Humboldt County law enforcement community feel just about the opposite about medical marijuana. Of course, Gallegos' stand on what he thinks is right despite running into a freight train of ingrained Humboldt County backward politics and the fear of change that infects this county is one of the few bright spots that remain in Humboldt County politics after the November election. Think the firing of the forward-thinking Eureka Police Chief Gar Nielsen by the backward thinking David Tyson.

 "Backward thinking" won the war, but it wasn't backward thinking on David Tyson's fault. The previous city council knew full well the issues confronting Chief Garr Nielsen. Why then didn't the FIRE David Tyson when they had the chance? Did they think, (the operative question) that the "backward thinking" people in Humboldt County and in especially Eureka, that support the Humboldt County law enforcement community wouldn't give them the boot at the first opportunity?

And therein lies the rub, Mr. Schwartz' problem, right along with most everyone else that I know, is that the facts do not support his or their opinions about who actually terminated Garr Nielsen's job and who is actually responsible for issuing bogus search warrants that allows local police agencies to brutalize innocent people without any sort of accountability. In each case it is the peoples' demand to be governed by men rather than law. Free men and women that enforce personal integrity NEVER consent to be governed by such corrupt and lawless people.

--Joe

The LRC Blog

July 5, 2011

Ha Ha Ha

Posted by Lew Rockwell on July 5, 2011 05:27 PM

How great to see the prosecutor-media hysteria complex go down to defeat, in the Casey Anthony and DSK cases. Tragically, Anderson was found guilty, like Martha Stewart, of the non-crime of fibbing to the cops. How can your enemies be entitled to what they want to hear, as they seek to destroy you, and when they have the power to lie to you legally? (Thanks to Greg Privette)

UPDATE I wonder: even if this woman were guilty, what is to be gained by turning her over to the greatest killing, torturing, and looting machine on earth, government, as if it were some moral authority? We need private judicial proceedings, restitution and not retribution, and not exaltation of the dullards and thugs who compose government. It is never right for them to judge anybody on anything.

---

I copied this from Lew Rockwell. I hope he doesn't mind. Ditto my sentiments.

--Joe

Petition's Fiction

Petition's Fiction, read it and weep. Front-page, Sunday, July 3, 2011, Times-Standard newspaper: Petition to fire City Manager Tyson circulates in Eureka. - “Also calls for Garr Nielsen to be reinstated.”

These are the headlines posted under this picture, as captioned: City Council Member Linda Atkins helps hand out petitions calling for the termination of Eureka City Manager David Tyson and reinstatement of former Police Chief Garr Nielsen in Eureka on Saturday.

The headline at http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_18402201 is different: “Will you sign? Petitions circulate Eureka calling for the termination of Tyson, reinstatement of Nieslen”

These petitions are a joke. They do not address the real issues, moreover whats continually stated is a bald faced lie as supported and propagated by the Times-Standard's reporting. Then read what each actually said. There is a difference. These are the words of current City Councilman Lance Madsen and Mayor Frank Jager

Eureka Councilman Lance Madsen, who spent 13 years working for the EPD until leaving the department in 1986, voiced his support of Tyson's decision Saturday.

”I would not even contemplate asking him to resign,” Madsen said. “He (Tyson) works at the direction of the council. Four voting members of the council have affirmed his decision. One person who doesn't agree does not qualify as the entire council.”

Eureka Mayor Frank Jager echoed the sentiment.

”I think they are wasting their time,” Jager said. “The council supports Mr. Tyson. Their efforts would be better spent if they worked on the election next year, rather than circulate petitions to have Tyson removed.”

Actually, they would be “better served” if they worked on a petition to have these four members of the council and the mayor removed - recalled.

In truth, what is really going on is summed up in these words of this guy, Mike Rilla: “The petitions help get the stress out.” GET THE STRESS OUT? What a waste of time.

Moreover, he continues, as reported, along with Eureka businessman George Clark:

The pair believe the reason Tyson and the council members won't explain their decision to fire Nielsen is because the decision was made on personal grounds.

”People know something is going on,” Clark said. “The only answer is that this was a personal vendetta.

Since the City Council actually made and affirmed the decision to fire Nielsen, “the only answer,” according to their reasoning is that it was a “personal vendetta” and Tyson along with Asst. City Manager Mike Knight and Captain Murl Harpham got the pleasure of enforcing it.

Think for a minute how this works. In baseball a batter get a “hit,” “hits abase run” or hits a home run,” or the “batter hits the baseball out of the park.” Does the “batter” hit the baseball or does the “bat” he uses actually hit the ball? David Tyson explained exactly how it works. He's the bat and the City Council is the batter.
[Source]

--Joe

Who REALLY Fired Garr Nielsen WITH Cause?

[UPDATE Below]
According to everything I read, including today's Times-Standard front page story dated Saturday, July 2, 2011, "Eureka council affirms Nielsen firing in 4-1 vote," it was Eureka City Manager David Tyson. According to reports, the Eureka City Council,  Marian Brady, Linda Atkins, Mike Newman, Melinda Ciarabellini, and Lance Madsen along with Mayor Frank Jager, presided over a closed door council meeting on Tuesday, June 21, 2011, where they "discussed" firing Garr Nielsen, but they didn't take a vote. Well, they sure voted yesterday July 1, 2011. That sure does look like the Eureka City Counsel fired Chief Nielsen, even though David Tyson may have authority to physically act, he does so at the council's good pleasure. And it's certainly obvious that getting rid of him was their good pleasure. The unanswered question remains, why?

The last time I looked none of the council members attained that station in life through birth. That means they serve at someone's good pleasure - that being the person or persons that gave them the authority to rule or govern the city. Ultimately, that "person or persons" are responsible and accountable for what the Eureka City Council does or fails to do, including the City Manager David Tyson.

Does anyone remember why Garr Nielsen was hired in the first place? Or for that matter, does anyone remember the nature and makeup of the City Council doing the hiring four years ago. Only Linda Atkins had a stake in, as a carryover from the previous council, to defend her and their actions over four years ago. Obviously, none of the newly elected council agreed with their decision and did what they had to do to get rid of him since he represented the thinking, management style and policies of the previous council.

My question is, if the people had such a great love for Garr Nielsen and his newly "people oriented" police department, why did the city of Eureka vote in this different breed of people that clearly supported the OLD STYLE of policing? Personally, I believe the answer is a little more pragmatic and personal and goes to the very heart of the driving philosophy of David Tyson and those that hired and supported him all these years - HIS everlasting legacy. A hint of those legacy effects is contained in the words Mary Beth Wolford expressed to the Times-Standard:

Mary Beth Wolford, who served on the Eureka City Council from 2002 to 2006, said she worked closely with Tyson during her tenure on the council and that he always made decisions based on the best interests of Eurekans. She said she's sure he did the same with Nielsen's firing. [Emphasis added]

”It's a difficult situation, but I know our city manager has acted wisely,” she said.

Notice the dates she was on the City Council, 2002 to 2006. Then there is this from Former City Councilman Mike Jones that said, "Tyson made the right decision." This is pure crap. Tyson never made "the decision." The City Council had already "made up their mind" AFTER the voters gave them the "go ahead." All Tyson did was implement their decision. All these voters are trying to do is insulate the people they put into office and justify their vote.

As it turns out, that legacy served him well when he was on his way out along with three high-ranking police officers. He played his hand, bluffed his retirement and came back stronger than ever with the new supportive council members, pushed through the new tax and consolidated the required change back to the way it was BEFORE Eureka learned its lesson.

Ask yourself, who is the new police chief right now? Any layoffs or early retirements scheduled for the future? Any changes that would allow a new chief to actually make lasting changes of any real consequence?
[Source]

---

[UPDATE :: Sunday, July 3, 2011]
If anyone has any doubts about the validity of what I said here, with regard to who really fired Police Chief Garr Nielsen, read for yourself what David Tyson says in his own words in today's Times-Standard:

Earlier in the week, Tyson defended himself against criticism over Nielsen's termination.

”I have confidence that I'm doing my job according to the rules and regulations in front of me,” Tyson said, adding that he works at the direction of the city council.

”I'm the council's CEO. They're the board of directors. They're not supposed to be managing the city every day,” Tyson said. “They hire a CEO in a city manager to do those things for them based on the city charter, the municipal code and their direction.” [Emphasis added]

Because of the closed door meeting prior to the firing where they admittedly discussed that issue and then their 4 to 1 vote affirming their decision, establishes the fact that David Tyson was merely the errand boy carrying out what the Council wanted.

--Joe

The Supreme (City) Council Speaks War

Yeah! That's right. They went on record about the firing of Eureka City Police Chief Garr Nielsen. Remember, the facts are in what people do -- NOT what they say. In a working Democracy people select representatives to REPRESENT them. That means the voting public needs to see exactly what their representatives are doing, since they ostensibly work for the people and the people's best interests. That requires an open and transparent process. To aid in that responsibility we have a (supposedly) free and unbiased press.

The latest Times-Standard report Friday, July 1, 2011, demonstrates and defines the attitude of a representative that works for himself and is not answerable to anyone. Notice what Mayor Frank Jager said to Thadeus Greenson in the front page article "Eureka calls special meeting on Nielsen."

Mayor Frank Jager, who called the meeting, declined to specify why he wanted the matter to be addressed at a special meeting today rather than at Tuesday's regularly scheduled council meeting.

”(There are) a number of reasons, but I just don't want to discuss it with you right now,” Jager said when contacted by a Times-Standard reporter late Thursday afternoon. “I'm not interested in fighting this battle in the newspapers. You do what you do, we'll do what we have to do. Other than that, that's all I'm going to say.”

"Not interested in fighting this battle in the newspapers," he says. What "battle" exactly is he talking about? He says he has "a number of reasons." Well, then, tell the paper, lay out his "reasons" so everyone can see what and why he's doing the things he's doing. Then ALL of us can make up our own minds if his reasons are valid or if he's just being an insulting, worthless representative skulking around in the dark.

This sounds exactly like a declaration of war: "You do what you do, we'll do what we have to do."

Considering the tone of today's editorial, this is certainly NOT a "war" anyone at the Times-Standard has any backbone for fighting. The Editorial concludes by saying:

While the actual decision to fire Nielsen was made by City Manager David Tyson -- which is part of his authority -- it was done so after consulting with council members in a closed session meeting last week.

The decision may have already been made and the council majority is unlikely to be swayed by public comment, but they still have a responsibility to listen to their constituents -- whether it's pleasant or not.

So, while David Tyson did the actual firing, it was the City Council's decision. ULTIMATELY the City Council speaks and votes by what they do. That's their irrefutable record.

"Responsibility to listen"? What kind of nonsense is this? If the decisions already made, the council made up their minds and acted totally out of sight of "their constituents," then what's the point of trying to talk to them? It is demeaning and a total waste of time and energy. Jager set down the City Council's rule: "You do what you do, we'll do what we have to do."

Accept their dictates, it's nothing about "talking" or "listening," and act accordingly.

If you think the city (YOU) are going to get a pass on this "war," think again. Interim Police Chief Murl Harpham is already on record stating that he's making changes. Be interesting to know what they are.
[Source]

--Joe