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