Dave Stancliff Walks On

Last Sunday's Times-Standard "As It Stands" was Dave Stancliff's "Fond Farewell. (August 18, 2013)

I'd like to wish him well as he moves on.

I'd like to believe Dave's grown some in these past years and this is a good move. I know what it feels like, in fact carry the scars, of offering someone a "bone" and getting my hand ripped off. But then, I guess, my hand just got in the way...

If nothing else, Dave's Sunday Opinion gave me inspiration - going to miss that. My one complaint, Dave, is that you squandered an opportunity very few get. You wasted half a page of news print every Sunday with trivia, and that's the nicest word I could think to use. You were given the perfect opportunity to help or cause people to THINK about relevant, and pertinent matters and issues that touched every one of our lives. Well, for the most part, you didn't - so, I hope when you take up writing again, you think about what's really important in this life, real freedom - that's the gift I offered you.

Best Wishes, Joe.

PS. By the way, some time back the wife and I were coming out of a local business when I happened to recognize you and your wife coming in. I gave her a nudge and asked her if she thought I should introduce myself. We had a good laugh, and walked on by. I mentioned to her that you two looked an awful lot like a younger version of us.
[Picture]

As It Stands, It's About Time

[UPDATE Below] [UPDATE II]

Finally, something worth your time to read that doesn't insult your intelligence!

Good job Dave.

It is my personal belief that when someone such as newspaper Editors, and other people given space such as Dave Stancliff, and apparently the new opinionator The Reverend Eric Duff are obligated to use that space for words of truth, honesty and value. In other words, write about subject matter that's important and substantive to the local reader. I had almost given up on Dave Stancliff when I noticed the face and name of The Reverend Eric Duff's From Time To Time writings appearing more and more on a regular basis. His latest is, “Fracking's effects to be felt globally.”

I don't know if Reverend Duff's articles had a positive influence on Dave or not, but I finally got my worthwhile article last Sunday, July 29, 2012, titled: Rhetoric and reality follow movie massacre. What he writes about is pertinent and substantive. I honestly believe there just might be some hope for that man yet. One of the biggest problems people have, and my interactions with Dave revealed this issue, is that what people do and what they say, never the twain do meet.

To explain, when I decided to compliment Dave on his progress I began by looking for a current picture that would define the article and came across this picture above at the following link posted June 28, 2012, under: (Hope he doesn't mind reprinting it here.)

AS IT STANDS: An attempt to explain a column that doesn’t really have a category 

Good Day Humboldt County! 

I was talking newspapers with a guy, while waiting in a long line the other day, when I mentioned that I wrote a column for The Times-Standard. He asked what kind of column did I write? 

After hesitating a moment I said, “An opinion column.” But my answer seems incomplete in retrospect, because I didn’t always opine about things. Sometimes I tell stories about people and animals. I’ve also been known to examine physical and mental conditions, along with humorous and satirical takes on life. 

As It Stands is a combination of a poor man’s YOU INSERT YOUR FAVORITE SYNDICATED NEWSPAPER COLUMNIST HERE, and now retired, Gary Larson’s, Far Side comic strip. I like to write about odd and weird things whenever possible. 

I do enjoy getting up on my bully pulpit to protest corruption wherever I see it. I only take stands on subjects that I strongly believe in. Probably the best thing about my column is I write about anything I want to! With a wide variety of subjects explored, I’m bound to pick up some regular readers, whose comments, by the way, keep me writing. 

Longtime readers know that I’m a retired newspaper editor & publisher, and a Vietnam veteran with PTSD that doesn’t get out of the house too often. If it wasn’t for the World Wide Web, I would have lost contact with the outside world a long time ago. This blog, and my column, give me two more reasons to get up in the morning. 

As It Stands, there’s so many new things to write about every day, it really helps chase boredom away! (Emphasis added)

While his take on subject matter is dependent upon his definitions of value and substance, my question is does what he write “pass HIS smell test”? In other words does his writings produce the product he says he's making? This is what Dave says to everyone that come to his blog: “WELCOME TO AS IT STANDS. WE ALL HAVE OPPORTUNTIES (sic) IN LIFE TO TAKE NEW PATHS, AND TO EXPLORE NEW IDEAS. THIS BLOG OFFERS THE READER A CHANCE TO WALK DOWN NEW ROADS. I LIVE IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY. JOIN ME EACH DAY TO GO ON A NEW PATH WITH STORIES AND 0PINIONS THAT WILL STIMULATE YOUR MIND.” (Emphasis added)

As someone that Dave contested with for a period of time over the issue of mind stimulation, let see how he does next Sunday. Lets all hope he keeps up the good work and continues with relevant and pertinent thought provoking subject matter.

So, in Dave's words, “NOW, IT'S TIME FOR ME TO WALK ON DOWN THE ROAD...”

---

[UPDATE :: Friday, August 17, 2012]

Well, I'll be a ring-tailed cat! Our man Dave did it again, TWICE. His first article was about “Democracy in America: Going, going, gone!” and his latest is about, “AB 1536: Texters rejoice, rest fear for theirlives” both commendable.

When I read his comments on “American Democracy” I was reminded how his article was more of an indictment of the propagandized, indolent American Voter. He says the country needs “real leadership, but doesn't see it coming from either side of the aisle.” That's because, while he is right about the need, the problem isn't Democrat or Republican elected politicians, it is the people that do NOT want real leaders. A good example of that is what we've got right here in Eureka with the so-called “Interim” Chief of Police, Murl Harpham. We find out today that the people of Eureka made sure they kept and protected that 78 year old reprobate in office, putting aside the hiring of a new Chief of Police like they made everyone think they were doing, to make him a full fledged Chief so he can finish and establish his legacy in grand style. (See, "Eureka drops police chief hiring process; 'interim' to be dropped from Chief Harpham's title as city looks to fill post next year." Yeah! With a fine Murl Harpham protege. A sad day on Humboldt Bay.  

People get the Democracy they want, even when their voting for two Monarchies and their representative Kings they dutifully call President.

[UPDATE :: Monday, August 20, 2012]

Short-Lived

I guess the past three weeks must of over-taxed our resplendent Opinionator's little gray cells. Sunday, August 19, 2012, waste-of-space “Contemporary art – it's not for everyone” pushes the limit when there are serious local issues that need to be aired out like Friday's headline reporting the latest coup by the Eureka One Percenters: “Eureka drops police chief hiring process – 'Interim' to be dropped from Chief Harpham's title as city looks to fill post nest year.” The push for a Harpham protégé rolls on.

But, alas! Such serious, pertinent and relevantly LOCAL issues are NOT a topic for discussion in the As It Stands world. Dave candidly talks about the need for leaders and leadership. Well Dave, here's your golden opportunity. Why don't you make the most of it?

--Joe

Objective “Reporting” versus Worthless Opinionated Beliefs

There's been considerable dissension and acrimonious dispute, since I inaugurated the Joe Blow Report, for declaring it's sole purpose is to report fact-based observations and arbitrarily refrain from expounding upon conjecture based worthless opinions and religious based beliefs.

In fact I recently reported the following quote about legendary Miyamoto Mushashi:

The Mind should be pure, uncontaminated by self-serving distortions and preconceived ideas.  The mind should be flexible, able to change shape according to the situation without resorting to rote learning.”

Today, I'm adding the following quote:

Living plants are flexible,

In death, they become dry and brittle.

Therefore, stubborn people are disciples of death,

but flexible people are disciples of life.

On Thanksgiving Day, November 24, 2011, Glenn Greenwald takes on this issue of “objective reporting in his: Bob Schieffer, Ron Paul and journalistic “objectivity” - Lessons the local Humboldt community should take to heart. Glenn observes:

Contrary to popular wisdom, there aren’t two types of journalists: those who express opinions and those who are objective.  The two types are those who honestly acknowledge their opinions and those who deceitfully pretend such opinions do not influence their journalism. One reason modern establishment journalism has become so corrupted and worthless is because of the conceit that they engage in some sort of objective reporting that is free of bias and opinion, even as they are the stalwart defenders of a clear set of political opinions and interests (those wielded by the same power factions which they pretend to hold accountable).  Any time someone is tempted to believe these fairy tales of objectivity, they should just re-watch this Schieffer interview.

The principals defined in that statement above are the reasons that led me to make my first observation regarding Dave Stancliff's opinionated and biased, newspaper published, article. Because the Times-Standard steadfastly continues to publish him regardless of his public conduct repudiating his credibility and theirs, a review of their published conduct reveals the pattern defined by Greenwald above:

One reason modern establishment journalism has become so corrupted and worthless is because of the conceit that they engage in some sort of objective reporting that is free of bias and opinion, even as they are the stalwart defenders of a clear set of political opinions and interests (those wielded by the same power factions which they pretend to hold accountable).”

The Joe Blow Report is replete examples of "bias and worthless conjectured opinions by the Times-Standard reporters. A rather striking and depressing indictment on this Thanksgiving Day.

--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

Warmonger Writes About Peace II

Hatemonger Writes About Love

For those of you that don't know, a “warmonger” is defined as, “a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war.” A “hatemonger” is defined as, “a person who kindles hatred, enmity, or prejudice in others.” The following comment posted on this blog Report by Dave Stancliff, one of many examples as far back as June 1, 2009, of language and intent that meets the above definitions.

It was actually May 31, 2009, that I posted some non-personal observations, "Trolls Versus the Thought Police," about a newspaper column that Dave Stancliff wrote for the Time-Standard newspaper exposing his agenda to dictate and control what and how people think about certain subjects that leads directly to war and the lawless debased state of affairs we're all forced to endure today because of people that think they can do and say to others whatever they want with impunity.

My observations over a year ago are proven justified and legitimate when Dave Stancliff changed the issue with his first ad hominem personal accusation. Ever since he's tried to make the issue between him and me and NOT about what he says, does or believes that he writes in the newspaper. Herein lies the crux of that problem, he writes for the local newspaper. Apparently they believe this kind of trash-talking garbage, racist obscenity is acceptable. That, somehow, his public actions do not reflect in anyway upon them and their newspaper. So be it. As long as they publish his so-called "opinions" the Report will publish its observations as it deems appropriate. As far as the writer(s) of this Report are conserned, Dave Stancliff was and is, as a person, irrelevant. Stancliff would like to believe someone here at the Report is angry, hates his guts, or holds a grudge, even some sort of "fan from hell," etc. that way he could become relevant.

About “paranoia” - that is the state of being wherein you are unable to distinguish between what you think and believe from who and what you are. In Dave Stancliff's case, when I wrote about his newspaper article he accused me of writing and attacking him. Stancliff's documented statements, repeated statements, define him, NOT ME! To re-state an obvious fact, that the claimed purpose of the article was a simple-minded knee-jerk response, in fact at the root of a very serious problem for the world and American society, is NOT, in and of itself, a personal attack on him. Neither do such statements of fact make someone angry nor paranoid. Not one time has Stancliff produced the “lies” he claims I said. Nor does he demonstrate what it is that supposedly makes me “angry.” I guess he thinks he can get away with making such statements because if anyone has a right to be angry it would be me. His wild and psychotic statements take on a hint of personal danger to me when he makes his veiled threats, “some kind of crazed fan from hell.” Let me remind everyone that not one time have I personally addressed or recognized Dave Stancliff other than the impersonal commentary written on this blog Report. I never go to his blog, nor do I say anything about his filthy comments about me (us) he spreads around the blogosphere.

The paranoia is demonstrated in Stancliff's self-important, elitist, god-like assertion that I am somehow a “fan” of his. That my indirect attention somehow makes him a god! Would-be gods are defined by their right to tell everyone what is and is not, but NEVER furnish any proof, i.e., “paranoia” and “hate.” In Stancliff's case, the proof they try to use is always whatever response they can use after-the-fact. His “ends” always “justify his means.”

One final thought on “offers” on the record, conflicts with Stancliff's convenient recollections. He came on this blog and offered to meet with me so we could discuss our “differences.” Before I could even begin to contemplate meeting with him I needed him to assure me he would not use that meeting to continue assaulting me with more of his accusations. He, did not stop making personal accusations even then, but did make another offer for an “interview.” Again he asserts some measure of superiority by offering to do this so I can get a wider coverage of readers. Whatever made him think that might be important to me, I don't know. Regardless, his refusal to even consider what I might need to meet demonstrates that his offers were disingenuous – made for ulterior reasons.

Remember, “Everything Is About Something Different.” I've learned in this life that people like Dave Stancliff, people that persist in making false, lying accusations, do so because they know what they say and write ARE lies. They know that if what they said was true, these people would either be in a mental institution or jail. Only idiots keep provoking someone that's really angry, maybe even psychologically deranged, with a sharp stick. The following is Dave Stancliff's latest contribution posted on the Report article: Warmonger Writes About Peace.

Included below it is the unsolicited comment from a reader that offers some worthwhile perspective about Dave Stancliff's real intentions behind his Times-Standard newspaper “As It Stands” weekly column. [Picture source]

---

Dave said...

You amaze me Joe.

I write about a subject that has nothing to do with you, and you still attack me.

Remind me of the offer you made me to meet. I don't recall that one. I know I made you an offer, but you refused.

All I see is an angry man who accuses me of everything in the book while reviling me, saying lies about me,and who spends his time blogging about me like some kind of crazed fan from hell.

It's obvious you have some major anger issues in life Joe, and for whatever reason you've chosen to devote your days and nights to attacking me.

I really feel sorry for you. I personally couldn't carry around as much paranoia and hate as you do. It's going to catch up to you.

Have a great day Joe and don't forget to say something nasty about me.

July 3, 2010 8:40 AM

kenny's sideshow said...

Dave, I have no dog in this little fight between you and Joe but I was intrigued by your article title so I went and read it.

It was a convoluted mess, either by ignorance or design.

Taking the false flag of 9/11 and the subsequent manufactured Islamic enemies and mixing it with some history of the Crusades is BS.

Here's how not to coexist with others on the planet and create jihad in the locals as an excuse for never ending wars and profiteering:

Invade and occupy a country based on nothing but lies, genocide and displace the population, destroy the infrastructure and historical artifacts, steal the resources,use the controlled media to cheer lead the death and destruction,install puppet leaders 'friendly' to your agenda,maybe even stimulate the opium/heroin trade and make your bankers and buddies rich while the local population suffers, etc. etc.

Dave, you're a 'journalist.' You should know these simple things by now.

July 3, 2010 3:46 PM

[Emphasis added]

--Joe

Who, me? Yeah! You.

Identifying the secret elite that lurk amongst us.

Some years ago I was reading about China and the comment was made about the 800,000 elitist Chinese that run that country of a billion people. So, I began asking the question, “Who are the elitists running America and how do you identify them”?

First, most American elitists believe they are the “Exceptional People” specially blessed of God. They originate across all spectrum's of society, political, racial, religious, ethnic, class, culture and gender. So, one of the defining characteristics of an elite individual is they think and believe that they are better than everyone else. They only recognize, accept or see someone of their own kind. Everyone else and whatever they may possess is only there to serve them and their perceived needs. In many ways they are no different than the vampires of lore. Like all parasites, they make everyone believe that they (you) cannot survive without them.

Is that not what all the “professional people” tell everyone? We can't survive without them? That's why we have doctors, lawyers, preachers, priests, teachers, judges, bankers, accountants, reporters and policemen to tell us how to think, believe, live, and die. That is the second characteristic that identifies an elitist. They are the only one that knows anything and are always telling all other people what is and what is not right, good, bad, decent, moral and ethical; what is acceptable and unacceptable. The presume the right to tell you who you are and who you are not and to treat you accordingly.

In a nutshell, elitists are egotistical, self-centered, self-righteous, arrogant, self-important, and the only thing they care about is themselves and what they want. The only time anyone exists to them is when they supply sustenance to their voracious appetite. Their next identifying characteristic is their constant effort to get you to go along with what they want. It doesn't matter what idiotic scheme they dream up or what stupid and moronic issue they espouse, just as long as they can get you to agree. The more of your soul they can get you to compromise, the better.

So, who tells you how to think? Well, the “Thought Police” do, that's who. You can get a pretty good idea who they might be when you consider what's going on in the “inner” inner sanctums at County Supervisor's Chambers or at the Eureka City Hall and, lest we not forget, all the Judge's Chambers. Anyone that follows this blog Report knows I have a problem with how the Times-Standard allows their local Opinionators to try to lord it over everyone. A good example of this is by Dave Stancliff in his Sunday, March 7, 2010 mandate: “In a better world we wouldn't keep animals in captivity.” However, when I picked up my Sunday paper this weekend and began looking through the first couple of sections, I began to wonder why I continue to support the newspaper. It sure wasn't for want of something worthwhile and relevant to read, that's for sure. I guess maybe it's because the gal that delivers my paper does such a good job. It certainly isn't because I want to read this: “Hi. My name is Dave and I have a reputation for getting lost.” At first glance, you have to ask yourself, who gives a hoot? Take a second look and if a character flaw, exemplified by this statement, “normally developed adults and children,” is caused by genetic loss, it isn't much of a stretch to advocate, “bad people are born bad because of missing or flawed genes.” “Good people (elitists and their dogs) are born good because they possess “all” their genes. And that, my friend, justifies throwing a 10 year old little boy or girl, for the proper crime of course, in jail for life.

According to Dave Stancliff, a columnist for The Times-Standard and a former newspaper editor and publisher, keeping animals captive is criminal. Well, with the small exception of dogs and cats and a bird or two, maybe. We come now to James Faulk and his Tuesday, March 16, 2010: “Dog-hunting for a perfect pet for mom.” As City Editor, I guess privilege has its perks. With so many important issues affecting our community we should expect community conscious newspaper people to use their space and words accordingly. Getting a dog for one's aging mother may seem real important to the Faulk's. Personally? I could really give rat's ass. That is until I read this:

“And for a man who has had many dogs over the course of his life so far, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Adding a canine to the family is much like adding another sibling, another child -- they have emotional and physical needs, and they demand your time and affection. If you can't offer those things, you've got no business getting a dog.”

Who is going to decide what kind of "emotional and physical needs" a certain dog requires? HIM? Your neighbor or some police officer? Who is going to tell you how much if any affection you are showing you dog? Or how much time you MUST spend with it to justify the right to own a dog? You'd better get with the program folks -- he's the expert! WHY, "He's a man who has had many dogs over the course of his life." 

My grandfather, a longtime cattle and sheep rancher, were he still alive, would laugh this would-be know-it-all all right out of town. Regardless, these are the words of a self-ordained elitist using his position in the community to tell everyone HOW to THINK!

More importantly, this is how the elitist segregate our society into two classes, the general population of worthless wannabees and that select group of high and mighty exceptional people. Finally, there's one simple way to identify an elitist that was exemplified in the movie, "Avatar." They absolutely refuse to recognize and accept you or talk to you; they absolutely refuse to "see you."

This, tragically, thrusts the two classes of people into a virtual state of war.

Picture 1 & 2 sources]

--Joe

As It Stands – No Sequoia Park Zoo

Dave Stancliff, you can read what he says here in the Sunday, Mar. 7, 2010, Times-Standard, affirms that “In a better world” we wouldn't have zoos. Is this Stancliff's backdoor vote on scrapping the zoo because the city doesn't have the necessary monies to keep or pay for the Sequoia Park Zoo?

Actually he says, “we wouldn't keep animals in captivity.” Does that me we should all turn our dogs loose and get rid of our cats if we want a better world?

Or is this just his unsophisticated (I could say “simple-minded) way of trying to tell people how and what to think again? Opinions are one thing and Stancliff is quick to say, about people that enjoy going to zoos, “I understand they are entitled to their views.” I'll bet you didn't know you were expressing a personal view, or even casting a vote in support thus making yourself complicit in their crime, every time you visited a zoo? Yeah! Crime, cruelty to animals.

He goes on to say, “If scientists want to study them in order to protect them, they should do it in their natural habitat. Captivity is cruel. I don't care what others say in defense of the practice; nothing will ever convince me that capturing animals to study and to entertain people is right.” So, all of you fine folks that want to spend monies that no one has keeping the Sequoia Park Zoo, what kind of people does that make you? He also says, “He (someone that doesn't agree with Stancliff) and others of like mind have a right to their opinion, but I think they are dead wrong.” Questioning the validity of a persons “opinions” is one thing, accusing someone of being “dead wrong” impugns that persons character. Challenging someone's facts is a whole lot different than assaulting that person's character or personhood.

Opinions are one thing and this blog takes the “stand” that they are totally worthless. Stancliff, however, with the Times-Standard's support, goes far beyond a simple opinion. He sets himself up as some sort of elitist judging, alienating, quantifying and condemning the moral and ethical nature of the people in this community that do not necessarily agree with him and his worthless “opinions.” If he was any kind of a man taking a stand on some issue, lets say on, “Sequoia Park Zoo re-enters budget crosshairs; councilman wants Eureka voters to decide” all he had to do was write a substantive column on that subject and make a straightforward manly stand. Leave your judging to God.

The Times-Standard and their readers and supporters would all be better served if Dave Stancliff practiced what he preaches: “Live and let live.”

Yeah, “What a concept”!

---

Wikipedia article on the capybara. Picture source.

--Joe

Discourse on the Method

I came across this item in the Wikipedia the other day and thought it was well worth posting on the Joe Blow Report too.

How to think correctly


"Good sense is mankind's most equitably divided endowment. . .the differences of opinion are not due to difference in intelligence, but merely to the fact that we use different approaches and consider different things. For it is not enough to have a good mind: one must use it well."

In the "building metaphor" laid forth by Descartes, opinions and our own thoughts are the ground upon which our later perceptions are built. Descartes remarks on the sedentary nature of ideas and opinions, saying “I firmly believed that in this way I should much better succeed in the conduct of my life, than if I built only upon old foundations, and leaned upon principles which, in my youth, I had taken upon trust.” In other words, the core principle is that one must seek not only to build on old foundations of knowledge, but should look for other fertile land to build knowledge upon.

The Discourse on the Method is one of the most influential works in the history of modern science. It is a method which gives a solid platform from which all modern natural sciences could evolve.

Morals, and Maxims accepted while conducting Method
The following three maxims were adopted by Descartes so that he could effectively function in the "real world" while experimenting with his method of radical doubt. They formed a rudimentary belief system from which to act before he developed a new system based on the truths he discovered using his method.

1. Obey the laws and customs of my country and religion
2. Be as firm and resolute in my actions as I was able
3. Endeavor always to conquer myself rather than fortune, and change my desires rather than the order of the world, and in general, accustom myself to the persuasion that, except our own thoughts, there is nothing absolutely in our power; so that when we have done our best in things external to us, all wherein we fail of success is to be held, as regards us, absolutely impossible.

Descartes uses the analogy of tearing down the house to its foundation in order to build a secure edifice (He even extends the analogy to move next door into a house of morality, while his own house is being rebuilt). The foundation he reveals appears to have three parts.

Radical doubt and morals, something in short supply today!

 

--Joe

Polite Is So Boring!

That's what Susan Seaman says her 15-year-old son taught her in the Sunday, October 11, 2009, Times-Standard article, "Business Sense." That's what my 17-year-old grandson told me when he was 15 years old too. He then proceeds to demonstrate that belief by the loud and outlandish clothes he wears. At least he doesn't have tattooed on the back of his head the words, "Piss Off."

Her commentary on "opinions" is what interested us. The consequences, intended or unintended from expressing "mostly worthless opinions" has a lot to do with a person's credibility. Her closing comment says it rather well:

"And, I told him, if you really want to make your opinion known to the world through the mass media, you never know -- in a society where loud and rude is becoming commonplace, a polite, well-considered comment may be utterly shocking."

That way you won't waste your time or energy trying to "say you're sorry" when you most certainly are not.
[Photo Source]

--Joe

Anarchy in Humbug County – WHY?

The reason is, the people have spoken!

This was never more illustrated today than by this latest sick maneuver by some CHP officer and our illustrious District Attorney to legitimize murder. Or is the word a "killing"? It amounts to the same thing. Someone died at the hands of another. But, what else could they do?

We're talking about the latest in the saga of Allen Bear's “accused hitting and killing a cyclist last summer.” His name was Gregory Jennings. Read the article and NOTE: First, it's “Hoopa driver,” then is “Hoopa man,” and next it's “accused,” and “a cyclist.” To continue it is “reporting officer,” and “officer's opinion,” and we finally find out who the “cyclist” is half way through the article. This is the “Thought Police” at their best. Dehumanize, depersonalize and neuter the issue to abstract object entities and worthless opinions that devalues life.

Everyone can blame the California Highway Patrol and Paul Gallegos the District Attorney. God knows, the share responsibility. My question is, will any of them stand accountable? Doesn't seem likely, but the answer is – they and their families are already paying that price right along with everyone else that 'takes their lives in their hands' and ventures out on any city street, county road or state highway. These lawless anarchist assault us all.

The laws governing how we conduct ourselves when driving a motor vehicle are worthless. Not because the police DON'T enforce them. Well, mostly don't enforce them – apparently only when convenient. The laws are worthless because MOST drivers refuse to comply. The DEFACTO reality determines the law. When 90% of drivers treat stop signs as if they are non-existent the majority voter has redefined the law governing stop signs either non-existent or something else. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!

How then does the courts, the District Attorney or any police officer hold anyone accountable for failure to stop, let alone resulting deaths? They can't and they don't.

Allison White reports in the Times-Standard that: “Gross negligence, as defined in California statute, is an act done with such careless disregard for the safety of others' lives that it is likely to cause foreseeable injury.” The problem is with anarchy, when the majority vote, in this instance that stop signs don't mean stop and drive, or vote them as something ornamental, THEY MEET THIS STANDARD. What about the driver that consistently runs the Safety Corridor between Eureka and Arcata at 60 plus MPH? When one or two cars race by at that speed other drivers speedup to follow. By the time you get to the 65 MPH sign approaching Arcata everyone one of them is going 70 plus MPH. Every driver that deliberately and purposely drives this way or drives 35 MPH or better in a 25 MPH speed zone, rolls through a stop sign without even slowing down or only noticeably reduces speed because the turn requires it, is GROSSLY NEGLIGENT!

The sad truth is many of these lawless people I observe, driving without regard for life or property, have vehicles full of young children. What do they think they are teaching their children? To be safe on the streets and watch out for people like themselves? Hardly! And those that don't have children in their cars racing around like lunatics, how many of their children are playing Russian Roulette with people just like them?

Is it because life has no value? These people are more important than everyone else? Laws are only for the old and the stupid? These drivers are basically right-wing bullies? Left-wing socialist, pinko commies? Illegal aliens and foreigners that are ignorant of the law? Or American Indians that are citizens of sovereign nations and are exempt? Regardless! Anarchy or people that drive like Allan Bear are a loaded gun or a bomb, ready to explode.

Every driver that races through a stop sign is a driver trying to hurt or kill some innocent person. It's a no man's land out there and everyone is on his own. When the elected and appointed authorities don't do what decent, law-abiding people that believe in our system justice and civil order put them their to do, people do what people do – they live! That means when they see someone deliberately run a red light or a stop sign or any other gross negligent act and kill an innocent pedestrian, bike rider or mother and small children on their way to school, they take matters into their own hands and make that person accountable – the ultimate expression of ANARCHY.

[Image Source]

--Joe

HumBug Blogger Elite Report II

At least once a week I go through my list of local blogs whether they really interest me or not. Most do. Some change or dry up. It's a kind of penance I pay for writing the Report. Occasionally, if the subject interests me, I'll even post an observation or ask a question. Over the months, I've noticed that the regular commentators, the Blah, Blah, Blah types who regularly wash each others hands, work together like a pack of ravenous dogs when a stranger tries to enter into their little social club. Or, they just ignore you altogether. No talking to terrorists you know?

Local blogs and blog commentary is a fair representation of local interests, issues and problems ranging from "A" to "Z". Everyone has an opinion on something and everything. Lord forbid someone should point out their opinions have nothing to do with rhyme, rhythm, history or the facts. Of course, it's all nothing but "WORDS" and we all know "words," when you get right down to it, are pure, unadulterated bull-shit.

So, why then all the animus when someone has the courage to disagree, point out their insincerity, or rank dishonesty?

I recently went on SoHum Parlance II and asked a couple of questions. For that I was told that I "looked like a duck," "walked like a duck" and that my comments were "duck crap." Remember, there's one rule the Blogger of Record, Eric Kirk insists upon: NO NAME CALLING. Even though he joined in with the excoriating ridicule he rose above, NAME CALLING! The ad homonym belittling insults of Kirk and his ad hoc groupies speaks for itself, to anyone wasting their time reading that crap. Yet, we find he's accepted and fits right in the Humbug Blogger Elite.

The above reveals, to any serious peruser of these local blogs, a couple of common threads. One, there is really NO serious conversation regarding important issues and problems. It's mostly all fluff and smoke and mirror stuff. Second, is the grid lock caused by the intolerance, xenophobic bigotry and hatred. Lest we forget to mention, there's a third thread Joe chooses to call the Humbug Blogger Elite. They represent the kind of club that has permeated the North Coast's perennial problems and ailments that ostracizes and victimizes every citizen and non-citizen alike. Such things like why there is no freeway bypassing Eureka and Bayside, Eureka police use of tazers, lack of transparency in government, some sort of serious police review, lack of effective traffic enforcement, and the list goes on.

What got me to thinking about this is what happened when I clicked on the North Coast Journal Blog and I was introduced to their new Blogthing. Hank Sims was ecstatic about their new Robot. He's got his robot setup to search the Times-Standard's internet homepage and as he says, "He watches a list of local blogs and informs us when they are updated." A real tiny list!

I would guess they think that tiny list of blog sites is a good enough cross-section of "politics, people and art" in Humboldt County to justify their little news paper. Here's one list, it changes every day:

Eureka Ruin: Money Trees Abound + 10 more… Eureka Ruin: Money Trees Abound • NCJ Blogthing: The Blogthing is Dead • Watch Paul: Heinous? • Redheaded Blackbelt: Color at Dawn • Continental Shelf: Historical Society 49th annual luncheon • The Plazoid: Judges Cash In on Prison Profits • SoHum Parlance: Krugman: It’s not enough • Continental Shelf: Marina Center DEIR comments posted • Fred’s Humboldt Blog: Ocean Salmon Fishing This Year? • Humboldt Herald: Marina Center comments online

This is what The Journal says about itself:

The North Coast Journal of Politics, People & Art is a guide to what's really happening on the far North Coast of California. We provide news in a way that will make you think and we deliver all the fun through the liveliest, most comprehensive and interactive events calendar on the North Coast on the web at www.northcoastjournal.com with highlights each week in print.

Unfortunately saying it doesn't make it true. Hank Sims seems to think that print media and their reporters stands head and shoulders above electronic media when it comes to accountability, honesty and integrity. He may have a point. Being an honest reporter in this day and age is a dangerous business. Sticking to the facts and not getting caught up in disseminating persuasive propaganda and rampant character assassination is a tough job, too. Even so, maybe it's time Joe Blow spent a little more time getting to know The Journal.

Look at the Blog Roll on each of these sites and you begin to see the thread of commonality. Joe has to ask, "Where's the beef"?

ADDENDUM :: SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2009

I came across this newspaper article by Mark Morford,
"Death by moron
Has anonymous commenting destroyed meaningful online dialogue? Oh, hell yes"

We agree. You can read some of our commentary on this subject here. "Death by Moron" says a lot about anonymous commentators. Moronic blogs and commentators discourage most decent conversation, if you can find any, unless moderated.

--Joe

A Serious Gem From Israel on Manhood

Is this the picture of real manhood?

---

Israel accused of using illegal white phosphorus shells in Gaza

By Damien McElroy in Jerusalem
Jan. 11, 2009

White phosphorus is an incendiary material that causes severe burns when it comes in contact with human skin and its use in conflict zones is restricted inside civilian areas. Syria called on the UN to investigate the claim.

Human Rights Watch said its researchers witnessed the use of the materiel on Saturday and Sunday in Gaza City and Jabalia refugee camps, both built-up areas.

The Israeli military, which refuses to comment on the types of munitions it is using in the conflict, rejected the accusations. "There is no use of white phosphorus," a spokeswoman said. "Everything we use is according to international law," Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch said: "Israel should not use it in Gaza's densely populated areas."

source: Telegraph UK

Manhood I learned from my father:

My father, a World War Two combat veteran fighting in Europe, told this story to my brother and me one day when we were just teenagers. He never talked about his experiences, with the rare exception of when he was talking to fellow combat veterans. That is when my brother and I would sneak in and listen. Occasionally, as we grew older he would talk to us about the atrocities of war. He never got real specific, but he always got his point across.

This time he was talking about the day he and his platoon were nearly destroyed. He said that everyone carried, as standard gear, two grenades hanging from their suspenders on their chests. One was a fragmentation grenade the other a phosphorus grenade. He said the phosphorus grenade was the most lethal because it would burn through anything; it would not stop burning until it was burned out. Well, this day they were on the march and the guy walking right next to him, my Dad said collapsed later from "battle fatigue" - he said the last time he "saw him he was sitting beside the road bawling like a babe." My Dad said he happened to look and see that the pin that hold the trigger to the phosphorus grenade was hanging only by a thread. He said he was able to grab the grenade and get the pin put fully back in place. He said when the platoon realized what was going on they all ran like hell; screw the Germans, they'd take their chances.

My father was rather vague when we asked him what they used those grenades on. However, he did mention an occasion when he and another soldier were searching a home when they heard a noise from the basement. My father said all the houses had basements, with internal doors and and stairs leading down into the basement. He said those basements were always black as pitch and they never ventured down into them. He said the German people would hide there to get away from the bombardment coming in before the American soldiers moved in to search the towns building by building. The problem, he said, was that you never knew if it was civilians or German soldiers hiding down there, or both. He said his partner hollered down the stairwell in both English and German for whoever was down there to come out. When nothing happened, the customary response was to toss in a grenade and move on. This time my father noticed that his partner had pulled the pin on a phosphorus grenade and was about to toss it into the basement when all of a sudden people began to come pouring up the stairs. He said the basement was full of dozens of old men, women and children. He said he can still see the look in their eyes and shakes in his boots every time he thinks about how close they came to incinerating all those poor people.

Real men, men whose manhood is secure, do not wage war on the innocent civilian population with impunity even if there might be an enemy soldier hiding among them amid their family and friends.

DISCLAIMER:
It has come to our attention that some are accusing The Joe Blow Report of being anti-Jew and anti-Semantic. These people carry their own load or responsibility for what they do and do not do. Making observations of their attitudes, actions, behavior and conduct does not speak to the writer's, in this case Joe Blow, motivations or intentions. The facts speak for themselves!

Joe Blow is constantly addressing and exemplifying the works, writings and heroic works of Jewish people. Not all people in Israel or Jews around the world are cowardly war-mongers. Right now the majority are and their crimes are before the world.

If it is wrong to say anything negative, regardless the obvious truth, about a Jew or Israeli, their government or religions without being branded a racist then it is wrong to say anything negative about the Palestinians, Arabs, or their religions. Those that live by the double-standard, because they presume to be unique among mankind, shall also die by it.

An ancient Jewish Bible scholar wrote about the "lawless" people when he said: "So that is why God lets an operation of error go to them, that they may get to believing the lie, in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness." The truth is revealed when they are judged because they act in harmony with their beliefs or opinions that are lies. Assaulting the messenger never changes the truth.

--Joe

Humbug SoHum Elite

This seems like a good time and place to make the following observations about a couple of Southern Humboldt Blogs. Blogs are essentially an online person's place of residence; a kind of alter ego home. When you open up that home for commentary you post a “Welcome” sign on your front door that says, “Please come in and speak to me and my guests.” Since visitors are invited guests, they should act like guests and be treated like they are, welcomed guests. Welcomed guests and hosts alike are first and foremost decent and respectful of the individual rights of all legitimate people to exist. Rarely do you ever read a “Welcome” sign that says: “ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK.” Yet that is exactly what I have encountered at two prominent (if you consider all the commentary posted on their blogs to mean anything) Southern Humboldt blogger's abodes. They talk or write like they are some kind of self-righteous, supreme authority on all things in God's creation. An old logger might say, "They think their crap don't stink!" They invite or entice you in to have intercourse, to make commentary. In Joe's situation, make “observations,” no intercourse. When the payoff isn't satisfactory, doesn't produce what they expected or wanted, they then use that opportunity to tell you what a pile of dog crap they think you are. Then when you have the temerity to object to their personal diseased characterizations and demeaning accusations of being everything from the lowest form of slime to a psychotic imbecile they delete your response. Rarely will they ever tell you that you are NOT welcome and to not come back with anymore talk. They hope you'll come back and say something so they can publicly ridicule you some more.

My most recent experience with “assaulting the messenger” was with Eric Kirk, SoHum Parlance II. I realize Eric Kirk lives in own little dreamworld and can't handle getting his cage rattled once in awhile, like most of us. Going at me personally to justify censoring my observations prompted this partial response:

Since I know you’ll read this, let me say that when you open the door to your blog and invite everyone in including Anonymous people to denigrate, demean, slander and personally assault with foul, hypercritical and lying accusations then remove the response because it offends your pussy sensibilities you make your blog a whorehouse.

Not all blogs are corrupt, petty, mean-spirited, narcissistic, obtuse, and belligerent. Some wordmeisters do a fair job when they stick to what they know. Others like Brilliant Branscomb post comments like this: December 17, 2008 at 10:38 am - Ernie Branscomb (South Fork Ernie)

“Early on in the Arab world, they make great strides toward science and civilization, but recently they have become somewhat complacent. Some would say that they are no longer keeping pace with the modern world, indeed some would say that they are becoming a backward tribe of people, and they are starting to harm the progress toward civilization.” “Some would say” that ancient society, "Arab world," is uncivilized because it rejects Democracies “modern” anarchy, mob rule and corruption? We all know how Brancomb's ancestors modernized the North American Indian population.

The problem here with the both of these guys and the reason for their online conduct is that they are basically racist and dehumanize people and their societies to justify their intolerant racist actions. Like all racist warmongers when they can't support themselves they immediately attack their victims.

I posted this response because I went back to Erik's blog and asked him a third time to explain himself. I noticed that he's been back to that thread several times after I asked. Normally Joe has no time nor any tolerance for the rude and indecent behavior of the type encountered with these two prima donnas. However, after Erik left his little rat droppings all over both of my blogs, apparently trying to make some point, I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, "discernment of truth does not grow in empty minds."

ADENNDUM :: Thursday, January 8, 2009

The Humbug Bloggers in Humboldt encompass a nifty little social club. A classic example of who these people are is the list on the sidebar of The Humboldt Herald. Pretty much says it all when you compare lists on other local Humboldt blogs. Joe vainly keeps checking for his blogs to magically appear, but no such luck . . .

I recently came across another good example of this "Good-ol' Boy Club" posted recently at 

Ernie's Place. His title, as far as Joe Blow observes, is in fact, Nothing New. His "list" is a-typical of "The Club," however. Here's a couple more similar blog links. If that's not enough, check this one out. "Do you like local history, droll humor and a sensible outlook?" From this guy's blog? Really? See what I mean?

--Joe

Speak Truth To ... What?

... or Joe Blow and His Observations

Joe Blow says it plain and simple, right at the top of this website: Making Comments Count -- This report is about observations and not about opinions. Opinions are mostly worthless. With that in mind, if you want to comment on something posted, please click on the "Comment" link at the end of the each post.

Just so no one misunderstands Joe adds the following a little further down the web page: More About Joe Blow -- Please be aware that the Joe Blow Report speaks for itself. You may or may not agree, but just remember, that is your issue. The Report is offered as a free gift to whomever desires to read it. Please accept it as such. The Report respects the rights of all individuals to be who and what they are. All the same there are consequences for what each individual does and does not do. If the Report stimulates a little thinking, it has fulfilled it's purpose.

Joe Blow fully understands that whatever is posted on the Internet or printed in newspapers or spoken on television or on the radio bears the responsibility for being PUBLIC property, albeit sometimes copyrighted. Let's hope that those Joe observes and reports about understand that as well. In other words, if you do not want to read or hear about someones observations, keep quiet! Or if you're going to stand up on a soapbox in a public place and spout off you'd better be ready for a rotten egg or two.

Now that's simple enough, right? He doesn't make many comments on other blogs, but when he does he follows the above criteria - no exceptions even when there's commentary that aggravates and disgusts . . . to put it mildly.

For the uninitiated, the dictionary defines "opinion" as follows:
-noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

—Synonyms 1. persuasion, notion, idea, impression. Opinion, sentiment, view are terms for one's conclusion about something. An opinion is a belief or judgment that falls short of absolute conviction, certainty, or positive knowledge; it is a conclusion that certain facts, ideas, etc., are probably true or likely to prove so: political opinions; an opinion about art; In my opinion this is true. Sentiment (usually pl.) refers to a rather fixed conviction, usually based on feeling or emotion rather than reasoning: These are my sentiments. View is an estimate of something, an intellectual judgment, a critical survey based on a mental examination, particularly of a public matter: views on governmental planning.

Observe" (root of observation) is defined:
–verb (used with object)
1. to see, watch, perceive, or notice: He observed the passersby in the street.
2. to regard with attention, esp. so as to see or learn something: I want you to observe her reaction to the judge's question.
3. to watch, view, or note for a scientific, official, or other special purpose: to observe an eclipse.
4. to state by way of comment; remark: He observed frequently that clerks were not as courteous as they used to be.
5. to keep or maintain in one's action, conduct, etc.: You must observe quiet.
6. to obey, comply with, or conform to: to observe laws.
7. to show regard for by some appropriate procedure, ceremony, etc.: to observe Palm Sunday.
8. to perform duly or solemnize (ceremonies, rites, etc.).
9. to note or inspect closely for an omen or sign of future events.
–verb (used without object)
10. to notice.
11. to act as an observer.
12. to remark or comment (usually fol. by on or upon).

—Synonyms 2. note. Observe, witness imply paying strict attention to what one sees or perceives. Both are “continuative” in action. To observe is to mark or be attentive to something seen, heard, etc.; to consider carefully; to watch steadily: to observe the behavior of birds, a person's pronunciation. To witness, formerly to be present when something was happening, has added the idea of having observed with sufficient care to be able to give an account as evidence: to witness an accident. 4. mention, say. 6. follow, fulfill. 7. celebrate, keep.—Antonyms 1–3, 6–8. ignore.

Joe says, an opinion is conjured in the mind. Most opinions today are "faith-based" beliefs, and jaded emotional judgments, rarely touching upon reality. Observations require the personal responsibility of a cognizant witness. Opinions are influenced by personal likes and dislikes either of the subject, the object or both. A casual observation, on the other hand, could care less. Furthermore, opinions have more to do with lies whereas observations deal more with truth.

Truth is defined as:
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8. (often initial capital letter ) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9. agreement with a standard or original.
10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
11. Archaic. fidelity or constancy.
---Synonyms: These nouns refer to the quality of being in accord with fact or reality. Truth is a comprehensive term that in all of its nuances implies accuracy and honesty: "We seek the truth, and will endure the consequences" (Charles Seymour). Veracity is adherence to the truth: "Veracity is the heart of morality" (Thomas H. Huxley). Verity often applies to an enduring or repeatedly demonstrated truth: "beliefs that were accepted as eternal verities" (James Harvey Robinson). Verisimilitude is the quality of having the appearance of truth or reality: "merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative" (W.S. Gilbert).

Regarding "truth" most Christian believers know about truth, right? "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14 NIV) A history of this man's life clearly demonstrates that those learned people, those arrogant, self-righteous, complicated and convoluted scholars that did not agree with him opined greatly about his "truth" or "observations."

As far as Joe Blow is concerned the following quote says it all about him and his observations, "Truth is a comprehensive term that in all of its nuances implies accuracy and honesty: "We seek the truth, and will endure the consequences" (Charles Seymour)."

--Joe