My "News-Fast"

Fasting is primarily the act of willingly abstaining from some or all food, drink, or both, for a period of time. In Joe's case it was news - news in all forms.

Ten years ago Joe got acquainted with Dr. Andrew Weil's book, “8 Weeks to Optimum Health.” One of his recommendations for week two was a “one-day news fast.” Well, he decided to take a one-month news fast and liked it so well he went for another two weeks. When the Times-Standard newspaper came in, he just took the first section and filed it and went right to Section B. On Sundays he made sure to file Section D right alongside Section A. The absolute last thing he wanted to see was Dave Stancliff's beaming face advertising his worthless opinions. He can't decide what is more intolerable, propaganda and biased news or moronic, infantile opinions. Perhaps, it's the fact that such crap gets published, printed and shown to the World, as if it has some merit.

Does Dr. Weil's program work? It does if you follow it religiously.

So, that's our next project. How to effect a news fast once a week on this blog. But, in the meantime . . .

If you're going to break your news fast, this is as good a place to start as any, with Glenn Greenwald's Sunday, August 30, 3009, It's time to embrace American royalty.

UPDATE :: Wednesday, September 2, 2009


Anyone know this guy? His name is Wallace Shawn and he has an interesting take on the news media and all of us "unabotrusives." Reading from his new book, "Essays" -- Enjoy:

So, I suppose, my role in life is to be a recovering centrist from the privileged class, so this passage reflects that, I suppose. This is just a piece of an essay. You’ll have to guess what it comes from and where it goes. It just is in the middle.

“One evening last week, a friend and I went to a somewhat inexpensive restaurant, and the waiter who served us was in such a state of agitation or anxiety about God knows what that he didn’t even look at us. And so I was thinking about the fact that in more expensive restaurants, the staff is usually trained to focus their attention on the pleasure of the diners, not on their own problems. In fact, the waiters in more expensive restaurants are invited to be friendly, amusing, to make funny remarks about their lives and to let us diners get to know them a little. But in the most expensive restaurants, the really fancy ones, we don’t get to know the waiters. The waiters in those restaurants just do their work with such discretion that they’re barely noticed. And people compliment them by saying that they’re unobtrusive.

“And actually that’s quite a good word for all those people whom we don’t know and don’t think about much but whose lives we actually dominate: ‘the unobtrusive.’ And the interesting thing I’ve noticed is that in those very expensive restaurants, we don’t talk to the waiters, but we enjoy their presence enormously. We want them there, these silent waiters, the—‘unobtrusives.’

“It’s obviously a characteristic of human beings that we like to feel superior to others. But our problem is that we’re not superior. We like the sensation of being served by others and feeling superior to them, but if we’re forced to get to know the people who serve us, we quickly see that they’re in fact just like us. And then we become uncomfortable—uncomfortable and scared, because if we can see that we’re just the same, well, they might too, and if they did, they might become terribly angry, because why should they be serving us? So that’s why we prefer not to talk to waiters.

“A king feels the very same way, I’d have to imagine. He doesn’t really want to get to know his subjects, but he nonetheless enjoys the fact that he has them. The subjects are in the background of his life. They’re in the background of his life, and yet they provide the meaning of his life. Without his subjects, he wouldn’t be king.

“It’s become second nature to all of us to use the quiet crushing of these unobtrusives as a sort of almost inevitable background music to our daily lives. Like those people who grow bizarrely nervous if they don’t have a recording of something or other quietly playing on their sound system at dinnertime, we’ve become dependent over the course of decades on hearing the faint murmur of cries and groans as we eat, shop, and live.”

And while the essay really is talking about how, as Americans, we, even those of us who march in the streets in favor of peace and speak against imperialism, even we, perhaps consciously or unconsciously, enjoy being members of a powerful country that can crush other people. So that’s a lot of what the book is about, a little bit of an attempt at self-examination.

And to conclude:

“My feeling of superiority, and the sense of well-being that comes from that, increases with the number of poor people on the planet whose lives are dominated by me or my proxies and whom I nonetheless can completely ignore. I like to be reminded of those poor people, those unobtrusives, and then I like to be reminded of my lack of interest in them. For example, while I eat my breakfast each morning, I absolutely love to read my morning newspaper, because in the first few pages the newspaper tells me how my country treated all the unobtrusives on the day before—deaths, beatings, torture, what have you—and then, as I keep turning the pages, the newspaper reminds me how unimportant the unobtrusives are to me, and it tries to tempt me in its articles on shirts to consider different shirts that I might want to wear, and then it goes on, as I turn the pages, to try to coax me into sampling different forms of cooking, and then to experience different plays or films, different types of vacations…”

In other words, the stories in the newspaper about Afghanistan are partly true and partly false, but they’re presented in a context that basically makes me feel alright about treating the people there as non-equals, which obviously we do if we send an unmanned drone and we are thinking of killing some person who we think is an enemy and we kill fifteen members of his family. We wouldn’t do that to people who we thought were our equals. For example, friends. Even if there was someone that we despised or who wanted to kill us in the middle of their family, we wouldn’t kill the whole family. We just wouldn’t. And the New York Times helps me to take that as totally normal.

That's something worth thinking about when you read you Times-Standard or whatever every morning.

Visit,

--Joe

Anonymous Joe

. . . and The Cyber Bullies

Yeah! That's me behind that lovable face.

Who is the "me"? For all you know, Joe Blow can and could be anybody. Actually, he's not really hiding. So, why not just identify him? Or, is it them? Who knows?

Joe Blow is NOT anonymous, either. Joe Blow is an Internet identity that when seen is instantly recognized and understood to represent a certain personality with well-established characteristics. He's no different than Elmo, or Kermit with a little bit of Miss Piggy thrown in. All anyone really needs to know about Joe Blow is posted for all to see:

"Number One Nobody! Born in Eureka, (Fifth generation) raised in Humboldt County. World traveled and life educated. American refugee. Lives forever."

The Joe Blow Report's purpose for existence is also clearly posted for all to see:

"This report is about fair and honest observations and not about opinions."

The governing principle driving that purpose is also posted:

"Everything Is About Something Different"

Joe Blow is here to ferret-out the "hidden agenda." This is the reason the Joe Blow Report exists. If possible, to find the hidden, the covert, the subterfuge, the deception, the scheme, to show the truth behind the lie. Ultimately, to expose the liar; the "wolf in sheep's clothing." To quote an old saying: Neither Joe Blow, the Joe Blow Report nor its writer(s) have an "ax to grind." That means: "Have a dispute to take up with someone or, to have an ulterior motive/ to have private ends to serve."

Joe Blow knows there are risks involved in such an endeavor, but that is not why he or she, (or is it they?), write behind the pseudonym, Joe Blow. Joe Blow is and always was a "NOBODY"! To objectively write "observations" he must remain a "NOBODY." To become "somebody" is to interject personality with the logical worthless opinions that accompany that person(s). For Joe Blow to lose his state of obscurity would destroy his Report.

Bullies, we all know, exist by sucking off of other people they believe are only there to serve their wants and needs. Anyone that doesn't conform to that bully's opinions is a direct threat to that bully's existence. They live only to control and will sink to whatever depths of deprivation necessary to achieve that goal. The transparent reality of a successful bully is to threaten violent assault on their victim's person, property, family or whatever they think is important to evoke an emotional response; either anger or fear. Their whole game is to get you to give them the legitimate right to bully and control you. If they can get you to become emotional, if they can get you to recognize them in some way, you inadvertently give them that right and are, therefore, vulnerable to defeat and control.

Joe Blow clearly understood the risks of promoting such a Weblog. That is why he clearly posted the Report's purpose under:

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 someone's 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.

Diatribe personally attacking the messenger, is not welcome.

No where in the recorded history of these Reports does Joe Blow single-out any individual, group, business, political organization, religious organization, sexual orientation, nationality, government, country or any of the many other diverse peoples whose sole reason for existence is to promote or denigrate other people or issues for special and personal assault. To produce credible observations Joe Blow must remain neutral -- no personal, political, religious or any other bias.

These Weblog Reports are dedicated to thinking people. If the bigoted racist, the stupid, inane, moronic, paranoid, vacuous bully, or the ideologue believer that's locked into the Dark Ages, is offended by this, then so be it. They need to grow up and get a life.

That is how they expose the truth of themselves. Merely infer that what they say or write is lacking some sense of knowledgeable logic or that they ignorantly made a "simpleminded" mistake then sit back to see if it was a simple mistake or a malicious and deliberate deception. If it was a mistake or a simple error in judgment, people will usually acknowledge it, correct the problem and simply move on. However if they were deliberate and malicious, they get extremely angry, go ballistic and personally attack with all kinds of foul and malicious accusations. That is how they show everyone exactly who and what they are. They are thus judged by what they do and say and everyone is a witness to that judgment. At that point the Universal Law of Karma is enforced and these people receive exactly what they sowed.

Joe Blow's life endeavor is to practice the four governing principles of "The Four Agreements" as documented by Don Miguel Ruiz.

1. Be Impeccable With Your Word
2. Don't Take Anything Personally
3. Don't Make Assumptions
4. Always Do your Best

Sometimes bullies can be very intimidating, specially when they threaten your family, your property and livelihood, making a perfect application of these Agreements very difficult. It's in the trying that defines the character.

It is in this "trying" that the Joe Blow Report finds inspiration in a world of bullies, descending into chaos and the Dark Ages.

UPDATE :: Sunday, July 19, 2009

If you really want to know who Joe Blow aspires to be, why the Report exists, read what Glenn Greenwald says here: "Celebrating Cronkite while ignoring what he did" -- What he did was speak "truth" when the Thought Police wanted to have it all their way.

--Joe

As It Stands with the Times-Standard Newspaper

Again today the Times-Standard newspaper here in Eureka, CA pumps out Dave Stancliff's “As It Stands” column in their Sunday newspaper. Is this a marriage made in heaven or a marriage made in hell?

Dave Stancliff continues to use the web and it's blogosphere to personally assault and libel anyone he wants, anyone he thinks is fair game, and the staff at the Times-Standard, in particular Dave Kuta, Kimberly Wear and James Faulk, continue to support and endorse his kind of abysmal and reprehensible conduct. By continuing to publish his “As It Stands” column they, directly and tacitly endorse his demagogue and libelous hate-mongering personal assaults. Whether any or either of these individuals understands it or not, what he publicly says and does directly reflects upon the integrity, honesty and character of the Times-Standard newspaper as well as each of these individuals. More than that, however, it also reflects upon each and every person or business that supports that paper.

This Report endeavors to maintain its objectivity through the process of observations. Report commentary regarding Dave Stancliff and his “As It Stands” web and newspaper column has refrained from sinking into the mire of contending or even refuting his bane attacks. He says and does what he wants, no matter how foul and obscene, then thinks he can just walk away – no harm, no foul. To put it simply, we're just a bunch of “anonymous” extremists with a paranoid outlook on life, pumping out our “hate-filled blog” picking on poor, little “simpleminded” Dave. While that was tempting, people like him, proven time and again by his own hand, establish the basis for a far worse crime than personally attacking the observations of this blog writer. Those people responsible at the Times-Standard turn a blind eye at one of their own kind and refuse to hold him accountable for his public behavior while he represents them. This kind of conduct sets the precedent that allows for every sort of lawbreaker to walk free or at a minimum get a bit of a slap on the wrist for murder, torture, indefinite detention, and god only knows what else. Those kinds of criminal behavior are not limited to just national problems, but bleed right down to our community.

Recent example, the apparent libel spawned on the local blog, “Above The Law” reported here, “Employee of EPD files suit against coworkers,” by Allison White/The Times-Standard, Posted on: 07/01/2009. Here the suit alleges that a blog, its articles and blog commentary by visitors caused, “libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress has damaged her reputation and caused “mental anguish and emotional distress, including anxiety, anger, depression, irritability and loss of sleep.'” Worth noting is that the suit includes “anonymous” blog commentators that posted defamatory messages that caused the above malicious, intentional actions. Noteworthy is the fact that Dave Stancliff has a record of making defamatory comments on other peoples blogs.

The same newspaper article says, according to a law professor at U.C. Berkeley, “If messages are sent out over the Internet, it doesn't protect them from making defamatory statements.” He also said that just because “the comments were made by anonymous users shouldn't matter legally.” The Report contends that the same is true when made against so-called “anonymous” bloggers. -- Something this lawsuit should give everyone pause to consider.

Locally, and more importantly we assert, the problem is that the Times-Standard newspaper represents this community. Supporting the legitimacy of a Dave Stancliff says more about the people that run that newspaper and their respect and service for and to this community than anything else. We deserve better.

--Joe

Newspaper -- Toilet Paper

Newspaper makes lousy toilet paper and toilet paper makes a lousy newspaper. Yet that's exactly what newspaper is -- and we've got toilet paper.

A functioning Democracy rests upon an informed voting public that, at the minimum has the capacity to think with an ability to separate the subject from the object and is endowed with some moral and ethical compass. Clearly, the 100 year (more or less) experiment to formulate "good citizens" rather than teach problem solving skills with the necessary tools for a decent sense of self that empowers one to use those tools has failed -- failed miserably. Or, did it?

For someone's point of world view beyond Joe Blow's observations, read the following:

The question:

What is your comment on the current mainstream media and how it shapes our perceptions and priorities?

The answer:

I don’t believe anything as changed. If it is one to change in the middle east as other parts of the world, I think one of the really significant and building areas of discussion- and data has been building for the last few years—is just the kind of information we get through the so- called mainstream. We have many alternative sources of information now, not least of all your own program. though I wouldn’t call that alternative.

But for most people, the primary source of their information is the mainstream. It is mainly television. Even the internet for all its subversiveness has still a very large component of the mainstream. And that means we’re getting still either its this singular message about wars, about the economy, about all those things that touch our lives. All we are getting is what I would call is a contrived silence, a censorship by a mission. I think this is almost the principal issue of today because without information, we cannot possibly begin to influence government. We cannot possibly begin to end the wars.

All of this, it seams to me, has come together in the presidency of Barack Obama who is almost a creation of this media world. He promised some things, although most of them were more for us, and has delivered virtually the opposite. He started his own war in Pakistan. We see the events in Iran and Honduras in quiet subtlety, but very directly influenced in the time-honored way by the Obama administration. And yet the Obama administration is still given this extraordinary benefit of the doubt by people, who in my view are influenced by the mainstream media. It is a time when I think, where either we are going to begin to understand how the media really works, or we’re going to let that opportunity pass. Its almost a historic opportunity the we understand that the perception of our world is utterly distorted, most of the time through what are seen as credible sources of information.

Read the rest of the interview with John Pilger.

A good example of this is Israel, Pilger says, "The way Israel is reported in the United States is media manipulation as almost as high art form."

But no one ever presses an Israeli leader. Netanyahu or Olmert or any of them. There are given, Israeli leaders were given a legitimacy during what was unconditionally a massacre in December-January of this year. And the sum of that was to suggest, number one, that there was a war between Israel and Gaza and there wasn’t. There was an assault on Gaza that was aimed at civilians, on a defenseless country, a helpless country, a trapped people. And the second impression was that, yes, Israel is a democracy. And we will discuss this on television with you, we will discuss the finer points.

The way Israel is reported in the United States is media manipulation as almost as high art form. When people like Netanyahu whose very utterances and his background would suggest somebody, I think safe to say not credible, but somebody of well, those of us who would say somebody would be a prima facie war criminal, is given this kind of legitimacy. Not even questioned, not even challenged about the events in this country and his own extreme utterances. ****

I think it is that legitimacy the mainstream media gives one side. And the sum of that, as far as Palestine is concerned is that there is no illegitimate occupation. There is no illegality. There is sum illegality as Obama referred to in his Cairo speech about the continuing building of settlements, but there is no suggestion that this is the longest, most brutal, illegal military occupation in our lifetime.

Why is any of this okay? Anyone read the Times-Standard for Tuesday, July 7, 2009? We've got a bankrupt creamery, a corrupt 20 year old county jailer, out of control homeless campfires spread around the Eureka area, and a convicted sex offender sentenced. On the inside we've got James Faulk's solution for humanities long-term survival - space travel. Included is an article by Byron York on Democrat double-speak on immigration. How appropriate!

Not to forget page A6, we got the headline, " ... the completion of border berm." Don't you just love the words they use for "steel-meshed fence and bright lighting"? Word manipulation, double-talk; double-speak propaganda à la the anonymous Associated Press.

Truth, honesty and integrity -- any part of someone's moral compass?

John Pilger writes on his web "johnpilger.com": 'It is not enough for journalists to see themselves as mere messengers without understanding the hidden agendas of the message and myths that surround it.'

Words this Report strives to emulate, but not without paying a heavy price.

[Picture 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

Wolves In Sheep's Clothing

As It Stands and the Times-Standard newspaper

Jesus said: "Beware of the false teachers--men who come to you in sheep's fleeces, but beneath that disguise they are ravenous wolves." So, how do you know a wolf in sheep's clothing when you see one? You look at their tracks and the crap they leave behind.

Jesus also said deceitful liars, people that make false lying accusations are murderers: "You are of your father the Devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of liars." In other words, according to Jesus Christ, liars are the Devil's spawn.

Hate speech is defined in the Wikipedia as follows: "Hate speech is a term for speech intended to offend a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability." Of further interest is the purpose hate speech is used: "Critics have claimed that the term "Hate Speech" is a modern example of Newspeak, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct." "As It Stands" defines the Joe Blow Report, in particular, the writer or writers, he's somewhat confused, as paranoid, hostile, hate-filled, extremist, cowards and blow-hards personally threatening him.

Notice the how Wikipedia describes paranoia:

Paranoia is a thought process characterized by excessive anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat towards oneself. In the original Greek, παράνοια (paranoia) simply means madness (para = outside; nous = mind). Historically, this characterization was used to describe any delusional state. (Emphasis added)

"Persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat towards oneself" defines Dave Stancliff perfectly. To publicly denigrate someone the way Dave Stancliff has, accredited and substantiated by the Times-Standard is beyond "simpleminded." It's just plain STUPID. And that was my point. Why would anyone want to threaten this guy? He's made an absolute fool out of himself without any help from me.

Dave Stancliff, according to what's printed under his "As It Stands" column in the Times Standard is a "columnist" for that paper. They also say "he is a former newspaper editor and publisher." When you consider the staff and management's stand regarding Stancliff then it begins to make sense their love affair with him and why he can do no wrong. So, who are the REAL WOLVES in sheep's clothing?

After posting "Trolls versus The Thought Police" article Dave Stancliff came into our web and posted six comments. What he said speaks for itself -- everything is personal! Nothing about the central premise of our article. Only verbal abuse, foul lying accusations, insults, diatribe -- nothing worthy of someone writing weekly columns in the local newspaper. Everything that was exemplified in the article was born out by what Dave Stancliff wrote on our blog. All of that personal crap was easily erased, but why do that? It was the proof in the pudding; it proved and justified the original intent of the article.

That all changed when he went on his own blog and posted his accusations. There he accuses the writer of threatening him, commenting on our "little hate-filled blog," of being a "paranoid lot of losers," "thinly veiled threats warning him" are proof of "hate that is spewing out from The Joe Blow Report blog" -- NO examples of hate speech -- Only his accusations.

But, that wasn't good enough! On June 15, 2009, apparently in response to our article "Conspiricy of Silence" he posted another personal attack on his As It Stands web. To show the racism and hate-speech we added the word "kike" in bold text.

Monday, June 15, 2009

Joe Blow (conspiracy) Report staff bawl like babies!

Well readers, this is what I have to contend with sometimes. "Kike" Extremists tend to attack anything that doesn't fit their world view. There's a "Kike" group at the Joe Blow Report blog that decided to attack me on May 31st and who posted a hate-filled rant about a column I did on trolls (of all the ironies!) This is a "Kike" group that has the mind-set of a steel trap.

Now they (these Kikes) have their crying towels (it took them two weeks to think of a reply) out and are blubbering to all that will read their raving. I'm not going to be intimidated by a bunch of "Kike" cowards who are whining about a conspiracy between me and the Times-Standard to attack trolls! Good grief! Get a life you blowhards.

I don't know who you think you are, but I do know that you seek to impose your will upon others by reading your past posts. Now you think you can silence me by making outrageous accusations and trying to get the newspaper to drop my column. Guess again "Kike" gang. You'll never be able to silence me. You best bet is to change your soiled diapers and to find someone else to pick on!

What he wrote under his column "As It Stands" is as offensive as modified by us for clarity as noted above in bold and is exactly why he wrote it, to offend. The purpose of accusing someone of being a "troll" is to shut them up. That's what all racist, extremist hate-mongers do. Today, the law defines such as "Psycho Terrorists."

As noted in our article, "Conspiracy of Silence," we had notified the staff and management at the Times-Standard newspaper of Dave Stancliff's web posting about us. Because his web is titled "As It Stands" and his newspaper column has the same name, the Times-Standard has a vested interest in what he says and does. The newspaper management approve his columns and that gives him credibility and legitimacy. What he wrote on his web, attacks the Time-Standard's credibility and legitimacy equally. We waited to see if their relationship was a marriage made in heaven. When no one at the newspaper responded, we posted the article and sent another more extensive email. You can read that email and Ms. Wear's reply here. This time Ms. Wear answered and then ran the "As It Stands" column Sunday, June 21, 2009. We heard the both of them loud and clear. Lets see if the local businesses want to be associated with this kind of sick racist behavior. The Basij are alive a well in Eureka, California!

[Photo] [Some interesting background on the Basij on Democracy Now today]

UPDATE: Tuesday, June 23, 2009

When I wrote “Trolls versus The Thought Police” I had spent months observing commentary by Dave Stancliff on other local blogs I frequented. I had a fairly good idea his motivation for the article; I'd seen him in action. On the face of it, so-called “Online Trolls” are a good mark to disrespect and disrepute. Whenever someone says something of which others do not agree, the first thing they do is try to shut the person or persons up by changing the subject to the object. Frankly regarding Stancliff, as far as I was concerned he could yak away all he wanted. He had his blog and newspaper columns and even I would occasionally read what he had to say. It was his knee-jerk reaction to justifying accusations that I took exception to, specially to being published as if there was some legitimate reason. Not to say Online Trolls do not exist, they do. Dave Stancliff's posted comments on my blog are a good example; he is self-defining. That was not my issue in writing the article. My issue was how easy it is to make false accusations against someone, in this case an Online Troll, in other cases an Online Terrorist or just your neighbor. The consequences in our society are overwhelming.

It was my contention that he was arguing ostensibly for the same right President George Bush, his government administration and his supporters had made justifying the permanent detention of people based only upon, what turned out to be in many cases, coerced, false lying accusations. How this atrocity, designed to extract counterfeit witnesses and produce phony testimony to justify a “War On Terror,” is codified by Andy Worthington. He is a British journalist and historian and the author of “The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America”s Illegal Prison." In his interview this morning on Democracy Now he explains exactly how falsely accused, innocent men were held prisoner for nearly a decade when the Bush government and the military knew, all along, they were totally innocent. You can read or listen to his interview, Judge Orders Release of Guantanamo Prisoner After Seven Years, Saying Government Position “Defies Common Sense” here.

We all know that, to a large extent, the news media sold out the American people for the “government” line. Dave Stancliff's demagogic tirades and baseless accusations are racist, hate-speech for sure, but they pale in significance compared to the Times-Standards approval of his conduct. Without much help from the Joe Blow Report, well not much anyway, he did a real number on his own credibility – his big worry – his legitimacy as a newspaper columnist. In the end, however, he's doing a number on the newspaper's, at least the staff and management, objective credibility. It's what's called “biting the hand that feeds you.”

--Joe

Conspiracy of Silence

On Sunday, May 31, 2009 Dave Stancliff wrote in the Times-Standard newspaper in his column called “As It Stands” the article titled: “Trolls Exposed: What kind of troll is disrupting your online community?” Like everything in life, not everything is as it seems. Dave Stancliff has a presence on Internet Blogs and over time we've observed his commentary. Did he have an ulterior motive in writing that article? Who knew. How about the Times-Standard staff, did they agree with his premise? Who knew?

Well, we wrote about our observations here on this Blog. The tendency to vilify the writer, attack the messenger, when the subject being discussed touches a little too close to the truth, has led to some serious conditions, not only in America, and subject right here in Humboldt County, but around the World. We pointed out that Stancliff's approach to this subject was rather simplistic and in its totality largely responsible for causing the loss of media credibility and factual reporting. In that, we alluded, one person's efforts to illicit thought or thoughtful consideration was another person's “troll.”

Dave Stancliff's assault in his column was upon the person he tagged or simply claimed was a “troll.” In that, he assaulted their personal credibility, and suggested that they be starved to death -- ignored. In that he assaulted their legitimate right to exist in whatever manner they chose to present themselves. We witnessed a good example of this form of discrimination and bigotry with the active assault some months back by a gang of local blogger thugs on Steve Lewis. This is same tactic the United States in league and complicit with the United Nations has done to North Korea for more than 50 years simply because they refuse to recognize the North Korean people's right to sustain a totalitarian government. What's our point? Dave Stancliff didn't assault “trolls” he assaulted people, people he merely accused of being “trolls.” His definition of "trolls" detailed nearly everyone that posts and comments online and allowed him and his kind the freedom to accuse just about anyone at any time. What made this matter doubly serious is that he is published by the newspaper and writes under the same title: “AS IT STANDS.” As It Stands could just as easily be written, “As It IS.” Why is that important? The name itself speaks to a permanent, factual and truthful reality based upon his personal credibility and legitimacy to do so propagated by the Times-Standard newspaper. He's somebody in this community! And the Times-Standard backs that up by publishing him under his brand, “As It Stands.”

If there ever was some question about the Report's integrity regarding our observations, Dave Stancliff by his unsolicited demagogic tirade on our blog and his slanderous hate speech posting on his blog, “As It Stands” removed all doubt. As bad as that is, that fact that the Times-Standard continues to run his columns makes this issue far more serious. Whatever he writes under the name “As It Stands” is sanctioned and approved by the Staff and Management of the Times-Standard newspaper. Therefore the bigotry, prejudice and hate speech written by Dave Stancliff is legitimized by the Times-Standard. Consequently, we sent, in behalf of the Joe Blow Report, the following email to three people at the Times-Standard, Dave Kuta Publisher, Kimberly Wear Managing Editor and James Faulk City Editor:

Dear Mr. Kuta,

I would like to bring to your attention the latest blog commentary about me and my online blog, the Joe Blow Report, by Dave Stancliff. As far the the Report is concerned normal blog commentary and article postings are laissez-faire. They bring with them limited legitimacy and credibility as compared to published media. Whatever Mr. Stancliff writes for your newspaper, you approve. You can relegate what he says to "opinion," yet I contend ultimately you or someone representing your newspaper approves, therefore you stand behind what he says as if you said it yourself.

The Joe Blow Reports were designed to avoid the kind of personal diatribe and hate mongering that comes from assaulting the writer. Unfortunately, Mr. Stancliff was personally affronted by my observations regarding his Sunday, May 31, 2009 "As It Stands" article and the part that he played in writing it. He came into by blog and expressed that effrontery in graphic terms by formulating a false accusation to revile the integrity of me, backed up by days of ever more egregious personal accusations. The ensuing conversation, if that's what you want to call it, over the next days speaks for itself. What he wrote is easily erased and bears no ultimate threat as a consequence of some of the accusations he makes. That all changed, however, when he posted on his blog, As It Stands, accusations against me of operating a "hate-filled blog" and of being "paranoid," among other things, but more importantly of personally "threatening him." This goes way beyond the pale.

What was their response? They ran Dave Stancliff's column in the Sunday, June 14, 2009, issue of the Times-Standard. Anyone familiar with what's been going on here knows exactly what the staff and management of the Times-Standard thinks of the Joe Blow Report and everyone associated with it. Well, read what Dave Stancliff accuses us of being here. In that same Sunday newspaper on page A4 is the article, "'Lone Wolf' terrorists are harder to defeat." Who are these "terrorists"? They define three people as "an elderly man" in a museum, "a young man in Arkansas" and "another man opens fire in a Kansas church." -- All Americans! The article goes on to say:

"Each apparently was driven to act by beliefs considered by some as extreme." "It could be anyone. It could be the guy next door, living in the basement of his mother's place, on the Internet just building himself up with hate, building himself up to a boiling point and finally using what he's learned."

Now tell me that this is exactly what Dave Stancliff with all his published authority is saying about anyone associated with the Joe Blow Report?

--Joe