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

Good Ol' Boy's Club

What's going on with the Times-Standard's Opinion Page? It's bad enough that most of the news is canned Spam, and that the local news is mostly regurgitated press releases. To know what the featured national opinionators have to say, all that is required is to read one of their opinion pieces. Then the next time you see their name or names, you just pass them by since you already know what they are going to say. No originality, no imagination, no substance, nothing more than the same old self-justifying "talking points." The same is true of the ONLY local opinion writer, Dave Stancliff and his pablum filled As It Stands articles that dominates a half page of every Sunday Edition. That is until another face kept showing up on a regular basis taking up the My Word portions of the paper with his wordy nothingness. This is the Reverend Eric Duff, an "Episcopal priest and licensed clinical social worker." Just what we need, another "priest" telling everyone what to believe – indoctrinating every reader in the Editor's theological social rote.

My Word opinions are considered “Guest Editorials” by the paper. The newspaper say that: “My Words of 500-700 word are reserved for regional issues and related items of high local interest.” It doesn't take long to tell when reading some of these My Word commentaries that meeting this standard: “regional issues and related items of high local interest” resides ONLY in the “eye of the beholder.” In other words, as a “guest editorial” whatever you write must meet the same criteria as the newspaper's Editor or whoever it is that is responsible for the paper's editorial.

So, good luck getting something published if what you have say is both of a “regional issue” and or a related item of “high local interest.” All the newspaper cares about is filling their pages with gobbledy gook. You know what “gobbledy gook” is, don't you? Here's a good example I pulled at random out of my stack of old papers: “What exactly happened to everybody's sense of humor?” Seems like a substantive and criteria-meeting “item of high local interest,” right? Read the article and you see he has made his point, no one can talk to anyone today without committing some form of crime – let alone “make a joke.” Got a problem with your neighbor? You can get arrest for simply approaching him or her and asking them what their problem is? They just MIGHT FEEL threatened – a serious crime anymore. Never you mind that your neighbor ACTUALLY threatens to physically harm you, your family or property; a crime in any country. So, what was his solution? I guess he is following the newspaper editor's solution and directs everyone to the “other” always “entertaining” comedian, Dave Stancliff. (See the As It Stands: “Who would you like to have lunchor dinner with?”)

Since getting some of my priorities reorganized, I haven't spent much time reading As It Stands opinion. I do check him out and most always scan (speed read) through his commentaries. I really don't have much time to spend on someone as proven able and astute as Dave Stancliff when he spends or wastes his gift (a weekly, Sunday column) and talent writing about nonsense, always patting himself on the back and calling it and himself “entertaining.” Sadly, it seems, the same thing is happening to The Rev. Eric Duff's From Time To Time columns as well. His latest, “Humboldt happiness: It's in the air” really stretches the imagination to see how what he says is “an item of high local interest.” More like juvenile pablum served up by a hollow, empty, small-minded “newspaper” editor.

The problem is, these people, Dave Kuta, Kimberly Wear or Marc Valles DO NOT publish letters or My Word editorials that are relevant and substantive, in place of filling their pages status quo or standard “entertainment.” But then, no one would know anything about that, would you. They just quietly file such commentaries in the trash. What we need is someone with the guts and cojones that is adult enough to stand up to the substantive issues facing our community – what it actually takes to start talking to and about one another's juvenile conduct.

My problem with all of this Good Ol' Boy Club stuff is that we all know how it works in the “real” world of politics and business controlled by the 1%. In times past everyone believed that newspapers at least tried to stay above that corruption. Well, some of them did anyway. Here, with the Times-Standard you've got the one and only “retired editor” and a club of would-be “editors” vying for your attention. Check out some of the local blogs and you'll find the same Good Ol' Boy's Club practicing and engaging in the same kind of ingratiating, self-serving stroking. So read on for whatever it is worth.

---

stroke  (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stroking)

tr.v. stroked, strok·ing, strokes

1. To rub lightly, with or as if with the hand or something held in the hand; caress.

2. Informal To behave attentively or flatteringly toward, especially in order to restore to confidence or win over.

---

--Joe

Same difference – NO difference

Glenn Greenwald: Why the Washington Post won’t fire Jennifer Rubin

Joe Blow Report: Why the Times-Standard won't fire Dave Stancliff

Even though the resultant actions: “[D]id damage to The Post and the credibility that keeps it afloat.”

As they did damage to the Times-Standard and the credibility that keeps it afloat.

Just change the names, the individuals and businesses and Glenn Greenwald's argument fits exactly. It's about class warfare in the Middle East infecting the World and its about the same kind of class warfare right here in Eureka, CA. reaching into every household and community. With the same disparities, prejudices, hatreds, biases, bigotry and hatred and soul rotting corruption. These people that alienated themselves have had ample opportunity to demonstrate their truth, but clearly, they are unable, incapable or unwilling. Yet, in their own blind way, that is exactly what succeeded in doing. No guessing who or what they are now.

They remind me of the guy out in the logging woods that had to defecate and then stepped in his own poop. When he came back to work with the crew, no one could get within 100 feet of him. He, on the other hand, couldn't figure out what was their problem. To him, his crap “didn't stink,” – we all thought something died.

The fact is, something did die. That rotting corpse is right there in plain sight for everyone to see. Makes me believe we're all living in a land of zombies.

Race or class difference enforced by Jews against Palestinians and Wannabe Elitists Published reporters and Opinionators against low-class, subhuman Blog Writers are exactly the same. You might want to throw in the letter writers (Letters to the Editor) and  My Word Opinions as well. Therein lies a great example of the class distinction demonstrated in this community within the political, legal, judicial and law enforcement daily. Another good example of this are the people that are taking a stand in the Occupy Movements and the disparaging contempt expressed by the so-called financial and political Elite – the lines are drawn. The Times-Standard would have everyone believe what they offer fulfills their responsibility to the community's Constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech. Might as well be out here in the mountains on a rainy, wind-blown day hollering at the trees for all the good it does.

Glenn Greenwald says:

“To put it mildly, Abrams’ (“by neocon royal family member Rachel Abrams”) post was bigoted, violence-inciting, and driven by hatred of the purest and most repellent strain.” 

Read what Dave Stancliff publicly wrote about me and then show me a difference. The fact is you can't. Substitute the names and institutions, i.e., Washington Post with the Times-Standard and the issue is the same, same bias, and same damage to the paper's credibility. Oh, they'll tell you Dave Stancliff is not on the payroll and what he writes, and I might add, what they publish, are his personal opinions they claim exempts them from any personal responsibility for his demonstrated attitudes, actions and conduct. Yet, they continue to publish him.

For some reason the people that run the Times-Standard news paper don't seem to care. That simple truth is what's most disturbing. You have to ask yourself the question, Why? Glenn, in his way answers this question as he concludes:

“Herein lies one of the great myths of American political culture: the media’s “objectivity.” No institution plays a greater role in restricting the terms of permissible debate in America than they do. The fact that they impose these limitations with such gross bias is bad enough; their self-praising insistence that they do no such things makes it that much worse. If the Post applied media standards equally to anti-Arab and anti-Israeli commentary, then Jen Rubin would be waiting on the unemployment line next to Rick Sanchez, Helen Thomas and Octavia Nasr. But it plainly does no such thing, and therefore she will remain exactly where she is. ” [Emphasis added]

As will Dave Stancliff.

--Joe

A knee-jerk is ALWAYS a knee-JERK

[UPDATE :: Wednesday, November 9, 2011 - Non-Apology Apology - Silence]

Is it right to gloat? Bask in the light of total redemption, total justification and total exoneration? Tell me it is, because that's what this post is about – PERSONAL VINDICATION.

By God, when you are right, YOU ARE RIGHT! In my case, after enduring more than two years of incessant public personal slanderous and threatening attacks that were NEVER rectified, I have, if anyone does, every right to flaunt the gloating.

Almighty God DOES smile upon His little children. Vindication ALWAYS comes to he who waits and let me tell you, it is so, so sweet. OKAY, enough with the gloating. Here's what happened when I picked up the Sunday Times-Standard newspaper and worked my way to reading, Next stop, Africa: American imperialism on the march – and when I got to the third paragraph, I almost couldn't believe what I saw ... What I read made my heart skip a beat, but maybe I'd better explain.

That "happy faced" picture, that one you see there on the right, is the face of a guy that goes by the name of Dave Stancliff. That innocent looking “happy face” hides the soul of a man that publicly and shamelessly castigated, denigrated, blatantly lied and viciously accused me of all kinds of filthy, obscene and malicious actions and intentions directed against him and to him, not to mention to his pug-ugly dog. What did I do to so offend his infantile sensibilities? Nothing more than make the simple observation about his "knee-jerk" reaction that he published in the Times-Standard newspaper under his Opinion column: As It Stands. His personal attacks became so extreme that he even threatened to assault my family with some sort of lawsuit or criminal action. Mind you, that was on top of his threat against me of being some sort of Internet stalker and crazy, radical terrorist. Apparently, someone convinced him that his documented abusive conduct, over-the-top threats, and constant invective, were criminal in nature if not in intent. Eventually, he stopped his campaign, at least I think he did.

The irony of what he tried to do two and one half years ago, enforce his own brand of Imperialism is exactly what he is railing against today. He did everything he could think of, used every opportunity he could conjure up to try to force me, either by tacit inference or open admission that he had the right to judge me as some sort of sub-human meaningless person that dared question him or his opinions. His definition of "Imperialism" can be applied to himself because it is exactly what he tried, and to a certain extent within the Internet blogosphere, achieved a measure of success:

"Imperialism is defined as extending a nation's (or nationalistic [someone devoted to self] person's -) authority by territorial acquisition (taking a person's reputation and personal legitimacy through forced submission to to act and be as they are as a valued individual) or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations (through deprivation of one's credibility, acceptance and recognition as an independent individual through malicious lies and accusations designed to control the minds and beliefs of others).

For anyone interested, here is the link that started all of this that proofs the above definition. Note the date: Sunday, May 31, 2009. The title of my article was:  Trolls versus The Thought Police.

Two years later he's still going at me: Title of this article and updates: Goody Two-Shoes. Do a search on the Report's WordPress Blog under Dave Stancliff, start at the bottom and work back and you'll find it's all there, Dave Stancliff in all his glory – that is if you have the stomach to go through all that crap.

Stancliff even posted a couple of his own and offered a reward to anyone that could identify the author of the Joe Blow Report. He started out with this link on his blog. - June 3, 2009. Then there were the apologists' incessant blather - one in particular: Ernie Branscomb. He wrote and posted a blog article defending Dave Stancliff's conduct, joining and supporting him with his own unjustified public invective.

So you can see, this whole episode got right down dirty, vicious and nasty mean. Dave Stancliff would make up all kinds of filthy, lying accusations then turn right around and do exactly what he was accusing me of doing. And – There he goes again! Only this time, he's admitted to being and doing exactly as observed in that "Trolls" commentary.

Here is what he said in today's Times-Standard newspaper, Sunday Edition, October 30, 2011 – As It Stands. I quote his admission:

 “Of course, I really didn't understand its full meaning and admittedly didn't go out of my way to find it out. Instead, I went with a knee-jerk reaction and put the word in my Commie file.” [Emphasis added]

Is that bald-faced admission that totally justifies my very first observations of his opinion writings in the Times-Standard newspaper NOT a thing of beauty? What makes it a thing of beauty is where it puts him and those that supported him in his bullying, servile war against me and my credibility. They owe me a public apology.

What Dave Stancliff refused to accept as well as everyone that supported him, including the Editors at the Times-Standard is that it was Dave Stancliff that lost his credibility and legitimacy, neutralizing the value of everything he subsequently said that they published. That fact is established in the quality or lack thereof in the paper's reporting as defined by his exact statement quoted above. So...

Do you see it now, Dave Stancliff? How about you, Ernie Branscomb? And you, too, Eric Kirk? What about the Times-Standard Editorial Management, Kimberly Wear – is all the personal filthy diatribe and invective still justified? Who among you has the character, moral fortitude and common decency to do what is right, dignified and honorable?

Dave Stancliff's exposure that May day to the Joe Blow Report was, in fact, his first encounter with someone in the vanguard of the worldwide Occupy Movement. His knee-jerk reactions are completely consistent with how the Occupy Movement is held in total disgust, ridicule and disdain. Here's a good example by Rush Limbaugh:

"These protestors, who are actually few in number, have contributed nothing. They're parasites. They're pure, genuine parasites. Many of them are bored, trust-fund kids, obsessed with being something, being somebody. Meaningless lives, they want to matter." [Emphasis added]

More importantly, however, and in stark contrast to his historical attitude and actions, Dave Stancliff's As It Stands opinion article today is basically about making peace in this world by ending the American Elite's domination through brutal military or police suppression and looting everything of value. I've attached it to the end of this post and included links to the Times-Standard because it is well worth reading. Of late, Dave Stancliff has upped his game and began writing about matters of common interest, that are pertinent and timely to the local readers. Lets see if he can practice what he preaches, at least from a positive point of view. Real peace starts at home - it starts with oneself. He says he tracks my Internet activity. Let's see if he has the moral character and personal integrity to be the person he claims to possess such standing in this community, to step up to being the kind of real man he thinks he is.

Jerk: Slang. a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, or inconsequential person.

--Joe

Who Knew? "We Are the 99%"

Extra Benefits of Supporting the "Occupy Movement"

Link Between Financial Crisis and Medical Illness - A little know or accepted reality - The root cause of sickness.

 DR. GABOR MATÉ: Well, you know, among the many inequities in a society are the ones that this protest has brought to light, the inequitable distribution of wealth and power. But what is not so generally realized, that this society also makes people sick. Fifty percent of American adults have a chronic medical illness, and much of that has to do with stress. And if you look at the literature on what causes stress, it’s uncertainty and lack of information and loss of control and lack of expression of self. And the uncertainty that has been forced upon the American population by the recent economic crisis, the loss of control as power has flown into the hands of very, very few people, and the absolute powerlessness of the many in the face of all that, and the lack of expression through the ordinary political process, people are totally disempowered and deprived of their voice. This protest addresses all those issues. So I can only say that this is an extraordinarily healthy thing to happen. People who participate here will be healthier for it as a result, and maybe society, in general, as well. And one more thing, as well. There was a study just this morning that parents who are stressed, they’re not as tuned in to their kids. They’re not as connected to their kids. So when society stresses people, like the current economic uncertainty and crisis does, children are not getting what they need. So this protest, as well, speaks to the needs of children as much as to the needs of adults in general. So that’s why I’m so gratified to see all this.

Dr. Gabor Maté is a Vancouver, Canada-based physician and bestselling author. Similarly to myself he observes, "As somebody who reached political consciousness in the 1960s, just when John Carlos did his famous salute at the Olympics, it’s gratifying to see that the thirst and the demand for justice and power and people’s rights wasn’t restricted to one generation or one time only but is very much alive in America." [Emphasis added]

The rest of the interview can been read here at Democracy Now.

The total looting of the America people and their worldly counterparts of their value as individuals and as countries, their laws, moral and ethical character and what everyone considers the measure of their value is nearly complete. Dr. Gabor Maté explains the ultimate objective - DEATH.

As a side note to learning more about this movement, Dave Stancliff's As It Stands Sunday, October 9, 2011, 'American Uprising' -- ongoing  demonstration for equality is worth reading. An observation worth noting he says, "This blacklash [sic] has no leaders, but the overall message is clear; things have t change." He clearly understands the "message," and makes the observation, but typically does not understand the relevance of no apparent leader or leaders. What he and most others, at least the human species 'others' don't see is that life on this planet is moving from a vertical authoritarian, dictatorial, corrupt, believer-motivated system some call Democracy to a horizontal, intention-motivated system. A system that doesn't need corrupt leaders that betray their country, its Constitution and people or traitor banks and too big to fail corporations. Dave Stancliff is right when he calls it an "American Uprising." He concludes by asking: "As It Stands, can you hear them? The voices ringing out across the land"? The answer is, "NO"! But they will soon enough - That is when the people, in particular those with some small measure of personal value or worth, those demonstrators or protesters that stand for themselves realize that asking for permission is a waste of time and stop cooperating. [Source]

--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

Finally!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dave Stancliff very aptly concludes by saying:

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

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

[slobbishness]

--Joe

Humbug Blogs – The “Good Ol' Boys” (and Girls) Club

When I was a kid I can remember my Grandfather occasionally talking about “The Good Ol' Boys” of Humboldt County – mostly he railed against that Gang of regressive, “old money” businessmen in Eureka that were constantly fighting progress. Anything that would be or was good for the community or the county that Gang made sure to “monkey-wrench” it. Later I can remember my Dad's contribution to the conversation; both were property owners and businessmen. One of that Gang's greatest achievements was getting the Highway 101 bypass stopped. Over the years there's been one battle after another. One way or another the community at large always pays the price, usually paid back in spades.

Most of that “old money” Gang is long dead now, but their legacy continues. In many ways, it just takes on different forms and incarnations. The attitude, demeanor and purpose NEVER changes. They're still fighting progress. Just look at the controversy over the proposed Marina Center. A good example of how local bloggers have used the Internet to fight this battle under a progressive label was brought to the public's attention by a local blogger that also writes an “Opinion” every Sunday in the Times-Standard newspaper. His “As It Stands” opinion for April 10, 2011, was: Next stop online: Humboldt Blogs, a slice of Americana. Read the article and you will find a select group, his group of accepted Humboldt Blogs, all told a dozen or so including his. The Report is NOT saying that all of these bloggers Stancliff names are members of "the" Club. They do, however, make up the members of "his" club now.

His list of local blogs are “a slice of American” alright. His personal slice. As an example, notice who he directs you to for a list of local bloggers, the infamous, anonymous Humboldt Herald. A far more prolific or extensive list resides on another blog, one he also give credence to: Redheaded Blackbelt. Apparently, Kym Kemp, the author, is far too inclusive to suit Stancliff's “club” nature.

Read through his list of blogs in the newspaper that share a common theme and follow their extensive commentaries, it won't take you long to see that there is a common thread. That thread is the so-called “slice of Americana” Stancliff alludes to.

For those of you that have followed Dave Stancliff's antics on the Joe Blow Report this bit of hypocrisy shouldn't have slipped past unnoticed: “The author(s) of the Humboldt Mirror ... are unknown, which is probably a good thing.” That certainly is NOT what he's publicly told the “author(s) of this blog. Nor is it what Ernie Branscomb (Ernie's Place) said either.

The list of blogs offered by local bloggers, who they include and exclude, says more about the author than they know. By the way, Google takes note of the incoming and outgoing links and rates and ranks accordingly. The more inclusive you are the better all around for attracting visitors and readers – not to mention you credibility as a blog author.

The imperious nature of this “slice of Americana” is clearly demonstrated by Stancliff when he says, when speaking of the Planet Tapperass “humorous quasi-competition for ALL Humboldt blogs: “Basically, Sal introduces new, or lesser known, blogs to the Humboldt Blogispher [sic].” What defines a “lessor known” Humboldt blog? Herein lies the crux of this observation regarding Humboldt Humbug Blogs that are portrayed as the Elite Club – The Good Ol' Boys and Girls.

--Joe

List of blogs from Redheaded Blackbelt Blog below:

Trash-talking – A Way of Life

I wonder how many people would invite into their home, specially a home with a newborn baby and young children some filthy, rotten-smelling diseased person, covered in boils, open pustulated sores, oozing yellow infected pus and filling the air in their every breath and racking cough with germ-ridden pneumonia and tuberculosis? I'm sure most people, if they didn't call in an emergency for the police, would call for an ambulance to take this person to the hospital. I know I would.

Yet this is exactly what thousands of people do every day on the Internet. They invite these infected, gutter-talking, diseased-ridden, degenerate, hate-mongering parasites into their Internet homes where they publicly fill the air with their wanton filthy obscenities, foul accusations and vicious murderous lies. I was showing my wife the other day Dave Stancliff's latest piles of filth he'd deposited on my blog, and she asked me why I allowed that kind of a person to say such things? Why would you want to give this obvious juvenile punk bully a platform to personally attack you like this? My response to her was, “what he says is proof of who and what he is.” “For whose benefit,” she asked. “Decent, God-fearing, respectable people need only to see one example of his trash-talking to know what he is and the rest, those that agree he has the right to personally judge and assault people that don't agree with him or believe as he does, are just like him. You're not writing for his benefit anyway, or at least that's what I thought, so why don't you just put him and his hate-filled bile in the trash where he and it belongs”?

Bullies of all types survive by primarily sucking on emotional energy, in particular the fear or the anger of their victims. This is the state of being were the victim actually becomes vulnerable; when they get emotionally attached. When they take the bully's threats, accusations and insults “personally.” These kinds of people get off on causing an emotional response that connects. I guess it takes an objective perspective, sometimes, to call it for what it is - "sick."

******

The World is at War today. Most people believe it is a war on terror. Actually, it is a war promulgated on the masses of common men and women by a relatively small class of self-righteous, self-important “Dark Age” believers with a bully mentality. People that believe they are touched by God therefore preordained to rule the World with the right to tell people what to think and how to believe; what's right and what's wrong. More than that, they believe they have the god-given right to control and use as they see fit all that is valuable, be it life, land, governments, religions, thought, belief, food, water, and, lets not forget, money. Stancliff's whole effort since the first of June 2009, for more than twenty-two months now, was about trying to bully, coerce and threaten me the author(s) of the Joe Blow Report, into going along with his right to destroy this blog and if he could its author for refusing to accept his god-given right to judge and condemn. He saw a threat to his ability to legitimize his opinions based completely upon his personal prestige and possibly his reputation in the community. That personal prestige is a picture of himself that resides solely within his mind. Anyone that doesn't conform to his personal image and bend to his will becomes his mortal enemy, or more precisely his conjured ego. That is, by definition, a parasite. Like a myriad bullies throughout history, he gets off on puking out his filth on people like me.

Dave Stancliff and his ilk were the same kinds of wannabe exceptional Elitist's high and mighty, “holier than thou” aristocrats, constantly lording over the Americans, constantly trying to force them to bow down and submit, so that when it became so intolerable, caused the Revolutionary War. I say that because not one time in all these months has Dave Stancliff defended, tried to substantiate or justified a single issue he wrote about as observed on this blog. That's because none of this is about issues, unless he is “the” issue, since everything is all about him. What is his proof? The latest record shows here and again you can read it for yourself here that he doesn't need proof. He said it's so, therefore, what more do you need? He is the proof.

Then there is this, repeated in one way or another, over and over again. Notice that I made the statement that no one forced Stancliff to come to my blog Report and read what's written here. He turns around, as is his custom, and now takes issue with the fact that I read his opinion in the Times-Standard newspaper – his inference to my apparent hypocrisy. He said: “I write a column (that you don't have to read but do religiously every Sunday)and then you attack whatever I said.” That statement [on its merits] is a bald-faced lie. The record of his weekly opinions and my blog reports repudiate that statement. The fact is that is exactly what he does to me with rare exception.

By the way there is a big difference between voluntarily going to someone's blog where they self-publish what's written there and writing for a newspaper where someone else publishes what's printed there then sold for money. That means the newspaper editors and publishers are responsible for this guy's opinions and everything else they publish in that paper. I pay for the right to read what's in that paper; the good with the bad. I don't pay him. I pay the newspaper, and I might add, despite the fact that they continue to publish this guy when they know what he is.

Finally, I'd like to offer a little test. Notice Stancliff's claim in his first comment. What he took issue with in my article about his As It Stands: “Gaming the system – frivolous lawsuits flourish in our courts.” I addressed that comment in my next article. Now read his comment posted on that article. It is like he NEVER ever said anything relevant to my article BEFORE. Now he totally changes the subject, trying to use what I wrote addressing he previous comment to castigate me. Conclusion? His comments are nothing more than they are deliberately designed to be: PURE UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT.

Apparently Glenn Greenwald has similar problems with his writings. I came across the following statement that enunciates the exact sentiments I had planned to post here, so I quote him instead:

There's one other point I periodically make about how I engage in these discussions that's worth re-emphasizing here. When I criticize a specific idea, I usually do so not by examining it in the abstract, but by focusing on a particular person's expression of that idea. That's how one avoids fighting strawmen and ensuring accountability (I strongly prefer "X wrote" instead of "some say"). But the focus for me is always on the idea, not its personal advocate. The point of this post was not that Kevin Drum is a mindless, subservient follower of the President's (the fact that I said I read him regularly and find it worthwhile should make clear that I don't think that). The point was that Kevin Drum expressed an idea that I found worthy of criticism, both because it was wrong and consequential (consequential because I encounter it frequently enough to make it worthy of examination). That style of engaging arguments ("X said Y and it's very wrong") can sometimes appear more personal than it is (especially for the person whose idea is being criticized), but it almost never is about the person; identifying a specific expression of an idea is, in my view, the only way to criticize the idea honestly and rigorously.

Dave Stancliff's unproven or unsubstantiated, i.e., “Any rational reader (notice: anyone that doesn't agree with him is not a “rational reader) couldn't help but conclude that you have some serious anger issues coupled with delusions of always being right” personal accusations forced me to accept his definition and the established issue he enforces. His personal accusations do not establish “my” anger or anything else. His acts, publishing his worthless opinions establish who and what “HE” is. Hence: “Since actions speak louder than words, the HYPOCRITE self-manifests for all to see. It isn't the fact of what observations Joe Blow makes regarding Dave Stancliff that harms or degrades his self-made importance and value. It is the fact that he has proven himself to be an unprincipled, deviate, and corrupt individual incapable of rational and decent behavior.”

So, to all you trash-talkers out there, just remember this: Are you ready for a throwdown?

--Joe

P.S. If you are, ready for a "throwdown," go here.

The Black Pot Talks Again

[UPDATE Below]

UPDATE TO : The Pot Calls The Kettle BLACK, Again

The following is what Dave Stancliff wrote on this blog March 16, 2011 9:54 AM.

I've taken the time to repost it here because what he says is the absolute proof of why I commented below, "The Pot Calls The Kettle BLACK, Again," on his Sunday Opinion published by the Times-Standard. Apparently it is entirely alright with them (Times-Standards' publishers and editors) that he, again, demonstrates his incapacity to distinguish the difference of commenting upon the issues of which he writes and making "demeaning," "slandering," oportunistic "attacks" on him personally. What he wrote is there for EVERYONE to read. I didn't put words in his mouth. Since he equates his worthless opinions with his personal self-worth and self-esteeem as an individual, EVERYTHING becomes about him. Hence, all his perseptions and resultant foul accusations simply originate within his mind. To talk about what he writes is to talk about him. Disagree with his opinion writings and you demean and slander him. These are HIS rules of engagement as he defines himself.  That is also why he is totally and demonstrably incapable of defending his opinions and what he wrote, opting instead for his repeated ad hominem assaults.

His record for initially attacking me and judging my motives are extensive on this blog and is exactly what he just did - personally attack me again, exactly as quoted below. What's really scary is this statement and what it represents: "Slandering me does not strengthen your position, it merely reveals that you have a vendetta against me and take every opportunity to attack me." By definition, this state of mind as expressed in this statement, is a Persecution Complex. Wikipedia defines this repeated accusation as Persecutory Delusions.

I would encourage everyone to read the thoughtful, non-inciting article by Nat Hentoff in today's (Wednesday, March 16, 2011, Times-Standard) on this same issue and what Dave Stancliff says in the Sunday Times-Stanard and then compare what he says below:

Dave Stancliff:
"This article: “Recognizing when not to die over an issue" is a classic example of how emotional, effeminate blather can motivate people.."

You're showing your true colors again Joe, by personally attacking the messenger (me)with words designed to demean (and thus supposedly weaken my opinion)such as "effeminate." Slandering me does not strengthen your position, it merely reveals that you have a vendetta against me and take every opportunity to attack me.

You say you're not supporting the WBC to summerize...
so is a person supposed to ignore everything you said prior to that claim?

Perhaps you ought to re-read what you wrote.

You expect respect (and howl wehen you think someone has affronted you)but you show NO RESPECT for others opinions.

You're the one who needs to examine your conscience; not the grieving father (Albert Snyder)you've chosen to demonize.

What gives you th right to judge anybody...especially so harshly and mean spiritedly?

I just hope you don't have a loved one who dies someday - and their funeral is disrupted by a hate group (please don't waste your breath saying the WBC is not a hate group - read up on them).

---

[UPDATE :: Wednesday, March 16, 2011]

Here is another unrequested comment from Dave Stancliff. His issue with "me" is clearly stated. Why, is anyone's guess. His comment is quite clear and self-defining, as are his actions. He is totally incapable of understanding "HOW" he "attacked" me? UNBELIEVABLE! Why he is unable to distinguish the difference between his blatant accusatory comment and its self-defining reality, says more about him than anything. Compare Dictionary.com's definition of:

ad hominem–adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

ALSO:
World English Dictionary
ad hominem (æd ˈhɒmɪˌnɛm)
— adj , — adv
1. directed against a person rather than against his arguments
2. based on or appealing to emotion rather than reason
[literally: to the man]

His As It Stands opinion in the Sunday paper is as ad hominem as anyone can get.

--Joe

Pot Calls the Kettle BLACK, Again

[UPDATE Below] [Update II]

Why a civilized society needs “LAW” is, again, demonstrated in the Sunday, March 13, 2011, issue of the Times-Standard, As It Stands by Dave Stancliff. This article: “Recognizing when not to die over an issue" is a classic example of how emotional, effeminate blather can motivate people to deprive others of the very same rights they enforce upon other people. Here Stancliff piously rails against a religious people (Baptists) for enforcing their legal rights that offends his moral sensitivities while he wantonly commits the same sin.

I'd like to point out that everyone one of these soldiers freely chose to put their lives on the line. As such they made themselves morally, ethically and legally responsible for the consequences their actions. Vietnam era military faced a different situation. Most of them were compelled by law as they involuntarily drafted. It took strong moral convictions to stand against the obscenity of that war and the lives lost. History has judged the value of that conflict and everyone that supported it.

When you consider the history of the American military's wanton butchery of innocent civilians from the U.S. Civil War to the present, and the attitude as expressed in this article by Dave Stancliff, it is easy to see how he can justify this kind of thinking when he considers the military, in particular “the fallen” his family; his brothers and sisters. You can also understand the morally corrupt, anarchistic attitude of the father of the deceased soldier, Albert Snyder, justifying the Rule of Man to use violence because he like the Supreme Court's ruling. Alber Snyder should look to his own conscience before judging someone else over his deliberate actions as he tries to justify the death of his son.

What these people are doing may be in bad taste. This Report is certainly NOT supporting them anymore than the Times-Standard and their incitable Opinion. It is for these very kinds of people emulated in this example that we need Law. It's the only protection we have from these hate and warmongers' ultimate tyranny. These are the real "bad people" everyone should fear.

[UPDATE :: Wednesday, March 16, 2011]
To the Times-Standards credit they published, right under a fitting cartoon on page A4 for Wednesday, March 16, 2011, Nat Hentoff's rather lengthy article: “Our First Amendment protects speech we despise, too.”

Mr. Hentoff's approach to this issue is far more evenhanded and levelheaded than Dave Stancliff's regarding the much cherished and sacred right of free speech for EVERYONE.

[UPDATE II :: Wednesday, March 16, 2011]
What happens when you lie to the American people for why they should go to way and the dutiful military fall into lockstep. Death is the ultimate cost of war that EVERYONE needs to face up to. The following is an excerpt from Glenn Greenwald's Wednesday, March 16, 2011, Salon.com article:

[W]hat's even more striking is that a mere 17% of the American citizenry "strongly believes" that the war was worth fighting (see this very good analysis of how dubious is the administration's new positive war spin).

It may be that some policies should be continued as desirable no matter how little public support they command. But war is different. Wars are supposed to be fought only when the citizenry is behind them and they are absolutely necessary. It's almost impossible to imagine a situation where a war should be continued when only 17% of the nation's citizen "strongly believes" it's worth fighting. Almost by definition, a nation shouldn't be fighting a war -- especially in another country -- if such a small fraction of its citizens believe it's truly necessary. What justifies sending fellow citizens off to die -- let alone killing people in the country we've invaded -- if so few people believe it's worthwhile let alone necessary? But this underscores yet again the most ingenious and valuable achievement of the National Security State: enabling endless war while appearing to impose costs on only a tiny percentage of the population, thus ensuring that pointless, unnecessary, unjust wars will continue without much resistance even when the vast majority of the public recognizes them as such.

Read the complete article here.

--Joe

Show Me The Difference

The following excerpt is about an exchange that is altogether too reminiscent of exactly what happened to me when I wrote an observation regarding a Times-Standard "As It Stands" opinion by Dave Stancliff. I've enclosed the links at the end of this article and I'd like someone to show me exactly what the difference is in what these two guys are trying to do to Glenn Greenwald and what Dave Stancliff and Ernie Branscomb tried to do to me and the Joe Blow Report. Read the comments too. See who commented and what they said, it is almost word for word what Greenwald defines.

WEDNESDAY, DEC 29, 2010 09:30 ET
Wired's refusal to release or comment on the Manning chat logs
BY GLENN GREENWALD

Last night, Wired posted a two-part response to my criticisms of its conduct in reporting on the arrest of PFC Bradley Manning and the key role played in that arrest by Adrian Lamo. I wrote about this topic twice -- first back in June and then again last Sunday. The first part of Wired's response was from Wired.com Editor-in-Chief Evan Hansen, and the second is from its Senior Editor Kevin Poulsen. Both predictably hurl all sorts of invective at me as a means of distracting attention from the central issue, the only issue that matters: their refusal to release or even comment on what is the central evidence in what is easily one of the most consequential political stories of this year, at least.

That's how these disputes often work by design: the party whose conduct is in question (here, Wired) attacks the critic in order to create the impression that it's all just some sort of screeching personality feud devoid of substance. That, in turn, causes some bystanders to cheer for whichever side they already like and boo the side they already dislike, as though it's some sort of entertaining wrestling match, while everyone else dismisses it all as some sort of trivial Internet catfight not worth sorting out. That, ironically, is what WikiLeaks critics (and The New York Times' John Burns) did with the release of the Iraq War documents showing all sorts of atrocities in which the U.S. was complicit: they tried to put the focus on the personality quirks of Julian Assange to distract attention away from the horrifying substance of those disclosures. That, manifestly, is the same tactic Wired is using here: trying to put the focus on me to obscure their own ongoing conduct in concealing the key evidence shining light on these events.

Here's the link that got it started: "Trolls versus The Thought Police" and a copy of the As It Stands: "Don't feed the trolls" article I wrote about. Here's the link from Ernie Branscomb's blog article, "Not Fair." Be sure to read the comments.

Greenwald's referring article: Response to Wired's accusations - concludes by saying:

But now that I've written critically about Wired, I'm suddenly converted into a dishonest, ethics-free, unreliable hack.  That's par for the course.  That's why so few people in this profession are willing to criticize other media outlets.  Journalists react as poorly as anyone to public criticism; it doesn't make you popular to do it; it can terminate career opportunities and relationships; it's certain your credibility will be publicly impugned.  But journalists need scrutiny and accountability as much as anyone -- especially when, as here, they are shaping public perceptions about a vital story while withholding important information -- and I'd vastly prefer to be the one to provide it even it means that the targets of the criticism don't like it and lash out. 

Ultimately, what determines one's credibility is not the names you get called or the number of people who get angry when you criticize them.  What matters is whether the things you say are well-supported and accurate, to correct them if they're not, and to subject yourself to the same accountability and transparency you demand of others. [Emphasis added]

--Joe

Who Killed Roger Rabbit a.k.a. The Free Press?

My question is, why are we routinely subjected to unchallenged demeaning and degrading opinions and outright lies produced in the newspapers and on TV as if it is the God's gospel Truth?

Notice the subtitle in the picture: "THE ROBIN HOOD OF HACKING"? Look familiar?

The following article "Opinionator Assassinator Strikes Again" is about the latest local hack attack on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks where the local Times-Standard newspaper and their use of wannabe authority, to pump out consensus propaganda as "natural matter of fact and truth." If Julian Assange is the kind of a person Dave Stancliff says he is then PRODUCE THE PROOF to back it up. The Times-Standard needs to enforce, if not show, a little common consideration and respect for the reader. We'll decide what kind of a person he is. That worthless "opinion" is nothing more than gossip-mongering. Everyone that reads such tripe should be offended and disgusted. So far I haven't found ONE letter to the Editors complaining about this public insult.

The following article by Glenn Greenwald on this subject is not only an "Update" continuing to refute this unchallenged propaganda, but to demonstrate a non-offensive presentation of the facts. Here's the link:

The merger of journalists and government officials

The following excerpt is offered here because it directly addresses our local problem:

(2) From the start of the WikiLeaks controversy, the most striking aspect for me has been that the ones who are leading the crusade against the transparency brought about by WikiLeaks -- the ones most enraged about the leaks and the subversion of government secrecy -- have been . . . America's intrepid Watchdog journalists.  What illustrates how warped our political and media culture is as potently as that?  It just never seems to dawn on them -- even when you explain it -- that the transparency and undermining of the secrecy regime against which they are angrily railing is supposed to be . . . what they do.

--Joe

Opinionator Assassinator Strikes Again

[UPDATE Below] [UPDATE II]

After weeks of serving up servile pablum to the readers of the Sunday Times-Standard's so-called "Opinion" As It Stands they all collaborated to take a shot at trying to murder the character of someone with more guts and courage then the whole pack of them put together. Herein lies the wisdom for, and the lesson on, "how to cut your own throat and blame it on someone else for the despicable act of killing you."

So, let me introduce you to the Local Master's latest lesson on Character Assassination: "Is Assange a Robin Hood trying to take the high road by thievery?" This is as pure and as rank a personal attack on an individual person as you could ever want. Take lessons! He pushes all the right buttons, but not one comment on the undisputed facts, the so-called "leaks, that speak for themselves. Maligning, lying and falsely accusing the messenger, trying to destroy the credibility and reputation of decent, honest and worthy people, so as to justify their murderer, is as age old as Jesus Christ, the Garden of Eden and the original murder who killed by lies and filthy false accusations. Might as well put a gun the their head and pull the trigger - there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE.

On that same A5 page the editors managed to post the perfect counterpoint with Amy Goodman's "'Assangination': from character assassination to the real thing" - The Report could have let her commentary on this issue be the indirect answer, but the very publishing of Dave Stancliff's allegoric attack by the Times-Standard newspaper requires additional consideration for their responsibility for conduct not dissimilar to the New York Times. They justify such abhorrent conduct hiding behind the First Amendment while that very conduct works to delegitimize that very Amendment.

If you haven't read Amy Goodman's article in the newspaper, here's the link. Amy concludes by asking this very important question, a question that goes right at the heart of this article's real agenda.

WikiLeaks, for that matter, is not just Julian Assange, but a geographically distributed network of people and servers, and it has promised that the work of facilitating the release of documents from governments and corporations will continue. The U.S. Justice Department, if it pursues a case, will have to answer the question: If WikiLeaks is a criminal organization, what of its media partners, like The New York Times?

While that's an important question for the Nation, what about here locally? How complicit is the Times-Standard and their editors for publishing Dave Stancliff's As It Stands wanton character assassination that assaults the very legitimacy of the U.S Constitution? When the U.S. government can accuse, prosecute, convict and throw people in jail and torture them for life for what they "supposedly" think, not do, character assassination is extremely serious and potentially life-threatening.

Normally, the Joe Blow Report is only interested in observing facts and related issues - NOT PERSONALITIES - asinine, belief-motivated, worthless opinions. But since it is a proven fact that the writer is incapable of making the distinction and since what he says on the record is personal and all about character assassination, and is so totally corrupt and craven in its attack on decency and reason, it behooves me to address a couple of issues without, hopefully, giving any kind of credence to the writer or the paper it's written on.

Notice his use of the word "thievery." Anyone that knows anything about WikiLeaks knows for a fact that Julian Assange never stole anything, but that's atypical of this guy. He asks, "Is assange a moderern-day Robin Hood stealing information for the masses?" Where's his proof or evidence to substantiate this lie?  He quotes the words of some "law professor's" opinion as if this "opinion" is the last word and asserts with total conviction, because of that opinion, that for an absolute fact "the initial thief" (as yet ONLY accused Pfc. Bradley E. Manning) is for a fact a convicted and guilty "thief." According to their brilliantly convoluted deductive reasonings based upon their worthless opinions they conclude WikiLeaks and by inference Julian Assange are "thieves and co-conspirators in the theft." Absolutely no evidence or proof provided, only perverted and disputed opinions. More importantly, not once does Stancliff talk about what the United States is doing to Bradley Manning as they try to torture some kind of incriminating accusations from him that they can use against Julian Assange.

He also says, "His (Assange) followers threaten governments and corporations with impunity." Another ambiguous statement! Who says these people are "his" "followers"? What is it that he says threatens "governments and corporations with impunity"? Is it people, so-called, unidentified "followers" or INFORMATION, FACTS, OR TRUTH that threatens? Information that has absolutely nothing to do with Julian Assange or WikiLeaks.

As someone that has felt the closeness of the missiles of this guy's many attempts to assassinate my character whiz by, I can speak with some authority when I tell you the following statement is classic. Without a shred of proof other than his all-knowing, manifest god-complex he says: "Even calling him a whistle-blower is misleading, because he's pursuing a personal agenda against the United States." No where does Julian Assange assert that "agenda." There are many outright lies and false lying accusations made against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, most of them identified, exposed and refuted by Glenn Greenwald over the past weeks in his articles posted on Salon.com, so I'm not going to repeat any of that here.

The tragic reality of these kinds of useless imbecilic tirades is they directly attack all our First Amendment rights and do irreparable damage to the legitimacy of the U.S. Constitution. A fact the Local Master Assassinator readily acknowledges when he makes his first three lies in his second sentence, "He spread illegally obtained raw classified information on his website for the world to view." "He" did not "spread" anything. The information was not "raw" and the information was published in major newspapers first.

If Julian Assange is a thief, a criminal, a terrorist or a spy then so is the New York Times along with a half-a-dozen or so other major newspapers and all their collaborating news reporters. The greatest threat to everyone and everything this country was founded upon is viciously attacked by these kinds of people and their supporters. The greatest threat to the "journalism world" is defined by the very actions of these kinds of opinionated hacks that believe in and fight for the Darkness using lies, innuendo, false accusations and murder.

The following is a compilation of links to the many Glenn Greenwalds articles dealing with this specific issue. First, consider this posted today: 1) Why Julian Assange is a journalist - And why WikiLeaks is entitled to the same First Amendment protections as The New York Times. By Scott Gant. 2) The government's one-way mirror.

Here is the list of articles:

1. Joe Biden v. Joe Biden on WikiLeaks
2. Getting to Assange through Manning
3. The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention
4. Attempts to prosecute WikiLeaks endanger press freedoms
5. The media's authoritarianism and WikiLeaks 
6. The crux of the WikiLeaks debate
7. Anti-WikiLeaks lies and propaganda - from TNR, Lauer, Feinstein and more
8. The lawless Wild West attacks WikiLeaks
9. WikiLeaks debate with Steven Aftergood
10. More Joe Lieberman-caused Internet censorship
11. Joe Lieberman emulates Chinese dictators
12. The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics
13. WikiLeaks reveals more than just government secrets
14. The wretched mind of the American authoritarian
15. More on the media's Pentagon-subservient WikiLeaks coverage
16. NYT v. the world: WikiLeaks coverage
17. How propaganda is disseminated: WikiLeaks Edition

The war is engaged and the conspirators and their enablers are self-identifying. It isn't just a war of the Power Elite against the American people, looting their money, their right to own property and ability to feed themselves, but a war against everything they hold dear, truth, honor, honesty, dignity, pride, ability-granting freedom to think for themselves and the self-worth of their individuality that makes them a people of value.

[UPDATE :: Friday, December 24, 2010]
A Christmas gift from WikiLeaks via Glenn Greenwald: What WikiLeaks revealed to the world in 2010 - 
This blog article about the As It Stands newspaper article's assault on the messenger is typical of a more widespread disease as illustrated in the following quotes. They demonstrate, to a large extent, why I shined a light on the character assassination by the As It Stands opinion:

To understand why I've (Greenwald) done so, and to see what motivates the increasing devotion of the U.S. Government and those influenced by it to destroying that organization, it's well worth reviewing exactly what WikiLeaks exposed to the world just in the last year:  the breadth of the corruption, deceit, brutality and criminality on the part of the world's most powerful factions.

As revealing as the disclosures themselves are, the reactions to them have been equally revealing.  The vast bulk of the outrage has been devoted not to the crimes that have been exposed but rather to those who exposed them: WikiLeaks and (allegedly) Bradley Manning.

*** Greenwald's expose defines why I had to engage this issue with local newspaper, the Times-Standard.

It's unsurprising that political leaders would want to convince people that the true criminals are those who expose acts of high-level political corruption and criminality, rather than those who perpetrate them.  Every political leader would love for that self-serving piety to take hold.  But what's startling is how many citizens and, especially, "journalists" now vehemently believe that as well.  In light of what WikiLeaks has revealed to the world about numerous governments, just fathom the authoritarian mindset that would lead a citizen -- and especially a "journalist" -- to react with anger that these things have been revealed; to insist that these facts should have been kept concealed and it'd be better if we didn't know; and, most of all, to demand that those who made us aware of it all be punished (the True Criminals) while those who did these things (The Good Authorities) be shielded. 

To see the list of just some of what WikiLeaks has offered, click this link.

---

[UPDATE :: Saturday, December 25, 2010 - What is a "HACKER?"]

The following excerpt from an essay by Bruce Sterling, The Blast Shack, is well worth reading the whole essay. It adds a lot of context to the above article. He concludes by saying:

Well… every once in a while, a situation that’s one-in-a-thousand is met by a guy who is one in a million. It may be that Assange is, somehow, up to this situation. Maybe he’s gonna grow in stature by the massive trouble he has caused. Saints, martyrs, dissidents and freaks are always wild-cards, but sometimes they’re the only ones who can clear the general air. Sometimes they become the catalyst for historical events that somehow had to happen. They don’t have to be nice guys; that’s not the point. Julian Assange did this; he direly wanted it to happen. He planned it in nitpicky, obsessive detail. Here it is; a planetary hack.

I don’t have a lot of cheery hope to offer about his all-too-compelling gesture, but I dare to hope he’s everything he thinks he is, and much, much, more.

--Joe