And Then There Is Joe -- Blow, That Is

"The more one dissents from political orthodoxies, the more the attacks focus on personality, style and character." So says Glenn Greenwald in his latest article about Noam Chomsky. And people wonder why I blog as "Joe Blow."

It is bad enough that I have had to put up with the likes of some locals such as Ernie Branscomb, Eric Kirk, Hank Sims and not to forget the illustrious newspaper opinionater, Dave Stancliff, but to subject my family to the consequences of their juvenile rancorous invectives was a bit much.

Glenn's "How Noam Chomsky is discussed" expresses my sentiments on this issue to perfection. He begins by saying:

"One very common tactic for enforcing political orthodoxies is to malign the character, "style" and even mental health of those who challenge them. The most extreme version of this was an old Soviet favorite: to declare political dissidents mentally ill and put them in hospitals. In the US, those who take even the tiniest steps outside of political convention are instantly decreed "crazy", as happened to the 2002 anti-war version of Howard Dean and the current iteration of Ron Paul (in most cases,what is actually "crazy" are the political orthodoxies this tactic seeks to shield from challenge). 

This method is applied with particular aggression to those who engage in any meaningful dissent against the society's most powerful factions and their institutions. Nixon White House officials sought to steal the files from Daniel Ellsberg's psychoanalyst's office precisely because they knew they could best discredit his disclosures with irrelevant attacks on his psyche. Identically, the New York Times and partisan Obama supporters have led the way in depicting both Bradley Manning and Julian Assangeas mentally unstable outcasts with serious personality deficiencies. The lesson is clear: only someone plagued by mental afflictions would take such extreme steps to subvert the power of the US government. 

A subtler version of this technique is to attack the so-called "style" of the critic as a means of impugning, really avoiding, the substance of the critique. Although Paul Krugman is comfortably within mainstream political thought as a loyal Democrat and a New York Times columnist, his relentless attack against the austerity mindset is threatening to many. As a result, he is barraged with endless, substance-free complaints about his "tone": he is too abrasive, he does not treat opponents with respect, he demonizes those who disagree with him, etc. The complaints are usually devoid of specifics to prevent meaningful refutation; one typical example: "[Krugman] often cloaks his claims in professional authority, overstates them, omits arguments that undermine his case, and is a bit of a bully." All of that enables the substance of the critique to be avoided in lieu of alleged personality flaws. 

Nobody has been subjected to these vapid discrediting techniques more than Noam Chomsky." 

 To continue reading the rest of the article, please click this link.

Glenn says in defense of Chomsky, and I offer this paragraph for Eric Kirk's benefit:

"But the strangest attack on Chomsky is the insinuation that he has changed nothing. Aside from the metrics demonstrating that he has more reach and influence than virtually any public intellectual in the world, some of which Edemariam cites, I'd say that there is no living political writer who has more radically changed how more people think in more parts of the world about political issues than he. If you accept the premise (as I do) that the key to political change is to convince people of pervasive injustice and the need to act, then it's virtually laughable to depict him as inconsequential. Washington power-brokers and their media courtiers do not discuss him, and he does not make frequent (or any) appearances on US cable news outlets, but outside of those narrow and insular corridors - meaning around the world - few if any political thinkers are as well-known, influential or admired (to its credit, the Guardian, like some US liberal outlets, does periodically publish Chomsky's essays)." 

 Glenn concludes by saying and I quote:

"But what is at play here is this destructive dynamic that the more one dissents from political orthodoxies, the more personalized, style-focused and substance-free the attacks become. That's because once someone becomes sufficiently critical of establishment pieties, the goal is not merely to dispute their claims but to silence them. That's accomplished by demonizing the person on personality and style grounds to the point where huge numbers of people decide that nothing they say should even be considered, let alone accepted. It's a sorry and anti-intellectual tactic, to be sure, but a brutally effective one." [Emphasis mine]

 In that, to be sure, as an avatar, I should know.

--Joe

Honest Reporting OR Journalist Joke?

[UPDATE Below - Update II]

Some months ago I became intrigued with the coming together of two fairly popular blogs, Lost Coast Outpost, ie., Hank Sims, and the Readheaded Blackbelt, ie., Kym Kemp from Southern Humboldt.

The difference, if any, is minor. What is striking, however, is the advertising now displayed prominently on Kym's blog. Since Hank Sims is connected to KHUM radio and he was displaying news reports as part of the normal blog format. Kym Kemp, on the other hand, even before hooking up with Sims was beginning to post mostly local Southern Humboldt news and matters of public interest with a proliferation of police and Sheriff Department press releases. These press releases are canned accounts published online by these organizations given to the general public as accurate news. These agencies tell the public what they want them to know. This kind of one-sided, biased reporting is reprehensible when employed by the Times-Standard newspaper with salaried reporters.

The integrity and credibility of such blog reporting, or I should say LACK of integrity and credibility, was emphasized when I read the following excerpt by Glenn Greenwald in his Salon.com article: “Officials say” journalism - Yet again, the American media misleads by uncritically printing unverified, false claims from the U.S. military. (Or in our case: “claims from the local police.”)

Instead, what we see here is the standard template of American media reports: in the very first paragraph, media outlets typically state as fact what are nothing more than official assertions, and then append on to the end of the paragraph the rote phrase “officials say” (standard first paragraph: A, B and C happened today, officials say“). Over and over, this is the journalistic practice that converts media institutions into little more than glorified press release outlets for the U.S. government and military. They routinely write entire articles where the narrative and storyline are shaped exclusively by unverified claims of officials. There is a protected free press precisely because institutions are needed to check and scrutinize government claims — based on the long-standing recognition that those in power tell self-serving lies, something which has happened over and over in the war in Afghanistan — not uncritically amplify them and convert them into Truth under the guise of independent reporting. 

But this “officials say” form of American journalism converts government claims into journalistic fact. In that regard, it’s not merely redundant, though it is that: who needs a media outlet to re-print government press releases, when one can just go read those press releases on one’s own? It’s worse than redundant: it launders government claims as verified fact, as though they’ve been checked and confirmed by an independent media arbiter. That’s why government officials love to “leak” falsehoods to reporters while hiding behind the shield of anonymity, rather than just themselves dissemintaing those falsehoods: not only does that practice shield them from accountability, but it masquerades their lies as “reporting.” Today’s example is just illustrative, and far from the most important: this is the model, more than any other, that shapes American journalism. [Emphasis added.]

As such, these outlets become nothing more than propaganda tools. In Kym Kemp's case, when I challenged her postings regarding Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman's reports she actively defended him, and her reporting based upon his press releases.

There is an exception I'd like to mention here that I think is rather noteworthy and that is the Humboldt Herald by Heraldo. While the Humboldt Herald occasionally publishes Press Releases the general format is far more newsworthy in it's reporting. Recently, the Humboldt Herald added two others in addition to Heraldo posting articles: Mitch and Eric Kirk. Eric Kirk has the Southern Humboldt blog, SoHum Parlance II.

The diversity in the Herald has certainly increased it's purview.  So, honest reporting or journalistic joke?

---

[UPDATE :: Thursday, June 21, 2012]

Interesting update to this idea of “blog reporting.” Are blogs and bloggers (people that write blog articles and post these articles on blogs) actually “blog reporters”? In other words, should they answer to a higher set of standards and priorities than the average blog opinionator or “glorified press release outlets”?

Would you say that the Humboldt Herald blog predominately “acts” like a blog news outlet? Now compare the Humboldt Herald to Eric Kirk's SoHum Parlance II. Do you get the same answers? I don't think so.

Now look at Eric's post on the Humboldt Herald for Thursday, June 21st, 2012, Drama at the Democratic Central Committee and tell me, even if it isn't by Kirk's own words as timely as he would like, a news report.

So, should these writers – bloggers be held to the “reporter” standard? Or did Eric's use of a bogus picture he says was used as an (unspoken) joke adversely affect the credibility and integrity of the Humboldt Herald? Did he move it into the blemished commonality of an opinionating blog?

---

[UPDATE :: Friday, June 22, 2012] 

 Upon checking the Redheaded Blackbelt blog this morning I found of the seven postings, six were nothing more than Press Releases. Over on Lost Coast Outpost it was basically the same thing.

--Joe

Pounding Sand - Kym Kemp Style

This is the Kym Kemp of the Redheaded Blackbelt blog - a co-conspirator of and with Hank Sims of the Lost Coast Outpost blog. This post is NOT about Kym Kemp per se, some personal vendetta, blog or comment censorship as much as it is about what it means to be a responsible ADULT.

You can find the definition of what it means to "pound sand" here or as defined here the second variation: "A variant meaning is to suffer or to act in a pointless manner" – the titled meaning used for this posting.

I recently had an interesting and sort of profitable email conversation with Kym. (Probably more profitable for me than her, but what the heck?) I figured she'd be, or at least the incentive would be there for her to be more honest in our efforts to communicate. We were talking about “after-the-fact” blog censorship – arbitrary blocking and deleting comments in the public comments section based upon individual ignorance, bias and personal prejudice – a form of racism*. I thought about what she said in that conversation and about what she did NOT say. I tried to answer her concerns about talking to her like a "small child." That and while she said I usually talk over everyone's head, my comments somehow become nothing more than unacceptable "negative," "ugly taunts. Apparently, according to her, I was unable speak to her like a mature adult. There is a time to be a whinny little baby and then there is the time to grow up and become an adult. Adults understand that most children live in the moment where life's realities are defined by how everything affects and profits them. Adults, on the other hand, know that life encompasses much, much more than living an animal existence. In the process I happened to read her comments posted on her affiliate blog. Also posted below. (A place I never make comments just to avoid this kind of a double-edged trap.)

Then it occurred to me, when she had accused me of treating her like a small child, why. What she said and what she wanted me to give her the right to do, was exactly the same conversation I'd had with my own daughter when she was moving out of adolescence. She wanted to be an adult and wanted her mother and me to treat her like an adult, but without any responsibility or accountability. She naively believed that being an adult meant that she had the right to come and go, do and say whatever she felt like WITHOUT any personal accountability. Of course, we all know that the world does not work like that, even though they all believe it does. Being an adult meant that you were free from any rules or laws. Enforcement of any rules or laws amounted to nothing more than a wannabe adult making "ugly taunts." That's when our relationship got dicey – for awhile. Even so, during this time she had a protected environment to grow and become a more mature person – her stated goal. So, what does that say about Kym? 

Kym's problem, the one she refuses to accept, is that she is exactly what she still is, an adolescent. I say that, because just like my daughter, she refuses to accept responsibility for her stipulated lifestyle beliefs. She believes that 50 years of an ingrained criminal culture involving large amounts of tax-free easy money, lying, stealing, money laundering, corruption and murder has or had NO morally detrimental or harmful effects on the social structure or the integrity of the individual, family and community, including the business community. Not only does Kym believe this nonsense, but she's constantly trying to justify and legitimize why the individual has the moral, ethical and legal right to trash social and societal rules, norms and laws at will - at the individuals sole discretion. (I posted the above referenced relevant comments below.) Notice her comment: “Just because people are willing to break stupid laws doesn't mean they are willing to be immoral.” This judgmental statement, in and of itself, "stupid laws," defines the morality, or rather, amorality of the speaker. It is that judgement repudiating the majority right to define and enforce rules of the road; LAW, that is "immoral." Here the mantra is the defacto enforcement of the Rule of Men replacing the Rule of Law. I believe, therefore I am truth, right and justice – LAW.

To me, her statement is morally repugnant and highly offensive. Why? Because of the untold numbers of the murdered dead, rotting in those hills who scream out something altogether different. These people,  so-called innocent "plant growers" – pot growers et al. and business community alike, whether they intended to become or ever wanted to become, are all part and party to the deaths of these “innocent plant growers.” Growing that “plant” and “breaking stupid laws,” as she so naively puts it, is not only immoral, but is the self-centered, self-righteous arrogance of the “corrupt to the gut” amoral.

a·mor·al [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/amoral ] 

  1. Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.
  2. Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.

There is an easy way to illustrate and bring home what and how these people, not only the growers, but all the local businesses and untold numbers of non-grower "growers" that have exploited this corrupt, immoral and depraved criminal enterprise, enforce their personal, opinion based beliefs and judgments on a day to day basis. Notice that on her blog and that of Hank Sims you will NOT find any rules or guidelines for making comments on their blog. Here is an example of what I mean along with MY Comment Guidelines, located first paragraph top left. Again, reinforced under Pages: Comment Etiquette below. They simply expect you to divine or submit like a little puppy to their unspoken demands and personal prejudices. Since I'm not a mind reader that created a bit of problem when being judged by bigotry, bias and racist prejudices – not to mention childish ignorance and bullying stupidity. They, and others, divine the right to judge everyone as you go. They post NO rules of the road so that everyone knows without doubt what is and is not expected. They not only want to be judge, jury and executioner, they expect everyone commenting on their blog to give them that right. How this corrupt way bleeds over into society was graphically demonstrated when the Fortuna police asserted this right by killing Jacob Newmaker March 16, 2012. I've written fairly extensively how this police killing is the result of enforcing the Rule of Men. See below Self Defense Is a Bitch and Resist AND Die - Why?

Then there is the OTHER SIDE – The Dark Side. Where the totally innocent person or family that wants absolutely nothing to do with the corruption and it's handmaidens, the criminal elite that get drawn into a serious life and death struggle to survive. Two good examples of this are the Saturday, March 24, 2012 Times-Standard account of "Victim recounts harrowing home invasion, torture" and the Arcata Police home invasion by deception of a 64 year old Barbara Sage by "about a dozen officers with guns drawn." You can read about that in today's Times-Standard here: Arcata woman sues city, police over potless pot search; suit alleges unlawful search, rough treatment hastened husband's death.

Synonymous to the Rule of Men is its root cause: CORRUPTION. What does one rotten apple have in common with a barrel of good apples? A whole barrel full of rotten apples, that's what. Kym's moralizing and devaluing law is symptomatic of much more than an adolescent attitude and understanding. It is the sand pounding of her constant justification that, in view of the corrupt and depraved consequences, where rot is the norm, that is reprehensible and intolerable. It is the dead in these hills that do the judging. No matter how much sand pounding Kym does in support of this corruption and these criminals, the dead are still dead. You can't censor them.

--Joe

Who the Hell Is Hank Sims?

Lately, it seems, anytime you open up the Times-Standard newspaper, there's that "name," Hank Sims, staring out at you. Today, Wednesday, May 11, 2011, right  under “Guest Columnist” is the half-page rhetorical and bombastic, “Lost Coast Outpost: Parliament of apes plays to baser instincts.” Here he is, ostensibly, writing about the emails pulled out for public scrutiny and their supposedly (un)intended consequences of trying to vilify and delegitimize, on the one hand a hardworking city councilman and on the other, preoccupying his extremely valuable time, contending with the “animal passion of the citizenry – combating it, engaging in it, studiously ignoring it.”

I'm always amused when the pious, self-righteous hypocrite seeks to speak or write, actually tries to define, how people think, believe and act. To press my point, Sims says:

“It's so much easier than inviting people to think through policy and make informed choices.” 

What is? Why personally attacking the individual, by lying, vilifying and trying to delegitimize who they are. Here, of course, he is speaking for himself, as he continues:

“We are a simple species. We strongly prefer fairy tales to nuanced literature, and will strength all evidence to populate worlds of our imagination with noble knights, disfigured ogres and helpless maidens on the verge of being defiled. We want this same story again and again and again, because it shrinks things to a size that our poor brains can comprehend.”

Do you see how he has completely defined exactly what he just wrote? Then he concludes by saying:

“That's where we're at. You can point out this state of affairs, and encourage others to at least recognize it when they see it. Perhaps you can go a little out of your way to thank and support those who decline to reduce government to a simple morality tale for children. Don't expect either to accomplish very much.”

What makes him a “Guest Columnist”? That is the question Barbara Kennedy submitted in her letter posted in the same edition titled: “It's simple, Hank, don't be mystified” - Letters to the Editor, Posted: 05/11/2011 12:30:27 AM PDT

Perhaps a better question is, why is the Times-Standard promoting his website and that of the Humboldt Herald Blog? Not that his loyalties and personal affinities are not screaming out at you in his article - that is more “Opinion” that anything. It is here, the obvious connection and promotion of a select group are revealing themselves in their “baser instincts.”

Perhaps, that's the answer.

[Source]
PS. I couldn't find a link in the Times-Standard for this column. I did find an Internet copy on the Lost Coast Outpost website.

--Joe

Humbug Blogs - Good Ol' Boys Club UPDATE

Hank Sims, as most of you know, was the Editor of the North Coast Journal or simply "The Journal" until recently, when he moved to the Lost Coast Radio :: "Freeform Radio From Humboldt County, California" - From the website it looks like this makes up four radio stations. Since I don't make it a practice to listen to any of those stations, it's anyone's guess what he does there. What I do know is there's a new website that's made its appearance since he took up residence: Lost Coast Outpost. At least I think it's new. The website has Sim's fingerprints all over it. One of his special little features is his list of blogs he publishes as a reader update. The list of acceptable blogs, according to him, are listed there for all to see - his version of the Good Ol' Boys Club. Look for them under the heading: "Elswhere..."

Look as hard as you want, but you won't find the Joe Report listed there. You won't find a listing on Heraldo's blog either. Guess those two lads have a personal problem that's got the best of them . . .

--Joe

Threading the Needle

[UPDATE Below :: Update II]


Declaration of War  ::  “When a War Starts, It Knows No Limits.”

A week ago this Report posted observations about the gross hypocrisy demonstrated by a local newspaper Opinionator championing and defending all American's First Amendment rights, he would have everyone believe was bought and paid for by people like him, while at the same time demeaning and vilifying a small minority of religious people to incite the public to deny them to freely defend and express these very same rights. For exposing this hypocrisy this person has personally attacked me, and would deny me these same rights too. (Read latest update below)

This guy's conduct of threats and intimidation, lies and abusive accusations has incited and inflamed others in this community to join him in his personal assault on Law and the Constitution. Can we be so surprised, then, at the impunity with which some of louder Opionators, editors, commentators and other self-righteous preachers and the like incite hatred for everyone that would defend and enforce Law over emotion driven worthless opinions?

It is the threat, based upon lies and false accusations acted upon with all self-righteous hypocrisy that defines the warmonger criminal. It is the abhorrent, loathsome existence of such animal scum that they would justify their existence by using nothing more than their malicious lies and baseless, unproven accusations to assault and murder innocent women and children. In Mexico these thug bullies use guns to enforce their legitimacy and right to control with total impunity. In America, for the most part, this country hasn't degenerated into such physical chaos and anarchy where the State is powerless to protect the common man and women. No, we're not quite so unsophisticated as the radical extreme Islamist and Mexican Death Squads. We don't use bombs, guns and suicide vests, nor do we corrupt the judiciary, police and government representatives. Unlike them we DO NOT first make threats of death against falsely accused people and their families. Death? Yeah, death. What do you think life is? Life is freedom – death is slavery or control. Thug bullies control by threats and intimidation. The thug bully exists by its lying accusations, their guns are their threats, their bullets are the police and the courts. Dave Stancliff would see this blogger DEAD. If he could get at, drop a bomb, on my family to get at me he would – the ultimate act of a craven coward. It is as simple as that. Don't believe me? Read his public threats below.

Dave Stancliff NEVER acknowledges any reader's ability to think for themselves or their right to distinguish facts from worthless opinions. He NEVER defends his opinions. He ONLY defends himself. You don't agree with what he says, you don't agree with HIM. To a wanton bully questioning ANYTHING they do or say is a personal insult. His whole existence as a person totally depends upon getting you to agree that only HE has the god-given, legitimate right to tell you how to think and what to believe. This is how the so-called American Elitist impose the Master-slave relationship. It is what drives most employers, police, politicians, bureaucrats and religious leaders. It is also what unifies a group of wannabe elitists in societies, communities and on the Internet. It is the festering sore that raised its inflamed, pusy head in this community.

Not one time did I find where Dave Stancliff justifies or defends the legitimacy of any of his “opinions.” No matter what, whenever anyone questions his thesis he immediately assaults that person. He absolutely refuses to consider any reader's differing opinion or basis in fact with what he says. Anyone that doesn't agree with him, hates his guts.

I watched these interviews on Democracy Now the morning of Thursday, September 23, 2010, about what's going on all over Mexico and in particular Juárez, just across the boarder at El Paso, Texas. The Mexican Federal and State governments are unable to protect, not just news reporters, but everyone – all Mexican citizens, from the least to the greatest. Everyone is in physical jeopardy. Their lives, their family's lives, their friend's lives, their business associates lives, are all threaten by thug bullies who are completely protected with total impunity for the most obscene and horrendous acts of hatred and murder. Murdered for doing what? Nothing more than writing about and exposing what's going on in their towns and communities. That is EXACTLY what the Joe Blow Report is about in its own limited way, Citizen Journalism. In Mexico and the United States as well, crazy lunatic bullies resort to violent THREATS as their first resort to try to silence anyone they can't control or don't like. That is EXACTLY what Dave Stancliff tried to do when I, by chance, happened to write an observation about one of his newspaper “Opinion” articles. Because Dave Stancliff takes everything personally, he immediately assaulted me with his ad hominem, personal filthy, lying accusations that continue until today. His personally directed accusations are lies because he cannot and does not prove or provide any definitive proof other than his personal opinions. He audaciously expects everyone to accept and believe his personal opinions or more factually, conjecture, as proof and justification for his personal assaults simply because HE says so.

From where I sit, there is no difference in his intimidating threats and the serious consequences that do not bode well for me and my family than the threats and and personal harassment caused these reporters in Mexico. The only thing that has protected us so far is the fact he doesn't know who I am. My so-called anonymity protects him as well, but he's too stupid to see that fact. When I watched this program and these interviews this morning I realized the similarities and decided to post this observations, Threading the Needle - A Declaration of War.

"Explain to Us What You Want from Us"–Juárez Newspaper Publishes Editorial Addressing Cartels After Another Reporter Gunned Down.

Also: Special Report: Silence or Death in Mexico's Press - Crime, Violence, and Corruption - Are Destroying the Country's Journalism.

The drug traffickers, violent criminals, and corrupt officials who threaten Mexico’s future have killed, terrorized, and co-opted journalists, knowing that controlling the flow of information will further their needs. They have been increasingly successful, and the results have been devastating.

This just quoted statement about successful threat to "Mexico's future" is the goal of the Dave Stancliffs and those that support him in this country. It all starts with these kinds of threats and incitement while hiding behind their state of virtual impunity and in this man's case, hiding behind the literal support and protection of the Times-Standard newspaper. By the way, legal counsel tells me the following copy of Dave Stancliff's blog posting is sufficient evidence to justify asking a Judge for an injunction. I post some of what he says on this Report because his own words define what he is better than anything anyone could possible say about him.

Blogger Alert: I’m offering a reward for exposing hate blog author.

If you’re not familiar with the Joe Blow blog you’re better off for it. But if you’re one of those people Blow goes after, then you know what he’s all about. Just look at today’s blog attacking me – his favorite pastime.

For well over a year this anonymous coward that calls himself Joe Blow has been attacking me and spewing malicious lies, slander and libel. Just look back at his archives. They’re proof of his campaign of hate.

I’ve put up with his shit long enough. It’s time for an accounting. If you can provide me with his name, address, phone number, I’m offering a reward. Email me at [***] You’re name will not be revealed to anyone.

It’s time Joe Blow finds out that he can’t get away with his hate-filled rants that cross the line. I’ve never had a problem like Joe Blow in over 20 years as an editor and publisher. The man is obsessed with me. I’ve offered to meet with him in Southern Humboldt where he lives, and to talk out our differences like mature adults, but he refused and spewed more paranoid blather. (See his archives)

If this crazy bastard would leave me alone, I wouldn’t pursue this avenue to stop him. However, after his post today it’s evident he’s never going to stop harassing me.I don’t read his blog, but Google Alert warns me every time he posts stuff about me.

I’ve outright asked Blow boy to reveal his name, but he told me he couldn’t or “I’d have to move to Peru.” What’s that mean? Is he a criminal on the run? Perhaps someone with a criminal past? In past comments he’s mentioned about living in South America for a while and going broke while doing something there. Any connection? Who knows, but whatever it is it’s bad enough to make him conceal his identity.

I’m taking this drastic measure because it’s the only way to stop him. I’ve already had a lawyer look over his past posts maligning me and he says I have a strong case against Blow boy. This is a case of constantly attacking a person’s reputation with lies and malicious slander. We do have laws to prevent this. Now, I just have to find the coward and get him in court. He picked this fight and I’m going to finish it. [Emphasis added]

I am told Dave Stancliff crossed the line with what he said here. There are laws to protect people from this kind of online bullying and overt personal threats, as well the inciting others to violent actions. What happens when Stancliff or some of his supporters can actually get at me and my family? It's been my experience when dealing with people that demonstrate such irrational and psychotic behavior that lawsuits are the last thing motivating them. Here's one quote: "There is no punishment on earth that is fitting enough." Think I might have to move my family? Threatening to take drastic measures to finish a fight to stop someone is ominous enough, but couple that with threatening to take someone to court is an act of violence. He intends to use that court to violently attack me and my family, to violently force me to stop living my life as I decided and live as he demands. These are the threatening acts, dictates and demands of terrorists. He, by implication, is telling everyone exactly what they can and cannot say about his “As It Stands” opinion column published in the Times-Standard newspaper. Not unless you want to endure the full limit of his wrath.

Anyone that follows this guy is very well aware what happens to anyone that makes the mistake of publicly disagreeing with anything he says or writes. Dave Stancliff is totally intollerent of anyone that does this. The Internet is replete with examples of this behavior and conduct, berating and denigrating people.  I had no idea when I decided to write some observations regarding one of his newspaper “opinion” columns on Internet Trolls that he suffered from some form of apparent neurosis (*) and paranoia (**). He immediately, however, began asserting all kinds of personal, ad homonym accusations of hatred and personal attacks against him. He still believes he, like some little, tin-god, would judge my motives: “I’m offering a reward for exposing hate blog author” and “campaign of hate.”

Ad hominem: [Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.]
 
Rather than talk about or dispute over what's said or written, he takes everything personal and forces everyone to defend themselves and their motives. When he refused to stop, that's what we did. We allowed him to define himself and simply accepted his judgments on the matter. The only libel or slander that's supposedly damaged his reputation is what he's said and written about himself.

 The Joe Blow Report occasionally makes observations about Dave Stancliff's newspaper “opinions” and he accuses the writer of being a “hate blog author” and writing a “campaign of hate” about him. What he establishes here (copied above) and by everything he has posted on my blogs, on his and throughout the Internet is that Dave Stancliff is unable and incapable of distinguishing the difference BETWEEN what he “says” or “writes” from “who” or “what” he is. That when someone says, writes, critiques or disagrees with something he publicly publishes, either in the newspaper or online, he immediately accuses them of personally attacking him, i.e., "For well over a year this anonymous coward that calls himself Joe Blow has been attacking me and spewing malicious lies, slander and libel." You'll notice, that absolutely nowhere does he define any of these so-called "attacks," "lies," "slander" or "libel." He expects everyone, including me, to simply take his "god's gospel word" for everything, rather than put out the facts, show the reader some respect as someone smart enough to make up their own minds. The self-defined reality is that his documented conjecture and opinions, whatever originates in his mind, becomes him and his reactions define him. Everyone that accepts his personal dreams as fact or truth, strictly on his say-so allows Dave Stancliff to re-define them as juvenile or really stupid too.

Is Dave Stancliff beyond hope? Since you never know, for him and all his buddies that have allowed him to get them all riled up over his juvenile nonsense and tender, hurt feelings, I'd like to suggest he and they read Dave Silverbrand's timely and appropriate article in the Thursday, September 23, 2010 Times-Standard article: "Taking Criticism."

---

(*)Neurosis:
Mental and emotional disorder that affects only part of the personality, is accompanied by a less distorted perception of reality than in a psychosis, and is characterized by various physiological and mental disturbances (such as visceral symptoms and impaired concentration).

Science Dictionary - Neurosis
A psychological state characterized by excessive anxiety or insecurity without evidence of neurologic or other organic disease, sometimes accompanied by defensive or immature behaviors.

(**)Paranoia:
1. A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.
2. Extreme, irrational distrust of others.

Dictionary.com
Paranoia:
1. Psychiatry . a mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others, sometimes progressing to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts believed to be performed in self-defense or as a mission.
2. baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.

Psychosis: (Medical Dictionary)

1. A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.
2. Extreme, irrational distrust of others.

Science Dictionary - Psychosis:
A mental state caused by psychiatric or organic illness, characterized by a loss of contact with reality and an inability to think rationally. A psychotic person often behaves inappropriately and is incapable of normal social functioning.

Threading the Needle
The phrase generally means to find a path through two opposing views. It's often done by politicians (or "Opinionators" writing for newspapers) who try to have their cake and eat it too.
[Source]

---

[UPDATE]
Maureen Dowd and Glenn Greenwald present two interesting commentaries on America's slide into lawlessness. 1) Slouching Toward Washington.  2) The Obama administration's war on privacy.
The choice is simple. You can believe what people say or you can believe what they do. Better to believe when what they say and do is the same thing.

[UPDATE II :: Monday, September 27, 2010]
Stupid is as REALLY STUPID DOES. "Get your lawyer and I'll get mine so we can fight this out." This is not only really stupid, but absolutely childish. This is what little punk bully-boys do on the playground. That is until the bully-boys learn there's more to life than what they want.

This scum-bag sack of lying shit posts his filthy lies, threats and personal attacks then accuses me of harassing him. Coming on my blog with his threats is no different than coming to my home and confronting me personally. This is exactly what thug bullies do. This statement is the ultimate in arrogant impudence. He can say and do whatever, "get a better lawyer," threaten, "He picked this fight and I’m going to finish it" and then spreads his filth all over the Internet, but let me comment on what he's doing and I'm "harassing" him. Does he repudiate one thing I wrote above that proves "harassment"? He comes on this blog and proves every observation made and thinks he's going to threaten and intimidate me with his histerical and childish behavior.

---

Dave has left a new comment on your post "Threading the Needle":

I have a great idea - let's exchange our lawyers names and meet in court.
We're going to someday as long as you keep harassing me. You aren't going to get away with this Joe...
Time will tell.
ps - please get a better lawyer, as the advise above is not only wrong but glaringly so.

Posted by Dave to Joe Blow Report at September 27, 2010 12:58 PM

---

--Joe

HumBug Blogger Elite Report II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what The Journal says about itself:

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

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

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

ADDENDUM :: SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2009

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

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

--Joe