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

Free Speech and the Demagogue

Who the hell is this self-evident hypocrite, John Chiv, that the Times-Standard Editors would publish his nearly 700 word demagogic lecture to their readers on "civility"? Is this a joke? Times-Standard Tuesday, July 12, 2011: "Championing for causes -- and people you represent -- can be done in a civil manner." 

Is what he says Constitutionally protected “free speech, political trash-talking, a bigoted and prejudiced rant or a wild-eyed speech fomenting hatred and discrimination? What's next Kimberly Wear, and John Chiv? We going to experience the consequences of murder-type squads visiting the “certain angry, bitter people” - not unlike you? Councilwoman Linda Atkins the first on your hit list? This is where it all starts, or don't you know?

This guy starts his personal diatribe with a prolonged outburst of bitter, outspoken denunciation, vehemently attacking Linda Atkins and then goes after those that support her and never stops – that is until he says this masterful piece of rotten hypocrisy in conclusion:

“It's time for a few to stop the conservative versus progressive game. Most of us, regardless of our beliefs, want the best for this community. Think how much we could accomplish if we worked together and moved our city forward?”

If anyone wants or needs a lesson in RANK HYPOCRISY read what this guy does and compare it to what he says. The only civility demonstrated by the hypocrite is his use of the word, "civil." Everything else, the whole letter is an exercise in fetid character assassination.

More than that, these are the words of paranoia – deludingly accuse others of the very acts you are committing.

He says “Championing for causes – and people you represent – can be done civilly.” The Dictionary defines “civilly” as “politely; courteously.” Do these words define politely and courteously? “Moments after this pleasant conversation, I watched you turn around and 'attack' your fellow council members and others, and it was personal. They are not just my elected representatives, but my family, my friends and me community members.” His next paragraph is his attempt to depict her as mentally ill - “the level of her anger expressed – and the disrespect shown” questions her true character.

It is here that the Kimberly Wear and Dave Kuta went too far when publishing this guy's personal vendetta. If what John Chiv says is true and there's no reason to not believe it is, then when he says matters are “personal” the place to air his soiled underwear is someplace personal. Not in the newspaper. The stench of this crap puts the Times-Standard right where what Glenn Greenwald calls the “watchdog” media.

That tactic is as old as establishments themselves, though it’s now most aggressively enforced by the “watchdog” media. It’s the media, rather than political leaders, which take the lead in serving most of the interests of the political establishment — not just by depicting opponents of the political order as mentally ill but also uncritically disseminating its fear-mongering campaigns.

"Fear-mongering campaigns." Read the last half of what John Chiv says and you'll see another good example of what Glenn Greenwald is talking about. It's here, publishing these kinds of letters that the paper shows it true agenda - Government for the sake of government. Never for the sake of the people. No responsibility to just present the facts. Just tell everyone how to think, believe and what to do. We get the message.
[Source]

--Joe

Support for Ad Hominem Attack

[UPDATE Below] [Second UPDATE Below]

Do you know what an "Ad Hominem" attack is?

You can bet the people at the Times-Standard newspaper do. If not, they will after reading what's written below:

Dictionary definition for, ad hominem:

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: adj. Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives. And under Usage Notes:
"The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason."

 
The following definition is from Wikipedia:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person"), is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem argument is not a fallacy despite there being fallacious instances of the argument.[2] Fallacious instances of the ad hominem argument are presented below.

Structure of the argument - An ad hominem argument has the basic form:
Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false

The first premise is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The contention is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. The fallacy does not represent a valid form of reasoning because even if you accept both co-premises, that does not guarantee the truthfulness of the contention. This can also be thought of as the argument having an un-stated co-premise.

Figure that out.

---

So, an ad hominem attack is about making it personal - attacking the person without any proof or substance to backup the personal accusations. Because I'm a bastard everything I say is worthless!

Here is a classic example left on this blog by Dave Stancliff, owner and writer of the "As It Stands" blog and Times-Standard newspaper column by the same name.

1) Dave has left a new comment on your post "The Face of a Pompous Thug":

Sure did Joe,
You made an anonymous post and said "it raised the hair on your neck," when you read it.
Fact.
You are conducting a personal vendetta despite everything you claim.
Fact.
Look at the things you called me and tell me that they aren't an opinion on your part.
Fact.
The reason you seldom get anyone to comment here is because you attack them. Note, I'm the only one to respond to this post. Scroll down.
How many more posts have comments? (Emphasis mine)

---

The reason people make ad hominem attacks is because they are devoid of reality; they are conflicted. They can't separate what they think, believe or say from who or what they are. This is Stancliff's latest:

---

The following is a classic example of either a deviate liar or paranoid psychotic. In this case the facts indicate a combination of the two. He first trys to make everyone, including me, think he's really dealing with the issues, about what he wrote, then he immediately assaults me for attacking his person as if what he wrote is really about him. What kind of a person does he say I am? What is the reason no one comments on my blog? "Because you (I) attack them (you)." What does that make me in this day and age? A radical, extremist terrorist that attacks innocent people because they don't agree with me? Here's how it breaks down:

Dave has left a new comment on your post "A Lightweight Makes Heavyweight":

Don't be shy Joe. Go ahead and just subscribe to my blog.
As you are a regular reader of my newspaper column it should continue to provide you with things to atatck. (Here he says I'm attacking things he wrote.)

Read the comment section in the T-S The only one that agrees with you is your buddy Joshua who wrote the piece. You and he spend a lot of time attacking anyone that doesn't agree with you. (Here he changes his accusation. Now he says I'm personally attacking him, when at the same time he said I was attacking what he wrote.) That meets the definition of paranoid psychosis.

what fun it must be to attack people anonymously. See ya soon. (Now, since I personally attacked him, he has the right to threaten me.) Threatening me for not agreeing with his right to tell me and everyone else how to think.
BTY - I hope your not threatening me when you say you "wouldn't want to be in my shoes."

The authorities frown at bad boys like you... (And finally, a not so veiled threat to report me to the police.)

---

There are more examples of his ad hominem personal attacks in the comment section of "Trolls versus The Thought Police."

Considering that the current management of Times-Standard newspaper's continues support of this kind of ad hominem, substance-free ranting as legitimate representation of them and their advertisers, perhaps the time has come to take this matter to the next step. When I read this, How a law student used Twitter to pressure dozens of Glenn Beck’s advertisers into dropping their support -- the next step revealed itself.

The last time I tried to communicate with Dave Kuta, Kimberly Wear or James Faulk, the Times-Standard's management, I got ignored or a form denial. If the local business people and readers believe they are being well served by the Times-Standard, its reporting the kind of facts they tell us are "facts," subvert and pervert public opinion to their kind of dictates, then informing advertisers shouldn't be a bother to anyone.

Considering what Dave Stancliff has publicly said about me, and the integrity of the Joe Blow Report, he is not to far off from a Glenn Beck. He could have defended what he wrote at any time. He did not. He took deference to himself and personally attacked me for what this Report observed in his writings. It's clear from what he said above that he is incapable of separating himself as a person from his written worthless opinions. If that's the quality and character of Time-Standard writers, then perhaps it's time the community was informed of the facts so they could make an informed decision about their continued support.

Maybe it's time to find out if Joe Blow is the bastard they say he is.

--Joe

[UPDATE :: Thursday, April 22, 2010]

Another example of an Ad Hominem personal assault.

People that read my blogs ask me why I let Dave Stancliff continue say the things he does and leave it right out there for everyone to read. Frankly, because I want people to see who the bully is. I want people to see and understand from his own actions what his obscene diatribe and vitriol reveals about him and about what he writes and has to say anywhere on the Internet and in the newspaper.

One thing about law, is it cuts both ways. If the Times-Standard wants to support this kind of Ad Hominem behavior and justify it to their advertisers, that's there business. Those of us who do not, however, do not need to business with these people either. All I did was bring to their attention what he said about me for making my observations on one of his As It Stands “opinion” articles in the Times-Standard newspaper. That's taking responsibility for what you do and say.

Read the latest example from Dave Stancliff: