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

Big Difference – Tyranny versus Rule of Law

[UPDATE II :: Thursday, October 7, 2010 - Excellent article on The American Concervative by Daniel Larison: Assassination (II).]

"... If someone tries to sue, the government will shut down the lawsuit by invoking secrecy and national security. This is the very definition of unaccountable, lawless government. Defending the particular instance of targeting al-Awlaki for assassination doesn’t even address the main question, which is the administration’s effective claim to be beyond the law." (Read the article.)

[UPDATE :: Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - Latest News update also related to The Bigot Is Back involving the Times-Standard's "As It Stands" article of September 19, 2010.]

Supreme Court hears case of Marine funeral protests

Baltimore Sun - ‎1 hour ago‎

An emotionally charged case - involving protests at the funeral of a Marine from Westminster - is getting a hearing before the Supreme Court today.

Also: "High court struggles with funeral protest case."

The important words here are "An emotionally charged case." The question remains, will this supposedly conservative-leaning Court uphold the Rule of Law and reaffirm the U.S. Constitutions legitimacy or will they opt for the emotion-driven, hysterical Rule of Man. My bet is they'll cave-in to the hysteria and uphold mob-rule - the essence of "psychological terrorism".

---

Authoritarian Extremists, Tyranny and the Thought Police -
How They Rule the World

About a year and half ago I picked up the Sunday Times-Standard newspaper and I happened to notice “Trolls Exposed: What kind of troll is disrupting your online community?” written by Dave Stancliff. Since I'm interested in the Internet and had recently observed how some local bloggers and commenters had discriminated against another local blogger after bigotedly calling him a Troll, I read what he said. It all seemed innocent enough when I sat down to post some observations on this subject “Internet Trolls” on the Joe Blow Report. When I began to read what he said in more depth, what intrigued me was how slick he was, the subtlety used to incorporate a rather ominous regressive message. It was this all-pervading message and the resultant serious negative consequences affecting American society today which prompted me to include the following comment below.

Consider the seriousness of what I said over a year ago and how that very issue is being debated right here in Humboldt County and all over this country today. I had inadvertently exposed what was really going on; the real agenda. What I said was going on, falsely accusing someone, then acting on that accusation to justify whatever action they take, is exactly what happened. Consistent with the premise of the newspaper article, comments were posted on this blog falsely accusing me of some hidden agenda motivated by some unspecified hate to personally attack the accuser. Amazingly, the more than a year long vicious, personal attack to vilify, discredit and threaten me – to make “me” the issue, proved the legitimacy of my original observations in the article and justification for writing it. Here is the relevant comment:

All this foofaraw about trolls and the Thought Police might be funny except for on thing: Two Thousand years of Dark Age thinking. That World and religious empire ruled with such draconian contempt for humanity, one wonders how anyone survived until today. Today we have people only "accused" of thinking like "terrorists," held and tortured indefinitely, coupled with the deliberate annihilation of the civilian populations because "someone that might think like a terrorist" might be hiding somewhere within all that population. Anyone wonder where and how it all got started? 

It got started with simpleminded people like Dave Stancliff and compatriot people that are willing to believe his kind of dogma and impose their thoughts on others all in the name of freedom.

This past week I was really struck by the example set by Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan in contrast with what happened to me. Both are extensively read people that publicly disagreed on a very serious issue confronting every American and our standing in the World. Each one of these guys respected the legitimacy of the other and stuck to dealing with the issues in contention. Neither one got down in the sewer and called the other one out. Their blog conversations remained NON-PERSONAL. Neither one was trying to rule over the other. Neither did they try to get the other to submit to some pre-conditioned right to judge the other's motives. More importantly, they respected the reader's right to decide for themselves what person's offerings had merit and what person is credible.

I'd like to remind a few people that there's a very big difference between making observations and occasionally critiquing the writings or statements people make from personally targeting them as individuals to harass, threaten and intimidate. There's also a big difference between trying to protect your reputation and defending yourself from vicious personal assaults and deliberately harassing someone that disagrees.

Well adjusted, mature adults understand these differences. There are many examples of such people that post daily articles on the Internet. The one positive example that I've tried to emulate is Glenn Greenwald and his Salon.com blog commentary. Here are a couple of examples of how intelligent, decent, mature and respectful people deal with one another over REALLY serious issues threatening the World and America.

Glenn wrote the following "Obama argues his assassination program is a state secret," then later this follow-up article about President Obama's supposed legal right to assassinate or execute anyone, more importantly an American, simply on the basis of an accusation; an unproven or unsubstantiated lie - a false accusation. The relevance is encapsulated in this quote and the issues he raises here,

“Along with several others, I focused on the DOJ's invocation of the "state secret" privilege because that was most viscerally horrifying: the very idea that the President claims the right not only to order Americans killed with no due process, but to do so in total secrecy beyond the reach of the courts, is -- as Radley Balko and Jamelle Bouie note -- as tyrannical a claim as we've heard in the last decade.”

...go right to the very heart of what's been going on right here on this Report blog.

His article: "Questions for Andrew Sullivan" was in response to his article "The Power To Kill American Citizens At War With The US" is subsequently responded to by Andrew Sullivan in his: "Answers For Glenn Greenwald; Yes, We Are At War." And just today: Sullivan's defense of presidential assassinations. Here is Sullivan's latest, as of this posting, response: "Answers For Glenn Greenwald; Yes, We Are At War, Ctd." People could take a lesson from what Andrew Sullivan says in this last link, even though he hasn't followed up like he said, yet.

The reason I offered these examples is, one, because the basis of Andrew Sullivan's argument is essentially the same made on this blog and other places to justify viciously assaulting this writer -- emotionally driven false or lying accusations as proof to justify, in this case, murder and war. Andrew Sullivan is essentially arguing for tyranny. Here is an excerpt by Glenn Greenwald defining exactly Dave Stancliff's documented course of conduct:

The central rhetorical premise of Bush defenders was that if they just scream "Terrorist!!' and "we're at war!!!!" enough times, and loudly enough, then it would make basic precepts of due process, Constitutional safeguards and the rule of law disappear. If they demonized their targets enough (this is a really bad Terrorist who wants to kill Americans, with nukes if he can!!) -- or manipulatively invoked 9/11 enough times (note Andrew's prominent display of a smoldering WTC photo strategically placed at the top of his argument) -- then it would mean that anything goes, that no compliance with law is or should be required to do anything to them (a claim that always led to the unanswerable question: if it's really so obvious that this is a really bad Terrorist, then why not prove it in court?). [About vigilante law.]

Contrast or compare what he says, "the central rhetorical premise" is "that if" he just screams "hate-filled hypocrite" and "vicious threatening paranoid cowards" "enough times, and loudly enough, it would make basic precepts of due process," or in this case PROVE what you accuse, in harmony with ALL American's "Constitutional personal rights and safeguards and the rule of law,"or in this case, the laws of common decency factually "disappear." They repeatedly scream "hate" and "threats" and the accused becomes a threatening hate-monger - all because they say so - by definition, the essense of tyranny.

This tyrannical lawless conduct is NOT justified or legitimate simply because of President Obama's unconstitutional actions, but because this is the de facto reality of a large section of fundamental, authoritarian extremists enforcing the Rule of Man on everyone. The Rule of Law or the Rule of Man starts at home, with the individual. Enough people enforce mob rule by what they do, you get tyranny.

And two, they simply never get personal with each other. Do you think either one, Greenwald or Sullivan, would become offended if what he did was characterized as "simpleminded"? Maybe, but based upon all the things they say, I doubt they would use it as an excuse to personally attack the other. They stick to the contested issues. They continue to talk to one another like decent human beings. Why? Because the truth is what it is. Because when people believe lawless tyrannical dogma and act on it to cause others to conform to their will, all in the name of freedom and liberty, they are by definition "simpleminded" among other things.

The record is there for anyone to see. It's all a bit tedious and a whole lot offensive. I left it up for anyone that wants to make comparisons. Make up your own mind. Notice the intent, what was done starting with the very first comments posted on this blog at the end of Trolls and the Thought Police about an immediate response, here, and follow-up blogs here and here and finally here.

I decided to post the above article because the comparisons are good examples of what is required to be at peace with your neighbor. In the end you either deal with the reality of each other's existence or one or the other becomes irrelevant. Some believe I'm a gutless coward or have something to hide for writing this blog anonymously behind a pseudonym. Apparently, that is what offered Dave Stancliff the platform he needed to personally and repeatedly assault me with all his false accusations and filthy invectives. The value of the Joe Blow Report is that is stands or falls upon its own merits. People don't read what's written in the Report because of "who" said it, but because of what's written. This is how men recognize the legitimacy of one another. The way to peaceful resolution. The willingness to accredit the other person's right to think or be who and what they are.

The way of the authoritarian extremist, the tyrannical, and the Thought Police is either stop making war on your fellow neighbors to dominate, judge and rule over them or become irrelevant. The day of murder by accusation is at its end. These murderer's are defined, identified and judged by their actions, conduct and attitude. The Universe has always had its way of bringing harmony - one way or another.
[Emphasis added] [Source]

--Joe

Thank God For Small Favors

[UPDATE Below]

As I was going through my Father's Day Sunday Times-Standard newspaper I happened to notice the absence of that ever pervading, blinding darkness that always seems to greet me when I get to that infamous "Opinion" page – NO "As It Stands" staring out at me like some big Black Hole. Hallelujah!

Of course this might just be because it's Father's Day and the Times-Standard wants to better its “standards” for only this day's edition. Anything the paper can do in that regard is a positive and we'll take what we can get. Kind of sad really, because once you got past Stancliff's personalized, standard propaganda spiel, his last two articles had some merit. But then, isn't that the Times-Standard's hallmark way of reporting?

[UPDATE :: Tuesday, June 22, 2010]

Well, that respite was short-lived. The Times-Standard ran in today's edition, As It Stands: U.S. schools lead industrial world in violence against children, lawmaker says. -- Typical mammby-pammby as it stands. Maybe Stancliff should have read this before tackling this subject: "Cause and Effect in the War on Terror."

--Joe

Who, me? Yeah! You.

Identifying the secret elite that lurk amongst us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picture 1 & 2 sources]

--Joe

As It Stands – No Sequoia Park Zoo

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, “What a concept”!

---

Wikipedia article on the capybara. Picture source.

--Joe

Legal Extortion – Fine on Suspicion

[Update below]

“Assessed immediately” and “held accountable” Police Chief Garr Nielsen says. You can read the latest “guilty by suspicion” from Allison White for The Times-Standard in the Friday, October 2, 2009, edition: “EPD to fine DUI drivers for emergency response.”

This is as clear-cut an example as you can get of how the government perverts the law and uses their taser-wielding enforcers to extort money. It starts by picking some part of our socially-rejected underclass, in this case supposedly drunk drivers, and singling them out for special treatment. Then authorize any unfortunate encounter with any of these “enforcers” as a suspicious situation, thus making the reject a suspect and now it's open season. Oh! There's a minor regulation supposedly regulating what can and can't be done, but the general outcome has proven they are mostly ignored.

Notice how it's all justified by saying the small fee, $350 is authorized by CA State Law. Just make sure you are in Eureka and the EPD is handling your “emergency response.” Get the CA Highway Patrol involved and you could be paying $12,000!

It's the perversion of the law that is astounding. Eureka City Attorney Sheryl Schaffner says that this fee collection on suspicion is “civil and not criminal.” That's why the “threshold for evidence is not as great.” And takes the cake, “The stakes are also different. Civil consequences are generally money; it not going to cost you your liberty.” Really? We'd like to know just exactly how she defines “liberty.” I guess it's okay with her to walk around naked, homeless and starving – just don't get thrown in jail.

More importantly, how is it that the individual police officer now has the authority and legal right to be accuser, prosecutor, judge and jury in civil matters bypassing all the safeguards the “law” is supposed to provide? Notice how she hedged answering how the “suspect” gets their money back when found “not guilty” of anything. She said, “it is unclear how someone would contest the fee, but there is usually an administrative appeal process through the EPD.” The EPD is going to admit they took the money when they did not have the legal right and then give it back? Not likely. That's what proves the extortion.

Here's the definition of "extortion":

The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon
EXTORTION - The use, or the express or implicit threat of the use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to person, reputation, or property as a means to obtain property from someone else with his consent. USC 18

The Hobbs Act defines "extortion" as "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." 18 U.S.C. S 1951(b)(2).

Don't get us wrong, here. We believe drunk drivers as well as all criminals, either admitted or judged and convicted by a just court should be held accountable. That's why we have judges. They are to dispense punishment whether physical loss of freedom, financial or both in accordance with the law when the law justifies such punishment. Not put it off on the police to enforce some vague civil law, that according to them, won't fill the “general fund” coffers. What it won't do is get a serious backlash for fines sufficient to deter drunk driving should the general populace that drinks and drives realize their jeopardy.

But then how can you not justify this kind of knee-jerk, “the end justifies the means,” way of trying to deal with the lawlessness that pervades our streets? It starts out with “money.” What's next? A summary beating or multiple taserings because the suspect is disobedient and uncivil? More importantly, whose next? The homeless?

[Photo source - Brian Fairrington, Cagle Cartoons]

UPDATE :: Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Here is this opening portion of the "Taser Policy" posted at Civil Liberties Monitoring Project:

308.5 TASER GUIDELINES
When properly applied in accordance with this policy, the Taser is considered a non-deadly control device which is intended to temporarily incapacitate a violent or potentially violent individual without causing serious injury. It is anticipated that the appropriate use of such a device will result in fewer serious injuries to officers and suspects.

Notice the words emphasized: "control device" "incapacitate" WHO? "violent or POTENTIALLY violent" WHO? "suspects" -- Suspicious individuals with a "potential" for "violence." Does that include the potential for verbal violence? Or are they talking about simple non-cooperation?

Be interesting to know what the EPD guidelines are. Couldn't find them posted on the Internet.

--Joe

Anonymous Joe

. . . and The Cyber Bullies

Yeah! That's me behind that lovable face.

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

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

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

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

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

The governing principle driving that purpose is also posted:

"Everything Is About Something Different"

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

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

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

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

More About Joe Blow

Please be aware that the Joe Blow Report speaks for itself. You may or may not agree, but just remember, that is your issue. The Report is offered as a free gift to whomever desires to read it. Please accept it as such. The Report respects the rights of all individuals to be who and what they are. All the same there are consequences for what each individual does and does not do. If the Report stimulates a little thinking, it has fulfilled it's purpose.

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

Diatribe personally attacking the messenger, is not welcome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE :: Sunday, July 19, 2009

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

--Joe

As It Stands with the Times-Standard Newspaper

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Joe

Newspaper -- Toilet Paper

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

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

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

The question:

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

The answer:

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

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

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

Read the rest of the interview with John Pilger.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Picture Source]

--Joe

Anarchy in Humbug County – WHY?

The reason is, the people have spoken!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Image Source]

--Joe

Conspiracy of Silence

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

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

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

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

Dear Mr. Kuta,

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

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

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

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

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

--Joe

Psycho Terrorists

(UPDATE BELOW - Update II)

The World and its people are facing an ever expanding and never ending War on Terrorism. That War is fought, according to some, against ideological, religious extremists, sometimes these are governments or regimes, but mostly against people. All it takes to be guilty of being a terrorist is for someone to make the accusation. These people are held in a cage indefinitely, some for nearly a decade, psychologically, emotionally and physically tortured. Even when ordered by the Courts they continue to hold them. Most astounding in all of this is that these lawless criminals do all of this with impunity.

There are many forms of terrorism. To name a few, there are Civil Disorders, Political Terrorism, Non-Political Terrorism, Quasi-Terrorism, Limited Political Terrorism, Official or State Terrorism, and Structural Terrorism. There is Democratic and domestic terrorism, Islamic Terrorism. Add to this: Christian Terrorism, Communist Terrorism, Counter-terrorism, Cyber-terrorism, Domestic terrorist (United States), Eco-terrorism, Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, Islamic Terrorism Jewish Terrorism, Narcoterrorism, the Patriot Act and that's just from Wikipedia.

Add to this list the latest from the Huffington Post: Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism -- Shanny Moore concludes her article by saying:

The "war on terror" needs to include domestic religious, fundamentalist terrorists.

You can add to that list Socio and Psycho Terrorism.

It's time for people to recognized terrorism for what it is in all of its insidious forms. Terrorists, by their very nature, exist in the dark. They hide behind good and decent people and appear normal, average and common. They talk the good talk, they put on a good facade. In truth, however, they are the worst of the worst; they are traitors in the fullest meaning of the word. They are deviant, lying, murderous cowards. They butcher innocent women and children to get at the men. They attack people where they live without remorse or conscience.

A good definition of Social Terrorism by Louis Komzsik in his book of the same name is:

Social terrorism is a subversive activity in which a small segment of the society, in order to gain or retain control, arrogates its philosophy onto the majority of the society, while completely disregarding the good of the society as a whole.

Socio Terrorists are a new breed. They attack society at its most fundamental framework and legitimate reasons for existence. They preach freedom, but practice discrimination, prejudice, bigotry and terrorize by lies, false accusations, slander and all kinds of innuendo. They demand the right to protection of law, but at heart they are lawless anarchists that assault the law in every way possible.

In many ways Socio Terrorism is like Psycho Terrorism and Psycho Terrorism is like Psychological Warfare.

The U.S. Department of Defense defines psychological warfare (PSYWAR) as: "The planned use of propaganda and other psychological actions having the primary purpose of influencing the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of hostile foreign groups in such a way as to support the achievement of national objectives."

During World War II the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff defined psychological warfare more broadly stating "Psychological warfare employs any weapon to influence the mind of the enemy. The weapons are psychological only in the effect they produce and not because of the weapons themselves." (Emphasis added) [Wikipedia]

Frankly, this article on Psycho Terrorists is mandated by what resulted from the Report article titled, “Trolls and the Thought Police” based upon the Time-Standard newspaper article written by Dave Stancliff in his Sunday, May 31, 2009, “As It Stands” column. When he was unsuccessful bullying us into doing what he wanted, he personally attacked and vilified us on his Blog. You can read what he accused us of being and of doing here. It seems there is a certain class of people in this country that have the right to say these kinds of things and worse in public, on the TV, in Internet Blogs, Newspapers and magazines whereas if this was someone from the Ku Klux Klan, some Nazi militia talking about the Jews or one of any other radical extremist Believer they'd be arrested and thrown in jail in a heartbeat for hate crimes under old laws and terrorism under the Patriot Act.

Yet, they are not. The question is, why not?

That very question was asked by Dr. Warren Hern in his Democracy Now interview today. In fact, he makes the very point of our observations discussed in the Report about “Trolls and the Thought Police.” This is just one of his comments:

But I think that it’s—the glee expressed by the anti-abortion fanatics is just grotesque. It’s ghoulish. These people—this is a violent terrorist movement in this country, and the American people need to understand that there’s a great deal more at stake here than the activities of one doctor, of the services of one doctor. Of course, this is a great loss for women, but this means that we have a very highly organized, active, well-armed and well-funded terrorist movement in the country that opposes the basic premises of American society. These people are opposed to constitutional democracy. They’re opposed to the rule of law. They’re opposed to a democratic government, representative government. They’re opposed to basic personal freedom. They’re opposed to thought. And this is a tremendous step backwards. [Emphasis added]

Louis Komzsik says these terrorists, "in order to gain or retain control, arrogates its philosophy onto the majority of the society." Arrogate is an interesting word. It means, "to claim unwarrantably or presumptuously; assume or appropriate to oneself without right" the authority to make one's worthless opinions fact. This is done by repeating the same lies over and over until everyone accepts it as truth. In other words just "BS" propaganda. While Blog articles and commentary are a dime-a-dozen, the problem is when posted, they become or have the potential to become volatile.

Real terrorism is a lot closer to home in America than most of us would want to believe. Our article on the Thought Police touched a real nerve. As, perhaps, it should.

UPDATE: Thursday, June 11, 2009
A good article by Joan Walsh, "Can right-wing hate talk lead to murder?"
Some think it already has.

UPDATE: Monday, June 22, 2009
Racism, Hate Speech, Extremism, bigotry, worthless opinions and lies are self-defining. Whether or not the person or persons making these statements are racist, hate mongers, bigots, or worthless liars is probably a personal judgment. Or is it? When you see a duck do you say, "there goes a turkey"?

Dave Stancliff has posted two "As It Stands" blogs accusing me of "spewing hate" in my May 31, 2009, "Troll's versus Thought Police" article about one of his Time-Standard, "As It Stands" columns. You can read that article and make up your own mind. When you find that "hate" I'd like someone to point it out. Or you can read what he said and tell me if it's a turkey?

Monday, June 15, 2009

Joe Blow (conspiracy) Report staff bawl like babies!

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

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

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

Posted by Dave Stancliff at 3:37 PM

--Joe

Trolls versus The Thought Police

(Updated below - Update II)

It seems innocent enough -- the latest Dave Stancliff tirade against Internet TROLLS!

If you don't know what an Internet Troll is, you can read what he says about this aberrations on his blog, in the Sunday, May 31, 2009 Time Standard newspaper and on the Internet. What you'll find there is a good example of the "Thought Police" at work.

By the way, this is Wikipedia's definition:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

Everyone with a blog, at one time or another, has run afoul of these blessed critters. You can't write about anything relevant and meaningful that you don't attract someone trying to muddy the waters. Nor can you make intelligent, meaningful and relevant comments that some moron doesn't take exception. Mr. Stancliff's description of these aberrant souls, however, really doesn't do them justice. What he fails to note is that not all "Trolls" are online commentators. I encountered several bloggers (blogs) that are nothing less then TROLLS disguised as normal folk. I guess you'd call these blogs (Humbug Blogs?) Troll Lairs. Or is it Troll Liars? Sometimes it's hard to keep it straight.

I was reminded, as I read through his definition of online trolls, that he was speaking of just about everyone that ever made a comment on someone's blog. The fact is, especially with most of the Humbug Bloggers, that if you can't read their minds and don't meet their "standards" -- the kind of thinking that they consider to be stereotypically acceptable you immediately run afoul of the Humbug Trolls, a good example, to wit: Mr. Stancliff. Most of these bloggers run what has revealed to be nothing more than Blog Whorehouses. These are blogs that invite everyone in for fun, pleasure and a good time. Come in, speak your piece, have fun, enjoy yourself, talk to everyone; you know, get to "know" everyone. Never you mind that there is absolutely no mention or nothing posted in big bright letter about how to think and how to talk to everyone. You know, like don't get too rough, too radical, too physical, get emotional (NEVER ANGRY) or violate any of their unposted rules. Should you happen to tweak any of these bloggers fragile sensibilities or any of their clientele naughtily yapping merrily away, you not only DON'T GET FED, (talked to or accepted [bedded]) you get beaten mercilessly, without any way to defend yourself, thrown out into the streets of blogger hell and ostracized forever from all their blog whorehouses.

All this foofaraw about trolls and the Thought Police might be funny except for on thing: Two Thousand years of Dark Age thinking. That World and religious empire ruled with such draconian contempt for humanity, one wonders how anyone survived until today. Today we have people only "accused" of thinking like "terrorists," held and tortured indefinitely, coupled with the deliberate annihilation of the civilian populations because "someone that might think like a terrorist" might be hiding somewhere within all that population. Anyone wonder where and how it all got started?

It got started with simpleminded people like Dave Stancliff and compatriot people that are willing to believe his kind of dogma and impose their thoughts on others all in the name of freedom.

Trolls and the Thought Police? Really! They're one and the same. So, be aware! Watch Out For The Trolls! None of us want to become Troll Bait.

UPDATE :: Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Not everyone gets a free pass to write lengthy columns several times every week in newspapers. Dave Stancliff does. For one thing, he brings a certain value or credibility to what he writes for the simple reason he's being published. That ability comes with a double-edged reality; responsibility and accountability. Furthermore, most bloggers and their commentary, with few exception, rarely meet the same standard-producing credibility. As far as the Report is concerned all we know about or rather we should say, knew about him, was what we read in the newspaper. The questions we ask now, is Dave Stancliff a member of the Thought Police? Or, is he actually revealed to be a simpleminded troll trying to divert attention?

So, was his newspaper column as innocent as he claims where he says, “I advocated ignoring a pest”? We suggest you read our conversation and make up your own minds. Was it all as simple as trying to advocate ways to deal with an online “pest”? Or, was he overtly and covertly trying to justify controlling free speech by personally attacking those “HE” defines as “Internet Trolls,” some aberrant species of "pest"? Too bad Mr. Dave Stancliff didn't leave matters there. He certainly would have revealed a whole lot less about himself if he had only practiced what he preaches. More importantly, however, when you have the right to lock away in a two-by-four box forever anyone you merely “believe” thinks in unacceptable ways, whether they be so-called “troll” or “terrorist,” the deprivation of such tyranny has reached a point of corruption no decent person can withstand. Mr. Stancliff concludes his demagogic tirade with the following comment:

“This Thought Police stuff you're talking about makes it sound like your group is real paranoid about something.

Opinion aside...by the way.”

To that the Report concludes by saying: “The first thing all totalitarian, fascist, Nazi, communistic, extremist fundamental religious, regressive and repressive thinking people do is accuse ANYONE and EVERYONE that doesn't meet their socially acceptable standards of being paranoid or mentally ill. When he accused me or "my group" of being mentally ill he changed the rules from simple Internet conversation to a full-blown personal assault.

If he honestly thought I or any of us were actually paranoid and hostile as he claimed, I doubt he would have had the temerity, let alone the courage to say it directly to me. Why it is he thinks he can come into my Internet home and post his bile on my blog with impunity is beyond any of us. Problem is, he doesn't have a clue who he is talking to. I or we, on the other hand, have his face plastered all over the Internet and news media.

If that's not simpleminded, I don't know what is!”

UPDATE II:
It should be first noted that I am not in Mr. Stancliff's blog or at his home ranting and raving and making all kinds of wild unsubstantiated and abusive accusations for all his neighbor's to hear. He's in my home. And frankly, he won't leave.

Second, there is a difference between accepting someone's worthless opinions as fact and truth just because they say so or seeing what those facts and truths are for yourself. The reader can accept his angry, hate-filled demagoguery about me or you can accept him for what he is, and that according to his own definition about people who do what he has clearly come into and done on my blog. Truth is self-revealing. All I did was give Dave Stancliff opportunity to reveal his true nature.

It should also be noted that this blog is not written to garner anyone's agreement or make converts. Neither are we interested in anyone's worthless opinions or personal beliefs, for whatever that's worth. Whether we agree or disagree is irrelevant. Whatever you choose to believe, think or hallucinate about and make public is your problem. To hate, show hostility, be angry, be offended or manifest any other emotional response presupposes that person takes everything personally. We do not. We realize that what others do, and in this particular case Dave Stancliff, has nothing to do with either Joe Blow or the person writing this blog for him. We understand that what others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. Dave Stancliff has clearly demonstrated this manifest truth in his continuing foolish tirade.

To conclude, despite answering his question, Dave Stancliff continues to assert and repeat his accusation that my blog article was a personal attack in hypocritical contravention to our own posted wishes, to wit: “Diatribe personally attacking the messenger, is not welcome.” Our written observations were about the messenger, of which he is one, and freedom of speech versus prejudice, bigotry and selective censorship. He identified himself when he wrote that article, “Trolls Exposed: What kind of troll is disrupting your online community”? He sets forth the definition, in part: “They repeat themselves and say stupid off-focus things to disrupt conversations.” Which is exactly what is revealed for all to see. Rather than confront the thesis of our article, he tried to change the focus and tried to get personal. Unfortunately, Dave Stancliff was writing about himself.

--Joe