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

Resist AND Die – Why?

[UPDATE II :: March 30, 2012 :: Stand Your Ground and DIE – WHY?]


[UPDATE below - Court ruling offers new details on EPD excessive force case or so says Thadeus Greenson about the murder of Martin Cotton]

Violent exchange culminates in death of a felon – Thadeus Greenson's take on the police shooting of a 26 year old man for doing nothing, but being a felon.

[This is an UPDATE on the posting below: Self-Defense Is a Bitch]

A good explanation for WHY is contained in today's Wednesday, March 21, 2012, Times-Standard: Fortuna shooting investigation continues – Details surface in police deadly force incident, written by Thadeus Greenson.

[A “deadly force incident” means someone got shot and killed by the Fortuna police, okay?]

What kind of an “incident” occurred in Fortuna? According to Greenson, Fortuna Police Chief William Dobberstein said officers were dispatched to a woman's report of a “crazed person banging on the door and yelling and screaming in her front yard.” A scary situation, to be sure, BUT nothing life threatening happening. The question I ask is, did this guy actually commit a crime here? Anything to justify his death? When the police get there the “suspect” is gone.  Nothing more than a little door banging and some hollering from the front yard. But, then notice what happens. The police identify the guy and find out he's “had numerous prior contacts with” the Fortuna police. So now they know who the guy doing all the “door banging and hollering is, (their favorite trashy troublemaking scumbag) Jacob Newmaker.

What happens next? He's spotted by the police “about three-quarters of a mile from the residence where the 911 call originated. No serious threat to anyone there – he's running away. The police chase him on his bicycle, “right behind him with his lights and sirens going.” In the melee he crashes his bicycle and the “officer confront[s] him.” Notice what happens next. Clearly the officer knows he's got a scared and agitated guy trying to stay away. What followed? “An altercation.” What does the officer do to control the situation, where at this point nothing's been done that is life threatening or even a crime? This guy was clearly “confronted” by the police officer. The police officer caused whatever “altercation” that occurred. He used his Taser to “shock” and already agitated individual that "hurts like hell." This is exactly what this agitated person REALLY needed right then, “a pain compliance technique” that "hurts like hell" used on a clearly agitated, or even“highly motivated” suspect.

Was Jacob Robert Newmaker threatening anyone? NO. He was motivated to run, to try to get away from the threatening police officer causing him pain. And that's all they did was cause him MORE pain, “Dobberstein said the officers then tried to get Newmaker into handcuffs, using pepper spray and batons strikes to the legs to try to gain compliance.” “Gain compliance” is just a fancy way of saying, “do what you're told.” That's usually what rapist say to their victims too.  Once the victim complies and submits to the rape, the rapist is justified and exonerated from any crime or criminal act because to victim willingly yielded or went along; complied.

And this is the real problem that caused this man his life. The police clearly using “pain compliance techniques” to effectively torture a person into submitting or yielding – doing what they are ordered to do establishes the lack of legitimate authority to enforce the law and effect a safe and sane arrest. When this country was governed by people that enforced the law, police  officers simple effected the arrest and that was that. Now that they ARE the law they use torture devices to force compliance with their dictates. Resist or question their legitimacy and you most often end up dead.

The most compelling statement in this newspaper report is by Fortuna Police Lt. Matthew Eberhardt: “He was armed with a deadly weapon.” Greenson elaborates: “Newmaker was unarmed until he picked up the officer's baton, at which point he was considered armed and dangerous.” If this statement is true, then these police officers ARMED him and then used that situation to shoot him down like a dog. No different situation then what those two CHP officers did to Felix Omai in Garberville. They initiate a violent attack (what they call an arrest for some crime) then use their attack to justify why they made the attack or so-called arrest.
More importantly, look at yet another descrepency in Thadeus Greenson's reporting. Please note: “At this point, dobberstein said, the initial officer on scene attempted to use his baton to gain control of Newmaker's uncuffed hand, but the suspect was able to grab the weapon. (Note: “grab the weapon” the police officer was using on Newmaker) Quote Dobberstein: “Then, there was a tug-of-war for the baton, and he was able to wrestle it free.” Now note what Greenson says further along in the article: Newmaker was unarmed until he picked up the officer's baton, at which point he was considered armed and dangerous.” Did he wrestle the “weapon” or a “baton” from the officer or did he pick it up off the ground?

This idea that a baton is NOT a weapon in the hands of a “trained” police officer and therefore becomes something “less than a lethal weapon” does not pass the smell test. If a 9mm handgun is a lethal weapon regardless of who is holding it so is a baton. If the police are justified using deadly force against someone holding a baton then anyone legally defending themselves is justified using deadly force. This idea as expressed in Greenson's somewhat propagandized article continuing to soft-pedal another police killing that there is a difference depending upon who is holding the weapon is a classic example of how the Rule of men enforce their law to defend and protect their criminal conduct and special privilege.

Thadeus Greenson, to his credit, did produce a rather all encompassing article. Or, to his discredit slanted and biased the report in his normal fashion. Even so, the part he included from Robert Feliciano, a former training sergeant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department who now serves as a qualified expert witness on police us of force is well worth reading and considering. I've included that excerpt at the end of this article.

What's the over reaching message in this, yet another tragedy? I'd start with the general premise issued by the Eureka Chief Murl Harpham when he said we need "tough cops." A general definition of his kind of tough cop was illustrated in the Joseph Cotten murder. Where once again the police crime of murder is passed off as a passé, non responsible act of "excessive force." Then I would go to the heart of how local police officers are trained and how that training engenders a racist, bully-type attitude that is demonstrated in their conduct. In the Robert Newmaker situation that probably starts with Fortuna Police Lt. Matthew Eberhardt. Bottom line, this guy, Jacob Newmaker was vulnerable, the police officers knew that and took full advantage, to this man's death.

---

[UPDATE II Link to The Joe Blow Report - Stand Your Ground and DIE – WHY?]

--Joe

UPDATE: Why Everyone Should Be Scared To Death

[UPDATE to Law and Order Finally Comes to Eureka]

Back in February I posted an article about three Eureka Police Officers currently on duty AFTER doing a stint of military duty in Afghanistan and captioned the article with, “This picture should scare the hell out of everyone living in Eureka, California.” Today I would also include Fortuna, CA too.

Democracy Now has the following interview with Neil Shea on: Afghan Massacre Sheds Light on Culture of Mania and Aggression in U.S. Troops in Afghanistan – I've watched a lot of Amy Goodman's Democracy Now shows, but this one had the most impact. This situation is a time-bomb about to go off. You can listen and watch in interview or go to Democracy Now and read the transcript.

Neil Shea, has reported on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2006 for Stars and Stripes and The Christian Science Monitor, among other publications. His latest article in The American Scholar is called "Afghanistan: A Gathering Menace: Traveling with U.S. Troops Gives Insights into the Recent Massacre."

Couple this situation with what recently happened in Fortuna where the police used lethal force to shoot dead an apparently mentally disturbed person for simply thinking about using a police baton to strike an officer. This idea that everyone is going to just drop to the ground in total submission like a bitch in heat when a cop walks up and for whatever unknown reasons points his finger is the kind of thinking and behavior that comes from an occupying army seeking legitimacy that's stressed to the limit.

That's what can be said about the Murl Harpham "tough cop" philosophy. When people need help the most their sicknesses and weaknesses are victimized and exploited the most.

--Joe

Self-Defense Is a Bitch

Cops don't kill anyone anymore in Humboldt County, they just leave them dead on the street.

Once again, the local newspaper, the Times-Standard soft-pedals the killing by police of another mentally disturbed person. See the front-page Saturday, March 17, 2012, story title: Officer involved shooting leaves Fortuna man dead – REALLY?

Makes it sound like there was some sort of gun battle going on with an officer, or some police officer just happened to be around somewhere when a Fortuna man was found dead. Evestigate the newspaper a little more and you will find that and unknown “26-year-old” was "shot" and “killed.” Why? We quote the newspaper: “[A]s he allegedly attempted to strike officer with a baton” he had taken away from one of the MORE than one officer. Who, apparently, had used all their little toys, to no avail, so they just shot him dead.

In truth, what we simply have here is that, a police officer shot dead a Fortuna man. The bullets that killed the man didn't come out of the blue and somehow “left” the poor guy “dead.” It came from a specific person, a Fortuna police officer. The simple fact is, that an unnamed Fortuna police officer killed that man. NOT some bogus nonsense, "Officer involved shooting leaves Fortuna man dead."

Once again, just like the newspaper's title is misleading, so is their report of the incident. The headline says the dead guy “attempted to strike officer with baton.” So does the reported police news release.

A second officer arrived and joined in the effort to subdue Newmaker in a struggle that became increasingly violent, according to the release, culminating with Mewmaker's allegedly wrestling a baton from one of the officers.
"As the suspect was in the process of attempting to strike the officer with the baton, the other officer fired his weapon at the suspect to stop the atack on his fellow officer," the release states."

Thadeus Greenson, the writer of this news report adds his slant, as tries to justify another police slaying: “Ultimately, an officer fatally shot Newmaker after he took one of the officers' batons and began striking him with it.” This Report has found this kind of biased newspaper reporting from Thadeus Greenson, in particular, to be status quo – NORMAL.

Please note here, the police news release says "As the suspect was in the process of attempting to strike ..." - this is about as remote and ambiguous a NON-THREATENING action as anyone could be involved in that certainly does not pose an eminent threat to anyone's life. "In the process of attempting"? This is total NONSENSE.

The absolute question that begs an answer is, how can “attempting to strike an officer with his, [a police] baton” justify the use of deadly force? Do the police NOT strike, or threaten to strike, people all the time JUST to avoid the use of or the need for or use deadly force? Isn't that why they pack batons?

People need to take a real serious look at what the Fortuna police have done here. When peaceful demonstrators legally exercise their citizen rights and are regularly set upon by the baton-wielding police beating them into submission they are threatening the very lives of these legal, and peaceful demonstrators. Clearly, if the police are justified in this killing under these conditions and stipulated circumstances, then people guilty of NO crime when their lives are threatened by a baton possess the legal right to defend themselves and with lethal force if necessary against any and all criminal assaults. The police in this country and in particular Humboldt County that take great delight brutalizing people, in particular the Occupy Movement people might want to pay close attention to what they are establishing.

--Joe

Personhood and the Police

[UPDATE Below - Recognizing Personhood from little gods - What it means to be an American Elite]

Law enforcement officials frustrated with Occupy signs

This is today's Times-Standard frontpage headline for Friday, March 9, 2012. "Law enforcement" being Humboldt County Sheriff Mike Downey and the so-call "Interim Eureka Police Chief Murl Harpham.

This title actually misrepresents "law enforcement's" real frustration. Their issue is really with the District Attorney and the fact they don't have carte blanche or the full discretionary power and unconditional authority to eradicate the Occupy people from Eureka's streets at will. Be assured they are diligently working on a so-called legal solution to rectify that problem and solidify their State police power authority.

We all know their history dealing with the local Occupy Movements - Brutal, Arbitrary and Perverse in total disregard to any legitimate right to peacefully protest or demonstrate. Which, by the way, is the general public's legally provided way to "give direction" to elected representatives.

The following statement in the Times-Standard by Sheriff Mike Downey sheds some light on why.

Downey said he hopes members of the public fed up with the activities in front of the courthouse will go to the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors with their concerns. 

"The public generally is no longer in support of what's going on" Downey said. "The public needs to give direction to the Board of Supervisors." [Emphasis added]

Who is this "fed up public" Sheriff Downey is speaking for or representing? Is this not what the Occupy Movement is trying to do, speak for the general, fed up public? Or is he talking only about the people that financed his election? Why does he and Murl Harpham make a distinction between the Occupy Movement who purport to represent the 99% of Americans and the so-called general "public" who obviously only make up 1%?

Herein lies the crux of the issue and goes right to the heart of what happened to Felix Omai and why. The general population that votes believes that they have some say in matters relative to their existence. In other words, they believe that their vote guarantees their recognition and general personal representation. Or, at the very least, a hearing ear and at least some consideration for their needs and wants. What the 99% don't or won't accept is that their vote, as such, is both redundant and irrelevant. The only vote that counts to all elected representatives is the dollar; the more dollars, the more personhood. They know that the one with the most dollars usually always gets voted into office. Hence the attitude of the elected representative toward their supposed constituents is disparaging, demeaning and belittling consistent to their lying acts of betrayal. They see, if at all, the general population as sub or non-human, not much better than and subject to about as much consideration as mongrel dogs. Throw them a few scraps, or lying promises and they'll rollover on command.

The problem is that the select class of ruling elites do not see nor do they hear anything from such people as make up the likes of an Occupy Movement - people that believe they actually count in this system. Did you notice that the only people mentioned by Sheriff Downey that matters are the few fed up people like him making complaints about the Occupy people? Accordingly, those of the Occupy Movement that are trying to express the wants and needs of the majority of people are considered nothing more than a gang of trouble-makers that are a blight on the community, interfering in the affairs of normal people.

What the Occupy Movement has proven is that there is no reasoning or communicating with City or County governments regardless of what they are currently doing. There's only one way to communicate with these elite, exceptional oligarchy that presides over an ever constricting police state. They, the police and their masters, must FIRST see you as an equal. For that to happen YOU must see them exactly for who and what they are and deal with them accordingly. This reality was demonstrated in superb form in the movie Avatar. I suggest all wannabe Occupy Movement people go see it or see it again and this time take a realistic lesson into what it means to become and act like a person worthy of being seen and heard.

Currently there are 106 comments on the Humboldt Herald for their Quote of the Day:

So with this I am suspending all efforts to do anything with the continued assault on the courthouse, the employees and the general public due to the immunity given to them by your [the District Attorney's] office. — Humboldt County Sheriff Mike Downey in a letter to DA Paul Gallegos regarding the ongoing Occupy Eureka protest outside the courthouse.

Check out some of the local blog-talkers if you think what they say is representative of local opinion. In particular I recommend the comment by Janell Eggar. As someone in the mix or on the firing line, she makes or proofs my article and reason for writing it. Before you can ever hope to talk to someone, let alone communicate with them, you must FIRST get their attention. Only an authentic, legitimate person can do that.

---

[UPDATE :: Thursday, March 15, 2012 – Link to SoHum Parlance II – Estelle Event in Fortuna]

Here is the initial statement I made and Eric's reply. 

March 10, 2012 at 3:56 pm

Joe Blow

Still promoting the auction, I see…

March 10, 2012 at 5:28 pm

Eric Kirk

Voted in every election since I turned 18 Joe. It’s not even just about politics. It’s part of what it means to be American. So yes, I’m still “promoting the auction.” Always.

Currently there are over 70 comments on this thread. Many of the comments associated with the above exchange deal with the issue of "Personhood." Without the acceptance and recognition of EQUAL personhood, whether it be by individuals, communities or nations, there can be no meaningful communication and certainly NO peace. Many of the comments and their writers clearly demonstrate the war-mongering attitude of the elitist bully constantly striving to control everyone and everything. To these people, intellectual and ideological diversity and exchange is their pariah. So, be warned.

Once the difference between the common American individual (one of personhood, that of individual legitimacy and value) and the Elitist American God, so aptly demonstrated in this blog thread, I closed down further conversation on Eric Kirk's blog. The simple truth is, there is absolutely nothing you can say that these kinds of self-centered oligarchic elitist will ever hear as long as they believe they are a god. I found it quite interesting that, with just a little coaxing from me, Ernie Branscomb identified and defined this as the very issue alienating him that he thinks justifies his constant litany of degrading, racist insults. 

--Joe

The Wrath of God - Solar Flares

Wrath? No one seems to know how solar flares affect humans and animals. Scientists claim, as reported in "Solar Storm Shakes Magnetic Field," these magnetic storms only affect electrical systems, such as with magnetic, radio and radiation emissions. Astronomers said this storm was "pretty benign" because it was of a "northern orientation." Interestingly, a southern orientation would have caused the most damaging technological disruption and biggest auroras. It seems this is just an introduction. Scientists say:

The storm is part of the sun's normal 11-year cycle, which is supposed to reach a peak next year. Storms as large as the latest one will probably happen several more times as the cycle ramps up to that peak.  ***  The region of the sun that erupted can still send more blasts our way, Kunches (Joe Kunches, a scientist at the NOAA center) said. Another set of active sunspots is ready to aim at Earth.

Maybe it's time to breakout the tin foil hats.



Wrath? Looks wrathful to me. Guess we'll all find out if the whole world starts acting crazy.

--Joe

Is Silence Really Golden?

[UPDATE Below - Misguided Silence]

Howdy Emerson's Letter to the Editor: “Silent no longer” in the Sunday, March 4, 2012, Times-Standard presents a valid argument to the contrary. Because of the current meeting between U.S. President Barack Obama and Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu his concerns are relevant today. The Jerusalem Post reports that the importance of this strategic meeting is detailed in their mutual country's need to be "masters of their own fate."

Silent no longer 

When I heard President Obama say, as he did on Feb. 5th regarding actions against Iran, that the U.S. will “march in lockstep with Israel,” I became extremely concerned. Lockstep is a military term, and Obama knows it. According to my dictionary, when referring to politicians it means, “in perfect or rigid, often mindless conformity or unison.” Come to think of it, rigid and mindless is an apt description of our government's blind support -- political and financial ($30 billion just in military aid in the next 10 years) -- of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian land, unrelenting violence toward Palestinian Christians and Muslims, and now perhaps an unprovoked attack on Iran. 

Israeli leaders and our media would have us believe that Israel is the innocent victim of endless attacks. The truth is the opposite -- Israel has the fourth-largest military in the world -- is the only nuclear power that has never allowed inspections -- and is far more powerful than all surrounding nations. The facts on the ground are these: endless mortar fire, military incursions and drone attacks from Israel into Gaza; daily sniper fire from the settlements towards Palestinian farmers in the West Bank; Palestinian homes regularly bulldozed in East Jerusalem to make room for Jewish only settlements; hundreds, including children, jailed without charge or trial; Palestinian land and water regularly stolen for illegal settlements. These are acts of a violent military aggressor, not a victim. Such policies and actions do not make Israel safe. Our “lockstep” support makes neither the U.S. nor Israel safe. 

I have avoided speaking out on this topic for fear of the names I may be called. Such avoidance amounts to tacit agreement with the apartheid policies of Israel and the unquestioning compliance of my own government. My silence does not make Israel safe. My silence does not make the U.S. safe. I can no longer remain silent.

What he says here is well worth repeating, reading and thinking about. Many Americans believe, if the support for Republican presidential bluster is believable, that war is the ultimate panacea. Of course, this is the way of all sociopathic bullies as they enforce their "right" to dominate.

A good update to what Mr. Emerson writes is today's article from Glenn Greenwald: Obama, Iran and preventive war - Who are the real sociopathic “chickenhawks”? Those gutless wonders that speak out.

---

[UPDATE :: Thursday, March 8, 2012]
Mr. Emerson had it right when  he said "silence" amounts to a tacit agreement. Even though the uninformed, propagandized misanthropist believers rise out of their crypts to rant and rave. Sure enough, one appeared in Wednesday, March 7, 2012, Letter to the Editor: "Letter misguided on Israel" - Notice Barbara Carnam's deliberate insult. The least she could do was spell the man's name right.

In response to Howdy Epperson [sic] (”No Longer Silent,” March 4, Times-Standard):
You certainly are no longer silent, but I wonder about the point of your letter. Are you trying to keep Israel safe from protecting itself from the shelling from the Gaza strip that Israel vacated and left to the Palestinians? Are you keeping our country safe by distancing itself from the Jewish state so as to avoid the displeasure of the neighboring Arab countries, or from the moral disdain of all of the countries of the world that cede land in hopes of peace?  

I can see why you stayed silent for so long, as your appalling misinterpretation of the facts does leave you open to being called names, but probably not the ones that you imagined.
Barbara Carnam
Fieldbrook

 Israel's record since inception is self-defining - The so-called State of Israel is without legitimacy. Their subjugation of the Palestinian people can not change that reality no matter how many Jew-worshiping  Americans try to make it so.

--Joe