A Voice From the Wilderness

A voice from the wilderness is what I thought when I read Linda Atkin's My Word in today's Saturday, July 30, 2011, Times-Standard: Democracy and dissent go together. Once again the newspaper adds another page to the ongoing saga initiated by the firing of police Chief Garr Nielsen for no cause. In a way Linda Atkins had no choice but to confront the personal diatribe and invective assaulting her from those wanton wannabe Eureka Elites, our Gang of Eight.

The contrast between what that self-righteous Gang of Eight hypocritically (“Progress or protest? We need to work together to move forward”) wrote and Linda Atkins said is stark indeed – an open hand versus a clenched fist. What struck me was her reasonable, if not a bit naive, response of a sensitive representative. The voters are ultimately responsible for the government they choose, whether they stand accountable or not. You want corrupt whores telling you what to do, how to live, what to think and how to believe – pay the price. A “though cop” mentality makes you accountable whether you like it or not.

A majority of Americans voted for a Democratic President that said one thing and has an inviolate record of doing the very opposite. Based upon what Linda Atkins says it appears her approach to Democracy is to enforce the people's right to hold such people, their representatives, accountable. What the Gang of Eight and those that support them fail to realize or, perhaps never understood, is that once elected they represent ALL people as their constituents. Not just their monied, philosophical and ideological backers and supporters.

It is curious, however, to see where the newspaper editors placed her My Word article. Week after week Steve and Cokie Roberts' article appeared below the fold. Today their faces appear prominently right under the cartoon. We certainly don't need to guess how or what the newspaper editors think about Councilwoman Linda Atkins. Which would explain why they published the personal, racist, invective, attacking a class of people represented by Councilwoman Linda Atkins in the first place.

---

[UPDATE to Little Foot-Stampers and Fist-Shakers]

Come join the club, because we're just like you - The "club" being our little Nanny Club or Gang of Eight. Conrad Gregory's attempt at satire is worth a read. It's encouraging to see the push-back against the matter-of-fact attitude castigating everyone's rights of citizenship.

[Source]

--Joe

Little Foot-Stampers and Fist-Shakers

Our Little Gang of Nannies

Nanny Speak or Mob Rule was our comment (below) on the Gang of Eight that got the Times-Standard to publish their vocal animus in the July 22, 2011, My Word. In today's My Word: "Authors failed to do their homework on Atkins" Sue Brandenburg takes exception to their assault on Councilwoman Linda Atkins and other pious and self-righteous statements. To quote:

“The firing of Police Chief Garr Nielsen was the last straw for a large group of people who have endured the incompetency and arrogance coming from some of the city management and some of the past and current city council members.”

She then proceeds to explain what she means by, “incompetency and arrogance.” Also, for those that have the stomach to keep up on the Debt Debate going on with President Obama and the Republican, you can get a real good idea what she's talking about. What soon becomes apparent, along with the “incompetency and arrogance,” is the deceptive swindle that's in play backed up by lies and false accusations. Each side is trying to force or coerce the other side. No one is negotiating in good faith. The irony is, that is exactly how the United States and in particular Barack Obama deals with other peoples and countries of the World. Now it is exactly how he is treating his so-called Republican adversaries and is, in fact, being treated in return.

Looking at the primary letters of which were published here, here and here as My Word articles you'll readily see a couple of common themes: ideologues enforcing their personal beliefs as logic facts. Two, never taking personal responsibility for anything they say or do – And conflating their personal opinions with who and what they believe or think they are as a person. In other words they take EVERYTHING personally. More importantly and one of the reasons the Editors of the Times-Standard had responsibility to NOT publish these peoples' letters is that they use every means to viciously brand or label those that don't believe or agree with their right to judge, in this particular case Councilwoman Linda Atkins, as mental, delusional or not sane. Their actions, stated beliefs justifying their actions when compared to paranoia identifies these people exactly for what they are and what their intent is - BULLIES AND BULLING.

To better understand the connection you need to read the interview with: Norway’s Johan Galtung, Peace & Conflict Pioneer, on How to Stop Extremism that Fueled Shooting - Johan Galtung is a man who’s spent half a century pursuing nonviolent conflict resolution. This comment really caught my attention as our goal here at the Joe Blow Report is to stimulate thinking:

I don’t use the word "terrorist." That’s an American vocabulary, which has found much too much usage. It’s a sign saying, "Stop thinking. He’s just simply bad and evil." 

Galtung's granddaughter, who came to the island on the same boat as Breivik and survived, asks: "How can we prevent movements like the movement Breivik participated in?"

Let me give one answer immediately. Challenge these people on the extreme right in debate. Get them out in public space, in the open. Challenge them. Let me only say one thing. If you want to challenge them, you should have been well prepared. These people are well prepared. Don’t underestimate them—point one. *** And I can only say, having done it, it’s very, very easy. But you have to understand them. That doesn’t mean you have to accept them, but you have to go your portion of the way.

Even more noteworthy was listening to what that guy in Norway, Anders Behring Breivik, said motivated him, what his Christian beliefs are and who he attacked and why. The Guardian Newspaper has a relevant article today on this very subject: Anders Behring Breivik: the truth in delusion - “The case of Anders Breivik in Norway reminds us that the relationship between madness and responsibility is complex”

“Paranoia has three classical components. The paranoiac has located a fault or malignancy in the world, he has named it, and has a message to deliver about it. For Breivik, the conviction is that Europe is rotten, that the name of this rottenness is Islam and that it is his mission to expose and excise it. 

Whereas many schizophrenic subjects experience an invasion inside their body, the paranoiac situates it outside: there is some badness out there in the world. Where for the schizophrenic the other is often too close, intruding into their body; for the paranoiac, self and other are rigidly separated: the other is outside. And hence the paranoiac subject is always innocent: it's the other's fault. 

Paranoia here should be differentiated from paranoid. Anyone can be paranoid, but paranoia as such implies a rigid system of beliefs with explanatory power, according the subject a fixed place in the world: for Breivik, that of the "perfect knight" battling Islam. The other common misunderstanding of paranoia is to assume it always involves persecution. In fact, many paranoiacs locate the malignancy not in a person but in some aspect of the world: a disease; environmental problems; danger to children.” **** 

“The paranoiac's delusion here can be false but it can equally be absolutely true.” ****
“The madness lies not in the content of the beliefs here but in the person's relation to the belief. If certainty about the belief replaces doubt, we are in the realm of psychosis.” **** 

“This nuances the old-fashioned idea that the subject is only responsible for a crime if he "knew the difference between right and wrong", since the central feature of paranoia is precisely that the person does know the difference. That, indeed, is why they are psychotic: they harbour not doubt but utter conviction that what they are doing is the right thing.” [Emphasis added]

When the newspaper publishes these people's letters they are enabling them and facilitating their paranoid delusions. All that does is "grease" the way for the "Anders Behring Breiviks" in Humboldt County.
[Source]

--Joe

Murl Harpham's EPD

[UPDATE Below]
Murl Harprham's Eureka Police Department – A Lesson In Toughness

A little over three weeks ago, Eureka Police Chief Murl Harpham in an open letter to the citizens of Eureka published in the Times-Standard newspaper titled: Preserving law and order, enforcing the laws, protecting and serving all citizens. At that time he had just replaced the recent firing of Garr Nielsen  (without cause). To reassure everyone, he laid down a rather vague, but tacit baseline for how his officers would conduct themselves as they served the community and enforced the law.

How does the latest police incident measure up? On Monday, July 25, 2011, at about 5:00 p.m. there was a reported shooting at 14^th and H streets in Eureka. According to the Time-Standard report,

"Shortly before 7 p.m., EPD received a report of a silver car parked on H Street with its back windshield busted out. Responding officers parked on Eight Street and seemed to be keeping watch on the H Street apartment building, calling for backup. By 8 p.m., EPD had closed H Street to traffic and set up a perimeter around the three-block section. The Sheriff's Office SWAT team had mobilized and was standing by in a nearby parking lot before approaching at 11:30 p.m." And, “EPD and SWAT team members moved in on an apartment on the 800 block of H Street at about 11:30 p.m. Monday, after spotting Nelson's Mercury sedan parked on the street. Police began evacuating residents a 11:45 p.m. Police evacuated 16 people from their apartments.” *** “Nelson was not home when law enforcement forced their way into his apartment with a flash-bang device at 1:45 a.m. Tuesday.  EPD and SWAT team members ended their operation at 2:05 a.m. Tuesday without apprehending the suspect.” [Emphasis added to show disparity in Thadeus Greenson's reporting.]

The next day he turned himself in to the Sheriff's Department.

The newspaper reports are rather convoluted if not rambling accounts. The timeline involving the police response is there, you just have look for it. One thing seems sure, the Eureka Police officers didn't shirk from responding. Also they clearly demonstrated their toughness. Unfortunately, Chief Harpham's definition revolved around a singular, individual “tough cop.” Someone I would consider able and capable of serving the people's best interests as well as enforcing law because of their personal authority based upon and empowered by their singular, individual legitimacy. Not as gang of elite officers, a militarized squad comparable to the U.S. military's Special Operations “Hunter Killer Squads” whose first priority is to serve themselves.

The real message here, from my vantage point anyway, is that aggressive people, drivers, neighbors or anyone else should take to heart what happened here the next time they think to bully someone around. The right to self-defense is still a right in this country and in this state. Even though the only one's that seem to believe they actually possess that right are the police.

Lets not forget, from the newspaper report, I was wondering what happened to that "olive branch of peace"? Did it become a "flash-bang device"?
[Source]

---

[UPDATE :: Monday, August 1, 2011]

Notice in the Times-Standard today about: Eureka Council to start police chief hiring process – The empty process of listening to your constituents.

Side Note: Heraldo over at the Humboldt Herald has a decent post on this subject. As usual a lot of moronic comments, salted with a few thoughtful ones thrown in, but a worthwhile read nevertheless. Heraldo's sentiments:

The forums will cost around $3,000 and will be “professionally moderated.” This must mean forum goers will look at faces that appear to be listening rather than the usual smirk à la Councilman Mike Newman.

--Joe

How to Love Your Enemies – A Timely Way

The following article by Deepak Chopra was published in the San Francisco Chronicle and on his own website today. For anyone that believes they are Christians then writes the kind of personal invective published in the newspaper here, here and here. I don't know if you'd call these people extremist, far right, conservative Republicans or what? Their ideology and belief-motivated conduct expressed in their articles match, in spirit if nothing else, the justification by the Norwegian Anders Breivik for his vicious attack on fellow countrymen and women, people he believes are his mortal enemies.

How to Love Your Enemies (Really)

Although devotion to Christianity is often required in modern-day American politics, one of its central teachings—to love your enemy—is overlooked. Former President Bill Clinton has commented on the virulence of the political atmosphere that seemed to drastically increase during his time in office. Instead of winning against your opponent, he observed, the new attitude was that the other side needed to be destroyed. As a result, the sense of being colleagues or of reaching across the aisle was lost—and remains lost. The other party is nothing less than the enemy.

The difficult question of how to love your enemy goes much deeper than this. Many teachings in the New Testament clash with psychological reality. To love someone who hates you, like turning the other cheek when someone hits you, seems like a spiritual ideal that can't be attained except by saints. Who among us is a saint?

We could turn the issue around, however. Saintliness becomes realistic by seeing it as a state of higher consciousness. Christ was talking about personal transformation. That much seems to be beyond doubt. "Higher consciousness" is not a religious term, however, even if Christ does point to the kingdom of heaven being within. My purpose is not to argue that personal transformation is specifically Christian. But it is the key to loving your enemy.

Nanny Speak or Mob Rule

Again we witness conservative ideologue believers using the Times-Standard to promote their demagogue and vitriol to divide and alienate the people of Humboldt County while their hypocrisy and duplicity is as repulsive as a pile of cat shit on your kitchen table. “Progress or protest? We need to work together to move forward” is classic in how these wannabe Elitist say one thing and do another. The whole My Word article by Mike Jones, Jeff Leonard, Virginia Bass, Polly Endert, Mary Beth Wolford, Connie Miller, Cherie Arkley and Nancy Flemming is nothing more that a cheap political attack on “progressive” thinking people, in particular Councilwoman Linda Atkins disguised as some Nanny Elite Dictate telling everyone what to believe, what to think and how to act. They seem to think that just because they were elected to the City Council one time or another they are all some sort of authority as God's gift to the rest of us poor, lowly, ignorant rabble, in particular the apparent lone progressive on that Council. Talk about sheep among wolves!

They, the undersigned, say at the outset of their attack: “Politics is all about compromise and working together.” They then define what they mean by “compromise and working together.” When you are all alone and don't control anything, keep your mouth shut, do what you're told, go sit in the corner and put that damned dunce hat on so everyone can see who and what you really are – stupid and ineffective.

Keep in mind, these people are not just talking to and about Councilwoman Linda Atkins, they are telling everyone else that doesn't think or believe as they do and support them and their current representatives, as a minority without standing, to SHUT UP and GO AWAY – preferably to hell.

When you read their complete statement you will find that they leave absolutely no doubt or equivocation on how they “work together.” Just like any gang of thug bullies, they threaten and intimidate by simple innuendo and mob-rule intent. The "tough cop" way works, in time, everyone knows what the bully wants and expects without a word, agree or not, everyone falls in line and justifies the bullies right to exist and make them non-human, second class citizens.  Example: They say, “Instead of working together and moving forward, we seem to have one out-of-touch city councilmember protesting and challenging most things the current city council tries to accomplish to improve our community. That's not a good place to be for Ms. Atkins if she wants be part of a progressive city council.” Who is this "we" these people speak for? If not you, then are you "out-of-touch" too? Building on the continual drumbeat that there is something wrong with her, that she's conflicted only exposes their own paranoia. How can she claim to be a “progressive” when she's is obviously NOT lining up with the REAL progressives? Poor pathetic Linda Atkins. All alone in the corner.

Example number two: their abject hypocrisy – in their defining these people as a “progressive city council.” Saying it doesn't make it so. Compromise and betrayal of one's principles is certainly NOT the high standard anyone should aspire to, unless and except from those that are without principles, decency or any moral integrity. My father used to always say: “People that live in glass houses should never throw stones.” Since they're all in the business of telling everyone else, specially those that don't agree or believe as they do and in particular, the total failure Linda Atkins, as compared to them and their class of political compatriots, that's good advice. Probably on a par to "get out of town, but don't go to Fortuna."

The only benefit to come from all of this, as I see it, is that the voters get what they want. Not always what they expected, but justified just the same. The problem is the continued effort to justify their failure to vote in decent, honest and magnanimous people to represent their best interests. (Probably because they can't find any self-respecting person.) Regardless, just because you vote for people that would have you believe they are an American Elite will not make you an Elite too. It makes you a dunce the same as them.

By the way, this quote about Nannys defines our Gang of Eight to a "T":

In Nanny's world she doesn't speak English, she uses a mangled mix of bullshit "management speak" and political/socialist double speak when communicating.
Why?
Simple:
1 She is stupid.
2 She doesn't want people to understand what she is talking about, so she tries to be clever.
3 Her arguments wouldn't stand up to rigorous intellectual scrutiny if they were presented in English.

As a final observation, I'd say Ms. Atikins must be doing something right since she's got all of these people running scared. If they weren't scared none of them would of ever shown themselves in the light of day. When the full consequences of their past actions, twelve years and more, come to bear upon everyone, and they are held accountable for their actions - well, let's just say they may wish to be somewhere else at that time.

Just so the reader knows, I read and reread their statement as I wrote these observations. There are statements and issues they made that I didn't followup on since I wanted to address the tone and true purpose of their personal invective and demagoguery; causing divisions, alienation and war. Including the Times-Standard's part in promoting this class agenda.
[Source]

UPDATE:
Here's a link to another, shall we say “nameless blog” that has some interesting comments, mostly supporting Linda Atkins and denouncing the Gang of Eight's assault on the liberal, progressive way.

--Joe

SEE the Tough Cop

Click to enlarge and read.

The Eureka Police Department's “olive branch of peace” is called Vex.


Eureka Police Chief Murl Harpham, in a recent letter to the Times-Standard titled: “Preserving law and order, enforcing the laws, protecting and serving all citizens” said,

“If there are drug dealers in your neighborhood, we will build a case against them, and get them off the streets. When there is gunfire or a dangerous person in your neighborhood and citizens are in fear, we will respond. This, at times, has caused criticism. When dealing with disruptive people, we always first extend an olive branch of peace. Unfortunately, sometimes this does not work, and we have to become tough. No one likes a tough cop until they need one, then they want the toughest cop around.” (070711) [Emphasis added]

In the above quote, Chief Harpham identifies two types of people that are of paramount interest to him and his EPD officers: “drug dealers” and “dangerous” (of the type potentially involving guns, i.e., “gunfire”) causing "citizens" to be in "fear" or afraid. He then identifies a third type of person: “disruptive people.” That category is broad and expansive and can include just about anything. More importantly, since past EPD handling of such “disruptive people” has caused some “criticism,” to ease everyone's minds, he specifies the steps or priorities his officer's will follow when dealing with such people. First, they are to extend an “olive branch of peace.” Second, when that does not work, they “become tough.” At the time he provided these assurances, this Report made some observations listed below. Our interest was in seeing what is actually done - how he and the EPD defined his words by actions.

The question remains, does this incident, as reported, meet his priorities? The words "disruptive," “olive branch of peace” and “become tough” are rather ambiguous, to say the least, unless you take him at his word and look at the conduct history of the EPD. Today, we have the following episode to compare. So, compare what the newspaper said "according to officers on the scene and scanner traffic, neighbors called police stating that three suspicious men were inside a garage to the rear of a residence." On it's face, if three or even one "suspicious" person was in my garage, it's my hope my neighbor's would call. The question, however, is: What makes someone look "suspicious"? Suspicious enough to be held or "detained" at gunpoint when they posed NO threat nor were they guilty of committing any crime? I realize the officers didn't know that at the time, but then NEITHER did the person calling in. Is "detained" the newspaper's fancy word for ARRESTED since they were released on the scene?

So, the "olive branch of peace" is to confront someone going about his or her lawful business, neither bothering nor threatening anyone, at the point of a gun? That situation is a hair's breadth away from someone being dead should that person immediately not accept the "olive branch of peace" pointing at his or her head.

Reading the account, they find after the arrest a 70 year old man that had a “felony drug-related warrant” and clearly posed NO threat to anyone; simply wanting to be left alone. His immediate failure to comply as commanded, however, apparently posed enough of a threat to someone that he was threatened with “the tough cop” VEX. Hiding in the back of a closet where he has to “crawl out” sounds like someone that just wants to be left alone and maybe not found. Either way, we know some history now. We also know that Vex is one tough cop.

I'm not sure about the Times-Standard's reporting. The number of people accounted for in this situation varies since the paper says there were three people in the garage, one ran away, but three people were held a gun point and detained. Then there's the use of the word “barricade” while hiding in “a closet,” but gave himself up when “Vex discovered him.” What are we really talking about here? He closed the door, maybe even locked it, then went and hid in a closet?

So, what did this incident teach us? It's the picture that really says it all.

--Joe

How to turn a 'blind eye' to crime

I'll admit after reading Dave Stancliff's masterful “Opinion” Sunday, July 17, 2011, I had to read it again and skim through it one more time to finally “get” his reason for writing: “Counting the many ways crime does pay.” - His solitary reason for why crime should NOT pay, that is, IF everyone does their part. Or, in other words, why everyone should turn a “blind-eye to crime.”

His reasoning: “As It Stands, the answer is to not buy, read, or listen to any true stories about killers in our society.” REMEMBER, his words, not mine.

Here he conflates crime, murder and murders with the word “killer.” As such, we could add some other words such as “assassin,” “assassinate,” “manslayer,” “manslaughter” to name a few. Of course we also have, something that is “extremely difficult or perilous”: reading all Stancliff's Opinion was “murder.” Then there is, “to spoil or mar by bad performance, representation, pronunciation, etc.”: Stancliff “murdered” that opinion. Next we have, “to engage in a deplorable activity without incurring harm or punishment”: The readers let Stancliff and the Times-Standard Editors get away with “murder.” Next: “to protest loudly and angrily”: Stancliff screamed bloody “murder” at his critique. Finally, the two reasons for posting this article (1), “get away with murder, to escape censure; do as one pleases”: For years, now, Dave Stancliff's gotten away with “murder” by getting the newspaper to publish his lame opinions. Lastly (2), “to destroy; ruin”: He murdered her reputation and good name.

Makes one wonder if Stancliff was talking about himself? Every Sunday the Times-Standard devotes one half page to him and what does he do? Does he write about serious, important local issues that go to the very heart of everyone's lives in the North Coast? His record speaks for itself.

Does he respect his readers and simply lay out the facts so the reader can decide what to do, how to think or believe? He says: “As It Stands, the answer is to not buy, read, or listen to any true stories about killers in our society.” That sounds a whole lot like TELLING people what to do: “not buy, read or listen to any TRUE stories about killers.” Never you mind stories based on factually false propaganda,spouted as the official line, about lies, fantsies and worthless opinions. There's another word for what he's telling people to do: CENSORSHIP.

If you do what he tells you to do the first thing you'll do is stop reading the newspaper. You certainly will not buy it to read the article across the page by Nat Hentoff, “Is there an emancipation day for 'good faith' torturers?” Hentoff is talking about the “true stories” of war crimes that involved deliberate murder and murderers. Crimes that involve the current U.S. President Barack Obama and the past President George Bush and their administrations or governments (Bush/Cheney & Obama/Biden). Better to turn a blind eye to these criminals and their crimes – out of site, out of mind.

The consequences should be obvious. When questionable activities that amount to torture (use of tazers, for instance) or a violent death that occurs at the hands of the local police no one pays any attention. Well, except, maybe for a few mentally questionable, liberal radicals. “Shit happens,” they (the blind) are fond of saying, but these kooks can't accept that fact. What about the killers that make a practice of deliberately running stop signs? If that's the kind of world or community you want to live in, then by all means read what Dave Stancliff tells you to read, listen to, and buy.

--Joe