Dave Stancliff Walks On

Last Sunday's Times-Standard "As It Stands" was Dave Stancliff's "Fond Farewell. (August 18, 2013)

I'd like to wish him well as he moves on.

I'd like to believe Dave's grown some in these past years and this is a good move. I know what it feels like, in fact carry the scars, of offering someone a "bone" and getting my hand ripped off. But then, I guess, my hand just got in the way...

If nothing else, Dave's Sunday Opinion gave me inspiration - going to miss that. My one complaint, Dave, is that you squandered an opportunity very few get. You wasted half a page of news print every Sunday with trivia, and that's the nicest word I could think to use. You were given the perfect opportunity to help or cause people to THINK about relevant, and pertinent matters and issues that touched every one of our lives. Well, for the most part, you didn't - so, I hope when you take up writing again, you think about what's really important in this life, real freedom - that's the gift I offered you.

Best Wishes, Joe.

PS. By the way, some time back the wife and I were coming out of a local business when I happened to recognize you and your wife coming in. I gave her a nudge and asked her if she thought I should introduce myself. We had a good laugh, and walked on by. I mentioned to her that you two looked an awful lot like a younger version of us.
[Picture]

Good Choice

Top EPD chief choice out - Johnson cites lack of support
or so says Thadeus Greenson for The Times-Standard, Tuesday, August 6, 2013, edition.

At least someone has the good sense to do what's right for this town. Which, unfortunately, says more about Michael Johnson then the people of Eureka and their choice for City Council.

The residual effects of Murl Harpham's legacy in Eureka is bad enough without bringing this guy back into the mix.

How much city money, time and effort, not to mention lost good-will did it cost everyone involved for the city to run all those public hearings or meetings so the local's could vent their concerns and hopes on a decent, law-abiding, community oriented police chief? Talk about a JOKE! With Michael Johnson as the one-and-only candidate for police chief it's quite obvious the Eureka City Council's new City Manager Bill Panos neither heard or listened to anyone. Talk about an exercise in futility.

At least Johnson was smart enough to realize what he was walking into and bailed out before he got left holding the bag. (Like all my clichés?)

Joe

Trayvon Stood His Ground

On July 19, 2013, President Barack Obama spoke to the Washington Press Core, where he said:

"And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these Stand Your Ground laws, I’d just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws."

 So-called Stand Your Ground laws sometimes called "No Duty To Retreat" seek to legally define an individual or individuals legal rights to Self Defense. Ostensibly, the Legal Right to employ Self Defense is a given, but the right to "use force" or fight is not - thus making the action mute. In the George Zimmerman - Trayvon Martin incident the evidence is clear that Trayvon chose to fight. Martin felt threatened by Zimmerman's actions, rejected his girlfriend's advice over the telephone to avoid a confrontation, sucker-punched Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground and began pounding his head into the cement sidewalk. At which point Zimmerman felt physically threatened and used deadly force.

Trayvon Martin could have retreated - Chose not to.
George Zimmerman could have retreated - Chose not to.
Trayvon Martin chose to Stand His Ground, he chose to fight and got killed doing so.

---

The following are excerpts from Wikipedia:
Right of Self-Defense

The right of self-defense (according to U.S. law) (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in a level of violence, called reasonable force or defensive force, for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of deadly force.

Self-defense (United States)

In the United States, the defense of self-defense allows a person to use reasonable force in his or her own defense or the defense of others (see the theoretical background for why this is allowed). 

While the definitions vary from state to state, the general rule makes an important distinction between the use of non-deadly and deadly force. A person may use non-deadly force to prevent imminent injury; however, a person may not use deadly force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious injury or death. Some states also include a duty to retreat, when deadly force may only be used if the person is unable to safely retreat. A person is generally not obligated to retreat if in one's own home in what has been called the castle exception (from the expression "A man's home is his castle"). 

Runyan v. State (1877) 57 Ind. 80, 20 Am.Rep. 52, is one of the earliest cases to strongly support and establish in U.S. law an individual's right to initiate self-defense actions up to and including the justifiable use of lethal force against an aggressor. 

In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."

-JB

Eureka's Good Ol' Boy's Club

While checking the latest "goings-on" I noticed Eric Kirk's latest addition:

Sohum Parlance II 

District Attorney Race…. Again??? 

3 days ago

Here's what he says:

District Attorney Race…. Again???

May 1, 2013 in Uncategorized | Tags: District Attorney, Paul Gallegos

It seems like we just reelected Paul.  Was it three years ago already?

My good friend John is already posting news of a potential new candidate.

Rose is still talking about “how bad it is” – the sky perpetually falling.  She’s not quite predicting Paul’s demise at this point, but considering “how bad it is,”his only chance is if nobody wants the position because – it’s all so bad.  She’s been writing his political epitaph for years now, and maybe it’ll apply this time.  Or the next time.  Or the next.

Next is a Bullwinkle cartoon nonsense - must be an inside joke. (If interested see the link above.)

Rose, based upon what you can read in the newspaper, propaganda/bias notwithstanding, has it right. This cronyism legitimizes the corruption in this county. As long as Paul Gallegos is a Democrat District Attorney, he can do no wrong.  But then, like most Democrats these days, he says one thing and does the very opposite. Take this for an example:  Eureka police sergeant accused of excessive force, making false report arrested; Laird on administrative leave

Murl Harpham and Frank Jager can blow all the smoke they want, they can't fake the facts. Laird is found by a Federal Judge to have participated killing Martin Cotten while in their custody. ("overwhelming evidence presented at trial") Not any criminal trial brought by Paul Gallegos. This guy, Laird wasn't even fired. He was promoted and functioned as a Training Officer. So now you know what Murl Harpham meant when he told Eureka his department was staffed by "tough cops." 

This is only one example. The number of people killed by Humboldt County police is replete with unprosecuted excessive force incidents. What is it that Jager says? “He was a bit aggressive in his dealings, but he was a good officer other than that. It appears he went a little too far in this case.” In Jager's mind it's like this guy just crawled out from under a rock! This guy's brutality is a matter of record. I'd say those two guys in Boston "went a little too far" when they killed that cop and exploded those bombs too. Other then that little discretion, their good people.

In my book the people of Humboldt County deserve what they get when they elect and reelect such people. For those of you in need of a lawyer when being prosecuted by the Humboldt County DA, Paul Gallegos, be sure to give Eric Kirk some consideration. I'm sure he'd do you a mighty fine job of representation.

If you believe this is all okay, maybe you should read what Glenn Greewald says here.

In the meantime, I've included the newspaper article in its entirety here.

--Joe

And Then There Is Joe -- Blow, That Is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Glenn concludes by saying and I quote:

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

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

--Joe

An Obama Credo

Leave it to a black religious leader to recognize the truth when he see's it - Specially from someone of his own kind. This is on Democracy Now Headlines this morning.

Desmond Tutu Blasts Idea of Special Court to Review Targeting of U.S. Citizens, Not Others 

U.S. lawmakers have also floated the idea of creating a special court to review strikes on U.S. citizens. South African Nobel Peace Prize laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu weighed in on that plan in a letter to The New York Times. He wrote: "Do the United States and its people really want to tell those of us who live in the rest of the world that our lives are not of the same value as yours? That President Obama can sign off on a decision to kill us with less worry about judicial scrutiny than if the target is an American? Would your Supreme Court really want to tell humankind that we, like the slave Dred Scott in the 19th century, are not as human as you are? I cannot believe it."

Finally, after 35 years, someone has the backbone to speak the truth about a certain class of Americans. The fact is, that is exactly what they are saying. That is exactly the way they are acting. It is what America is doing that speaks to the truth. So, lets see what happens when the whole world comes to grips with that reality. Israel might take a lesson, but then they set the precedent.

--Joe 

Dave Stancliff''s Expertise

#LearnTalk Twitter Chat: “Bias in the Media,” with Dave Stancliff, Febrauary 11, 8PM

By: crystal morgan posted February 8, 2013

It’s time for #LearnTalk again! This week’s moderator is Dave Stancliff.  Dave, a retired newspaper editor and publisher with over 20 years experience, has been writing an op ed column, As It Stands for the Eureka, California Times-Standard for the past 5 years. His successful column has also grown to include a blog by the same name.  Dave’s area of expertise is political news and analysis. On this #Learntalk, he intends to discuss “Bias in the Media.”

Join the #LearnTalk community to discuss this issue. In the era where the news cycle often trumps the news, it is a critical issue to consider. [ Emphasis Added ]

---

I had started this article about a week ago, then had to other things of more importance to do. Anyway...

As someone that reads the Times-Standard Sunday edition regularly for the past five years now, and observed Mr. Stancliff's column, I've got to ask how many of his As It Stands opinion columns are about "political news and analysis"? Probably count them on one hand - maybe two. Most of his opinions have been nothing more than spoon-fed, milk-sop pablum. He will, on a rare occasion, take a stand on a subject. But then, I've found, he totally misses the real point of of the issue he's writing about. Mind you, on rare occasions the ability to engage and actually "take a stand."

I know he demonstrated a lot of "expertise" when it came to his "bias" when defining me. Based upon that "experience," I'd have to state he probably has a lot of "expertise" on bias, but not on "political new and analysis." A legitimate truth and a moral standard is always backed up by personal experience. Everything else comes from the mind and is by its very nature lies and worthless opinions.

Anyway, today is Valentine's Day, the program is long past, and I missed it - Darn! Everything changes. So, maybe we can expect some sort of substantive engagement from Dave. One can always hope, but don't ask me why.
[Link] and [Wrapup Link]

--Joe