Archive for June 2009
The Joe Blow Report asserts that Dave Stancliff, Columnist for the Times-Standard newspaper, engaged in hate speech in his two blog articles listed here and here. More importantly, the language he uses depicts and defines the Report’s writer(s) as some sort of insane, “Lone Wolf” right-wing, hate-group of domestic terrorist — a form of racism.
Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting.
It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport’s scale which measures prejudice in a society. Critics have claimed that the term “Hate Speech” is a modern example of Newspeak, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct. [Partial definition from Wikipedia: Hate Speech — Read complete here.]
Then there is the Urban Dictionary’s definition for “racism”:
If you’re a white man, this is what you are. It doesn’t even matter if your wife is black and you have an adopted child from India, or how many black friends you have, somehow you’re going to end up being a racist according to how the media portrays the white man as “racist whities”.
The website “Knowledgerush” says this about “racist hate speech”:
The term “racist” is used to identify Stancliff’s commentary because he is determined to identify and define — stereotype this writer according to his own opinionated prejudices.
Notice what Stancliff says about me:
They checked in again Monday when I posted a reply to their insanity.
Whoever they are, they’re not oo bright!
June 17, 2009 7:33 AM
If you call someone a terrorist just because they don’t agree with you, are you then free to treat them like a terrorist?
False accusers are liars. Liars are murderers. Everyone that supports a liar is also a liar and a murderer.
These are the Report’s emails to the Times-Standard staff and management regarding their publishing Dave Stancliff’s web column called “As It Stands.” Managing Editor, Kimberly Wear, sent back her response noted below.
Attention Dave Kuta, Kimberly Wear and James Faulk:
On June 4, 2009, I sent the enclosed email (posted here) to the following people listed on your website Contact Page, namely Dave Kuta Publisher, Kimberly Wear Managing Editor and James Faulk City Editor. My purpose was to determine what involvement, if any, the Times-Standard newspaper and its managing staff had in promoting, supporting and legitimizing Dave Stancliff and his “As It Stands” column written both in your newspaper and on his Internet blog of the same name. Publishing his column in the Sunday, June 14, 2009, issue of your paper defacto stipulates that what Dave Stancliff said about me and my blog was, in fact, you and your paper’s position simply written by him. Accordingly, his slanderous personal assault, designed to intimidate, destroy and terrorize, was fomented by you. To publicly accuse someone of “spewing hate” is to equate that person with the murderous, hate mongers that run amok in our society terrorizing and murdering innocent people. Identifying me and anyone else associated with the Joe Blow Report by you and your paper as such produces a very real physical threat to us, not only the community at large, but by the authorities. You people took this to a personal extreme when you said this and continue to legitimize Dave Stancliff:
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
I’ve encountered Satanists – The Wren’s Nest who ran my July 20, 2008 column IRS Recognized The Church of Satan as a Religion
and now I’ve strolled into a troll’s cave….
UPDATE JUNE 3rd
Check out The Joe Blow Report blog.
What’s really interesting about “Joe Blow” is that he’s threatening me –
“If he (Dave) honestly thought I, or any of us, were actually paranoid and hostile as he claimed, I doubt he would have the termerity, let alone the courage to say it directly to me.”
What does a coward afraid to use his own name think he’s doing by questioning my courage?
I made the mistake of making a comment on his (their) little hate-filled blog because he (they) devoted a post to attacking my column on trolls. Please read his (their) blog and see what you think. I probably should have realized he (they) are a paranoid lot of losers and just let them be. The thinly veiled threats warning me that I didn’t have a clue who I was talking to is just further proof of the hate that is spewing out from The Joe Blow Report blog.
Dave Stancliff/For the Times-Standard
Posted: 05/31/2009 01:27:12 AM PDT
Don’t feed the trolls.
You know the ones I’m talking about. They prey on news forums, chat rooms, and other online communities. Their purpose: to disrupt any conversation or thread, and to get an emotional response from some unwary person. Ignoring them and not responding to their posts is your best option.
What kind of people are trolls? They’re cowards. Lonely cowards. Their posts seldom show any real imagination and often resort to childish name-calling.
Neither I, Joe Blow nor the Joe Blow Report took Dave Stancliff or any of you at your paper personally to task over the issue of online terrorist “Trolls” and their counterpart “Thought Police” or for whatever you write or do not write. Even at such times that we find your Editorials and other article’s personally repulsive, we maintain our objectivity and remain personally uninvolved. Only the weak-minded, mentally sick and socially immature reacts the way Dave Stancliff has. Stancliff says, among other things, hate “spews” from my blog. Yet, the only evidence of hate is written in his personal foul accusations against us and in his blog statements copied above. He also says we threaten him by noting that he, and all of you for that matter, know who we are. For your information, that point was made to demonstrate the base stupidity of Stancliff’s tirade. Which is consistent with our initial observation regarding the draconian consequences of “simpleminded people.” What does that say about you people and your Times-Standard newspaper? Do you support or repudiate “hate speakers” and demagogues? As long as you publish his “As It Stands” column, the facts speak for themselves. Everyone that familiarizes themselves of this matter knows exactly what you think about me and my Report.
If someone wants to come into my home or on my property and tell me what they think of me and “spew” their worthless, lying opinions, that’s one thing. I can kick them out of my home and off my property and that’s generally the end of it. If they try to come back I can always stop them at the door or lock my gate. However, if they go around to each and everyone one of my neighbors spewing their bile and letting them post defamatory signs about me and my family, that is an altogether different situation. Now, instead of only having one person to deal with, I have potentially all my adjoining neighbors at my door spewing and repeating this person’s hate-filled bile and assaulting me and my family in their behalf. The consequences of that are serious, traumatic, potentially fatal, and for that reason generally illegal. Today, however, there is a witch hunt going on for anyone even vaguely associated with hate-mongering, hate speech, white supremacists, associated groups or just plain “angry white men.” Dave Stancliff stepped over that line and your support justifies his continued intolerable behavior.
The last thing any of us need is for someone in authority to believe there is some truth to his accusations.
Well, we know today what involvement the Times-Standard newspaper and its managing staff had in promoting, supporting and legitimizing Dave Stancliff and his “As It Stands” column written both in their newspaper and on his Internet blog of the same name.
When there was no response to this email and I noticed that Stancliff had written another article on his web, I sent the following email:
Dear Dave Kuta, Kimberly Wear and James Faulk:
On June 16, 2009, I sent you another email about the dangerous ground Dave Stancliff is treading accusing me and everyone he thinks is associated with the Joe Blow Report, among other things, of being radical, “hate-filled,” “extremists.” We intend to determine if you are complicit in enabling him to continue his personal attacks. If I ever needed more proof to substantiate our observations, let me offer you this, his latest shameful exhibition posted on his “As It Stands” blog:
Monday, June 15, 2009
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!
To repeat, if all Dave Stancliff did was demonstrate himself on Internet blogs and personal websites we would consider the source, make the necessary observations and move on. But he doesn’t just write on the Internet, does he? He’s right up there writing just like you, James Faulk, isn’t he, representing the newspaper with his weekly columns? What’s next? You people going to publish one of his “As It Stands” columns about the Joe Blow Report and make these accusations legitimate?
Too bad Mr. Stancliff did not live his own advice and just keep quiet. Instead he proves everything first observed. So, I ask you, what does that say about you people? What does it say about the integrity of the Time-Standard? You continue to publish his columns.
This time I got a response!
Managing Editor, Kimberly Wear’s email reply to the Joe Blow Report:
To whom it may concern,
These issues have nothing to do with the Times-Standard newspaper. This is an issue between you and Mr. Stancliff and your respective blogs. He is not a Times-Standard employee nor do his views neccesarily reflect the views of this newspaper.Best,Kimberly Wear
This was my reply to Kimberly Wear dated 6/17/09:
To Kimberly Wear:
Thank you for responding to my email.
You could say that if you did not publish his column. His column in your newspaper is the same name as his blog – As It Stands. What he says on his blog he says in your newspaper. Your statement, “These issues have nothing to do with the Times-Standard newspaper” is disingenuous when you say,”nor do his views neccesarily reflect the views of this newspaper.” That was my point, his views are your views – “necessarily” or not. He made that a fact when he drug the Times-Standard newspaper into this when he began publicly attacking me personally. Not everyone in this community shares these views. Nor do they wish to be associated with or, in fact, enable such disreputable conduct.
That’s the problem isn’t it Ms. Wear? Saying does not make is so. It’s what you do that speaks to the truth. What Dave Stancliff did is posted on his web for the whole world to see. Remove his word “gang” at the Joe Blow Report and replace it with gay, Mormon, Negro, Mexican, Muslim or Jew and you have indisputable racist, hate speech. More than that, any rational person with a modicum of objectivity without any definition from me, can clearly see are the words of someone that is belligerent, hysterical, sick and unstable.
When you publish a weekly column that I write, equal to his, then you can hide behind your irresponsible behavior.
Joe Blow Report
Her response was to run the “As It Stands” column in the Sunday, June 23, 2009, edition of the Times-Standard newspaper. On Father’s Day they credentialed his, “A Father’s thoughts about closing the gap between centuries and generations.” He closed by saying, “As It Stands, Happy Father’s Day to the rest of you Dads everywhere! Do you think was including me – a paranoid extremist?
He says, “I try to provide them (his three sons) with love, understanding, and the knowledge that they can ask me anything.” Perhaps, they should ask him if he practices what he preaches?
How do you teach love and understanding or provide any type of meaningful knowledge when you are a self-manifest liar and practice hate? The guiding principle here was set down by the teachings of Jesus Christ according to someone that walked with him:
If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.
By the way, Jesus said:
He answered: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'”
Jesus also said:
“I give you a new commandment: that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you should also love one another. By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”
Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.
If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.
Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That’s no offence; it’s a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all
In silence alone we must meditate,
God’s name is prohibited by the state.
We’re allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They’ve outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the ‘unwed daddy,’ our Senior King.
It’s ‘inappropriate’ to teach right from wrong,
We’re taught that such ‘judgments’ do not belong.
We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.
It’s scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school’s a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!
The statement is made by Thadeus Greenson in his Sunday, May 31, 2009 Times-Standard newspaper article: “Photographer to stand trial in homeless case” that “When Officer Marsolan saw him cross the street and move closer to the officers, endangering them, Officer Dickson assisted in taking VonZabern into custody.” How is taking pictures of these police officers constitute the crime of “obstructing an officer”? How does someone with a camera interfere with what the police are doing?
I did some research on photographing the police and found this telling bit of information on Flex Your Rights :: Protect Your Constitutional Rights During Police Encounters that explains our questions:
Videotaping or photographing police in public places is usually legal, so long as you don’t interfere with their activities. Nonetheless, doing so will often get you arrested.
Police don’t like to be watched or documented in any way, so they’ll sometimes bend the rules to stop you. We’ve heard many stories about people who got arrested for taping police, and the charges are usually dropped. If you’re taping or photographing police, make sure you don’t interfere, because “obstruction” is the most likely charge, and you’ll want to be able to defend against it.
Despite the risk of arrest, we don’t discourage the taping and photographing of police. Video evidence is uniquely effective in exposing police misconduct. If you acquire video or photographic evidence that warrants an official investigation, create and secure copies of the evidence, then forward it to local police monitoring groups such as civilian review boards, ACLU, and NAACP chapters. You should also obtain legal representation for yourself in case the police department retaliates against you.
The complete Times-Standard article: