The Joe Blow Report 2

Everything Is About Something Different

Archive for the ‘Dignity’ Category

Rule Of Law Justice

leave a comment »

Osama Bin Laden is Killed. Justice?

How Americans apply the Rule of Law:  Simply make an accusation, then justify that accusation by summary execution. That’s the NEW “legal” proof or evidence necessary to enforce summary judgment, a simple accusation. (Once the bastards are dead, who needs proof?)

I think Allan Nairn said it best this morning on Democracy Now when he said, “‘One Killer Killing Another’: Journalist and Activist Allan Nairn on Obama’s Targeted Killing of Bin Laden” – The issue in plain terms.

Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton said this morning, “[T]hat America will continue “relentlessly pursuing the murderers who target innocent people.” Clinton also said the attacks (on “innocent people”) were “motivated by a violent ideology that holds no value for human life or regard for human dignity.”

Where is the difference in the “heinous ideology” that wantonly kills innocent civilians and that of the United States and its proxy killers? The difference is the untold number murdered every day – the untold thousands the United States killed since instituting and supporting death squads and extra-judicial murders. The doctrine is exactly the same with the same results.

George W. Bush says:  “The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: ‘No matter how long it takes, justice will be done’.” This is the message these Presidents send to the world: Beware American Justice.

What is so amazing is how people like Hillary Clinton are unable to understand or comprehend why and what the young people across the world are fighting for. She says:  “History will record that bin Laden’s death came at time of great movements towards freedom and democracy, at a time when the people across the Middle East and North Africa are rejecting the extremist narrative,” she said. “There is no better rebuke to al Qaida and its heinous ideology.” Who’s “extremist narrative” is she talking about? Is it not that same “extremist narrative” she invokes and supports, having done so for decades, these brutal despots that, on a simple accusation, wantonly torture, indefinitely imprison and murder innocent civilians?
[Source]

–Joe

Shoe On Other Foot

with 3 comments

When I first looked to see what Dave Stancliff had written in his Sunday As It Stands opinion column I thought,
“here he goes again – preaching more lawless, mob rule.” After reading the article I decided not to make any observations – the whole thing was way too trite.

So, what changed my mind? You don’t suppose I could pass up another golden opportunity to excoriate Dave Stancliff, do you?

Actually, no. What griped me is the constant drum-beat for more laws to deprive everyone of what freedom, justice and accountability remains in our corrupt society. “Frivolous lawsuits” are just that, FRIVOLOUS.

When every deck there is, is totally stacked against the average working and retired man and woman in this country, using one Mickey Mouse lawsuit to fill newspaper space railing against “frivolous lawsuits” does everyone a disservice. Rather than denigrate the injured, he would have better served everyone had he spent the time and word dealing with the real cause of the problems: greedy, self-serving and amoral lawyers.

Let’s set the matter right – right up front, I don’t have any use for lawyers. First, its been my experience, that they all believe they are better than everyone else. If for no other reason than they are in a position to victimize the people that are forced to use them. The judges in this country think they are too good to speak to or recognize the “common” man. So they breed this special class of royalty that judges will accept past their Bar. Second, if you don’t have the money to pay their exorbitant fees, despite the fact that they are employed by you, the “fee” payer, they exercise their right to betray you, to the detriment and harm to you, your business and your family’s best interest. Even if you have the money, where “money” is no issue, they still treat you like some sub-human, low-class pile of dog crap.

Since that’s pretty much the bottom line when it comes to lawyers, for me personally today, whenever I have a problem, rather than look to a lawyer to purportedly speak in my behalf, I deal directly and personally. Since the gutless, effeminate paranoid have passed so many laws today restricting speech, the safe possibility to personally resolve ANY matter by simple speech (communicating by letter, email, telephone or personally) – actually talking to one another, I realize this is a rather precarious solution. That’s the way people used to settle their problems. So, what’s happened?

Well, in Mr. Stancliff’s case, the “shoe’s on the other foot.”

It wasn’t too long ago that Dave Stancliff was threatening to take me to court for writing an observation or two about his newspaper column. Despite the fact that he was making all kinds of outlandish accusation, from where I stand, that was about as “frivolous” as it could get. His “threats” were not “frivolous,” but the basis he set forth certainly was.

What have we recently learned about how we are justified in dealing with people that makes threats? What was the justification President Obama gave for going to war with Muammar Gaddafi and Libya? His, Gaddafi’s “threat.”

There’s another lesson learned here and that is when you don’t communicate, and I am not talking about arbitrary ultimatums either, the only other way to resolve issues is WAR. The choice: either talk peacefully or act violently. When people refuse to recognize your legitimate rights to exist same as them and then act on that belief refusing to talk to you, they are at de facto war with you.

The best solution is to work out the problems personally – peacefully – one on one. Whenever you bring in a surrogate to speak for you or act in your behalf, you are ostensibly at war. No one ever wins at war. Yet, it seems, that is a lesson few if any wannabe elitist Americans have learned.

April Fool’s Day today, right?

–Joe

Life Imitates Art – Not so funny now!

leave a comment »

Friday, February 11, 2011

Life Imitates Art

.
I drew this about two weeks ago, and thought it quite funny. Less funny now that it’s what actually happened….

MacLeod Cartoons

–Joe

Written by Joe Blow

February 12, 2011 at 7:59 pm

The Substance of a Twittering Democrat

leave a comment »

The Joe Blow Report came to a towering decision this week, wrote a specific comment to see if the decision was justified – it was, so now we move on. From the beginning of this blog our interests were directed locally. Since our roots are in Southern Humboldt we concentrated on blogs originating there. For example three come to mind, (1)Ernie Branscomb (a punk I went to school with – [my school-time opinion of him] – it hasn’t changed in 50 years), (2) Kym Kemp and (3)Eric Kirk. Kym was conversational and seemed open-minded – turns out she’s not, and the Great Kirk, a Garberville celebrity. Go there, check them out. Each has an interesting and informative website. They also have a rather faithful and diversified list of followers. Each are an absolute authority on all matters relevant to themselves. Think not? Just question them or make a critical comment on something they assert, and they’ll straighten you out in a heartbeat. If they don’t, just be patient some of their adoring fans will. Of course, afterwards if you are lucky, you’ll believe that you just managed to escape a lynching.

Between the three blogs and the select people that regularly made comments on these blogs it was easy to get a pretty good cross-section on the thinking and status quo of the local SoHum community. Each of these three people are unique in their own way. Their writings vary with their ages and experience in life. What they believe and how they approach life is clearly evident. In time I was able to ascertain that all three possessed one equalizing quality: The all believe they are of the elite class of Americans. They’re really only wannabes, but that doesn’t slow them up when it comes to talking down to those that challenge their make-believe status.

Not only are they wannabes, they are not very decent to anyone that’s not a groupie. They all open their blogs to anyone wanting to join in on the conversations they post, but when they don’t want to acknowledge a specifically directed question or comment offered to them, they just look down their respective arrogant elitist noses and ignore you. Doing that in public is simply RUDE. It is also indecent, demeaning and derogatory. What bloggers that do this don’t realize is what they are saying about themselves. It is how they are defined, or define themselves, as wannabe little elite gods. It doesn’t take the other participants long to pickup on what’s going on and join in on the circle-jerk.

All they have to do if they don’t want to talk to someone is simply tell them, “you’re not welcome on this blog.” But then, that would require them to lower themselves to the “sub-human” level, and then they’d be admitting to everyone that, in their heart of hearts, they’re really not “wannabes.” When you accuse someone of being a second class citizen and then treat them like some pariah, you certainly can’t expect that bully to be decent, now can you? So, why would they listen to anything you have say? They won’t and they don’t. The fact is, they try to use what you say against you every time.

When I think of these people I am reminded of the first time I read the Charles Dickens’ novel, The Tale of Two Cities. I think this is what’s happening in America. These wannabe Aristocrats will be worse then the real Power Elites by the time this mess shakes itself all out. By then I don’t think it will matter. They’re already doing a pretty good job. They’ve got their “mock” guillotine working pretty darn good too – you either agree to their unsubstantiated, unproven and unsupported opinions telling you what to believe and think or – off with your head.   Read the rest of this entry »

What Does This Mean? :: No Comment – REALLY!

leave a comment »

It appears Kevin Hoover came by and commented on his comment.

What does this mean?

Joe,

Your deconstruction is truly majestic. It should go into a blog museum if they ever start one.

K

Kevin Hoover

September 3, 2010 at 4:49 pm

I guess that is saying something. Too bad he didn’t take the time to explain himself. It might have helped with his credibility and legitimacy. Considering what’s revealed – probably wasn’t any better defense than offered.

–Joe

What Does This Mean? :: No Comment

with 2 comments

[UPDATE Below]

The Joe Blow Report has a standing policy when confronted with personal, ad hominem vitriolic attacks leveled against the messenger or writer. If they cannot direct their comments to the issues spoken or written about in the published article, we boycott them. We refuse to recognize or personally address these accusers. The enclosed article, “What Does This Mean :: No Comment” is written and published to the general public. It is “about” a statement by Kevin Hoover of the Arcata Eye he left in the “Comment Section” of the post I published on Thursday, August 26, 2010, titled: “What Does This Mean”? At the end of every article is the provision for everyone to leave a comment if they want. Since this blog is by me, the writer Joe Blow, all comments, unless specifically addressed to another commenter, are automatically address to me. It’s what makes the blogging a personal experience. Like any conversation, when you enter someone’s blog and address a comment or observation (even an opinion) directly to the host and they don’t answer you back, you’ve got to recognize their public rudeness for what it is. Specially, if you’ve asked them a direct question. Kevin Hoover did not ask me a direct question.

This post article, “What Does This Mean :: No Comment” is the Report’s observations on some of the issues raised in that comment. It is written and published for the general public and in no way is even a tacit recognition of Kevin Hoover. If I had wanted to recognize him or what he said, I would have left a statement in the relevant comment section. I did not.

Also, for the purposes of clarification and intent, this Report’s observations regarding the citizen’s arrest and picture of “Big Al” Edmunson posted on the Arcata Eye website had absolutely nothing to do with or about any issues with Kevin Hoover. Neither did anyone take issue with his reporting of the incident. Why he felt justified in trying to argue the legitimacy of the police action and his reporting, is clearly defined or explained in his referenced comment to me. If this story was published in the Times-Standard (if it was, I missed it) I would never ever referenced either him or the Arcata Eye. Even so, the story was far more important than whatever recognition or publicity Kevin Hoover might get from me. His complete comment is posted below for reference.

What Does This Mean?

What does this mean? Joe: “Alfred is a sympathetic character in many ways.”

  1. What is a “sympathetic character”? Daffy Duck is a sympathetic character, too.
  2. What are his “many ways”? Is he a destitute, homeless beggar with a couple of sorry-looking dogs?

What does this mean? “He is also a large man with issues who is prone to outbursts of hostility.”

  1. “He is also a large man.” So what? Lots of people are “large.” That doesn’t automatically make them a threat.
  2. “He is also a … man with issues.” What’s being “large” got to do with “issues”? But then, who is it that says he actually has “issues”?  Other people with issues? “Issues” like the fact that he was homeless, was panhandling and has a couple of dogs?

What does this mean? “… [P]rone to outbursts of hostility.”

  1. Does this mean if someone or a group of someones provokes, harasses, or disparages him, cusses him out, calls him dirty names or in anyway makes him or his dogs feel threatened, he’s prone to retaliate by “outbursts” of anger? Or does his “outbursts of hostility” amount to simply printing a sign that says, “F**K A.P.D.”

What does this mean? “You might want to talk to the wage earners at the Chevron mini-mart.”

  1. “Wage earners.” Who are they? God’s gift to the great? WAGE EARNERS as compared to who or what? A worthless begging bum? Or someone that’s just lost their job and is collecting Unemployment Insurance or is on County Aid or Welfare?
  2. “You might want to talk …” Wonder what makes him think I haven’t? Another blatant case of asserting a worthless opinion then using it to make phony conclusions.

What this last statement means to me: First, I think this is the most telling statement Mr. Hoover has ever posted on the Joe Blow Report. Second, this statement, in and of itself as well as in it’s context, identifies Kevin Hoover as a prejudiced, intolerant bigot.

If you have a problem understanding why Mr. Hoover proves himself to be a “prejudiced, intolerant bigot” you need to read and think about this: Modern-day Racism: A Mixture That Calls for Some Clarification. If you can connect the dots, you might even realize why all the violent deaths on the North Coast lately.

What does this mean? “These men and women were extremely uncomfortable in their work lives having to deal with Big Al and his dogs day in and day out, and their gas station pay isn’t high enough to compensate for a daily sense of conflict and danger.”

  1. extremely uncomfortable in their work lives” – I spent a lot of years extremely uncomfortable in my “work life” dealing with intolerant employers and some co-workers that wee nothing more than thug bullies, So what? Grow up.
  2. If “Big Al” and his dogs were affecting these employees to the extent as accused, why didn’t the owner of the business deal with the problem? Perhaps, because it was these same employees that were causing the “sense of conflict and danger” by bothering or harassing “Big Al” and the owner had no standing. A serious issue of safety is easily seen and dealt with or handled accordingly. In other words the police would act on their own authority and simply remove the threat.
  3. “Daily “SENSE ofWHAT? What did the hardworking, underpaid people do? SMELL the “conflict” or some ignominious “danger”? REALLY! This is a joke.

What does this mean? “Whether their fears were real or illusory is something the know-it-all bloggers can pass judgment on endlessly.”

  1. Now these poor hardworking, underpaid people’s “sense of smell” defines their real or imaginary “fears”? How do we get from some abject “sense” that smells like “danger” or “conflict” to an absolute, “fear”? And that “sense” justifies arrest? Sounds more like paranoia than fear.
  2. “Know-it all bloggers.” Is Mr. Hoover talking about himself with his arrogant racist slurs?

What does this mean? “As it happens, Al inspired exactly the same reactions back at nearby businesses during his Northtown era.”

  1. “Inspired”? “Big Al” actually “inspired” these weak-kneed, underpaid people to “sense” or smell some sort of threat to themselves?
  2. How do you threaten someone and inspire them at the same time? What is “Big Al”? Some throwback to the Prophets of Old?

What does this mean? My opinion is that the Nazi brand is bandied about much too frivolously these days. It ought to be reserved for actual Nazis, not deployed against everyday people trying to make a living. Being called a Hitler fan tends to anger some people. That shouldn’t be too hard to understand.”

  1. What “shouldn’t be too hard to understand”? That neither I nor the Joe Blow Report are the least bit interested in worthless opinions?
  2. The Arcata Eye web story begins: “VALLEY WEST – The battle of wits and wills between Valley West businesses and corner signholder Alfred Edmunson reached a turning point last week with the citizen’s arrest of Big Al.” That was my question, “Why would “Big Al” call these poor, hardworking, underpaid, with over-active proboscises “Nazis” unless that is exactly how they are treating him?
  3. Mr. Hoover says calling these provocateurs “Nazis” made these Haustellums “angry.” The truth generally has that affect on such people.

What does this mean? “As to your puzzlement over the law, hopefully this will help:”

  1. What “puzzlement”? I was simply wondering why Kym Kemp had anything to do with Kevin Hoover, is all. Besides, illegal laws were passed to intern Japanese American citizens, among others. So what? If that man has the legal right to stand where he was and do what he was doing, then he has the same right as everyone else to do it in peace and NOT be harassed by the “Valley West businesses.”

Finally, what does this mean? Law: “Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.”

  1. Who defines the offensive words? I asked my wife the other day, “What does sexual harassment mean”? She said, “Whenever I feel threatened.” I asked her if all the women she works with function under the same criteria and she said, “No.” The “feeling” threshold varies with each person. That leaves the implementation of the law strictly in the hands of women with an overactive proboscis. I’ve found in my lifetime that the simple presence of “real men” generally threatens most pseudo or spurious women.
  2. Immediate violent reaction,” you mean like “get upset,” “get sick,” or “get angry”? Who knows? I could walk up to someone, say a new neighbor, stick out my hand and say, “Hi. I’m Joe Blow. Who are you”? And get a violent reaction.

What Does This Mean? – No comment.


An additional note, while researching this matter I came across the following website: “Say Goodbye To The Arcata Eye. If I was to boycott some business, I’d tell that business owner and explain why. These people might try getting out their message on Twitter.

Also a Facebook page of the same name plus, “(Boycott advertisers).” With almost 200 friends listed.

[Picture]


[UPDATE :: Monday, August 30, 2010]

This is what happens when there is no accountability or oversight. Where people are treated as sub-humans just because they “resisted.” The threshold for resistance that justifies this sort of brutality is obscene. The latest on The Reporta is about the, “Martin Cotton Incident Going to Trial” – What happens if there is an award for damages in the millions? Who pays those cost? The police officers responsible, the police department, or the court that whitewashed the whole obscenity trying to protect their own? The people that pay for these costs are ultimately the people that are responsible for a police department, District Attorney, city government and Court system of judges that enables and promotes such corruption. You want this kind of law enforcement? Then pay the price. You can be sure you shall. When you do you can thank apologists like Kevin Hoover.

–Joe

Kevin Hoover’s complete comment:   Read the rest of this entry »

What Does This Mean? – UPDATE

leave a comment »

Pure Harassment! Divine Justice? Or something MORE insidious?

Sometimes your instincts are SPOT-ON. Other times you’re just LUCKY. I’d like to think it is DIVINE JUSTICE. Whatever it is, when it all comes together, IT IS SWEET.

As noted below, I came across this posting on the Arcata Eye website: Big Al Arrested In Valley West and the following caption: “APD Lt. Ryan Peterson said officers stood by as a citizen arrested Edmunson for allegedly disturbing the peace and “using words likely to produce a violent reaction.” [Emphasis added]

Right away that caught my attention. What does it mean “words likely to produce”? What words? What do they mean by “violent reaction”? Words like “Hey good lookin’?” Or “F*** A.P.D.”?

Then there is the “officers stood by as a citizen arrested” … “allegedly disturbing the peace” with “words” they say he used. Come on! Anyone that thinks they’ve got a problem with someone or just plain don’t like their looks can get together with a couple of their friends or neighbors and tell a police officer some cock-n-bull story and the police will go along with a “citizen’s arrest”? Can that only happen in Arcata? I can tell you for a fact, that won’t happen in Eureka with the E.P.D. even when you have credible witnesses and a criminal threat.

What were the Arcata Police going to do? Beat the crap out of him if he resisted? I’d see the day that someone set me up to go along with a “citizen’s arrest.” We still have the right to defend ourselves in this country. I’d make the police do the arresting and then hold the “citizen” responsible for their actions. I’ve got an idea they, the Arcata Police, instigated the “citizen’s arrest” anyway.

Why is any of this important? I watched Democracy Now this morning and learned more about how the law was enforced on a traumatized public in New Orleans, Louisiana after the Katrina disaster. Where the policing authorities from local, state and federal came in prepared for war, building cages for jails or prisons and began arresting mostly innocent people, charging them with bogus, made-up crimes, putting them in prison without any access or rights to a lawyer, phone calls, food or medical attention. They pretentiously called it “doing Katrina time.” I wonder what Alfred Edmunson et al. calls it? Think that could happen here? Like they say, the stage is set.

I was going to use this Update to address some of the more obvious issues in Kevin Hoover’s post on “What Does This Mean” when I decided to write about the issue of marijuana related deaths Kym Kemp raised on her blog article, “More on the Laytonville shooting.” She said, “One person dead in the grows this year from pointing a gun at an officer–I can understand one person foolish enough to do this. But 5? That is harder to grasp.” As do I.

To highlight the issue Kym raised and the wider implications I suggested that she go today’s Democracy Now ( Democracy Now, ) program on what happened in New Orleans five years ago. This sets a good baseline for comparison today. Next, I suggested that she go to today’s Times-Standard front-page article, “Marijuana grow operation shooting leaves one dead, …” and look at the picture of the six Sheriff’s Deputies (also attached here). The caption in the newspaper says: “SWAT team members prepare to depart the Kneeland Airport to a large outdoor marijuana garden on Thursday. …” In the article it says, “…[A] heavily armed SWAT team, dressed in camouflage fatigues and full tactical gear …” Further along the article says, “…[N]early two dozen officers clad in camouflage, wearing bulletproof vests and toting automatic weapons, …” This comment was of interest, “Downy (Undersheriff Mike Downey) said at the time that the team would approach the site with an abundance of caution because it was not clear if any other armed individuals were in the pot grow.”

Next, suggested she read my article, in The Joe Blow Report 2, “What Does This Mean” and also the associated comment by Kevin Hoover of the Arcata Eye that he made about my observations.  A couple of things standout here, at least they do for me. One is, why do we need para-military police with automatic weapons in our society? Who are the people that justify such a threat? By the way, how many of those officers are military war veterans from Iraq or Afghanistan trained as “hunter-killers”?

Second, the policing authorities, the combined integration of all agencies, have put themselves on a war-footing against the general population. They hide behind and try to conceal what they are really doing by such things as their pseudo “war on terror,” “war on drugs” or their ultimate “war on class,” using such things as “public peace” or “offensive” or “provocative words” and hurt “feelings” that are so vague they are open to anyone’s interpretation and abuse. This situation is way beyond becoming a police state. You can already see the class warfare as defined and implemented by the attitude and class distinction as exemplified by Kevin Hoover’s opinionated reporting as defined by his comment, and the subsequent use and enforcement of discriminatory, and probably illegal laws. Its okay for one class of people to insult, abuse, incite and threaten, but just let their victims try to respond in the only way they know how to try to defend themselves and the full weight of the “law” and the police enforcement comes down on their heads.

And then there is the third standout, and that’s the general paranoia associated with an illegitimate war. How would you like to be a deer hunter that just wanders into close proximity with one of these “overly cautious” squads skulking around the woods? As we can see, it doesn’t take long to start building cages and parking people in them without any hope of getting out. It’s all about justifying an illegitimate right to exist.

–Joe

Kevin Hoover’s comment: Read the rest of this entry »

What Does This Mean?

with 3 comments

Pure Harassment! Divine Justice?

I stumbled upon this headline today in a website I never frequent. Actually I was studying “Pingbacks and Trackbacks” when I came across the connection between Kym Kemp in her blog Readheaded Blackbelt to an article by her posted on the Arcata Eye website. I’ve had conversation with Mr. Hoover and I can understand why he’d post this article: Big Al Arrested In Valley West – August 25, 2010. I’ve had conversations with Kym too. Frankly, I’m a bit puzzled at the connection here.

What is a real puzzle is this statement by APD Lt. Ryan Peterson, where he is quoted:

“… [O]fficers stood by as a citizen arrested Edmunson for allegedly disturbing the peace and “using words likely to produce a violent reaction.”

“It was to the point where they felt threatened,” Peterson said. [Emphasis added]

“Felt threatened”? What does it take to “feel threatened”? Or “use words the LIKELY to produce a violent reaction”? Words like the sign the guy is holding? Look like a homeless bum that’s just pissed off the police or a or simply walk up and say “Hi, I’m Joe Blow. Who are you”? What’s it take to “prove” to police officers that someone made you “FEEL threatened? How the HELL do you solve any kind of a problem when you can’t talk to anyone for fear of making them “FEEL threatened” and running the risk of being thrown in jail? The fact is, you can’t.

Why would he call the business people, “Nazis”? You don’t suppose they were provoking and harassing him, do you? Considering the circumstances, the reason for the “citizen’s arrest” is because the police officers knew they couldn’t justify doing the arrest.

These kinds of arrests only empower this kind of reckless, personalized harassment. It never leads to anyone’s best interests or benefit. People, regardless of what you may think or believe about them, have to live. It is as simple as that.

Someone accuses you of doing something you may or may not be guilty of doing, and all of a sudden you are a tried and convicted criminal and will be lucky to not get shot in the process.

Another good example of why the general public can’t get any help from the law is explained in this article on Time:

The Government Can Use GPS to Track Your Moves

By Adam Cohen

If you think the Constitution protects you, your family and your property, you’d better think again:

Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn’t violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn’t tracking your movements.

That is the bizarre — and scary — rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants — with no need for a search warrant.
(See a TIME photo essay on Cannabis Culture.)

It is a dangerous decision — one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell. It is particularly offensive because the judges added insult to injury with some shocking class bias: the little personal privacy that still exists, the court suggested, should belong mainly to the rich. Read the rest of this entry »

Fixation or Obsession?

with one comment

Fixated and Obsessed is defined as:

Medical Dictionary 

c : stereotyped behavior (as in response to frustration)
d : an obsessive or unhealthy preoccupation or attachment 

Dave Stancliff’s most recent comment posted below starts out by saying: 

Do you know what Google Alerts are Joe?
Everytime [sic] you say something about me I get one. Good, bad, or indifferent.
I get numerous Google alerts every day. 

Do you know what “Google Alerts” are? “Google Alerts – Monitor the Web for interesting new content.” 

You set them up right and Google will follow you around the Internet like a crotch-sniffing hound dog on the make.  Continue reading Stancliff’s comment(s) and you’ll begin to see evidence of paranoia showing it ugly head. Remember, this guy writes for and is published in the local Times-Standard newspaper. If questioning the rational for some of his convoluted, opinionated conjecture, on occasion, is a problem for him, maybe he should take up another hobby. Or, does he already have one, stalking me? 

His ad hominem attacks, threats and constant tirade of filthy, unproven accusations constantly made against this writer are designed for only one purpose: obfuscate and confuse the issue so people have a hard time seeing the truth of Dave Stancliff’s legitimacy as an individual in this community and credibility of his “As It Stands” newspaper column. 

Following this commentary is Dave Stancliff’s latest contribution to the Joe Blow Report, apparently written in response to the Report’s, “Living With Dignity.” It’s worth highlighting when you compare it to what he’s had published in the Times-Standard newspaper for last several weeks. In fact, three and a half weeks ago he said the following: “I’ve learned not to get upset at negative feedback and not to pat myself on the back too hard when someone likes what I’ve written.” You’re welcome to draw your own conclusions, but I’d say he’s REAL upset, to the point of obsession, at this writer. That’s what happens when you make assumptions and take what other people say personally. 

This country, including Eureka and Humboldt County are facing some serious problems that are sure to adversely affect us all. Let’s quantify the area a little closer to home by saying, all the area serviced by the Times-Standard newspaper. That’s who publishes Dave Stancliff’s “As It Stands” opinion in every Sunday paper. No one, including this knee-jerk reactionary knows what to do. All anyone suggests is to keep trying to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again – to no avail. They keep voting in (mostly) new faces, but the same old politician – same old failed ideas and solutions based, mostly on unsubstantiated worthless opinions, ideologies and beliefs. Why do they do that? Apparently, because they’ve bought into the lie that they need the Thought Police telling them what to do and how to believe. Then if the masters of lies, deception, propaganda, innuendo, and plain old unadulterated “bullshit” aren’t enough you have the non-thinking believers running interference. 

For instance, the Earth is starting to burn up and all anyone can say is, “What’s the point of talking about “that” and getting all upset? There’s nothing we can do about “that” anyway. Don’t you know it’s all in God’s Hands? Then they go off and carry on like there’s no tomorrow without a care in the world. 

One of the purposes of the Joe Blow Report is to stimulate thinking. We firmly believe that people that live in glass houses one should never throws stones. In other words, hypocrites should keep their mouths shut! Stancliff concluded historical review three and a half weeks ago by saying: “As It Stands, I’m grateful for this opportunity to communicate, and I hope you stop by again next week.” Do you think he was making that offer to everyone, but little ol’ me? 

The definition for “communicate” is: 

1) to impart knowledge of; make known: to communicate information; to communicate one’s happiness.
2) to give to another; impart; transmit: to communicate a disease. 

 Unfortunately, the “communicators” we end up getting are people like Dave Stancliff whose version of what it means to “communicate” is to tell everyone how to think and what to believe. Kind of like President Obama’s presidency; “say one thing and do another” and then wonder why some people are unhappy. Then question their sanity and blame the “unhappy people” for questioning him about his facts. But then, that’s just “politics,” or is it worthless opinionated conjecture? What does that have to do with personal integrity, good reputation, honesty, decency, moral commitment, self-worth or dignity and honor? 

Everyone wants to do what they want, say what they want, think and believe whatever they want irregardless of who or how it hurts everyone around them. But, Lord forbid anyone that questions them on anything they say or do. They bring the wrath of God down on your head. Ask anyone to backup what they say or justify what they are doing and you get the Dave Stancliff’s of this world going at you like a pack of wild animals. Rather than discuss the merits of the subject-motivator or relevant issue in dispute, they take everything personal; an assault on their legitimate standing as a human being with the God-given right to judge everybody and everything. The first thing they do is lie about you. They say, for instance, that you “hate” – actually, “you have only demonstrated hate towards me.” They lie because they produce NO proof or evidence that justifies their accusation. Then they act on that lie and use that act as their proof. This is what makes them “false gods.” – 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4, 9–12. 

First, it’s important to remember, Mr. Stancliff came on this blog and with his very first comments directed personally at me, changed the rules. I was discussing my observations regarding the issues he raised in his newspaper article. In that instance I was NOT talking about him and as it turns out, with damned good reason. He made the issue about himself, about his credibility and legitimacy as a person with some standing in this community, not me. He changed the rules. Now he accuses me of “hypocrisy” and, “call me every name in the book, make malicious accusations, libel me.” Not one time does he show the reader or me what he’s talking about – “malicious accusations,” “libel” etc. Where’s his proof? Not one time in any of his comments this past year has he demonstrated the “malicious accusations” or “libel” or any other of his filthy accusations I’m supposed to be guilty of committing. He not only expects, but demands without any respect or consideration for the reader that you accept or take him at his word that what he accuses is a true and a valid fact. Is that not having “the nerve to appoint” himself “as The All-Knowing One” who, in fact “pontificates”? Now read his Sunday, August 1, 2010: ‘I know I’m right’ syndrome or being stupid and proud of it.  Now tell me if he not defining himself here, over and over again? 

I heard this on the TV the other day, something President Harry Truman supposedly said and I thought it quite appropriate to the Joe Blow Report: “I never gave anybody hell! I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.” 

The truth is Dave Stancliff does not write for the benefit of the reader. If he did, he would NEVER take anything someone says that disagrees with or questions his so-call opinionated “facts.” He writes only for his own personal gratification and self-aggrandizement. Nothing wrong with that. Just don’t enforce the hypocrisy – say one thing and do another. The only one ratted out here is Dave Stancliff. That’s why I continue to let him vent his bile on this website. Nobody put a gun to anyone’s head and forced them to come to my blogs and read what’s here, let alone make some comment. Stancliff’s not the least bit interested in “communicating.” He’s only interested in trying to muddy the waters in the hopes that no one will see the true Dave Stancliff for who and what he, in truth, actually is. It’s tempting to tell you what that “truth” is, but we’ll leave it in Dave Stancliff’s capable hands. He does a better job of that than I ever could and that’s why he’s had comment access on this blog. 

Finally, no one forced Dave Stancliff to come to my blog and say what he said. Nor did we ask him to demonstrate how you first falsely accuse someone, then act on that lie as if was the God’s-gospel truth – only to expose and judge yourself as the liar and the hypocrite. All we’re forced to do is treat him exactly for what he is. He’s had a year or so to change that. It was and is his choice, his responsibility to expose himself or not. 

Fixated and Obsessed? – Not much doubt.
[Picture

–Joe 


 

Dave Stancliff’s comment: Read the rest of this entry »

Living With Dignity

with one comment

[Update :: Thursday, August 12, 2010:  New article posted in response to latest comment: “Fixation or Obsession?]

How can anyone accept the finality of death with dignity if they’ve NEVER lived with dignity? Even more so, what gives such a person the authority to tell other people what it means to either live or die with dignity?

Once again our great North Coast Opinionated Conjecturer lays bare his ‘I know I’m right’ syndrome or being stupid and proud of it’ in his latest Sunday, August 8, 2010, rather convoluted masterpiece “Accepting Death Is Unacceptable To Many Americans.”

Dignity is defined:

1. bearing, conduct, or speech indicative of self-respect or appreciation of the formality or gravity of an occasion or situation.
2. nobility or elevation of character; worthiness: dignity of sentiments.
3. elevated rank, office, station, etc.
4. relative standing; rank.
5. a sign or token of respect: an impertinent question unworthy of the dignity of an answer.                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Such  a person would never come on this blog, assert foul unsubstantiated accusations, and then repeatedly ask a totally unrelated question that was already answered at least twice in his vain efforts to get me to give him standing. Dave Stancliff’s level of character, self-respect and measure of standing is demonstrably revealed in all its glory within the pages of this blog for everyone to see.

Life is far too valuable to be squandered by living the way regressive, self-righteous, arrogant and admittedly stupid dark-age believers would dictate. Death is not my master and neither are these people.
[Source]

–Joe

Written by Joe Blow

August 10, 2010 at 8:01 pm

%d bloggers like this: