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

Advertisements

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 »

%d bloggers like this: