The Joe Blow Report 2

Everything Is About Something Different

Archive for the ‘Journalist’ Category

Who Is Ali Farzat?

leave a comment »

I found this story posted on Cartoon Movement August 26, 2011:  Cartoonist Attacked by Syrian Regime compliments of Mike Flugennock at Sinkers.org.

This is what the scum of the Earth do to try to tell other people that they really are the worthless garbage. Every person on this Earth that believes they are decent, God-fearing, freedom-loving people have a vested interest in what’s done to their fellow men and women.

While the world’s media focus is on Libya and the downfall of Gaddafi, let us not forget that editorial cartoonists elsewhere are struggling for freedom. Well-known Syrian cartoonist Ali Farzat was brutally attacked by masked men, who broke his hands (to stop him drawing) and left him on the road outside Damascus. A stark reminder of the dangers cartoonists can face, but also of how they are feared by oppressors.

The comics blog at the Washington Post has called for cartoonists from all over the globe to draw cartoons in support of Ali Farzat. We hope to see some of these in our newsroom.


All the Christian and Non-Christian do-gooders that are all the time preaching love and forgiveness in their hearts are hardly any consolation to this man, and the lucky ones that were NOT murdered. President Barack Obama and his enablers’ gutless, feckless blather and non-action are no consolation either.

As someone that occasionally feels the wrath for speaking out about the obvious, here’s Mike’s offering:

–Joe

Advertisements

The Truth – MacLeod Cartoon

leave a comment »

Debt Ceiling – the Media Narrative

Want the truth? Well, there it is.

–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

Truth and the Free Press

leave a comment »

Glenn Greenwald has a good article on Salon.com today that needs to be highlighted:

The media’s authoritarianism and WikiLeaks

Also Digby’s latest:

More Journalistic Malpractice In Service Of The Powerful


The news media are not even trying to hide their lies and lying.

–Joe

Written by Joe Blow

December 10, 2010 at 8:18 pm

Authoritarianism’s Pretty Face

leave a comment »

WikiLeak’s enlightening revelations are truly revealing within themselves. Perhaps we can all agree or conclude that absolutely nothing government says is true – everything is a lie. We should, therefore, proceed from that premise and then move on to the truth.

More than that, however, are the raw edges exposed by this light. It seems there’s been a confluence of disparate individuals that’s come together to achieve the same goals. This is what usually happens when there’s a major change taking place, but only obvious to few people. Here’s a good example of a raw edge illustrated by Glenn Greenwald in his latest column:

(5) Speaking of authoritarianism, the loathsome Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) — the National-Security-State-venerating Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee who lives off her defense contractor-husband’s vast wealth — announced that she supports re-writing and expanding the Espionage Act of 1917 to make it easier to prosecute WikiLeaks and those like them; asalways, Feinstein abuses her role as Chair of the “oversight” Committee not to scrutinize and limit the abuses of the intelligence community but to protect them at all costs, as that’s where her source of wealth and power lie.  She was responding to yesterday’s announcement that Joe Lieberman — joined by GOP Senators Scott Brown and John Ensign — introduced a bill intended to make it easier to prosecute Assange.  Exactly as Dowd says, when it comes to authoritarian punishments for those who dare to expose what the U.S. Government does, the mindset is entirely bipartisan.

Glenn updates this column with: The lawless Wild West attacks WikiLeaks – It should be “attacks America.”

A review of Glenn’s recent articles lays out in fairly stark and graphic terms what’s happened to America and what it is doing to the world as a consequence. Everyone seems only to be concerned about how the WikiLeaks revelations affects America. The problem is how the rest of the world see America after the facts and what they are going to do about it. Glenn says:

All the oppressive, lawless policies of the last decade — lawless detention, Guantanamo, disappearing people to CIA black sites, rendition, the torture regime, denial of habeas corpus, drones, assassinations, private mercenary forces, etc. — were designed, first and foremost, to instill exactly this fear, to deter any challenge.   Many of these policies continue, and that climate of fear thus endures (see this comment from today as but one of many examples).  As the treatment just thus far of WikiLeaks and Assange demonstrates, that reaction — though paralyzing and counter-productive — is not irrational.  And one thing is for sure:  there is nothing the U.S. Government could do — no matter how lawless or heinous — which (with rare exception) would provoke the objections of the American establishment media.

UPDATE II:  Those wishing to donate to WikiLeaks can still do so here, via Options 2 (online credit card) or 3 (wire to bank in Iceland).

Latest Update: Dan Gilmore writes (click the title link for the article):

Defend WikiLeaks or lose free speech

Journalists should wake up and realize that the attacks on the whistle-blower are attacks on them, too

–Joe

On The Docket

leave a comment »

police_officer_cartoonThe Humboldt Herald Blog posted the following June 29, 2009: “Eureka Police blog spawns lawsuit.” According to the article, “The lawsuit alleges libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress” and “at the center of the controversy is a blog” that, according to the Herald, “largely contained petty, personal gripes” and that the suit “alleges the blog contained false statements.”

Why is this important to the Joe Blow Report? Take a look at the very first person to make a comment. The name is DAVE. Click that link and you go to the local Web blog, ‘As It Stands’ by Dave Stancliff. Look around that blog and you come to these two articles he posted about me: 1)  Trolls Exposed: what kind of troll is disrupting your online community? and 2)  Joe Blow (conspiracy) Report staff bawl like babies!

Read what he says about me and my Report and it is about as libelous as anyone can get!

The question is, has he and all of his libel caused injury? Obviously, no one is free to say anything they want just because it’s a blog. Yet some people do. More importantly, this matter was taken to the Times-Standard newspaper here in Eureka, because they publish his “As It Stands” column. I wonder if they would continue to do so if Dave Stancliff found himself facing a similar lawsuit.

Ironically, everything that was initially written in our article, “Trolls and The Thought Police” about one of Dave Stancliff’s columns was born out to be true. No less by Dave Stancliff himself. Unfortunately for him, he’ll never know if or when we suffer damage as a consequence of his libel.

By the way, my Report article was NOT about Dave Stancliff; it was not personal. It was about the issues he raise in his newspaper column and the travesty people of his ilk have caused decent law-abiding Americans.

–Joe

Hate Speech – Is There A Law?

leave a comment »

hate speech not freeWhat is “hate speech”? Is it protected by the First Amendment?

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”:

Various institutions in the United States and Europe began developing codes to limit or punish hate speech in the 1990s, on the grounds that such speech amounts to discrimination. Thus, such codes prohibit words or phrases deemed to express, either deliberately or unknowingly, hatred or contempt towards a group of people, based on areas such as their ethnic, cultural, religious or sexual identity, or with reference to physical or mental heath.
It may also in some contexts challenge the rights of individuals based on any or all of the above criteria. In many countries, deliberate use of ‘hate speech’ is a criminal offence prohibited under incitement to hatred legislation. (Emphasis added)

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.

–Joe

%d bloggers like this: