Archive for the ‘Safety’ Category
It appears Kevin Hoover came by and commented on his comment.
What does this mean?
Your deconstruction is truly majestic. It should go into a blog museum if they ever start one.
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.
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.”
- What is a “sympathetic character”? Daffy Duck is a sympathetic character, too.
- 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.”
- “He is also a large man.” So what? Lots of people are “large.” That doesn’t automatically make them a threat.
- “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.”
- 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.”
- “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?
- “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.”
- “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.
- 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.
- “Daily “SENSE of” WHAT? 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.”
- 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.
- “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.”
- “Inspired”? “Big Al” actually “inspired” these weak-kneed, underpaid people to “sense” or smell some sort of threat to themselves?
- 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.”
- What “shouldn’t be too hard to understand”? That neither I nor the Joe Blow Report are the least bit interested in worthless opinions?
- 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?
- 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:”
- 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.”
- 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.
- “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.
[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.
Kevin Hoover’s complete comment: Read the rest of this entry »
[UPDATE Below] [UPDATE I :: We Can’t Afford War] [UPDATE II]
War on the Little People
When you’ve lost you job because of the Banks, Wall Street, Obama economy fix and you can’t collect any unemployment benefits and end up homeless and hungry look to your friends, relatives and neighbors that are Republican.
Senate Republicans have blocked another effort to extend unemployment benefits to millions of jobless workers. Emergency jobless benefits, which provide up to ninety-nine weeks of income support, expired June 2. More than 1.2 million people have already had their checks cut off, but that total is expected soon to rise to two million people.
This is from FireDogLake:
These Republicans can spend trillions of borrowed dollars on made-up wars, but can’t do anything for the Americans forced to pay for their crass beliefs and looting. [Source]
[UPDATE :: Friday, June 25, 2010]
War on the little people started when? In the process of finding this picture I came across this blog article on Big Dan’s Big Blog posted March 2, 2010, that I think is still appropriate today.
[UPDATE II :: Tuesday, July 20, 2010]
FINALLY! Senate Democrats set to leap hurdle on extending jobless benefits
Democrats are expected to overcome Republican opposition to the package of new aid for unemployed Americans.
The following Editorial, however well intentioned, is really an condemnatory indictment of the Eureka Police Department. The fact that the EPD had to institute the Problem Oriented Policing program speaks for itself. It’s purpose, apparently defined below, was to get the people calling on the police to respond. Apparently the general public “did NOT have a sense of buy-in.” They’d call in and get the run-around. My personal experience was, not only did I get the run-around, their failure to do their job made the matter worse. That would make me a prime candidate for some new empowering police program, right?
“This is effective policing”? If we didn’t have “effective policing” BEFORE, why do we need a new “empowering program” now when all the police need to do is the job they are paid to do?
So, what’s the real message this program is sending? Unless the police get the powers they want, we the people, the one’s that they are here to supposedly protect and serve, divest us of everything, including our tax dollars, until they get their way. You can read how this all works here.
While the POP program in and of itself may be a useful tool and even an asset to the community, it’s very existance, as justified in the following Editorial, definitely “sends” the wrong message.
This is the Sunday, January 17, 2010 Times-Standard Editorial copied here verbatim:
Empowering the people
Posted: 01/17/2010 01:30:15 AM PST
Law enforcement in this and any community works best when residents have a sense of buy-in. If Eurekans feel like their concerns and observations are noted by police, and that action is taken when crimes are committed and reported, then they are much more likely to take umbrage at crimes committed on their doorstep, and report them.
In two recent cases at least, the Eureka Police Department’s Problem Oriented Policing program has yielded investigations and arrests. These were allegedly problem properties that had attracted the attention of neighbors, and their efforts to see these problems addressed led to concrete action on the part of law enforcement officials.
This success only serves to reinforce the program — as more and more residents realize that their calls actually result in action and enforcement, you can bet more and more calls will be made. This is effective policing. [Emphasis mine.]
Neither of the two recent busts led to major arrests. But that is not the point. The program is working quickly to give Eureka residents confidence that its police department is working to address the problems that affect their lives.
At the same time, it’s sending signals to criminals within city limits that their actions will have consequences. Their activity will not be tolerated, and their neighbors, for so long simply passive witnesses to crime that went on all around them, are suddenly empowered. When people are invested, and feel like they can make a difference by policing their own communities, that’s when positive change can really occur.
A good explanation of Problem Oriented Policing — POP — is here.
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:
In the last 100 years there have been several significant non-scientific, non-humanitarian, ultimately evil attempts by certain egocentric groups to control life and death according to the beliefs of these groups, often supported by the government!
“Eugenics was practiced around the world and was promoted by governments, and influential individuals and institutions. Its advocates regarded it as a social philosophy for the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of certain people and traits, and the reduction of reproduction of certain people and traits. Today some regard it as a brutal movement which inflicted massive human rights violations on millions of people. The “interventions” advocated and practiced by eugenicists involved prominently the identification and classification of individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, ‘promiscuous women’, homosexuals and entire “racial” groups–such as the Roma and Jews–as “degenerate” or “unfit”; the segregation or institutionalization of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, their “euthanasia”, and in the worst case of Nazi Germany, their mass extermination. The practices engaged in by eugenicists involving violations of privacy, attacks on reputation, violations of the right to life, to found a family, to discrimination are all today classified as violations of human rights.
The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883, drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, William Keith Kellogg, Winston Churchill, Linus Pauling and Sidney Webb. Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was however Adolf Hitler”
THE ABOVE WAS TAKEN FROM Wikipedia, with some spellings corrected!
TUSKEEGE SYPHILLIS EXPERIMENT
“For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,” their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all.
“The United States government did something that was wrong-deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens. . . . clearly racist.”
-President Clinton’s apology for the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment to the eight remaining survivors, May 16, 1997.
“Scheflin and Opton in The Mind Manipulators state that 100,000 people received lobotomies between 1946-1955, with half of the operations occurring in the U.S.
The lobotomy victim’s “sacrifice” was substantial. Psychiatrists Franz Alexander and Sheldon Selesnick noted that through psychosurgery:
“an area essential to the human being – his personality – is forever destroyed”.
“Psychiatry’s only and entire approach has been the application of force to a human being, whether this force be physical (involuntary commitment, straight jackets, restraints, abuse, torture, brain surgery), electrical (ECT, shock treatments), or biochemical (drugs). The aim is always to alter behavior, forcibly, with no appeal to the person themselves – their mind, thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, goals, intentions, responsibility or desires are ignored and even largely denied by modern psychiatric theories and methods.”
With the assistance of schools psychiatrists and physicians are insisting that a remarkably high percentage of young children be placed on drugs that alter their brain and personality, sometimes for life.
Huge numbers of Americans are bulldozed by arrogant physicians into taking statin drugs, threatened often with tales of doom. I have seen scores of individuals who have developed severe peripheral neuropathy (their physicians refused to admit that it could be due to statins), muscle pain and weakness and memory loss. There are many safe alternatives to controlling cholesterol problems but the overwhelming percentage of physicians criticize and intimidate patients who do not wish to take statins.
Patients with cancer are urged to have chemotherapy and given stern warnings of death without them. Despite this, to take just one example, malignant brain tumors, there is no published evidence that chemotherapy prolongs life. Indeed one overview states that for cancer in general the prolongation of life is an average of 4 months! Hodgkin’s is one of the few exceptions. Radiation does prolong life in many situations..
The reason for this brief overview of Medical Tyranny is a recent case in Minneapolis, that of Daniel Hauser, which has engendered national attention. Physicians have determined that THEY are the complete and final judges and ultimately prosecutors, with the power of the local prosecutor and a judge to force treatment on a 13 year old boy who has Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The mother has taken the boy away and is the subject of a nationwide witch hunt to imprison her and force the boy to have chemotherapy, despite the objections of the parents and the boy. The question is NOT whether the therapy has a high likelihood of success. Medical literature supports their claim of a 90% likelihood of success although there is also at least as good evidence that it is only about 82%–still better than with any other malignancy.
For each of the following factors, the prognosis is reduced by 7%
Age >= 45 years
Stage IV disease
Hemoglobin < 10.5 g/dl
Lymphocyte count < 600/µl or < 8%
Albumin < 4.0 g/dl
White blood count >= 15,000/µl
Of course the boy is male so we can assume that his prognosis is at best 75 to 83%, NOT 90% as claimed by the Medical Tyrranists. Further there are serious COMPLICATIONS of chemotherapy
Death from the treatment—2-3%
Significant other tumors later in life
Significant increase in early cardiovascular disease
What is the true lifelong cure rate? This is no more known than the cure rate with alternatives. The THEY who consider themselves GOD in making the demands for chemotherapy even state that the survival rate without chemotherapy is 5%. I suspect that it is far higher when appropriate alternatives are used. And most of them are safe! For instance:
Intravenous high dose vitamin C-up to 100 grams daily. I have seen tumors the size of an orange disappear within 2 weeks
Vitamin D 3 in adequate doses prevents about 90% of all cancers.
There is good evidence for remission of some cancers with D3 therapy
Colloidal silver may be of benefit, even intravenously
Insulin potentiated chemotherapy. Minute dosages of
chemotherapy work just as well, when potentiated by lowering blood sugar with insulin. Far less dangerous!
Spiritual healing sometimes leads to miraculous healing.
Far beyond the medical statistics is ultimately legality and moral/ethical issues. Parents are responsible for the welfare of their children. Under what Constitutional law is it proper to FORCE treatment against the will of the parents and child? A 12 year old in most religions is considered mature enough to become confirmed. To me and many ethicists and spiritual authorities, forcing treatment is just another example of Medical Tyranny! The current Tyrannists do NOT have the 100% certainty they imply as their right to force therapy!
If you have not yet checked BOUNCE, do it now! And share with all your contacts!
[Posted with permission from Norm Shealy]
When you read this from Ron Paul ask yourself why would local businessmen and women in Humboldt County NOT want the marijuana laws repealed. Here’s a link to Ernie Branscomb’s blog for a good example. He also posted this tongue-in-cheek back Saturday, August 9, 2008: And you thought Marijuana was harmless…
We have recently heard many shocking stories of brutal killings and ruthless violence related to drug cartels warring with Mexican and US officials. It is approaching the fever pitch of a full blown crisis. Unfortunately, the administration is not likely to waste this opportunity to further expand government. Hopefully, we can take a deep breath and look at history for the optimal way to deal with this dangerous situation, which is not unprecedented.
Alcohol prohibition in the 1920’s brought similar violence, gangs, lawlessness, corruption and brutality. The reason for the violence was not that making and selling alcohol was inherently dangerous. The violence came about because of the creation of a brutal black market which also drove profits through the roof. These profits enabled criminals like Al Capone to become incredibly wealthy, and militantly defensive of that wealth. Al Capone saw the repeal of Prohibition as a great threat, and indeed smuggling operations and gangland violence fell apart after repeal. Today, picking up a bottle of wine for dinner is a relatively benign transaction, and beer trucks travel openly and peacefully along their distribution routes.
Similarly today, the best way to fight violent drug cartels would be to pull the rug out from under their profits by bringing these transactions out into the sunlight. People who, unwisely, buy drugs would hardly opt for the back alley criminal dealer as a source, if a coffeehouse-style dispensary was an option. Moreover, a law-abiding dispensary is likely to check ID’s and refuse sale to minors, as bars and ABC stores tend to do very diligently. Think of all the time and resources law enforcement could save if they could instead focus on violent crimes, instead of this impossible nanny-state mandate of saving people from themselves!
If these reasons don’t convince the drug warriors, I would urge them to go back to the Constitution and consider where there is any authority to prohibit private personal choices like this. All of our freedoms – the freedom of religion and assembly, the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to be free from unnecessary government searches and seizures – stem from the precept that you own yourself and are responsible for your own choices. Prohibition laws negate self-ownership and are an absolute affront to the principles of freedom. I disagree vehemently with the recreational use of drugs, but at the same time, if people are only free to make good decisions, they are not truly free. In any case, states should decide for themselves how to handle these issues and the federal government should respect their choices.
My great concern is that instead of dealing deliberatively with the actual problems, Congress will be pressed again to act quickly without much thought or debate. I can’t think of a single problem we haven’t made worse that way. The panic generated by the looming crisis in Mexico should not be redirected into curtailing more rights, especially our second amendment rights, as seems to be in the works. Certainly, more gun laws in response to this violence will only serve to disarm lawful citizens. This is something to watch out for and stand up against. We have escalated the drug war enough to see it only escalates the violence and profits associated with drugs. It is time to try freedom instead.
So what’s wrong with trying Ron Paul’s version of freedom?
Joe had to smile to himself when he read this:
Think of all the time and resources law enforcement could save if they could instead focus on violent crimes, instead of this impossible nanny-state mandate of saving people from themselves!
Sounds like something Joe stood for the last 50 years. Maybe it’s time to throw off the “mandate.” Be responsible and demand accountability while you still can.
But then, no one would make any money off your slavery, would they?