Joe Blow Report

Eureka's Good Ol' Boy's Club

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Blow) — Sun, 05 May 2013 16:41:33 PDT

While checking the latest "goings-on" I noticed Eric Kirk's latest addition:

Sohum Parlance II

District Attorney Race…. Again???

3 days ago

Here's what he says:

District Attorney Race…. Again???

May 1, 2013 in Uncategorized | Tags: District Attorney, Paul Gallegos

It seems like we just reelected Paul. Was it three years ago already?

My good friend John is already posting news of a potential new candidate.

Rose is still talking about “how bad it is” – the sky perpetually falling. She’s not quite predicting Paul’s demise at this point, but considering “how bad it is,”his only chance is if nobody wants the position because – it’s all so bad. She’s been writing his political epitaph for years now, and maybe it’ll apply this time. Or the next time. Or the next.

Next is a Bullwinkle cartoon nonsense - must be an inside joke. (If interested see the link above.)

Rose, based upon what you can read in the newspaper, propaganda/bias notwithstanding, has it right. This cronyism legitimizes the corruption in this county. As long as Paul Gallegos is a Democrat District Attorney, he can do no wrong. But then, like most Democrats these days, he says one thing and does the very opposite. Take this for an example: Eureka police sergeant accused of excessive force, making false report arrested; Laird on administrative leave

Murl Harpham and Frank Jager can blow all the smoke they want, they can't fake the facts. Laird is found by a Federal Judge to have participated killing Martin Cotten while in their custody. ("overwhelming evidence presented at trial") Not any criminal trial brought by Paul Gallegos. This guy, Laird wasn't even fired. He was promoted and functioned as a Training Officer. So now you know what Murl Harpham meant when he told Eureka his department was staffed by "tough cops."

This is only one example. The number of people killed by Humboldt County police is replete with unprosecuted excessive force incidents. What is it that Jager says? “He was a bit aggressive in his dealings, but he was a good officer other than that. It appears he went a little too far in this case.” In Jager's mind it's like this guy just crawled out from under a rock! This guy's brutality is a matter of record. I'd say those two guys in Boston "went a little too far" when they killed that cop and exploded those bombs too. Other then that little discretion, their good people.

In my book the people of Humboldt County deserve what they get when they elect and reelect such people. For those of you in need of a lawyer when being prosecuted by the Humboldt County DA, Paul Gallegos, be sure to give Eric Kirk some consideration. I'm sure he'd do you a mighty fine job of representation.

If you believe this is all okay, maybe you should read what Glenn Greewald says here.

In the meantime, I've included the newspaper article in its entirety here.

--Joe

Eureka police sergeant accused of excessive force, making false report arrested; Laird on administrative leave

Kaci Poor and Kimberly Wear/The Times-Standard

Posted: 04/18/2013 02:26:29 AM PDT

Updated: 04/18/2013 02:26:29 AM PDT

A Eureka Police Department sergeant was arrested Wednesday following allegations of excessive force by a fellow officer and accusations he filed a false police report.

Chief Murl Harpham, who announced the arrest of Sgt. Adam Laird at an afternoon press conference, declined to release any information on the exact nature of the incident, other than to say that it occurred one month or more ago.

Harpham said the EPD initiated an investigation after a fellow officer accused Laird of misconduct. EPD officials then notified the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office, which conducted a parallel investigation.

Laird -- who has served as the department's training officer -- is currently on administrative leave until the EPD's internal investigation is complete.

”We will not tolerate misconduct by any of our officers, and firmly believe and stand behind the Police Officer's Code of Ethics, that each of our officers are expected to conduct themselves under that code,” Harpham said.

Laird was one of three EPD officers found by a federal jury to have used excessive force against Martin Frederick Cotton II, 26, during a violent altercation that preceded his death on Aug. 9, 2007.

U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong described grisly witness testimony of the incident in her 41-page ruling that denied the city of Eureka's motion for a new wrongful death trial. Included in the ruling were descriptions of Laird's reported use ofbatons, kicks and knees during the altercation. The jury awarded Cotton's father and daughter more than $4.5 million in damages in 2011.

Laird and another officer were each found personally liable for $30,000 in damages.

”The overwhelming evidence presented at trial demonstrated that the three defendant officers repeatedly inflicted blows to (Cotton's) body ... with their fists, knees, legs and batons as he lay on the ground,” the judge wrote. “As such, plaintiffs' counsel had a substantial evidentiary basis upon which to argue to the jury that officers 'beat' the decedent.”

Shortly after the jury's verdict, Harpham told the Times-Standard that the officers were “wronged,” adding that they are “kind” men, and noted that Laird was promoted to sergeant in 2011.

Eureka Mayor Frank Jager -- who was county coroner at the time of Cotton's death and previously worked as an EPD officer -- and Councilman Mike Newman were both present at Wednesday's press conference. Jager later said EPD notified the city early on in the investigation.

”We have been following it closely since,” he said. “I think EPD has handled this situation well. They got right out on top of it and did a thorough investigation and then handed it over to the district attorney when the time was right.”

Jager said the incident is unfortunate.

”Here is a guy where law enforcement is his entire career,” he said. “He was a bit aggressive in his dealings, but he was a good officer other than that. It appears he went a little too far in this case.”

Jager said he hopes the arrest will not tarnish the police department that was left reeling in 2006 with five officer-involved shooting deaths in a span of 15 months.

”You know, you hear things from time to time about how bad EPD is, but it really is not,” he said. “They have a lot of great officers down there, and I think this really shows that when something like this happens they don't just let it slide. One of their own came forward to report this. I feel bad for the involved officer, but it is a good thing that they are able to recognize when something has gone wrong and deal with it.”

Laird is scheduled to be arraigned May 29. He was released from jail on $50,000 bail.

The allegations

PC 149, Assault under Color of Authority: Every public officer who, under color of authority, without lawful necessity, assaults or beats any person, is punishable by a fine not exceeding $10,000, or by imprisonment in the state prison, or in county jail not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

PC118.1, Peace officers, false report: Every peace officer who files any report with the agency which employs him or her regarding the commission of any crime or any investigation of any crime, if he or she knowingly and intentionally makes any statement regarding any material matter in the report which the officer knows to be false, whether or not the statement is certified or otherwise expressly reported as true, is guilty of filing a false report punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or in the state prison for one, two, or three years.

And Then There Is Joe -- Blow, That Is

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Blow) — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:11:34 PDT

"The more one dissents from political orthodoxies, the more the attacks focus on personality, style and character." So says Glenn Greenwald in his latest article about Noam Chomsky. And people wonder why I blog as "Joe Blow."

It is bad enough that I have had to put up with the likes of some locals such as Ernie Branscomb, Eric Kirk, Hank Sims and not to forget the illustrious newspaper opinionater, Dave Stancliff, but to subject my family to the consequences of their juvenile rancorous invectives was a bit much.

Glenn's "How Noam Chomsky is discussed" expresses my sentiments on this issue to perfection. He begins by saying:

"One very common tactic for enforcing political orthodoxies is to malign the character, "style" and even mental health of those who challenge them. The most extreme version of this was an old Soviet favorite: to declare political dissidents mentally ill and put them in hospitals. In the US, those who take even the tiniest steps outside of political convention are instantly decreed "crazy", as happened to the 2002 anti-war version of Howard Dean and the current iteration of Ron Paul (in most cases,what is actually "crazy" are the political orthodoxies this tactic seeks to shield from challenge).

This method is applied with particular aggression to those who engage in any meaningful dissent against the society's most powerful factions and their institutions. Nixon White House officials sought to steal the files from Daniel Ellsberg's psychoanalyst's office precisely because they knew they could best discredit his disclosures with irrelevant attacks on his psyche. Identically, the New York Times and partisan Obama supporters have led the way in depicting both Bradley Manning and Julian Assangeas mentally unstable outcasts with serious personality deficiencies. The lesson is clear: only someone plagued by mental afflictions would take such extreme steps to subvert the power of the US government.

A subtler version of this technique is to attack the so-called "style" of the critic as a means of impugning, really avoiding, the substance of the critique. Although Paul Krugman is comfortably within mainstream political thought as a loyal Democrat and a New York Times columnist, his relentless attack against the austerity mindset is threatening to many. As a result, he is barraged with endless, substance-free complaints about his "tone": he is too abrasive, he does not treat opponents with respect, he demonizes those who disagree with him, etc. The complaints are usually devoid of specifics to prevent meaningful refutation; one typical example: "[Krugman] often cloaks his claims in professional authority, overstates them, omits arguments that undermine his case, and is a bit of a bully." All of that enables the substance of the critique to be avoided in lieu of alleged personality flaws.

Nobody has been subjected to these vapid discrediting techniques more than Noam Chomsky."

To continue reading the rest of the article, please click this link.

Glenn says in defense of Chomsky, and I offer this paragraph for Eric Kirk's benefit:

"But the strangest attack on Chomsky is the insinuation that he has changed nothing. Aside from the metrics demonstrating that he has more reach and influence than virtually any public intellectual in the world, some of which Edemariam cites, I'd say that there is no living political writer who has more radically changed how more people think in more parts of the world about political issues than he. If you accept the premise (as I do) that the key to political change is to convince people of pervasive injustice and the need to act, then it's virtually laughable to depict him as inconsequential. Washington power-brokers and their media courtiers do not discuss him, and he does not make frequent (or any) appearances on US cable news outlets, but outside of those narrow and insular corridors - meaning around the world - few if any political thinkers are as well-known, influential or admired (to its credit, the Guardian, like some US liberal outlets, does periodically publish Chomsky's essays)."

Glenn concludes by saying and I quote:

"But what is at play here is this destructive dynamic that the more one dissents from political orthodoxies, the more personalized, style-focused and substance-free the attacks become. That's because once someone becomes sufficiently critical of establishment pieties, the goal is not merely to dispute their claims but to silence them. That's accomplished by demonizing the person on personality and style grounds to the point where huge numbers of people decide that nothing they say should even be considered, let alone accepted. It's a sorry and anti-intellectual tactic, to be sure, but a brutally effective one." [Emphasis mine]

In that, to be sure, as an avatar, I should know.

--Joe

An Obama Credo

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Blow) — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:21:00 PST

Leave it to a black religious leader to recognize the truth when he see's it - Specially from someone of his own kind. This is on Democracy Now Headlines this morning.

Desmond Tutu Blasts Idea of Special Court to Review Targeting of U.S. Citizens, Not Others

U.S. lawmakers have also floated the idea of creating a special court to review strikes on U.S. citizens. South African Nobel Peace Prize laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu weighed in on that plan in a letter to The New York Times. He wrote: "Do the United States and its people really want to tell those of us who live in the rest of the world that our lives are not of the same value as yours? That President Obama can sign off on a decision to kill us with less worry about judicial scrutiny than if the target is an American? Would your Supreme Court really want to tell humankind that we, like the slave Dred Scott in the 19th century, are not as human as you are? I cannot believe it."

Finally, after 35 years, someone has the backbone to speak the truth about a certain class of Americans. The fact is, that is exactly what they are saying. That is exactly the way they are acting. It is what America is doing that speaks to the truth. So, lets see what happens when the whole world comes to grips with that reality. Israel might take a lesson, but then they set the precedent.

--Joe

Dave Stancliff''s Expertise

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Blow) — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 09:34:37 PST

#LearnTalk Twitter Chat: “Bias in the Media,” with Dave Stancliff, Febrauary 11, 8PM

By: crystal morgan posted February 8, 2013

It’s time for #LearnTalk again! This week’s moderator is Dave Stancliff. Dave, a retired newspaper editor and publisher with over 20 years experience, has been writing an op ed column, As It Stands for the Eureka, California Times-Standard for the past 5 years. His successful column has also grown to include a blog by the same name. Dave’s area of expertise is political news and analysis. On this #Learntalk, he intends to discuss “Bias in the Media.”

Join the #LearnTalk community to discuss this issue. In the era where the news cycle often trumps the news, it is a critical issue to consider. [ Emphasis Added ]

I had started this article about a week ago, then had to other things of more importance to do. Anyway...

As someone that reads the Times-Standard Sunday edition regularly for the past five years now, and observed Mr. Stancliff's column, I've got to ask how many of his As It Stands opinion columns are about "political news and analysis"? Probably count them on one hand - maybe two. Most of his opinions have been nothing more than spoon-fed, milk-sop pablum. He will, on a rare occasion, take a stand on a subject. But then, I've found, he totally misses the real point of of the issue he's writing about. Mind you, on rare occasions the ability to engage and actually "take a stand."

I know he demonstrated a lot of "expertise" when it came to his "bias" when defining me. Based upon that "experience," I'd have to state he probably has a lot of "expertise" on bias, but not on "political new and analysis." A legitimate truth and a moral standard is always backed up by personal experience. Everything else comes from the mind and is by its very nature lies and worthless opinions.

Anyway, today is Valentine's Day, the program is long past, and I missed it - Darn! Everything changes. So, maybe we can expect some sort of substantive engagement from Dave. One can always hope, but don't ask me why.
[Link] and [Wrapup Link]

--Joe

President Barack Obama and The Oath of Office

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Blow) — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:57:45 PST

On Sunday January 20, 2013, I had the privilege of watching the "Official" swearing in, the making "Legal" the Presidency of one Barack H. Obama. He affirmed or swore this "Oath" before God and witnessed by all humanity - more importantly witnessed and shared with his wife and two daughter. To lend validity to the "Sacredness" of his oath is the fact that he placed one hand, his left hand, on the Sacred Book The Holy Bible. Here are the 37 words of his Oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Please note, what he swears a solemn and sacred oath before and, therefore, empowered by Almighty God to do: "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He does NOT swear to be "The Commander and Chief. Nor does he swear to put the protection of America and Americans FIRST. Neither does he "swear" that his first and only responsibility is to provide "jobs" for all Americans. No! His ONLY physically attested and committed obligation and responsibility as President of these United States is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution."

History has already attested and testified to the facts and the absolute truth whether or not he has fulfilled his sworn, legally obligated duties as President of the United States. History has already determined whether or not his Oath of Office on Sunday, January 20, and again on January 21, 2013, was genuine or a lie. - [Picture Source]

--Joe

2013 - 2000 Years Later

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Blow) — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 12:34:18 PST

Happy New Year!

Will this be a lucky or an unlucky year for you?

--Joe

Abraham Lincoln's Lie

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Blow) — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 10:38:32 PST

This is something everyone should read. If you care for your right to self-determination, that is.

Parting Company

By Walter E. Williams · November 28, 2012

[Picture]

--Joe

The Future of Liberal Power

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Blow) — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 10:50:01 PST

Glenn Greenwald explains in detail what everyone can expect from a newly reelected Barack Obama and his trenchant liberal supporters. What he explains is exactly as I've seen coming for five years. Actually, I expected more of this in his first term. Glenn details how the "fight will proceed" in six detailed steps.

There is one caveat I need to add, that is, once his liberal supporters realize they've been betrayed - sold out- AGAIN, I expect them to simply shutdown and walk away, from him, the Democrats, from government, from everything, everything but family and simple survival. That's when the real battle begins.

Obama and progressives: what will liberals do with their big election victory?

With fights over social security, Medicare, ongoing war, and other key progressive priorities looming, what will they do with their new power?

Glenn Greenwald guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 7 November 2012 10.39 EST

The greatest and most enduring significance of Tuesday night's election results will likely not be the re-election of Barack Obama, but rather what the outcome reflects about the American electorate. It was not merely Democrats, but liberalism, which was triumphant.

To begin with, it is hard to overstate just how crippled America's right-wing is. Although it was masked by their aberrational win in 2010, the GOP has now been not merely defeated, but crushed, in three out of the last four elections: in 2006 (when they lost control of the House and Senate), 2008 (when Obama won easily and Democrats expanded their margins of control), and now 2012. The horrendous political legacy of George Bush and Dick Cheney continues to sink the GOP, and demographic realities – how toxic the American Right is to the very groups that are now becoming America's majority – makes it difficult to envision how this will change any time soon. [Read the rest at the Guardian.]

Meanwhile, new laws to legalize both same-sex marriage and marijuana use were enacted in multiple states with little controversy, an unthinkable result even a few years ago, while Obama's late-term embrace of same-sex marriage seems to have resulted only in political benefit with no political harm. Democrats were sent to the Senate by deeply red states such as Indiana, Missouri and North Dakota, along with genuinely progressive candidates on domestic issues, including Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts and Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin, who became the first openly gay person elected to the Senate. As a cherry on the liberal cake, two of the most loathed right-wing House members – Rep Joe Walsh of Illinois and Allen West of Florida – were removed from office.

So the delirium of liberals this morning is understandable: the night could scarcely have gone better for them. By all rights, they should expect to be a more powerful force in Washington. But what are they going to get from it? Will they wield more political power? Will their political values and agenda command more respect? Unless the disempowering pattern into which they have voluntarily locked themselves changes, the answer to those questions is almost certainly "no".

Consider the very first controversial issue Obama is likely to manage, even before the glow of his victory dims, literally within the next couple of weeks. It is widely expected - including by liberals - that Obama intends (again) to pursue a so-called "Grand Bargain" with the GOP: a deficit- and debt-cutting agreement whereby the GOP agrees to some very modest tax increases on the rich in exchange for substantial cuts to entitlement programs such as social security and Medicare, the crown legislative jewels of American liberalism.

Indeed, Obama already sought in his first term to implement sizable cuts to those programs, but liberals were saved only by GOP recalcitrance to compromise on taxes. In light of their drubbing last night, they are likely to be marginally if not substantially more flexible, which means that such a deal is more possible than ever.

In other words, the political leader in whose triumph liberals are today ecstatically basking is likely to target their most cherished government policies within a matter of weeks, even days. With their newly minted power, will they have any ability, or even will, to stop him? If history is any indication, this is how this "fight" will proceed:

STEP ONE: Liberals will declare that cutting social security and Medicare benefits – including raising the eligibility age or introducing "means-testing" – are absolutely unacceptable, that they will never support any bill that does so no matter what other provisions it contains, that they will wage war on Democrats if they try.

STEP TWO: As the deal gets negotiated and takes shape, progressive pundits in Washington, with Obama officials persuasively whispering in their ear, will begin to argue that the proposed cuts are really not that bad, that they are modest and acceptable, that they are even necessary to save the programs from greater cuts or even dismantlement.

STEP THREE: Many progressives – ones who are not persuaded that these cuts are less than draconian or defensible on the merits – will nonetheless begin to view them with resignation and acquiescence on pragmatic grounds. Obama has no real choice, they will insist, because he must reach a deal with the crazy, evil GOP to save the economy from crippling harm, and the only way he can do so is by agreeing to entitlement cuts. It is a pragmatic necessity, they will insist, and anyone who refuses to support it is being a purist, unreasonably blind to political realities, recklessly willing to blow up Obama's second term before it even begins.

STEP FOUR: The few liberal holdouts, who continue to vehemently oppose any bill that cuts social security and Medicare, will be isolated and marginalized, excluded from the key meetings where these matters are being negotiated, confined to a few MSNBC appearances where they explain their inconsequential opposition.

STEP FIVE: Once a deal is announced, and everyone from Obama to Harry Reid and the DNC are behind it, any progressives still vocally angry about it and insisting on its defeat will be castigated as ideologues and purists, compared to the Tea Party for their refusal to compromise, and scorned (by compliant progressives) as fringe Far Left malcontents.

STEP SIX: Once the deal is enacted with bipartisan support and Obama signs it in a ceremony, standing in front of his new Treasury Secretary, the supreme corporatist Erskine Bowles, where he touts the virtues of bipartisanship and making "tough choices", any progressives still complaining will be told that it is time to move on. Any who do not will be constantly reminded that there is an Extremely Important Election coming – the 2014 midterm – where it will be Absolutely Vital that Democrats hold onto the Senate and that they take over the House. Any progressive, still infuriated by cuts to social security and Medicare, who still refuses to get meekly in line behind the Party will be told that they are jeopardizing the Party's chances for winning that Vital Election and – as a result of their opposition - are helping Mitch McConnell take over control of the Senate and John Boehner retain control of the House.

And so it goes. That is the standard pattern of self-disempowerment used by American liberals to render themselves impotent and powerless in Washington, not just on economic issues but the full panoply of political disputes, from ongoing militarism, military spending and war policies to civil liberties assaults, new cabinet appointments, immigration policy, and virtually everything else likely to arise in the second term.
Indeed, nobody takes STEP ONE in that depressing ritual even a little bit seriously. Nobody believes the declarations of progressives about what is "unacceptable", about what their "red lines" are, about how they will refuse to go along with what they are given if it contains what they declare intolerable. That's because STEPS TWO THROUGH SIX always follow, and until that pattern is broken, STEP ONE will continue to be viewed as a trivial joke.

With last night's results, one can choose to see things two ways: (1) emboldened by their success and the obvious movement of the electorate in their direction, liberals will resolve that this time things will be different, that their willingness to be Good Partisan Soldiers depends upon their core values not being ignored and stomped on, or (2) inebriated with love and gratitude for Obama for having vanquished the evil Republican villains, they will follow their beloved superhero wherever he goes with even more loyalty than before. One does not need to be Nate Silver to be able to use the available historical data to see which of those two courses is the far more likely one.

--Joe

America's Future - No Matter How You Vote

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Blow) — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 09:57:04 PST

Greece faces shutdown amid massive strikes

Public transport and media workers on strike as national parliament prepares to vote on tough new austerity measures. - aljazeera

Greek strike shuts down country ahead of cliffhanger austerity vote

By Ben Brumfield, CNN

updated 12:28 PM EST, Tue November 6, 2012

It may take a bit longer with Barack Obama, but it will get there just the same.

--Joe

Halloween - MacLeod Cartoons

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Blow) — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 10:17:21 PDT

I actually had that at my door last night.
Compliments of MacLeod Cartoons.
[Click picture to enlarge.]

--Joe

The END

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Blow) — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 10:05:27 PDT

After free speech, the death of everything else important to a free society.
Glenn Greenwald follows with:

Obama moves to make the War on Terror permanent
Complete with a newly coined, creepy Orwellian euphemism – 'disposition matrix' – the administration institutionalizes the most extremist powers a government can claim

Here is the first paragraph. I encourage you to read the complete article.

A primary reason for opposing the acquisition of abusive powers and civil liberties erosions is that they virtually always become permanent, vested not only in current leaders one may love and trust but also future officials who seem more menacing and less benign.

Keep reading.

--Joe

The Death Of Free Speech

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Blow) — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:02:44 PDT

Glenn Greenwald touches on a subject close to my heart: Free Speech Versus Community in his Guardian column for Sunday, October 14, 2012. It is reprinted here for the benefit of all would-be consumers.

1) In Sunday's Washington Post, law professor Jonathan Turley has a superb Op-Ed on the gradual death of free speech in the west, and he places the blame squarely where it belongs: on the veneration of "sensitivities" over the free flow of ideas, and relatedly, the adolescent need on the part of many adults to plead with authority figures to shield them from views they find offensive. His essay is well worth reading in full, but here is the crux:

"Free speech is dying in the western world. While most people still enjoy considerable freedom of expression, this right, once a near-absolute, has become less defined and less dependable for those espousing controversial social, political or religious views. The decline of free speech has come not from any single blow but rather from thousands of paper cuts of well-intentioned exceptions designed to maintain social harmony. . . .
"Of course, free speech is often precisely about pissing off other people – challenging social taboos or political values. . . .

"Such efforts focus not on the right to speak but on the possible reaction to speech – a fundamental change in the treatment of free speech in the West. The much-misconstrued statement of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that free speech does not give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theater is now being used to curtail speech that might provoke a violence-prone minority. Our entire society is being treated as a crowded theater, and talking about whole subjects is now akin to shouting 'fire!' . . . .

"The very right that laid the foundation for western civilization is increasingly viewed as a nuisance, if not a threat. Whether speech is deemed inflammatory or hateful or discriminatory or simply false, society is denying speech rights in the name of tolerance, enforcing mutual respect through categorical censorship.

"As in a troubled marriage, the west seems to be falling out of love with free speech. Unable to divorce ourselves from this defining right, we take refuge instead in an awkward and forced silence."

I'm accused with some frequency of focusing my critiques on the US - the reason I do so is set forth here in reasoning I adopt in full - but vibrant free speech protection is a core liberty which the US, though very far from perfect, still safeguards better than most countries.

What has always driven repression of speech are the same universal human traits that are now flourishing as part of this latest effort: the tyrannical thirst for the power to silence ideas one dislikes, the self-regarding belief that one can apply objective principles of decency, "community" and Goodness to decide which modes of expression and which ideas should be barred, authoritarian trust in leaders, and – worst of all – the refusal to understand that endorsing repression of ideas leaves one with no principled grounds to object when one's own ideas end up on the prohibited list.

Throughout history, it has often been the case that today's "hate speech" becomes tomorrow's enlightenment. Today's "incitement" becomes tomorrow's righteous subversion of unjust authority and flawed orthodoxies. Add to all that the ignoble tendency to object to - or even recognize the existence of - repression only when it affects one directly (a dynamic I described here when writing about the inability of many passive, obedient western citizens to acknowledge the repression of their own governments because such citizens are never the ones targeted for repression), and it's clear that the opposition to free expression is grounded in the worst of human attributes.

In sum, it takes a staggering amount of hubris to believe you're in any position to decide which ideas are so objectively and permanently wrong that they should be barred. It takes an equally staggering amount of childishness to want some central authority to protect you from ideas that you find upsetting. And it takes extreme historical ignorance not to realize that endorsing the maintenance of a list of prohibited ideas and then empowering authorities to enforce it will inevitably lead to abusive applications of that power and, sooner or later, will likely result in the suppression of your own ideas as well. [Emphasis added]

I reprinted this article because we find the same disease festering in this community (Humboldt County) among local bloggers and newspapers. Those that are out front always beating their chests about promoting and defending free speech are the first to censure over unknown reasons.
[Picture Source]

--Joe

And The Results - A Cartoon

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Blow) — Sat, 13 Oct 2012 18:07:18 PDT

Click to enlarge.

--Joe

Some Perspective - A Cartoon

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Blow) — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 12:15:26 PDT

Bert and Ernie Speak Out

Click to enlarge

When rampant lies and liars become truth and reality, the world has truly become insane.

--Joe

Debate Results - A Cartoon

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Blow) — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 10:31:33 PDT

Compliments of MacLeod Cartoons.

Click to enlarge.

YEAH!

Update ad on: Latest Romney Mantra (MacLeod Cartoon)

--Joe

Debate Advice - A Cartoon

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Blow) — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 11:03:12 PDT

Compliments of MacLeod Cartoons.

Click to enlarge.

--Joe

How To Commit The Near Perfect Murder

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Blow) — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:38:52 PDT

First pick your target. It doesn't hurt if the person considered is a low-class doper, but that's not necessary. Make sure you have a club or baton, something of your choice. Be sure to bring with you a back-up protector for a partner that's armed with a deadly weapon - a 9mm is a good choice. Now wait until you find this person someplace where there are no witnesses and attack him with the club. Remember, the most important part. Be sure to let that person take the club from you so that he now has a weapon. Now, just shoot him down like a mongrel rabid dog. Simple as that. Well, it doesn't hurt that the Chief of Police and the District Attorney are your friends either.

Oh! I almost forgot, make sure the person is high on dope. When your victim is all doped up, then everything you do is justified and legal. It doesn't hurt to be protected under a “Stand Your Ground” law, but that's not necessary either, since we don't have such a law in California. One additional note, it doesn't matter if you shoot your victim several times in the back either just as long as you make sure he's still holding the club.

If you think this scenario is just fictional fantasy for a ridiculous interpretation for self-defense justifying murder in cold blood, you need to read the following two Times-Standard newspaper articles of Tuesday, September 25, 2012, DA report finds no unlawful conduct in Fortuna shooting – Gallegos calls death 'an avoidable tragedy' and Thursday, September, 27, 2012, DA's report details officer-involved fatal Fortuna shooting – Autopsy: Newmaker had potentially lethal level of meth in his system.

There is a third article printed Monday, September 25, 2012 with the following quote:

A representative for attorney Dale K. Galipo, who is representing Newmaker's (the dead victim) parents, said that the lawsuit would proceed despite the DA's conclusion.

“We anticipated that there would not be any findings of wrongdoing on behalf of the officers,” Eric Valenzuela said. “It is very rare that a District Attorney's Office will file charges unless the incident is caught on video and is super egregious.”

Here the DA, Paul Gallegos renders legal judgment and sells out his represented community for short-term political gain (protect the police at all cost) for long term consequences. He grants the police the defacto right to kill at will forcing the populace to deal with their lawlessness personally.

I wrote about this at the time: Resist AND Die – Why?

And: Self-Defense Is a Bitch

You won't find anything about this back-shooting travesty of justice and law on any local blog.

In my book, Fortuna residents get what they deserve as does the rest of Humboldt County. Just don't piss on their religion.
[Picture Source]

--Joe

Illusion Of Power Behind A Global Movement

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Blow) — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:59:07 PDT

‘Another World Is Happening’ – Occupy Wall Street Anniversary Interview

Interview with David DeGraw (co-founder 99% movement)

Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, interviews David DeGraw about the birth and evolution of Occupy Wall Street on its one year anniversary: "This is about empowering a new generation to be leaders, to be engaged.... We have millions of people engaged in creating change that were not engaged and creating change a year ago.... Occupy globally is the big bang of humanity's next phase of evolution. It created this wild new ecosystem of mass transformation. Millions of people turned on, let out of the propaganda cage. The first step is that you have to open the prison door so people can come flying out and realize that we can change things. You say another world is possible. Now, another world is happening."

Click the link to listen to the interview. Or click the picture below.

Additional links:
AmpedStatus - Knowledge Is Power
The TYT Network
The Young Turks on Youtube

Young people are learning that if the older generation or even their peers refuse to listen to them, then it's time to simply move on. If no one is willing to hear what you have to say, stop cooperating with them. Stop treating them as if they are the important ones - the only ones that matter. They are only as long as you make them or empower them. They are only bankrupt parasites.

--Joe

Security State Tightens the Noose Again

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Blow) — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 12:13:05 PDT

Bill toughens vaccine opt out option - Proposed law could make obtaining immunization exemptions harder for parents

Headline in the Thursday, September 13, 2012, newspaper.

VACCINATIONS: 'Most vaccines are not 100 percent effective'.

Vaccination are supposed to immunize a child entering kindergarten from communicable diseases. That means the child is protected from the diseases that might come from some child that did not get vaccinated. Does that make sense? You would think so.

So, how do you justify this statement by Susan Buckley, Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services' Public Health Director:

"Exemptions contribute to low vaccination rates, which put all students at risk." [Emphasis added]

That would mean getting vaccinated is a waste of time and money if you're still "at risk."

Melinda Whareton, deputy director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control make the most inane and asinine argument for why EVERYONE must be vaccinated:

"Most vaccines are not 100 percent effective. People can still become infected, even if they have been vaccinated, if they are around someone who is not immunized and has the disease."

That's a clear cut argument for NOT getting vaccinated if I ever heard one.

This is the typical moronic thinking that a "father knows best" form of government uses to brainwash people into submission. Vaccinations typically make you a little sick, so as to build your resistance to getting really sick. Nothing like filling your body full of crap that makes you sick so that you don't make someone else sick. When I was in school they used to tell us that a hitch in the Army would make us men. That is if you didn't get killed in the process. And a lot of us did too.

Yeah! Good thing for the "herd." Good thing for parents alright. What's next, artificial insemination?
[Source]

--Joe

Glorious Benefits of Marijuana

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Blow) — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:00:01 PDT

Something to think about the next time you try to defend a pot grower:

Study: Marijuana Use Doubles Risk of Testicular Cancer

Since the local culture loves research studies to justify their habits this one should stir the pot:

IMPLICATIONS: TGCT is largely treatable, but treatment usually involves have the afflicted testis removed.

If it's all the same, I'll stick to beer – too.

--Joe

Twice Screwed

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Blow) — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:17:12 PDT

When I read “'Shaded' parcel owners, staff meet” in today's Times-Standard, once again I had confirmation as to why the wife and I were not going to invest in rural Humboldt County property. Another good reason is the California Fire Tax, but that's another article. Here is a classic situation where the innocent victim is made to pay for the crimes of another. These people, through no fault of their own, having over a period of years in most cases possess a large investment in time, health and treasure are, well after-the-fact, faced with the state's legal threat putting it all in jeopardy. Rather than try to protect these people's investments, they try to force them to do what the County Planning Department failed to do over an extended period of time. And then, on top of that, make them pay for it. You know what they are trying to do is wrong when they do everything behind closed doors. This is a classic shake-down – legal extortion.

It was when I read this portion of the article that I remembered back to the untold number of times over the years that I heard the same kind of talk from a lawyer that I had just paid a small fortune to represent my best interests:

“Local attorney Eric Kirk is representing about one-third of the Seely Creek property owners. He said the next step for many of his clients is to file for a conditional certificate of compliance with the county. The certificate would outline the improvements required to make each plot legal, such as bringing sewer systems up to code.

Kirk said the certificate could cost his clients anywhere from $300 to $1,700, depending on whether new parcel maps or surveyors have to be utilized. In the meantime, he said his clients will be looking for documentation, such as building permits, titles and deeds to prove their lots are legal.

Kirk said it appears the county wants to resolve the parcel problem in a way that is as painless as possible.

”I'm getting that once they have the conditional certificate of compliance, they've done their due diligence in the state,” he said.”

Does that sound anything like this property owner?

Seely Creek property owner Georje Holper said she's frustrated with how the county is handling the issue.

”To put the burden on us is not right,” Holper said.

As a group, the property owners said it's the county's responsibility to determine the legality of the parcels -- especially since they didn't know the parcels were illegal when they were purchased. They said the county doesn't have any records of when the parcels were shaded or by whom, so the burden of proof is on the county.

Compare what Eric Kirk says to this:

Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights Chairman Lee Ulansey said he knows for a fact that some of the properties were shaded by people who simply took a pencil to the antiquated maps. He said the maps aren't kept under lock and key, so access to the records isn't monitored.

Ulansey said the county has gone about the shaded parcel issue the wrong way, pushing Hum CPR -- a private property rights organization -- to file a lawsuit against the county in April. He said the county needed to do more research on each parcel before simply declaring them all illegal.

”They need to get to that solution before they disrupt people's lives,” Ulansey said. [Emphasis added]

So, with a stroke of a pen, all these people own "illegal" property. And Eric Kirk says the best thing for all of these people is to "file for a conditional certificate of compliance with the county." In other words, these inadvertent "illegal" property owners need to take personal legal responsibility for purchasing and owning their "illegal property". That way the County can walk away free and clear. Never a thought about making the County be accountable for their negligent irresponsible acts. Just make the people with everything to lose, pay and pay.

"Painless as possible" - Yeah! Right. TWICE SCREWED.
[Source]

--Joe

Your Life Is An Open Book

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Blow) — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:02:49 PDT

That's right, folks. Come to Eureka or Arcata with an outstanding warrant for an unpaid parking ticket you forgot all about and you can promptly go to jail. That's the prospect outlined in Tuesday, August 21, 2012 Times-Standard's latest: "License plate scanners expected to help Arcata, Eureka police."

Next we'll be reading where these police departments are fly drones taking pictures and scanning homes and property to augment their battery of cameras plastered all over the city. They claim they don't have the money necessary to adequately enforce traffic laws, but they can buy these kinds of tinkertoys.

The newspaper sub-title says: "Privacy concerns cited by critics of the technology." I'd say it's NOT just the "critics," that have a reason to be concerned. Reading the article, once again we see parsing words and splitting hairs to justify a legal rational to do whatever they want, then come along after-the-fact and tell everyone what they are doing. We're probably lucky we get that much notice.
[Source]

--Joe

The Bassler Obscenity Roles On

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Blow) — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:04:24 PDT

How the gunning down of a man simply on the accusations of another is "justified" defies all logic, reason and LAW. The Time-Standard's Thursday, August 16, 2012 headline says: "Bassler shooting justified, DA says. Report details months leading up to Bassler's death." What months of "details" leading up to a couple cowards killing a man from ambush has to do with "justifying" his murder is beyond credulity. Yet, this is the propaganda Grant Scott-Goforth wants everyone to swallow.

Crimes of murder committed "beyond a reasonable doubt" are decided by jury of one's peers, accepted and legally established by a sitting Judge, NOT some cop. But then, President Barack Obama assumes such unconstitutional authority, why not some Sheriff?

Aaron Bassler may well be guilty of some of these accused crimes, but then, we'll never know because the gutless police never bothered to arrest him and present their evidence in a court of LAW. No self-respecting community can honestly stand for this kind of defacto lawlessness. Is everyone so stupid that they don't realize that if the police get away establishing their right to gun down "anyone" at will they can do it to you too? Has Ronald Reagan's Latin American death squads finally reach the North Coast of California?

[UPDATE :: Monday, August 20, 2012]

Terrorism is Terrorism

"We whitewash history when we ignore the fact that states sometimes engage in terror, too."
[Picture Source]

--Joe

As It Stands, It's About Time

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Blow) — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:39:00 PDT

[UPDATE Below] [UPDATE II]

Finally, something worth your time to read that doesn't insult your intelligence!

Good job Dave.

It is my personal belief that when someone such as newspaper Editors, and other people given space such as Dave Stancliff, and apparently the new opinionator The Reverend Eric Duff are obligated to use that space for words of truth, honesty and value. In other words, write about subject matter that's important and substantive to the local reader. I had almost given up on Dave Stancliff when I noticed the face and name of The Reverend Eric Duff's From Time To Time writings appearing more and more on a regular basis. His latest is, “Fracking's effects to be felt globally.”

I don't know if Reverend Duff's articles had a positive influence on Dave or not, but I finally got my worthwhile article last Sunday, July 29, 2012, titled: Rhetoric and reality follow movie massacre. What he writes about is pertinent and substantive. I honestly believe there just might be some hope for that man yet. One of the biggest problems people have, and my interactions with Dave revealed this issue, is that what people do and what they say, never the twain do meet.

To explain, when I decided to compliment Dave on his progress I began by looking for a current picture that would define the article and came across this picture above at the following link posted June 28, 2012, under: (Hope he doesn't mind reprinting it here.)

AS IT STANDS: An attempt to explain a column that doesn’t really have a category

Good Day Humboldt County!

I was talking newspapers with a guy, while waiting in a long line the other day, when I mentioned that I wrote a column for The Times-Standard. He asked what kind of column did I write?

After hesitating a moment I said, “An opinion column.” But my answer seems incomplete in retrospect, because I didn’t always opine about things. Sometimes I tell stories about people and animals. I’ve also been known to examine physical and mental conditions, along with humorous and satirical takes on life.

As It Stands is a combination of a poor man’s YOU INSERT YOUR FAVORITE SYNDICATED NEWSPAPER COLUMNIST HERE, and now retired, Gary Larson’s, Far Side comic strip. I like to write about odd and weird things whenever possible.

I do enjoy getting up on my bully pulpit to protest corruption wherever I see it. I only take stands on subjects that I strongly believe in. Probably the best thing about my column is I write about anything I want to! With a wide variety of subjects explored, I’m bound to pick up some regular readers, whose comments, by the way, keep me writing.

Longtime readers know that I’m a retired newspaper editor & publisher, and a Vietnam veteran with PTSD that doesn’t get out of the house too often. If it wasn’t for the World Wide Web, I would have lost contact with the outside world a long time ago. This blog, and my column, give me two more reasons to get up in the morning.

As It Stands, there’s so many new things to write about every day, it really helps chase boredom away! (Emphasis added)

While his take on subject matter is dependent upon his definitions of value and substance, my question is does what he write “pass HIS smell test”? In other words does his writings produce the product he says he's making? This is what Dave says to everyone that come to his blog: “WELCOME TO AS IT STANDS. WE ALL HAVE OPPORTUNTIES (sic) IN LIFE TO TAKE NEW PATHS, AND TO EXPLORE NEW IDEAS. THIS BLOG OFFERS THE READER A CHANCE TO WALK DOWN NEW ROADS. I LIVE IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY. JOIN ME EACH DAY TO GO ON A NEW PATH WITH STORIES AND 0PINIONS THAT WILL STIMULATE YOUR MIND.” (Emphasis added)

As someone that Dave contested with for a period of time over the issue of mind stimulation, let see how he does next Sunday. Lets all hope he keeps up the good work and continues with relevant and pertinent thought provoking subject matter.

So, in Dave's words, “NOW, IT'S TIME FOR ME TO WALK ON DOWN THE ROAD...”

[UPDATE :: Friday, August 17, 2012]

Well, I'll be a ring-tailed cat! Our man Dave did it again, TWICE. His first article was about “Democracy in America: Going, going, gone!” and his latest is about, “AB 1536: Texters rejoice, rest fear for theirlives” both commendable.

When I read his comments on “American Democracy” I was reminded how his article was more of an indictment of the propagandized, indolent American Voter. He says the country needs “real leadership, but doesn't see it coming from either side of the aisle.” That's because, while he is right about the need, the problem isn't Democrat or Republican elected politicians, it is the people that do NOT want real leaders. A good example of that is what we've got right here in Eureka with the so-called “Interim” Chief of Police, Murl Harpham. We find out today that the people of Eureka made sure they kept and protected that 78 year old reprobate in office, putting aside the hiring of a new Chief of Police like they made everyone think they were doing, to make him a full fledged Chief so he can finish and establish his legacy in grand style. (See, "Eureka drops police chief hiring process; 'interim' to be dropped from Chief Harpham's title as city looks to fill post next year." Yeah! With a fine Murl Harpham protege. A sad day on Humboldt Bay.

People get the Democracy they want, even when their voting for two Monarchies and their representative Kings they dutifully call President.

[UPDATE :: Monday, August 20, 2012]

Short-Lived

I guess the past three weeks must of over-taxed our resplendent Opinionator's little gray cells. Sunday, August 19, 2012, waste-of-space “Contemporary art – it's not for everyone” pushes the limit when there are serious local issues that need to be aired out like Friday's headline reporting the latest coup by the Eureka One Percenters: “Eureka drops police chief hiring process – 'Interim' to be dropped from Chief Harpham's title as city looks to fill post nest year.” The push for a Harpham protégé rolls on.

But, alas! Such serious, pertinent and relevantly LOCAL issues are NOT a topic for discussion in the As It Stands world. Dave candidly talks about the need for leaders and leadership. Well Dave, here's your golden opportunity. Why don't you make the most of it?

--Joe

Communist Censorship and McCarthyism

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Blow) — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:05:12 PDT

[UPDATE Below] [UPDATE II :: Natural consequence: "Why don't American oligarchs fear the consequences of their corruption, and how can that be changed?"]

Totalitarians thrive in the dark. They operate in the dark realms of the voodoo believers. Force people to operate on superstitions, mythological traditions, or secular religious cults in one form or another, call them political parties or organizations and you easily control the general population. That is, as long as the "common man and woman" believes they have some relevant say in matters.

So the priority is to keep people in ignorance if they can't keep information silenced. In the computer and Internet age where there is widespread travel, movies and television this has become rather difficult. In America, specially after World War Two, college and university education came to the low-class masses in America – predominantly the men. It then became their goal to see their children go to college and upgrade their status in society. Problem was, the education their children were getting, to a large extent, contradicted their propagandistic brainwashed beliefs the war had forced upon them, so what to do. Information of any kind doesn't benefit anyone if they can't think. That required changing their priority from thinking motivated people to believing motivated people. All they had to do was make their children believe they were worthless individuals unable to think for themselves. Make them believe that whatever they thought or believed, whatever ideas they came up with equal to any adult was worthless nonsense. Fortunately, this sickness that pervades America and the World didn't afflict everyone. You can always tell who these sick McCarthyites are.

The first thing the totalitarian type does is attack dissenters, disbelievers or thinking people personally. Their attacks start out with the usual lying accusations of an emotional issue denigrating the legitimacy of your right or ability to any kind of worthwhile or valid idea, statement, or belief, i.e., “you're angry,” “you're sick,” or in extreme cases, “you're crazy.” In Russia they promptly shipped such people off to Siberia by the millions for “indoctrination” of their sickness – not agreeing. In America, they put you in the nether world of rejected silence, a place of nonexistence – the Siberian equivalent.

America is blessed with an interesting phenomenon, some might even say paradox, in that those championing and defending all American's inherent right to their personal freedoms of expression and religion against such tyrannical Communistic or Socialist censorship are the strongest defenders of it. Senator Joe McCarthy was a good example of this.

“Today the term (McCarthyism) is used more generally in reference to demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character and/or patriotism of political opponents.”

Which we see utilized and enforced on a regular basis in these Internet blogs. What's paradoxical about such McCarthyite defenders of freedom are the very people you'd least expect. President Barck Obama is a good example. Glenn Greenwald speaks to this issue in his article, “Most likely to attack Iran.”

“ *** Obama — by leading progressives and Democrats to support his embrace of Bush/Cheney Terrorism and civil liberties policies — was doing more to entrench those once-controversial policies as bipartisan consensus than Bush and Cheney themselves could ever have dreamt of doing.”

Of recent date, another one of these people has begun or at least tried to incite a similar Joe McCarthy mentality, some might say spirit, into my participation on blogs where he writes and makes comments. It's probably the very last person in Humboldt County you would expect, too. Here's an example of the latest:

An Interesting Moment in the Senate by Eric Kirk

Eric Kirk said 23 hours ago: Again Joe posts his default response to any news about the body politic. Again Joe, we know you think it’s all bullshit, and there are some posters who agree with you. But don’t you get tired of typing the same stuff over and over again?

Seems innocent or innocuous enough of a comment to say that all anyone posts is repetitious bullshit not fit to read. But then, look who is doing to talking. It is in this arrogant, self-righteous attitude that the roots of bigotry, bias, prejudice, and hatred live and feed.

This article is an update to the Good Ol' Boy Club below.

--Joe

[UPDATE :: Tuesday, July 31. 2012]

Mind-numbing “body politic.” Local political junky and rhetorical propaganda enabler shows the way to what Glenn Greenwald explains in his latest article: Extremism normalized. If you want to know the root cause of what Greenwald is exposing, go no further than Eric Kirk's blog, SoHum Parlance II and his posts on the Humboldt Herald blog. Tune into the Comment Section and prepare to become inundated with boredom. It's comparable to those old science classes where everyone was forced to dissect for the umpteenth time those rotten smelling bullfrogs.

[UPDATE II :: Wednesday, August 1, 2012]

No fear. When I communicate with the likes of an Eric Kirk, a practicing lawyer in Humboldt County, the one constant that impressed me was his cavalier approach to the horrendous consequences descending upon the people of this country, including right here where we all live. Glenn Greewald puts it this way in his article: Chris Hayes on elite failure.

I see no evidence that “rich people are very, very afraid” — at least not by their actions. And that, to me, is the problem. That fear — a lot more of it — is necessary. Their ability to rope themselves off from the society they are degrading, combined with the para-militarization of domestic police forces (aggressively displayed in response to the Occupy movement and related protests), and the rapidly increasing domestic powers of surveillance and detention (designed to intimidate the citizenry and thus deter and guard against mass protests), have convinced them, I think, that they need not fear any protest movements or social unrest, that America can and will become more and more of a police state to suppress it. An elite class that is free to operate without limits — whether limits imposed by the rule of law or fear of the responses from those harmed by their behavior — is an elite class that will plunder, degrade, and cheat at will, and act endlessly to fortify its own power.
The problem for these Fearless Fosdicks is that "nothing is ever as it seems" and they're in for a big surprise.