Thursday, February 21, 2008
Bruce is back
And I mean back! I noted his return previously, but he seemed to have mellowed. Lately he's taken up the Bari crusade again. Steve Talbot, who produced the documentary Who Bombed Judi Bari?, was in Booneville for a visit (the Redwood Summer people weren't impressed, particularly not Judi). KZYX icon Annie Esposito showed and spoke up.
I could say much more about this. I have all my old notes in boxes in the attic somewhere. But I don't really want to dredge this up again, not even to distract from the Reggae War. But Anderson may very well be one of the great writers who won't be recognized for it until he's dead. Sort of a modern Mencken. Here's hoping Bruce moves on to something fresh, with less obsession.
It's good to see the Pulitzer quote back on the masthead - Newspapers should have no friends. He's always taken that admonition to heart.
The drawing is by Jan Baughman and accompanies this article heralding Bruce Anderson's return to Mendoland.
At one point in her monologue directed at the gentlemanly Talbot, who clearly wanted to shake free of the monopolizing Esposito to allow other people in the audience to ask questions, Esposito turned her cadaverously pale, unnervingly spectral, ghostly gray self towards me and said in that breathy, oddly muffled, underwater burble of hers, "You slander people all the time, right, Bruce?" I must admit that I briefly panicked. Had Dr. Death sent his administrative assistant to prepare me for Final Departure? I grabbed a full glass of beer out of Irv Sutley's startled hands and was gulping it down as the last I'd ever enjoy when Ms. Death mercifully returned her befuddled attentions to Talbot.He's trying to restrain himself. But it's like the scorpion and the frog. And he's still convinced that Mike Sweeney is the bomber. Sweeney has never been amused.I've never been formally introduced to this person and here she is calling me by my first name! Liberties aside, Ms. Esposito, if you'll take out your handy dandy reporter's notebook and listen very carefully here's a second simple distinction a reporter ought to be able to make: Slander is spoken untruth; libel is written untruth. Both are deliberate, conscious lies. Of course most non-ideological, adult-type persons also know that there's a difference between libel and slander and mere error. If errors are not corrected, well, maybe then you can talk libel and slander. Funny thing about it was, while Ms. Esposito was slandering me Saturday night at the Ox she was waving an article written by the late Bari at Talbot as if Talbot hadn't read it, as if he hadn't long ago responded to it, as if both articles hadn't appeared in the AVA, the only media entity on the Northcoast where the case has been fully discussed, complete with the deliberate evasions and libels of me in my own paper by such dogged male simpletons (and Sweeney surrogates) as John McCowen and Nick Wilson. If KZYX were anything like the "free speech radio" it advertises itself as it would have been fully discussed on local air years ago.
I could say much more about this. I have all my old notes in boxes in the attic somewhere. But I don't really want to dredge this up again, not even to distract from the Reggae War. But Anderson may very well be one of the great writers who won't be recognized for it until he's dead. Sort of a modern Mencken. Here's hoping Bruce moves on to something fresh, with less obsession.
It's good to see the Pulitzer quote back on the masthead - Newspapers should have no friends. He's always taken that admonition to heart.
The drawing is by Jan Baughman and accompanies this article heralding Bruce Anderson's return to Mendoland.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I always liked Bruce on the Monday morning show--Kevin Hoover is just a little too milque toast for me, Bruce always had biting commentary, whether you agreed with him or not.
# posted by 
: Fri Feb 22, 07:18:00 AM
: Fri Feb 22, 07:18:00 AM
Bruce Anderson is required reading. Whether you Agree with, or believe him, is another story, but he makes you think.
Bruce is wrong about Sweeney. Earth First operatives bombed Judi Bari. One of the folks she had dinner with the night before planted the bomb in her car. Sound nuts? Judi had been off the reservation for awhile. She was not espousing the party line. She had made a particulary nasty speech about abortion that was insulting to women "Breeders" that rubbed a lot of folks the wrong way and reflected badly on Earth First. The organization had always had a kind of machismo that went back to the monkey wrench days. It was decided that two birds with one stone would be to shut her up and make a martyr out of her. They didn't succeed in killing her but they did muffle her. Cherney was also percieved as a liability but he was not a target. No one knew he would be in the car.
# posted by : Fri Feb 22, 11:18:00 AM
: Fri Feb 22, 11:18:00 AM
11:18 - that's a new angle I guess. Do you have any evidence other than offensive abortion comments made the night before?
The offending speech was made sometime before the bombing. She may have made a similar speech the night before but that one is not the one that set the wheels in motion. I know this sounds crazy and if I had any names I would have turned them in to the authorities. This scenario was told to me by an Earth Firster who was not involved and living in Berkley at the time, he did say that several of the planners were from out of state. It would be ineresting to know if any of the folks she had contact in those last days with were from out of state. Maybe Cherney would know.
# posted by : Fri Feb 22, 12:38:00 PM
: Fri Feb 22, 12:38:00 PM
Darryl should take a polygraph on any knowledge he may have about who the bombers were.
I would have also liked to have seen someone ask the Unibomber about that bombing as it has his m.o. on it, maiming victims, and he did not like E.F! as perhaps unwanted competition for his personal fame. Kill two birds with one stone--E.F. heads and blame on government or timber industry.
I would have also liked to have seen someone ask the Unibomber about that bombing as it has his m.o. on it, maiming victims, and he did not like E.F! as perhaps unwanted competition for his personal fame. Kill two birds with one stone--E.F. heads and blame on government or timber industry.
For cryin' out loud Stephen,
Are you serious? Do you really think that after all this time, that Daryl has had information regarding the bombing that he's been hiding? Probably a silly question given your obvious distain for E.F., and any other zionistic, progressive, or environmentally minded individual or organization. Of course you do. I am remembering now why I pass any post starting with "Stephen said..."
Are you serious? Do you really think that after all this time, that Daryl has had information regarding the bombing that he's been hiding? Probably a silly question given your obvious distain for E.F., and any other zionistic, progressive, or environmentally minded individual or organization. Of course you do. I am remembering now why I pass any post starting with "Stephen said..."
# posted by : Fri Feb 22, 04:22:00 PM
: Fri Feb 22, 04:22:00 PM
Anderson is a pompous blowhard bully who will say or do anything to get attention. Libel and slander are his stock in trade, so Annie Esposito was right, and Anderson was making a weaselly semantic distinction while getting it wrong to boot.
As a lawyer, Eric should have corrected Anderson's faulty definition of both libel and slander. The essence of both is wrongful defamation of character, not deliberate untruth. Negligently publishing or speaking defamatory untruth without making any effort to verify allegations is also libel or slander. Anderson routinely and gleefully publishes unchecked rumors as if they were fact, especially when they involve his pet targets. He admitted as much in a sworn declaration when he was last sued for libel, when he stated that as a small time country editor he didn't have time or staff to check facts before publication.
When Anderson can't beat someone on the facts, he attacks them personally. Look at his nasty and unwarranted physical description of Annie Esposito in the piece quoted by Eric above.
Anderson is a "journalist" only by virtue of the fact that he was able to buy a newspaper. He said he never heard of the Journalist's Code of Ethics published by the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ). Furthermore he takes pride in scoffing at the very idea of such a code.
Anderson is an unprincipled, self-promoting phony. Besides the Pulitzer quote on the AVA heading there's also the slogan: "America's last newspaper." Please! Anderson and his AVA are to journalism what WWF TV wrestling is to genuine sports. Totally phony.
Anderson claims to be a leftist, but he campaigned for years in the AVA to discredit and undercut public support and funding for Judi Bari's lawsuit against the FBI and OPD. He even bragged in the AVA that he had offered advice to the FBI's defense attorney on how to beat the case, and that the attorney visited him in Boonville to discuss it. For a real leftist, that's treason! Fortunately it didn't work, and the jury got it right when it unanimously agreed that the frame-up was a deliberate attempt to charge Judi and Darryl as terrorists so as to discredit them and Earth First! and neutralize their organizing in defense of the redwoods.
As for simodus' claim that EF!ers bombed Judi, that's wild speculation, and completely out of character for EF!, which has never been associated with use of explosives anywhere anytime, and never associated with violence against any person. At least simodus is right that "Bruce is wrong," but for the wrong reason.
The bombing and the frame-up of Judi which immediately followed was demonstrably used by the timber industry PR team in the successful media campaign to defeat Prop. 130 in the Nov. 1990 election. They falsely branded it "The Earth First Initiative" and labeled it "too extreme." The initiative would have put a moratorium on all old-growth logging, ended clearcutting in all its variations, and limited logging volume to sustainable amounts, among other provisions that were anathema to the timber corporations.
Ponder the fact that the 1990 bombing was just 5 years into the Hurwitz/Maxxam liquidation logging plan for Pacific Lumber. How many billions has Charlie sucked out of PL that he would have lost if Prop. 130 passed? Ditto for Harry Merlo and Louisiana Pacific. You want a motive for the bombing? Follow the money!
As a lawyer, Eric should have corrected Anderson's faulty definition of both libel and slander. The essence of both is wrongful defamation of character, not deliberate untruth. Negligently publishing or speaking defamatory untruth without making any effort to verify allegations is also libel or slander. Anderson routinely and gleefully publishes unchecked rumors as if they were fact, especially when they involve his pet targets. He admitted as much in a sworn declaration when he was last sued for libel, when he stated that as a small time country editor he didn't have time or staff to check facts before publication.
When Anderson can't beat someone on the facts, he attacks them personally. Look at his nasty and unwarranted physical description of Annie Esposito in the piece quoted by Eric above.
Anderson is a "journalist" only by virtue of the fact that he was able to buy a newspaper. He said he never heard of the Journalist's Code of Ethics published by the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ). Furthermore he takes pride in scoffing at the very idea of such a code.
Anderson is an unprincipled, self-promoting phony. Besides the Pulitzer quote on the AVA heading there's also the slogan: "America's last newspaper." Please! Anderson and his AVA are to journalism what WWF TV wrestling is to genuine sports. Totally phony.
Anderson claims to be a leftist, but he campaigned for years in the AVA to discredit and undercut public support and funding for Judi Bari's lawsuit against the FBI and OPD. He even bragged in the AVA that he had offered advice to the FBI's defense attorney on how to beat the case, and that the attorney visited him in Boonville to discuss it. For a real leftist, that's treason! Fortunately it didn't work, and the jury got it right when it unanimously agreed that the frame-up was a deliberate attempt to charge Judi and Darryl as terrorists so as to discredit them and Earth First! and neutralize their organizing in defense of the redwoods.
As for simodus' claim that EF!ers bombed Judi, that's wild speculation, and completely out of character for EF!, which has never been associated with use of explosives anywhere anytime, and never associated with violence against any person. At least simodus is right that "Bruce is wrong," but for the wrong reason.
The bombing and the frame-up of Judi which immediately followed was demonstrably used by the timber industry PR team in the successful media campaign to defeat Prop. 130 in the Nov. 1990 election. They falsely branded it "The Earth First Initiative" and labeled it "too extreme." The initiative would have put a moratorium on all old-growth logging, ended clearcutting in all its variations, and limited logging volume to sustainable amounts, among other provisions that were anathema to the timber corporations.
Ponder the fact that the 1990 bombing was just 5 years into the Hurwitz/Maxxam liquidation logging plan for Pacific Lumber. How many billions has Charlie sucked out of PL that he would have lost if Prop. 130 passed? Ditto for Harry Merlo and Louisiana Pacific. You want a motive for the bombing? Follow the money!
# posted by : Fri Feb 22, 04:40:00 PM
: Fri Feb 22, 04:40:00 PM
Negligently publishing or speaking defamatory untruth without making any effort to verify allegations is also libel or slander.
If we're talking about a public figure, the negligence must rise to the level of malice - ie. it must be deliberate, or with a willful disregard for the truth and/or the target's well being. It's a tough threshold, which is why he probably hasn't been sued. Well, that and the fact that he has no insurance or vulnerable assets.
If we're talking about a public figure, the negligence must rise to the level of malice - ie. it must be deliberate, or with a willful disregard for the truth and/or the target's well being. It's a tough threshold, which is why he probably hasn't been sued. Well, that and the fact that he has no insurance or vulnerable assets.
Eric said: "If we're talking about a public figure, the negligence must rise to the level of malice - ie. it must be deliberate, or with a willful disregard for the truth and/or the target's well being."
That describes Anderson to a T. He willfully disregards the truth, and he takes malicious delight in disrupting his target's well being. In fact, he arrogantly flaunts his malicious delight!
That describes Anderson to a T. He willfully disregards the truth, and he takes malicious delight in disrupting his target's well being. In fact, he arrogantly flaunts his malicious delight!
# posted by : Fri Feb 22, 05:41:00 PM
: Fri Feb 22, 05:41:00 PM
All these people need to do is give up a DNA sample. The Lord's Avenger letter sent before Polymerase Chain Reaction technology was available yielded DNA. People could clear themselves by providing a sample otherwise they will be forever suspect.
As for an anonymous poster claiming to have been told something by other anonymous people about who was responsible is silly heresay and completely worthless. Why even bother to post it?
Post a Comment
As for an anonymous poster claiming to have been told something by other anonymous people about who was responsible is silly heresay and completely worthless. Why even bother to post it?
# posted by : Fri Feb 22, 08:37:00 PM
: Fri Feb 22, 08:37:00 PM Links to this post:
<< Home
