Stay tuned for: Dave Oliveria and the Toot Sweets — Blogging and Censorship in the Inland Northwest

First rough draft — just gathering content. Be patient…..

The intention is to flesh all of this out. The cartoon will get drawn and posted. Further elaboration will continue on the sense of “community” these blog sites claim to create and how they police that sense of community to maintain ideological conformity — the use of word limitations, name calling, banning and other techniques to enforce that conformity. An additional technique to be looked at will be the manipulation of the “community” by the blogmeister and his/her surrogates to churn the water and feed the frenzy prior to elections or other specific events and/or topics. (It is interesting to see that less than a week after the 11/06/07 elections, Huckleberries — aka HBO, Dave Oliveria, and DFO, etc — and other S-R blogs began tightening the screws, re-instating limits on blog lengths, designating “Trolls”, etc. Call it “culling the circle of community”.)

______________________________________________

Cartoon idea:

Bailiff (Doug Clark) has recalcitrant blogger by the scruff of the neck.

Three individuals — Judge, Jury, and Executioner — are seated.

White-wigged Judge Steve Smith begins the proceedings, leaning forward from the bench and shouting: “He’s a troll!”

Jury Dave “Papas Fritas” Oliveria responds snottily: “That’s enough evidence for me.”

Executioner Doug “Red Pen” Floyd rejoices: “Off with his bloomin’ head”.

(Possible variations–Doug Clark as jester rather than bailiff. Or perhaps just make the bailiff the jester. Steve Smith as “ayatollah”. Oliveria as “Napoleon”, with the complex and all.)

In the background, Col. Darel Maxfield, safely ensconced in Camp Besmaya, upon seeing Stacy Cowles burning an American flag which reads “Freedom of Speech”, screams uncontrollably: “And I thought I was over here teaching Iraqis to kill and sodomize each other so that we dont’ have to anymore and to defend the right of Mr. Brookbank, and Mr. Olsen, and Mr. Savage, and Mr. Cheney to say what the constitution allows.”

Finally, dressed as mother hen, VOX student advisor Erin Daniels, distracts the student writers with a quick course in how to write a PhD dissertation in 10 words or less and tells the kids, “Don’t pay any attention to the little man behind the curtain, he is just a troll”.

_____________________________

One man’s troll is another man’s freedom fighter…

What is, after all, the difference between a “troll” (defined in my case as a politically and/or socially undesirable blogger, prone to “speak” at some length and to espouse extremely leftwing idea) and a Spokane police officer blogging anonymously and pretending to be your average citizen as he misleads members of the S-R’s “online community” (as the S-R, Smith, and Oliveria like to call it.)

“Jim” is Spokane Police Sgt. Jim Faddis, who also blogs — for unknown reasons — under the pseudonym of “Kevin”. (Officer Faddis, blogging as “Kevin” and pretending to be a civilian, engaged in this extensive defense of his police department’s conduct in the July 4, 2007 police attack on protesters. http://www.spokesmanreview.com/blogs/opinion/archive/?postID=1490 )

____________________________________

Ego of a blogmeister:

From Huckleberries — About this blog

D.F. (Dave) Oliveria is a recovering flamethrower with conservative tendencies who dominates the center ring of the online circus known as Huckleberries.

And of course the ego-strokers (and man does Huckleberries have a lot of ’em) — samples of Dave’s ego being stroked…. (include quotes from several of the more memorable and innumberable “lamepatas” at HBO)

That’s one of your greatest qualities, Dave. You’re willing to go out on a limb in the face of controversy. That is what makes this blog so interesting … and why I keep coming back.

Posted by Keith Erickson | 27 Oct 7:58 AM

 

***************************

Right-wing Louisiana swamp rat stroking Oliveria’s ego…

…and quoting from some of his right wing screed (I never use such phrases myself except in mocking the language used by the right to malign the left):

 

http://kneedeepintheephemera.blogspot.com/2004_12_01_archive.html

 

I’m tired of them going off on God, Big Macs, SUVs and WMDs.

We Red Staters get offended, too – although we’re too busy earning a living to squawk in a letter to the editor.

I’m offended, for example, by school Christmas concerts that feature songs about penguins, snowflakes and Frosty the Snowman but not a single word about the Christ Child. By “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas.” By Target giving the boot to Salvation Army bell ringers. By downtown merchants in Denver refusing to allow Christ-centered themes and songs in their annual Christmas parade.

_______________________

Raising a new generation of journalists on intolerance, anti-intellectualism, and censorship at the S-R’s VOX —

I recently made a comment — my first ever — at the VOX on a thread regarding the paranoia of citizens of Britain and the US about the Mega-Mosque being built in England. Totally of her own volition the student editor there took a comment I made about race and turned it into a new thread about race, referencing me by name (since I always blog with my full name). As soon as the issue began to agitate these youngsters too much, among other attacks was one that somehow I was an adult hang around in a young people’s club. Talk about paranoia.

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/blogs/vox/archive/?postID=2988#comments

One apoplectic youngster, calling himself Baroudeur, at the VOX blog was exceptionally disturbed by the subject matter of “racism in Spokane” and equally disturbed by what he perceived to be my unwillingness to answer every question asked of me, even as he and his cohorts were simultaneously unwilling to answer my questions. This is common in the blogsphere, in fact, it is a mortal offense in the bully dominated world of the blogs. One could sense this youngster savoring the power of the executioner and censor as he demand that I be tracked across the internet and branded as a “troll”:

(quote) I formally ask that David Brookbank be permanently banned from posting messages on the boards of the Vox, by both screen name and by IP address. Additionally, I ask that all subsequently used or created screen names, email addresses, and IP’s which can be attributed to David Brookbank be also banned from this site. Thank you for your time and consideration, -Alec Jones — Baroudeur

My guess is that Alec “Baroudeur” Jones probably holds the S-R masterblogger Dave Oliveria or editorial page censor Doug Floyd or editor-in-chief Steve Smith as his model for the power that the censor has. Now that the internet has stripped away much of the mystery and brought the wizard out from behind the curtain and into the light of day, the concept of “troll” is a useful one with which to brand different people, including dissidents. One can go to any of the S-R blogs right now (following my having been banned yesterday) and see any number of “blowhards” writing at length (one of the primary charges against me). One can also go to those sites and see any number of true “trolls”. In fact over the last 10 days, S-R editor Steve Smith engaged in various commentaries to his blog readers asking them to be tolerant and not egg on the “trolls”.

In fact, in precisely the same thread on racism from which my banning resulted at the VOX, a VOX student wrote this about a poster who has frequently and routinely disrupted the VOX over months, “Thunderbunny275” :

(quote) Thunderbunny is a troll; I highly doubt that he/she has said anything remotely serious or productive in their entire posting tenure.

Posted by lex | 8 Nov 2:00 PM

(end quote)

Yet when the S-R censors went to work, who got the axe? Not the widely acknowledged ‘troll’, “Thunderbunny”, but rather some innocent soul who, on the public internet site of a newspaper to which he subscribes and has been both a participant and subject for a least 25 years, runs into a discussion and mentions the entirely legitimate topic of race in Spokane and voila! An army of youthful apologists for Spokane came to life. Obviously mentioning racism and then commenting on the 17 fresh white faces on their blog page (not unlike all the white faces on the various bio pages of the S-R overall) ignited some pent up energy in them. In fact, once that thread about racism reached 46 posts and I was banned, the faculty adviser interceded to continue the tread but simultaneously reminded her kids that it is an axiom of journalism to “keep it brief”. Leaving aside for the moment whether or not that is correct (ie, whether or not brevity is the highest of all journalistic virtues) , those 46 posts plus the elevent more after she interceded represented nearly three times more posts than any other VOX threads to date in the month of November 2007 and 10 to 12 times more than most of the VOX threads in general. Of course, after reminding them not to pay any attention to the little man behind the curtain, faculty advisor Erin assured all the little darlings that she still loved them.

Note of interest: During the entire academic year 2007-2008 to date no other VOX thread has had more responses at the VOX than this one on diversity prompted by my comment. Guess what one other VOX thread tied with 57 respons? “Man Says He Spotted Virgin Mary in Lemon Slice”!

Next with 50 responses is “Lesson one, kids, when cops say to do something, do it” about the University of Florida tasering of a student who addressed Senator Kerry for some 45 seconds. It is a thread started by student adviser Erin Daniels in which the known VOX “troll”, ThunderBunny275, gives the first response by referring to “liberal fascists”. ThunderBunny275 then responds repeatedly leading this hapless group of future journalist into the intellectual wilderness, a reality which leads one to ask of faculty adviser Erin Daniels, “Anybody in charge, Erin?” http://www.spokesmanreview.com/blogs/vox/archive/?postID=2057#comments

After those three most popular threads at the VOX comes, “Should we eliminate the SAT?” with 47 responses. (By the way, in answer to the question, given that 7th graders are taking the SAT now and getting 550 each on both parts of it, I would say, “Yes, get rid of it”. )

Let’s look at some of the topics on the VOX blog: Brittney Spears; vomiting pumpkins; butt-cracks; Scooby-Doo; Starbucks; Obama; anorexia; MySpace; Jena, Louisiana, etc…most of which have anywhere from zero to 12 responses. Hard it would seem to get a stir from these students. But if you do manage to get a discussion going, and it is — god forbid — a serious topic such as racism, stomp on it, remind ’em to keep it brief, and eliminate the instigator.

Remember, if you are the editor, you get to censure people and that’s an awful lot of fun, ain’t it now kiddies?

(Note to self– on second draft revisit the VOX Editor in Chief’s truly scary statements elsewhere at the VOX about her perception that most people in the US have decided they are willing to accept limitations on rights and civil liberties. You wonder where she has been as the urgent civic discourse on the constitution, freedoms, and fascism have taken shape in this country over the last 6 years. Be sure to make reference to Martin Niemöller and his poem “They came for the…”. Make reference to them coming for the journalists but not finding any because they were all in the newsroom hiding under their desks, reciting over and over again the correct answer to Bush’s post 911 commandment, “you are either with us or your are against us.”)
——————————

Michelle Malkin, part of the Dave Oliveria mutual ego-stroke society

http://malkin-watch.blogspot.com/2005/11/ghost-blogging-redux.html

http://michellemalkin.com/2006/11/03/specially-autographed-stuck-in-iraki-want-this-on-a-t-shirt/

———————————-

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/tools/story_pf.asp?ID=42762

_______________________

Censorial tendencies of Oliveria and S-R praised by one of the circus clowns.

http://www.autoreviewonline.com/blogs/hbo/archive.asp?postID=19049

Wow,DFO. I think we need that word limit rule this morning.

Posted by Don Sausser | 10 Nov 1:29 PM

 

___________________________

http://f-words.blogspot.com/2006/01/most-idaho-huckleberries-are-sweet.html

_____________________________

Questions about the DFO’s ethics

http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=113327

____________________________

When in doubt or if you are having a slow news day in Idaho, go for the semen coated brownies.

http://michellemalkin.com/2005/03/11/semen-coated-brownies/

______________________________

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/blogs/conversation/archive.asp?postID=18667

_______________________________

http://metrospokane.typepad.com/index/2007/05/thoughts_on_cic.html

 

That would be wonderful for Spokane, but I am sure it won’t happen, just look at our other bicycle events, such as critical mass, which attracts about 10 people, 15 in the nicer months. Most of whom are those teenage anarchist types. The city really needs to get behind bicycling as a viable means of transport. But that will only happen if they start to see that people are willing to use their bikes. So come on down to critical mass, the last friday of each month, between 4:30 and 5 PM, at the new fountain thing in Riverfront Park.

Posted by: William | May 19, 2007 at 11:59 PM

 

It could happen. How cool would that be? I see lots more people riding in the last year. CM is the only indicator of local bike culture. We just need more people committed to riding and organizing. Kudos to the BAB members for trying to shake things up. Next step: Bike/Ped position at City Hall.

Posted by: Jon Snyder | May 22, 2007 at 09:47 AM

 

Whoops. Meant to say “CM isn’t the onnly indicator of local bike culture.”

Posted by: Jon Snyder | May 22, 2007 at 09:54 AM

 

Critical Mass this month attracted quite a few cops. And that doesn’t look good to any of the people in cars or on the sidewalk who see 20 bikers being followed by 3 police crusiers.

Posted by: William | May 31, 2007 at 09:37 PM

—————————————–

Thoughts as a result of the deletion of Mr. Washington’s comments at Hard 7:

…. I would be interested in a thread dealing with the role of a blog “proprietor” in controlling a blog or in deleting posts or policing a blog or even in some situations censoring. I am not characterizing the deletion of Mr. Washington’s comments (which I was deprived of the opportunity to read) as any of the above but just having been simultaneously banned at three S-R blogs and then across all of them, I would like to see a discussion.

I have posted some of my draft thoughts on the matter at my secondary blog http://SpankingTheSpokesman.wordpress.com

Having been a “victim” of banning at three separate S-R blogs recently (and apparently it is not across the board) I am disappointed to see Mr. Washington’s the comment removed. I did not get to see it and therefore feel that a decision was made for me in a more-or-less public forum. I assume that there must have been some quite egregious reason for the deletion of Mr. Washington’s comments.

You may be aware that there is a discussion that has been going on at Dave Oliveria’s blog about word limitations, banning, etc. That is one of the places I was banned though I had only participated over a period of about 10 days. It was interesting to see that as soon as the elections were over, they began clamping cown over there. Dave and others seemed to use that blog prior to the election to put rumor and inuendo forward and then let others chew it over and churn it up. Now that the elections are over, there seems to be a desire to get it back to the sort of coffee clatch “community” as they like to consider themselves.

—————————————–

(Be sure to used cached link to these pages as they are exemplary of the deterioriating quality of S-R editing. Regarding the photo below, Fred Russell, for those who are unaware, was not one of the Spokane 17.)

(The other point has to do with the rules. One of the blogmeister/trollhunter rules is that cross-posting is a no-no. Here DFO cross-posts not only the information from Frank Sennett’s Hard 7, but initiates the discussion.)

(And again, part of what is interesting in this blog thread is that Spokane Police Sgt. Jim Faddis is allowed to blog as “Kevin”, pretending to be a citizen but is never called on it. As the blogmeisters like to say, they can tell from people’s “signature”, ie, their unique writing style who is who. Officer Kevin Jim Faddis also posts as Jim F. and as Jim. And of course, we know from Editor Steve Smith’s threats to prosecute certain individuals who go beyond just controversial blogging to hacking (for ex), the S-R can and does regularly check IP addresses and block people. Why not “Kevin”?

S_http://www.spokesmanreview.com/blogs/opinion/archive/?postID=1490

Question: Did Spokane Police Overdo It?

Dan Pelle/Spokesman-Review

Protesters with their hands bound behind their backs yell and cry out to police after their arrest near the clock tower in Riverfront Park in Spokane Wednesday.

Item: Celebrating, clashing over freedoms/Jonathan Blunt & James Hagengruber, Spokesman-Review

This is a disgraceful way for the police to behave. That it happened on the 4th of July and placed the rights of a corporate event sponsor over those peacefully protesting abuses of police power are no small ironies. Since when did donning a uniform give officers the right to behave like common thugs? “Under the Clocktower in Spokane’s Riverfront Park, 17 people protesting police brutality were arrested about 6:45 p.m. as people gathered in the park for Neighbor Day and the annual firework displays. “Officers charged the group, which included self-proclaimed anarchists and other teens and young adults, after ordering them to disperse. One arrest was after what police say was an assault on an officer. Protesters dispute that” — Frank Sennett/Hard 7.

Full post here; you can also read the discussion about this at Huckleberries Online here.

Question: Did Spokane police overdo it?

Posted by DFO | 5 Jul 2:54 PM

There are 18 comments on this post.

I think both sides were wrong in this. The police for over-reacting (trespassing in a public park?) and the protesters for desecrating the flag. I could see a case for inciting to riot being made, but trespassing?

Also, I have to bring up the fact that when people recording an arrest (which is legal by the way) have their phones returned to them the recordings are gone, but the police are going to take pictures of peaceful protesters? Why? Sounds awful fishy to me.

Is this the Chief’s idea of re-building the public trust? What’s next? Am I going to be arrested because I criticize the police for calling a Pepsi bottle a “deadly weapon” on this blog?

Posted by Casey King | 5 Jul 4:51 PM

If so, will the charges be disturbing the peace?

Posted by Casey King | 5 Jul 4:58 PM

That is a pretty neat trick. Were you there or know somebody who was Marshall? If so, did you or they get video? Thanks for the information.

Posted by Casey King | 6 Jul 1:35 AM

So the Clear Channel folks applied for and received a permit to have their function down at Riverfront Park and along come the protesters, who have no permit and were bothering other people and you want the police to do what? Casey, do you think they are going to rebuild the public trust by standing by and do nothing? Once again, that’s not what they get paid to do. Now, some people will cry they are just toadies for Clear Channel but for crying out loud. If you want to go where it’s peaceful and let the anarchists have their way, move to Eugene, Oregon. Looking at the slide show provided by the S-R I didn’t see one instance of over-reaction by the police. But hey, that’s just me. I suppose to some seeing people in handcuffs is apalling. As far as the officer who was assaulted, is he supposed to just get choked and shrug it off?
Is this what the people want?

Posted by Kevin | 6 Jul 8:00 AM

Greetings,
some interesting links..

http://www.spokanecity.org/services/documents/smc/?Section=10.12.050&Find=10.12.050

http://community.lawyers.com/messageboards/message.asp?channelId=24&subId=&mId=939264&mbId=138&threadId=2282

http://new.aclu-wa.org/detail.cfm?id=614

http://search.isp.netscape.com/nsisp/boomframe.jsp?query=flag+united+states+supreme+court&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3De2cd767e16dae22a%26clickedItemRank%3D3%26userQuery%3Dflag%2Bunited%2Bstates%2Bsupreme%2Bcourt%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.pbs.org%252Fjefferson%252Fenlight%252Fflag.htm%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSISPClient%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbs.org%2Fjefferson%2Fenlight%2Fflag.htm
One of the women who was peacefully demonstrating with the youth was physically assaulted, verbally assaulted (called faggot) and taken to jail without having her rights read to her or being told what the charge was.

The Mayor, and the Police chief will probably end up dealing with the ACLU on this one because of the new anti discrimination laws in this state..

to quote: Pastor Niemoller in Germany in world war II..
In Germany first they came for the communists and I was not a communist, so i did not speak up… google Niemoller to get the full text.. but you may be white anglo saxon protestant but they will come to get you too. John Olsen

Posted by John August Olsen | 6 Jul 11:24 AM

Thanks again for the info Marshall.

Posted by Casey King | 6 Jul 3:52 PM

Kevin,

I didn’t suggest the police do nothing, I suggest that they over-reacted considering the charges that were issued, re; trespassing. I suggest that in light of the number of dead bodies piling up at the feet of local law enforcement, they should have acted with more restraint. Further, they had time to go get cameras. Why not get a camcorder to document their side of this confrontation and remove all doubt as to what did or did not occur, and thus reassure the community that the SPD is responding to the justifiable concerns of the public.

Regarding, “If you want to go where it’s peaceful and let the anarchists have their way, move to Eugene, Oregon.” ~ No thanks Kevin, I was born here.

Regarding not seeing any cases of over-reaction, consider what the protesters were speaking out against. Also, consider the date and what that date represents in this nation. For your further consideration, I offer the following from the article on the events in question;

* “Officers charged the group, which included self-proclaimed anarchists and other teens and young adults, after ordering them to disperse.” ~ Was there such an urgent need that the police had to charge the group?

* “While some in the group began to picnic, sitting on a large American flag, a few others held signs and distributed fliers. Some asked police, who were beginning to congregate around them, if they wanted a copy of their literature on police brutality. Officers declined.” ~ The officers couldn’t have politely explained to the individuals offering the fliers that since they didn’t have a permit, they would have to leave at that time?

* “Police soon began to assemble around the group, and a couple with cameras photographed those in the crowd, who responded by chanting, “We are not afraid.” One officer began walking within a few inches of some protesters to take their pictures.” ~ Why behave in such a provocative manner? This behavior doesn’t sound as though it was intended to de-escalate the situation. To the contrary, it sounds designed to provoke and give the officers an excuse to respond with force. The photo taking sounds designed to intimidate.

* “A scuffle began, and a protester was taken to the ground and arrested. Police allege the male pushed and tried to choke the officer. Protesters said the officer shoved the man to the ground without provocation.” ~ Was this the same officer who was walking within inches of protesters? Is it not possible that the protester may have inadvertently brushed against the officer who was intentionally walking within inches of him (something no officer in the world would ever tolerate themselves), and then acted defensively when the officer slammed him to the ground for brushing against him? Additionally, when investigating assault charges, it is routine procedure to photograph any marks left on the victim at the time to preserve the physical evidence. I would be very curious to see the photographic evidence of this vicious attack on the officer’s life.

* “More officers gathered, and one read an order telling the protesters to disperse. Moments later, police charged the group, ripping down their sign and pushing protesters to the ground.” ~ Moments later. Not minutes, moments. Again, in light of the SPD’s history, perhaps 2 or 3 warnings to disperse were in order?

* “Those who were arrested were forced onto their stomachs. Their hands were tied behind them with plastic ties.” ~ I thought that following the Otto Zehm murder, the SPD had clearly stated that this was against SPD policy because of the risk of asphyxiation. Did I miss when this policy was reinstated?

Also Kevin, please note that I did not give the protesters a pass. I was very offended by the desecration of the flag, and greatly relieved that I was not there to see it, as I fear I may have lost my head and spent the weekend in jail, hence my suggestion that appropriate charges may have been incitement to riot. You get 2 or 3 vets who feel about the flag as I do, add a few people desecrating the flag, mix with high temps, and you have a recipe for a riot. Think I’m kidding or mistaken about this? Ask a few of the other vets who post here. I’m sure not all will agree with me, but I’ll bet most of those will tell you that they can see it happening though.

Posted by Casey King | 6 Jul 3:52 PM

Kevin/Casey:
Yup, I’ll sure second the flash rage thing re flag desecration. There are lots of things that need fixing in this country, but I have an incredibly tough time listening to anyone who mistreats the flag… It’s so quintessentially left: Rude, stupid, devisive, juvenile, UNGRATEFUL, et cetera.

Posted by Tom Frisque | 7 Jul 1:41 PM

Spokane in general has a P/R problem. The elected
officials, the police, the fire department, etc, etc,
keep making the same mistakes, over and over.
Doesnt anybody look at these boo-boos and say we have a problem SPOKANE. Get rid of the bad
actors, or you are doomed to keep repeating them.
The taxpayers are the big loosers.

Posted by Dustyroads | 7 Jul 8:37 PM

“The taxpayers are the big loosers.” ~ And the Zehm and Yohe families…and the family of whoever is next to die at the hands of local law enforcement.

Posted by Casey King | 8 Jul 10:37 AM

Casey,
You’re assuming that they went and retrieved cameras. They might have had the cameras there in the first place, as they did when Bush came to town a few years ago. And I also think you are putting way too much credibility into the S-R’s reporting of the event. As far as “charging” the crowd, has it occurred to you and others that there are tactical considerations when dealing with a crowd and specific methods are used to direct their movement. This may appear to be charging the crowd but once again, others might see it different.
As far as trespassing goes, it is possible to trespass in a public area and you can be arrested if you continue to trespass. If it goes to court perhaps the constitutional issues will be decided.

As far as being placed on their stomachs and restrained, it appears to me that none of the people in the picture at the top of this page had leg restraints applied (or as the paper insists, they were not “hogtied”). I think you can also see that they were not having any difficulty breathing.

How do you know they were not asked to leave before the arrests began? If people were going to be arrested for trespassing, they should have been offered the opportunity to leave or cease their activities. Don’t rely on the S-R to report the truth on this event or any other incident.

As far as the flag goes, it’s not against the law to burn it, crap on it, do whatever to it. Maybe bad flag etiquette or offensive to some but hardly illegal.

Posted by Kevin | 8 Jul 8:46 PM

Marshall,
You don’t include any penalty for all of those actions so I’m not convinced it’s against federal law to do that. However, I am going to correct myself in that I did find an RCW which makes it a gross misdemeanor to trample, burn or otherwise deface the flag. If that’s the case then the protesters could be charged with that in addition to the trespassing.

Posted by Kevin | 9 Jul 8:26 AM

Kevin,

Okay, let’s assume (as you appear to be doing) they got them before the fact. Why not get a camcorder at that time? As to the cameras in attendance during the President’s visit, I believe you will find that is SOP for a Presidential visit. The purpose of photographing the crowd is to see if anybody on any of the NSA watch-lists was in the crowd, what was the purpose of photographing the protesters? It would appear to be intended to intimidate the protesters. What was the purpose of passing within inches of protesters to take the photos? It would appear to be designed to provoke a response, thus giving the officer an excuse to over-react.

Re; “As far as “charging” the crowd, has it occurred to you and others that there are tactical considerations when dealing with a crowd and specific methods are used to direct their movement. This may appear to be charging the crowd but once again, others might see it different.” ~ You are right Kevin. I was looking at events through the filter of my life experience, and so I look back to my time in West Germany as a U.S. Army Military Police officer. During that time, I trained regularly in crowd control and riot control and deployed on one occasion to serve as back up for the German National Police during a riot. The first rule of crowd control that I was taught was to attempt to de-escalate the situation.

Re; “As far as trespassing goes…” ~ Kevin, I was not arguing that one can’t be charged with trespassing on public property. I was arguing that the reported actions of the SPD were excessive for the charges. I tried to be clear on this issue. If the charges had been incitement to riot then perhaps such an agressive response might have been more understandable.

Re; “As far as being placed on their stomachs and restrained…” ~ First, are you honestly trying to argue that no pressure is being placed on the solar-plexus or on the diaphragm? Also, once restrained, why were they not allowed to sit? Were they still resisting? If so, why were they not hogtied…er, placed in leg restraints and removed for processing so others would not take their example?

Re; “I think you can also see that they were not having any difficulty breathing.” ~ No, I can’t. Mr. Zehm was talking to the officers up until right before he went into respiratory distress. In fact, his last words were, “All I wanted was a Snicker’s bar…”

Re; “How do you know they were not asked to leave before the arrests began?” ~ Not to put to fine a point on it, but how about, because that isn’t what was reported. This was not an opinion piece, it was a “hard news” story. Where the reporters were not sure of what happened, for example the alleged assault on the officer, they give both views of the arrest.

Re; “Don’t rely on the S-R to report the truth on this event or any other incident.” ~ Considering the facts as reported by the Chief of Police at the time of the Zehm murder and as shown on the video tape of the incident, I will take the word of the S-R over the SPD until such time as the SPD starts showing itself to be trustworthy, hence my comment about “rebuilding the public trust.”

Re; “As far as the flag goes…” ~ First, my only comments about the flag were to point out that if the issue were of grave enough concern to respond in such an aggressive way, perhaps the appropriate charge might have been incitement to riot. I then went on to give an example of how the actions of the protesters could have incited a riot. While on the topic of the flag, allow me to point out that this is the utmost example of personal responsibility. It may not be illegal to treat the flag in such a disrespectful way, but if you choose this course of action, you must be willing to accept the consequences of your actions. If I (or others like me) see somebody treating the flag in any of the ways you suggest are legal, the consequences of those actions may be getting into a fight. Oh, and don’t worry about any hypocrisy on my part, as I will gladly accept the consequences of choosing to defend my flag (just as I swore an oath to do) by doing the weekend in jail and discussing my “crime” with a judge.

A point you didn’t address that I brought up Kevin, ““More officers gathered, and one read an order telling the protesters to disperse. Moments later, police charged the group, ripping down their sign and pushing protesters to the ground.” ~ Moments later. Not minutes, moments. Again, in light of the SPD’s history, perhaps 2 or 3 warnings to disperse were in order?” So what about it Kevin, considering the SPD’s history, would 2 or even 3 warnings have been in order?

Posted by Casey King | 9 Jul 11:06 AM

Casey,
I guess you can believe the S-R all you want but I don’t. As I don’t really believe any newspaper. Considering the warnings, if they had asked them 3-4 times that would not be enough for some. I’ll give the cops that were there the benefit of the doubt. There comes a time when you have to stop warning and start doing something and they did. I say bravo to them.
I’m done.

Posted by Kevin | 9 Jul 3:02 PM

Shalom,
One would be well served to review at your convenience the city channel tape of the city council meeting last nite. Fast forward to the end where the people that were demonstrating speak eloquently to the assembled council persons in their own well measured and gently impassioned words.

John August Olsen

Posted by John August Olsen | 10 Jul 9:07 AM

John, do you know if a video of it is online for download anywhere? Thanks for the information.

Posted by Casey King | 10 Jul 5:11 PM

Kevin, I used to trust the police, then I started counting the bodies and “unprofessional” actions. They have lost my trust. I was hoping the new Chief would try to rebuild the public trust, and I am trying hard to have faith in her honest intent and ability to clean up the mess the SPD has become, but that faith is fading fast, and a lot of other citizens feel the same way. When the public does not trust it’s local law enforcement, it stops calling them. When the public stops calling the police, crime flourishes. Further, if crime flourishes because the public doesn’t trust the police enough to call them any longer, can vigilantism be far behind?

Posted by Casey King | 10 Jul 5:34 PM

As a coordinator and planner for the annual Spokane Hempfest event (held in Spokane Riverfront Park with the full support of the City of Spokane, The Parks Dept., the Prosecutors Office, and the Police Dept) I would like to tune in, turn on, and then drop out of this blog.

Tune In:
First, when permits are issued and vendor fees paid for rental of park grounds the idea of “Free Speech” goes up in smoke and it becomes a paid/for profit event by the promoter, with refusal to provide service to anyone – like any business.
Second, if some group – say a group stupid DRUNK alcohol supporters drove down (intoxicated) and protested the dangers of Cannabis/Hemp at Hempfest, we would definitely have them arrested and/or removed as the law allows.
My point is this, if you pay to rent the park, you don’t have to let people protest anything. If I had paid the rent for a fireworks party at the park and invited the city, then I would have the right to tell anyone who didn’t like it to leave.
I am all about truth, even if it is controversial.

Turn On:
My question about this incident and the ensuing arrests is this: Was the group in question on one of the reserved sections of the park that had been paid for Clear Channel? Or, were they in an area of the park which was not paid for by Clear Channel?
If so, then they should have respected the promoters rights. If not, then the police had no right to stop them from walking through the park and demonstrating free speech.

Drop Out:
Peace, love, and happiness to everyone.
(Even drunks and protestors)

Master Twisted

Posted by Master Twisted | 12 Jul 1:29 PM

« Back to A Matter of Opinion | Comments on this post are now closed.

—————————————–

The same cross-posted info at HBO

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/blogs/hbo/archive.asp?postID=15968

Q: Did Spokane Cops Squash Protesters’ Rights?

Dan Pelle/Spokesman-Review

Protesters with their hands bound behind their backs yell and cry out to police after their arrest near the clock tower in Riverfront Park in Spokane Wednesday.

Item: Celebrating, clashing over freedoms/Jonathan Blunt & James Hagengruber, Spokesman-Review

This is a disgraceful way for the police to behave. That it happened on the 4th of July and placed the rights of a corporate event sponsor over those peacefully protesting abuses of police power are no small ironies. Since when did donning a uniform give officers the right to behave like common thugs? “Under the Clocktower in Spokane’s Riverfront Park, 17 people protesting police brutality were arrested about 6:45 p.m. as people gathered in the park for Neighbor Day and the annual firework displays. “Officers charged the group, which included self-proclaimed anarchists and other teens and young adults, after ordering them to disperse. One arrest was after what police say was an assault on an officer. Protesters dispute that” — Frank Sennett/Hard 7.

Full post here,

Question: Did Spokane police overdo it?

Posted by DFO | 5 Jul 9:07 AM

There are 22 comments on this post. (XML Subscribe to comments on this post)

No

Posted by In the know | 5 Jul 9:14 AM

A picture is worth a thousand words. I hope this looser got his rabies shot.

Posted by Phil Thompson | 5 Jul 9:15 AM

He appears to be over acting for Pelle’s closeup camera.

Posted by Don Sausser | 5 Jul 9:28 AM

Would someone please explain the circumstances that the charges were based upon?

I heard that the charge is a felony assault (read that again: felony assault). This sounds more than a mere brush-up against an officer.

Posted by MamaJD | 5 Jul 9:30 AM

After reading the full post, absolutely not – the police did what they needed to do. And if the protesters believe in their cause, they should be willing take responsibility. But do you think we will hear, “Yes, your honor – hell ya, I was there. I did it. And I would do it again.” No – I have a feeling we will not be hearing the charged protester saying that.

Posted by MamaJD | 5 Jul 9:35 AM

Those emails were just office bantor, I did NOT have sex with that woman. We were just “blowing” off steam.

Posted by Daug Gone | 5 Jul 9:37 AM

I think this is part of the old gypsy curse again. Of course Spokane cops overacted, that’s just how they seem to do everything. It seems impossible for anyone involved in Spokane government to do anything that sheds a flattering light on the Lilac City. I fully agree with Sennett on this one.

Posted by OrangeTV | 5 Jul 9:44 AM

It’s probably just as well that I don’t travel to Spokane these days. If I get as far as the Spokane Valley, that’s far enough. Spokane seems to be pretty scary any more.

Posted by Joan E. Harman | 5 Jul 10:11 AM

I stumbled across this incident quite by chance, I had been sunning and reading at GU next to the river and decided I needed some exercise, so I walked down to River Front Park. I saw a crowd gathering and thought another musical event was going on, but nothing was happening on the stage, just a bunch of people gathered around these (mostly kids) dressed in black, who were holding up signs protesting police brutality. They were not blocking any sidewalks and were off the to side of the stage, where, again, nothing was happening.

There were about 8 cops there at first, and one of them told some other cops to “surround the group”. Some argueing ensued between the cops and the kids. Then the cops backed way off, and I thought things were calming down. I make a loop around the booths and such and came back to area where the protestors were, about 15 minutes after I had left earlier. Now there there about 20 cops surrounding the protestors, and someone told me one of the protestors had been arrested after brushing the shoulder of a cop. Next, the cops started pushing the crowd back, telling us to get back, or get arrested with the group. The cops ordered the group to disburse, or be arrested. Some of them left. Then the cops swarmed in and zip tied the protestors. The crowd of about 150 people was shouting “let them go”. Some of the protestors who had left the group and were in the crowd yelling “let them go” got arrested too.

There were also some “skirmishes” between people who were supporting the group, and a small number of people who were supporting the cops.

The cops were definitely acting in an intimadating manner. I don’t understand by what authority they decided, after the initial incident, that they had the right to disburse the group, who were being peaceful and non-disruptive.

Posted by greenlibertarian | 5 Jul 10:29 AM

“The cops were definitely acting in an intimadating manner.”

I think it has been proven in some study somewhere that law enforcement is more effective when utilizing the “intimidating” manner as opposed to the passive-agressive approach.

Posted by MamaJD | 5 Jul 10:34 AM

Often in the wake of these confrontations, both sides maintain that their actions were measured and peaceable. But there a subtext of communication going on that can’t be defined. Cops are instantly on edge around people like this and the protesters, who believe deeply in the rights guaranteed under the constitution, often become belligerent and communicate nonverbally a persona of rebellion, and defiance, which confirms the cops’ suspicions. You can call it the hiEven if the cops aren’t shouting or swinging clubs, they know they have the power to arrest and that they are protected from prosecution.
Protesters need to realize that courts side with the cops 99.9 percent of the time out of necessity. If you want to defy a police order to make your point, you need to have bail money on you.

Posted by Whippersnapper | 5 Jul 10:49 AM

Oops. I dropped a sentence that was supposed to say:
You can call it the hippie/policeman syndrome, but it’s more complex than that.

Posted by Whippersnapper | 5 Jul 10:50 AM

Sure we have “freedom of speech and the right to assemble” but at what cost? My concern is that these young people are (as the paper put it) anarchists. I do not feel they remember or appreciate our country’s history. Or even attempt to show respect for those who disagree with them. They take for granted that in many other countries where our soldiers are fighting for democracy that they could all be quickly imprisoned or shot for protesting “peacefully”. Those older or who at least study history know thousands have been killed for just being “in the way” and not conforming to some political leaders way of thinking or ruling. I really think this group got what they were hoping for: a scene where the police would look like they were at fault when they were “just” executing their rights. I mean come on! Trying to hand out fliers on police brutality to police officers is like rubbing yourself with a steak and then waving it in front of a pitbull guarding some storefront. They were being passively aggressive to obtain the same results as if they’d spit on or swung punches at officers. I admire their desire to “stand up” for what they believe in and “inform the world” about the attrocities going on around us, but they are so naive if they think they can upset the applecart without pissing someone off (no, probably their goal) or having to fork out some money for bail when they’re taking advantage of “rights” that they themselves did nothing to EARN.

Posted by Mom of an “anarchist” | 5 Jul 11:19 AM

Whipper writes, “protesters who believe deeply in the rights guaranteed under the constitution, often become belligerent and communicate nonverbally personna of rebellion, and defiance..etc.”

good thing Rep. Phil Hart read the Delcaration Of Independence at Independence Point in CDA and not at River Park Square. If you want a good dose of belligerance, rebellion and defiance, read it! Should be required reading for the Spokane Cops – daily!

God Bless America!

Posted by downunder | 5 Jul 11:21 AM

Rainbow Poney Spanker gets cuffed after he lips off to a cop for not using “good” english.

Posted by Daug Gone | 5 Jul 12:25 PM

Rights aren’t really rights if everyone threatens to take them away when you use them.

Posted by Sara | 5 Jul 12:55 PM

Re: Rights aren’t really rights if everyone threatens to take them away when you use them.

Wowie! and thank you. For some odd reason, your words reminded me of the lyrics from the song “Me and Bobby McGee” recorded by Janis Joplin, written by Kris (Rhodes Scholar, writer, actor, singer, janitor, political activist, helicopter pilot, bartender, etc.) Kristofferson, and Fred Foster.

Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to loose
Nothing, I mean nothing honey if it ain’t free, no no

Posted by Lesley Presley | 5 Jul 1:15 PM

To expand on “Rights aren’t really rights if everyone threatens to take them away when you use them.”
Rights are there to protect those that push the limits of that which is protected.

Posted by Whippersnapper | 5 Jul 1:36 PM

Anarchist or not the law can arrest you for what you DO, not who you ARE. Unless of course your police think otherwise.

Speaking of anarchists, where is Leon Czolgosz when we need him? Ahem.

Posted by riggs | 5 Jul 2:20 PM

It’s the heat of the moment. I remember the CDA police acting paranoid on July 4th, too. On the other side, there are always outspoken jerks who are out to make a point, such as the neanderthals pictured in the photo. Why must rabble-rousing have to transpire? Don’t people have anything else to do, SUCH AS LEADING a CIVILIZED LIFE?

Posted by Idaho Escapee | 5 Jul 6:31 PM

Just about everytime I see these ‘rights’ demonstrations (especially after they were ‘dinig’ while sitting on an American Flag – the very flag that they’ll be claiming represetns thier rights)
I am reminded of the late-great Al Capp who in his very popular ‘comic’ strip featured these ‘demonstrators’ and called them so accurately:
Students Wildly Indignant (about) Nearly Everything: S. W. I. N. E.

Posted by Milt Nelson | 5 Jul 8:07 PM

Of course the protesters dispute what the police say; they’re anarchists – it’s what they do.

Posted by nic | 5 Jul 9:49 PM

« Back to Huckleberries Online | Comments on this post are now closed.

 

____________________________

Ron Wright — Spokane Area Law Enforcement Personalities of Note #1

(Originally posted on 10/24/07 at http://SpokanePoliceAbuses.wordpress.com )

 

It was recently while blogging over at the Spokesman-Review and at Frank Sennett’s “Hard 7″ that I decided I should start this blog category — Spokane Area Law Enforcement Personalities of Note here at SpokanePoliceAbuses.

It began with my realization that several individuals blogging at the S-R and Hard 7 were actually Spokane Police Officers.

“Dan” is Detective Sergeant Dan Torok of Otto Zehm and Jerome Alford infamy.

“Jim” is Sgt. Jim Faddis, who also blogs — for unknown reasons — under the pseudonym of “Kevin”.

“JR” is Officer JR Russell.

One suspects from the tone and content of the blog posts of several other writers that they are law enforcement or connected to law enforcement.

At Hard 7 and the S-R blogs I began to notice the writings of a fellow who called himself “Rocketsbrain” aka “RTB”.

Rocketsbrain had much to say about Spokane’s alleged serious gang problem and specific elements of that alleged problem such as graffiti. He even began to offer his own sort mini blog course on graffiti and gangs.

Intrigued, I began reading through previous responses by him at a number of Spokesman-Review blogs and many other websites around the internet.

No problem. Many of us are out there — according to the experts — ruining our chances of ever finding a decent wife or of landing that $500,000 corporate job as a result of our compulsive plastering of cyberspace with the indelible electronic ink of our inane and insane postings on the internet.

However I began to notice definite tendencies and trends and themes in Rocketsbrain’s writing. Given where he was coming down on issues and some of the claims he was making, I grew increasingly uncomfortable with his anonymity.

For example, he repeatedly claims — not only in his Spokane blogging but all over the internet — to have access to people who share information with him, information which he subsequently discloses to readers and distributes across the web.

On the wider internet, much of the information he traffics in deals with his disdain of the mainstream media or “MSM” as he calls it.

However, his biggest source of interest and claimed expertise on the wider net is regarding “GWOT”, i.e., the Global War on Terrorism. He tends to run in circles where there is no need to even explain lingo like MSM and GWOT because these are military/law enforcement-oriented inner circles.

I came across a resume that Rocketsbrain had posted on one of the S-R blogs for the benefit of S-R editor Steve Smith. Interestingly, the resume did not include Rocketsbrain’s name. Neither did his website which one could reach easily because he always signed his posts with a hyperlink to his website.

The resume made it very clear that Rocketsbrain was a former law enforcement man from Southern California. I was interested to see that as he had made several unsubstantiated claims under the pseudonym of Rocketsbrain. For example, in the midst of controversy over alleged gangs in Spokane and much hysteria over graffiti, he stated that he was the “gang czar” in a city at some point in the past. The resume did not include that little fact and Rocketsbrain never responded to my request to him in one blog exchange to let us know when and where he had held that title/position of “gang czar”. To date, no response.

I then came across an exchange in which, out of the blue and out of all context, Rocketsbrain asked another peculiar fellow, pseudonym “ValleyWatch”, to contact him at an e-mail address so that he could discuss his belief that the Spokane Valley was “the new Chinatown”.

It did not take more than a few minutes to figure out that Rocketsbrain — in addition to his extensive law enforcement history — is in fact a director on the board of the right-wing 501(C)3 organization known as Homeland Security Policy Institute Group (HSPIG). Besides being the the forum’s moderator at the HSPIG website, Rocketsbrain is also a member of the HSPIG Security Council.

One of Rocketsbrain’s areas of focus at HSPIG is “threats” and in that capacity he is very involved in and a frequent internet planter, nurturer and transporter of information and disinformation on Iran. Some of that information is very incendiary to say the least. For example, see this post by Rocketsbrain at whizbangblog.com

Burn baby burn!!!

And btw throw a couple of grenades in the last functioning Iranian gas refinery and block any new gas shipments by sea.

Here’s something you can do to individually tank the Regime without waiting for the fed gov’t to act. Support the Iranian Divestiture Project.

RBT

9. Posted by rocketsbrain | June 27, 2007 4:11 PM

Rocketsbrain is also a member of HTCIA, the International High Technology Crime Investigation Agency.

Rocketsbrain tends to post at places like “Lonewacko“, “BlackFive“, and “The Command Post“.

And given that the HSPIG website includes an Illegal Alien Tip Area , it is not surprising that a number of his posts deal with immigration. Nor is it surprising that he invited “Valleywatch” to contact him privately about the Spokane Valley being in his words “the new Chinatown”.

My interest in this is more than just perverse paranoia.

Spokane is a notorious right-wing backwater. One of the whitest cities per capita its size or larger in the United States. A racist bastion. Site of two of the seventeen acts of domestic terrorism committed in the U.S. between 1990 to 1996.

So who is Rocketsbrain aka RTB?

Ron Wright. It would appear that he has attempted to keep the two names, Rocketsbrain and Ron Wright separate with pretty good success. But alas….

We have some other interesting law enforcement folks who live here, have moved here or have moved on.

– Mark Fuhrman of LAPD and OJ Simpson fame, now a conservative Spokane radio personality.

– Rocketsbrain aka RTB aka Ron Wright of HSPIG and HTCIA.

– Former SPD Chief Terry Mangan, now of the FBI.

– SPD Officer Bob Grandinetti of the infamous Freight Train Riders Association investigations.

– Captain Richard Olberding who once stated in the midst of the South Hill Rapist investigation that women ought to “just lay back and enjoy it”.

Check back soon as we learn a little about some of lesser known aspects of Spokane law enforcement personalities.

Given the propaganda coming at the public from the official and unofficial law enforcement communities, I believe it is critical to understand that not everyone who pretends to be no one is no one. The anonymity of the web is a useful foil for disinformation and dirty tricks.

And with local groups being infiltrated by the FBI and other law enforcement organizations, it is important that we are vigilant.

While I know that Officer Dan Torok is sworn to protect us, each and everyone, a little vigilance in the old fashion sense is also warranted.

************************

(Disclosure: Following the 2004 presidential elections and the fateful decision of Democrats to follow a ruling class, white, multi-millionaire (John Kerry) down the garden path to nowhere, I was disclosed to be a “doppleganger” at the SpokaneProgressives yahoo group. I was tried and found guilty by a jury of my peers — Frank Malone, Bart Haggin and Rod Stackleberg — and was subsequently banned from the site.)

Posted in America: From Freedom to Fascism, FBI in Spokane, Jason Oakley and the FBI, Know Your Rights, Lies Damn Lies and …, Photographic Evidence, Protest, Spokane LE Personalities, Terrorism in Spokane, Unanswered Questions, War Abroad & At Home | Edit | No Comments »

Urgent Call: Goetz to Guide Public in Gentil Chat with Chief Kirkpatrick

This is a fleshed out version of a post I made to Jill Wagner’s Out of the Town blog on August 17, 2007. It is also posted at http://SpokanePoliceAbuses.wordpress.com

 

 

Chief Kirkpatrick’s Invitation to Chat/Forum on Human Rights (click to open PDF file)

Jim Camden’s 9/17/07 Spokesman-Review article about the Chat/Forum on Human Rights

Jill Wagner’s Out on the Town blog column on the Chat/Forum on Human Rights

************************

I have problems from several angles with the Chief’s letter, Jim Camden’s article, and the “Chat/Forum” scheduled for the City Council Chambers on Wednesday, September 19, at 7 p.m., in the lower level of the City Hall, 808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd.

First, I am guessing it will be neither Chat nor Forum.

Second, Jim Camden’s article makes it sound as if the invitation and event are specifically for the July 4 Riverfront Park demonstrators. A quote from Camden article today states, “Spokane Police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick is inviting protesters from the July 4 Riverfront Park demonstration to a chat Wednesday to discuss human rights”.

Actually, the letter is addressed to “Dear Citizen” and refers to the “the community” and “the public”. The side bar in the Spokesman review article says, “The Spokane Police Department has invited protesters involved in the July 4 demonstration at Riverfront Park. There will be a moderator from the Spokane Human Rights Commission, and the public is invited to attend.” I am not sure if the language “the public is invited to attend” is that of the Spokesman-Review or that of the Spokane Police. Nevertheless, the chief’s letter neither specifically invites July 4 protesters /free assembly advocates nor does it specifically invite the public.

Perhaps someone is hoping to frame Chief Kirkpatrick’s September 19 event as an invitation to the July 4 demonstrators, either for police P.R. purposes or maybe in hopes of a better news story. Or perhaps someone is hoping to create a spectacle, a la provocateurs, infiltrators, spies, CoIntelPro, etc. A la Jason Oakley or maybe just the SPD’s own internal dirty tricks squad.

My concerns about the framing of Kirkpatrick’s event has to do with the some knowledge of who received her letter. I got the same letter from Chief Kirkpatrick even though I was not a July 4 protester. In fact, I wasn’t even in the park on July 4. On top of that, the letter the Chief sent out makes no mention of July 4th or protesters.

So who else got the letter? I spoke to a friend who was at the July 9 city council meeting at which dozens of people waited nearly 6 hours to speak one minute each about their experience in the park on July 4 or–for those not in the park on the 4th like myself–to speak about civil liberties and police abuse. This friend received Chief Kirkpatrick’s invitation letter. Like me, he too was not one of the July 4 arrestees. However, unlike me, he was in the park on the 4th and witnessed the police attack on protesters. So unless the police used the extensive surveillance and photographing of park-goers that day to form a data base which the Chief then accessed for her letter, that is not how my friend’s name got on the Chief’s mailing list.

My friend, I and a few dozen other recipients of the letter have one thing in common–we signed up to speak at the July 9 City Council meeting. My friend believes that City Council sign-up list is the source of at least some of the recipients of Chief Kirkpatrick’s letter. His reason for believing that is because he intentionally signed up to speak at the City Council meeting that night with a variation of his name and that is the name in which he received the letter from Chief Kirkpatrick.

So I am guessing Chief Kirkpatrick had her people gather up sign-up lists, meeting attendance lists, and perhaps even organizational membership lists before she sent out her letter. Wouldn’t one presume that a “Dear Citizen” letter, sent to invite Spokanites to discuss their concerns and make suggestions on how the SPD can better serve the community, would also be sent to numerous groups, such as Neighborhood Councils and civic organizations? Wouldn’t she have also sent it to the some 20 members of the City’s Police Advisory Committee (26 members if you include its 6 police staff people) and the Citizen’s Advisory Commission, sidelined but still existent.

So then, how did the Chief’s September 19 Chat/Forum get framed as it did in the Spokesman-Review as “The Spokane Police Department has invited protesters involved in the July 4 demonstration at Riverfront Park. There will be a moderator from the Spokane Human Rights Commission, and the public is invited to attend.” A rather odd characterization and framing of the event. My guess is that the author of the S-R article and the Chief or someone from her office had a conversation which impacted that characterization of the September 19 event.

Third, it is important to know something about the history leading up to this Wednesday’s forum/chat. The July 2007 Spokane Human Rights Commission meeting was held at the ARC of Spokane. There were no signs on the doors about a meeting (until I—a non-member of the SHRC–made one and put it up). All the doors where locked. And, as it turns out, the 5 or so members of the Commission (they have since added a few more) did not expect anyone from the public to show up. In fact, they didn’t even think the public knew they were meeting. Some of us showed up because we heard the mayor was supposed to have been at that meeting and we had heard the Chief of Police would be there also. However, neither showed up. I don‘t remember what line we were given exactly on their no show status, but they didn’t show. So, in their absence, some of us let the Commission know our views: that they have become irrelevant and are non-players in the current debate on police violence, human rights, etc. You may recall the Spokane Human Rights Commission was purged and decapitated only a few years ago. Like the Citizens Review Commission, the Spokane Human Rights Commission has been marginalized and eviscerated.

What then is the September 19 event event? The letter says it explicitly: “Come prepared to voice your opinions on tolerance, diversity, respect, and dignity in interactions between police officers and the public”. In other words, we are all one big happy Spokane family so let’s talk about why we are on the same team.

What is the format? You know because you have seen it before. Again the chief says so in her letter: “Ask questions. We’ll do our best to answer them”.

And what are the rules? You know because you have seen it before. The Chief writes: “We ask that you follow only one rule: To act within the bounds of civility and respect. We’ll do the same, and the meeting will be valuable and rewarding”. Thanks, Chief. Got that everyone–the meeting will be valuable and rewarding, signed Chief Kirkpatrick.

[By the way, I am guessing the Chief might not be reading the not-so-civil or respectful interactions of Dan (Officer Torok) and JR (Officer Russell) on posts at blogs such as Hard 7 and Out on the Town.]

And of course we will hear the same statement at the beginning of the night (or soon after) from the Chief telling us that she can’t discuss any cases which are still open or subject to litigation. So forget Zehm, forget Fitzpatrick, forget Shonto Pete, forget Josh Levy, forget, well, just plain forget about it.

This was KREM, for example, reporting on the Levy matter, “Kirkpatrick said that the taser probes missed the man. She did not allow the press to ask questions since the case is still under investigation.”

And of course, Alberto Gonzalez on his June 27 visit to Spokane shared “top secret, sensitive” information with law enforcement so that is off limits also.

I am guessing Chief Kirpatrick will bring a few side-kicks–you know, brass. A couple captains, maybe a major. So don’t think the meeting will be entirely without entertainment value. We might even get the Police Guild president to provide the Guild’s disclaimers and caveats and spins, as he did at the ACLU forum in February at Gonzaga.

How will the meeting run? Chief Kirkpatrick says in her letter, “We’ll have a great facilitator for this meeting, Terry Goetz of the City’s Human Rights Commission”. Really? I don’t know. Terry is a nice guy, a graduate of Leadership Spokane, Vice President for Employment/Employee Relations at Washington Trust bank, et cetera. But is he a great facilitator? His Human Rights Commission — barely staffed and barely functioning — has effectively been a non-player to-date in the last few years of scandal in city government, community dialog, and the police. But maybe this is Goetz and the Chief’s plan for rehabilitating the SHRC. An e-mail he sent out after the July 2007 SHRC meeting suggests that.

I do hope, however, that Terry gets a little more ambitious than the plan he announced at the July 2007 HRC meeting to revise the Human Rights Commission complaint form before the next two years are up. In fact, if I could just ask here: Terry, could the people of Spokane have the revised Human Right Commission complaint form by Thanksgiving? Of 2007? Doesn’t sound unreasonable to folks with whom I’ve spoken.

Of course, “the Chief” says she wants as many people to speak as possible so, she writes, “we will all need to get right to the point”. In other words, those who may have a bone to pick or a criticism or (God forbid in this democracy) a statement to make, will have to be herded by the moderator into the corral of “You’re question please, mama…do you have a question, ma’am…ma’am, your question…ma’am we are going to have to ask you to let someone else who has a question speak, ma’am”. (And for those of you who simply don’t understand the rules on free speech in this country, more than a few tasers WILL be present, so don’t say you weren’t warned).

And the Spokane Police Guild? Well, negotiations are going on with the Guild over their contract so, let me go ahead and summarize Chief Kirkpatrick’s comments on that topic in advance: “No comment”.

So Chief Kirkpatrick–lawyer, police chief, and lecturer that she is–is prepared to dazzle us in a performance which as of this moment is being billed in several ways–forum, chat, circus, protester dialog, hocus-pocus.

If you come out of Wednesday’s meeting feeling you’ve been buffaloed, well, you’re talking to the police, so what did you expect.

So in conclusion, what CAN we expect:

Anyone who was at the ACLU sponsored forums on Police Accountability early this year—especially when Chief Kirkpatrick was a presenter–will have a pretty good idea what the model is. They–the experts–are the experts. We–the people–are the people. We will ask, they will answer. You know, the dominant paradigm. If things go as they plan and structure it, then we, the people, will ask narrowly proscribed questions without making statements and they, the experts, will provide us either even more narrowly proscribed answers or broad non-specific answers while making any statements they feel necessary to disarm, dazzle, hoodwink, sidestep, discredit or cast aspersions. Then they will tell us that we had our “Chat/Forum” with the Chief and they–the powers that be–can get back to governing by their own consent.

So remember: If we, the people, come out of the September 19, 2007 chat/forum with Chief Kirkpatrick scratching our heads, it is only because our heads itch, not because we just had the wool pulled over our eyes.

Gently, of course.

Spanking the Spokesman-Review

Well, it is about time the Spokesman-Review got a good spanking!

The Spokesman-Review. Spokane’s premiere newspaper. Running the city since before it managed to get the Native Americans it is named after (and who were of course here when the white man arrived) to stop setting up tee-pees on the “Indian Canyon” golf course and near the confluence of “Hangman Creek” with the Spokane River.

There are few things that newspapers, their owners, and their editors dislike more than uppity readers and loudmouth citizens.

Wow! I’m guessing they hate this thing called WordPress. Imagine? A free press!

S-R editor prefers to minimize ‘manufactured’ events

On July 10, 2007 at the Spokesman Review on-line blog Daily Briefing, S-R reporter Jeff Bunch asks the question: “Given how Monday’s rally blossomed into something bigger, did the event deserve bigger play – especially on what was an admitted slow news day? Your thoughts are welcome.”

I must admit, I never saw Jeff in the course of the protest, march or city council meeting. But I welcome his offer to answer the question.

On the evening of 7/9/07 a large crowd gathered at Monroe and Mallon to protest police brutality and impunity in Spokane. The location is near the Public Safety Building, the Courthouse, diagonal from the Spokane City Public Defenders, and, most importantly, directly in front of the offices of the Spokane Police Department Internal Affairs Division in the Monroe Court Building (map). After more than an hour gathered there with signs and chants, the group moved into the street and marched peacefully the 4/10ths of a mile to City Hall.

At City Hall the group entered the building in an orderly manner, following instructions to leave sign outside. Approximately half of the City Hall chambers was filled with protesters and supporters, almost all seated on the left side of the chamber. In addition to the protesters and their supporters, there were people interested in the Council’s formal agenda matters, including 1) the city’s changes in alley pick up of trash as well as mutilation of trees, 2) the current dispossession of the poor in downtown as money-interests supplant human-interests, and, 3) the issue of rights of a sovereign nation, the Spokane Indian Nation, to chose the archaeological service company to be used to recover and protect their cultural heritage within the Spokane City limits.

The protesters and their supporters remained peacefully and respectfully following the council rules, for ex., the prohibition against applause, until 11:30 PM when, council business finally completed, they were allowed one minute each to speak before the council. Over the next 30 minutes right up until midnight, speakers described not only the events of 7/4/07 at Riverfront Park but also subsequent harassment of a young man by a Spokane Police Officer who both threatened the young man and refused to provide his badge number. Furthermore, there were multiple calls including from a Spokane business owner, a Gonzaga University professor, a Washington state social worker, and many others for the establishment of immediate independent oversight of the Spokane Police Department.

Both the Spokesman Review coverage and that of KPBX/KSFC were interesting. The Spokesman had a reporter, Jonathan Brunt, present at the Council meeting who sat for a few hours next to and in front of several dozen young and old protesters. Yet neither Brunt, nor S-R reporters Nick Eaton nor Jim Camden made any mention of these citizen protesters in their coverage of the proceedings.

S-R coverage of the event were commented on the very next day by Editor Steve Smith in the S-R’s Daily Briefing Blog http://www.spokesmanreview.com/blogs/briefing/ where Smith is referred to as telling his staff that protest coverage should be brief because protests are manufactured events and because the events of July 9 were composed of many of the same people as the July 4, 2007 incident at Riverfront Park in which 17 young people were arrested by Spokane Police. At that particular “manufactured” event — described as a “near police riot” by Gonzaga University professor Dr. Tom Jeannott — the Spokane Police Department manufactured facts and charges against a number of individuals who did nothing other that attempt to hold a picnic in the park on our national day of freedom and independence.

In reality, the vast majority of those in attendance at the July 9 event had nothing to do with the police-manufactured July 4th Repression in the Park incident. The crowd on July 9 included the elderly, for example, Spokane elder statesmen Buell Hollester and Julian Powers, not just the middle aged and young as referred to by the S-R, as well as city, county and state employees. The number 100 used by the Spokesman-Review as a count of the protesters was a serious under-count. Reporter Kara Kostanich of KREM-TV 2 called it one-hundred-fifty people. The S-R did not publish print reports on July 10 of the march nor the 4 1/2 hour long peaceful presence of some fifty protesters in the city council chambers. Rather in the S-R “Briefings” blog (as of today there are only 3 comments posted there in response), the protesters at the city council meeting are written off as “a couple dozen”.

Of course, a significant part of the Spokesman-Review’s journalistic stock-in-trade is the coverage of staged events such as Bloomsday, Hoopfest, PigOut, the Lilac “Armed Forces Day” Parade, concerts, ballgames, and the Fairchild AFB propaganda shows known as “air shows”.

Nevertheless, as has become abundantly clear, a “staged” protest event — with its serious and relevant political messages, spontaneous chanting, banter with the police and journalists and passing drivers, and issues fundamental to the existence of democracy — is beneath the dignity of Smith’s editorial judgment.

Interestingly, at the same time that Smith was deprecating protests like those of July 9, his Spokesman-Review reported, “Yesterday’s (July 9, 2007) protests prompted the police chief to hold an impromptu press conference and the mayor to state an inquiry will be held into the arrests that occurred on the Fourth of July in Riverfront Park”.

“Staged event” not worthy of complete and serious journalistic coverage or citizen democracy of the most noble kind in action?

One has to wonder what the editorial position of Mr. Smith and the S-R would have been regarding other ‘manufactured’ protest events, such as the Boston Tea Party or the Kent State massacre or the March on Washington.

So now I think we are getting closer to an answer to the S-R’s question: “Given how Monday’s rally blossomed into something bigger, did the event deserve bigger play – especially on what was an admitted slow news day?”

In his 7/10/07 on-air morning report on the previous night’s city council meeting, KPBX/KSFC news coordinator John Vlahovich stated that Spokane citizens filled the council chambers to address the issue of alley pick up of trash. While they certainly made an impassioned and ultimately successful appeal to the council to consider quality of life issues, needs of the elderly and handicapped, historical value of Spokane neighborhoods, etc., we are talking about a couple dozen at the most of the assembled citizenry who were there to address the garbage pick up issue. Vlahovich made no mention of the large crowd of anti-police-brutality protesters filling the entire left side of the council chambers.

What is perhaps most journalistically curious and noteworthy is that Frank Sennett was present throughout the protest, the march, and throughout most if not all of the city council meeting. Sennett is a prominent Spokane newsperson associated with both the Spokesman-Review, where he is political writer for the S-R’s 7 Magazine’s “Hard Seven” column and online blog, and KPBX/KSFC, where he is the producer of The Alternative Source. Now perhaps Sennett is not considered by either media outlet to be a “real” journalist, relegated as he is to distinct “free speech zones” at the S-R and at KPBX/KSFC. However, from the perspective of the many, both the Spokesman and KPBX/KSFC were represented from start to finish of the protest events of July 9, 2007 by Sennett, if not by additional reporters and, in the case of the S-R, photographers as well. (See the S-R website for Sennett’s reporting, commentary and numerous video posts at the protest site, on the march and at the city council meeting…..until he ran out of camera memory several minutes before the council meeting ended).

Both the Spokesman-Review and KPBX/KSFC have major turf to defend and protect in Spokane. They are major institutions in the Spokane community and the Eastern Washington/Northern Idaho area with great power and significant followings. The Spokesman-Review is undoubtedly the institution with the longest and most powerful influence on the past, present and future of Spokane. Nevertheless, when those followings — readers of the S-R and listeners to KPBX/KSFC — attempt to participate in the conversation they are subject to prior censorship, in the case of letters to the editor and posting to the S-R online blogs, and, in the case of KPBX/KSFC, have no vehicle for public criticism other than the KPBX/KSFC once or twice yearly open house.

It is the obligation of citizens to challenge their media institutions no less vociferously and no less stridently than they challenge their police or other governmental institutions. The print and broadcast industries are perhaps the most powerful institutions of our time. Too often citizens consider the mere presence of both profit generating media companies like the S-R and government-backed outlets like NPR affiliates to be guarantors of freedom of expression, oversight of government, and assurance of truth.

In this post 9/11 world, in which both the Spokesman Review and NPR affiliate KPBX/KSFC were–by editorial fiat–complicit in the propagation of mass disinformation in the lead-up to and in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion, occupation and brutalization of Iraq, the public must demand that the media take its place alongside the rest of society, not one rung higher.

And when they get it wrong, it is time for a spanking.

(The next blog entry at Spanking the Spokesman will deal with the Spokesman-Review’s many blog sites and alternative publications as well as an analysis of the whys, whats, whos and wherefores of that “new news/no news” reality).