True North Director, HAF Board Member Arrested for DUI

It seems that Humboldt Area Foundation (aka: The Pat Cleary Firm For Social Engineering) and True North’s past (and ongoing!) efforts to create division in Humboldt’s communities weren’t enough to satisfy their ulterior motives.

True North has now decided to unleash their head honcho and former Pat Cleary stooge on the unsuspecting masses whilst he drunkenly navigates Humboldt’s roadways. Though dangerous and unwise, one must be impressed by True North’s/HAF’s unwavering commitment to trying to f*** shit up in Humboldt however they can.

As originally reported by John Chiv over at John Chiv Words Worth:

chivsnipTHC will refrain from pointing out how irresponsible, reprehensible, contemptible, horrible, and many other words ending with -ible, that drunk driving is. Because Humboldt Area Foundation and True North have demonstrated in the past that they just don’t care how their actions are affecting the community – they just want to see their end goals achieved.

When does it stop? Apparently, encouraging division in Humboldt’s communities is just one big party for them. And the party clearly only stops when the police intervene.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to True North Director, HAF Board Member Arrested for DUI

  1. Mac Towner says:

    I’m certainly no big fan of my own Stupidvisor Sundberger but when you see what Cleary has done to Humboldt Area Foundation it does make me feel like we got the better of two evils. Sundberg is a kiss-up to people like Jennifer Kalt and other losers but Cleary is incompetent beyond words. I really hope somebody with a brain runs next time, meanwhile all we can hope is that neither completely destroys their respective organizations or our County.


  2. eric says:

    I’m not going to argue your opinion of True North, HAF or Pat Cleary, but I find it a joke to say that somehow these groups are culpable in Mr. Supahan drinking and driving over the legal limit. Don’t you think? Just not seeing the connection. But then, I guess everyone is entitled to make stuff up now and again!!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Henchman Of Justice says:

      Depends on if there was an event where alcohol was provided, as opposed to a drunken state create whilst at home.

      The Yurok tribe outlaws, bans marijuana on the reservation, even though it’s leadership historically drives around in a drunken state.

      Maybe Yurok nation needs to refocus what the drug of choice is that causes it’s tribal members so much shame and scrutiny. Alcohol and heroin now. Marijuana use is not a problem, but marijuana grows can be a problem no different than anywhere else.

      Alcohol is about as bad as it can get, but the political objective is to create melodrama away from a problem source.


  3. LMOB says:

    Should DUI’s be used as political cudgels to shape political thought?

    THC: You freakin’ bet!


    • eric says:

      That would have to be the make stuff up political cudgel?  Again what is the association between Mr. Supahan’s DUI, True North, HAF and Pat Cleary? Did I miss some facts in the original article? The argument is a fallacy and is without merit. When you fabricate for the sake of making your point, you lose credibility.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Henchman Of Justice says:

        Or, this Yurok tribal leader is considered to be holding a position in society that is esteemed, meaning he is held to higher standards than some “Devil’s Playground” camper or some Burger King employee or even a massage therapist.

        Maybe THC is merely conveying that “people put in charge who are already engaging in social engineering” should not be drinking and driving after an event/ meeting because it sends the wrong social message that was not engineered to convince people that DUI is “accepted progressive policy.”

        Any update on Mark ” DUI” Wheatley?


  4. Damn says:



  5. LMOB says:

    Exactly JW. The racism is just below the surface at all times. Thank you for being honest about your sickness – one that we all share btw to one extent or another. THC and it’s readers can’t or won’t.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Henchman Of Justice says:

      Is it racist to speak of race in the same mannerisms or methods as that race itself speaks? Is mocking satire about uneducation qualify as racism? Is it racism to put down another in comparison?

      There is nothing wrong if a person don’t like another. Yet, no need to belabor the point into harassments either. Let it be. Life will never offer a state of being where all members of all races join hands in a communal singing “we are one”.

      Individuals are of a race, but every individual should be judged by their character, personality, not color of skin. Culture, conducts, actions, belief systems, ideologies, etc… are open to discrimination by other races.

      When it comes to terrorism, American people excell at pointing fingers and acting out racist responses (the middle East is viewed as a collection of bad races by many Americans of many colors of skin); on the flip side, the feeling is mutual by middle Easterners.

      Politics can attempt social engineering, but the results are futile and racism will never go away, ever!


  6. John Chiv says:

    LMOB aka Jon Yalcinkaya, you and others berating THC regarding Supahan have conveniently forgotten the “racism”, your word not mine, when someone anonymously leaked Sundbergs DUI during an election cycle. Who ran against him, oh yeah one of those candidates was Pat Cleary, the other Pat Higgins. Were you crying “sexism” when the local media covered Johanna Rodoni’s DUI. Nope.

    Did you flail when Noah Levy’s DUI was only covered after I covered it and called out the rest of the media. Did you object when Mark Wheetley’s DUI was covered?

    Are we supposed to leave the bad boys of the left alone?

    The hypocrisy of the left is mind boggling.


    • Mitch says:


      Re-read Just Watchin’s comment, the comment which Jon was properly calling out.

      Can you find anything of similar tone related to the Sundberg DUI? Find just one posting or comment in relation to Sundberg’s DUI on any blog or in any news source that sinks to Just Watchin’s level of racist vulgarity, and I’ll buy you a drink.

      Liked by 1 person

      • John Chiv says:

        Mitch, I am not going to dig through tons of comments by the left, with the,rate they post and lengthy ones but here are two examples. Just because Heraldo deleted a comment does not mean racist comment was not made and that example was deleted.

        My comment was not just about racism. It was about the general hypocrisy of many of the left only being outraged when someone they support makes the headlines.

        Anonymous on June 5, 2010 at 2:32 pm
        Heraldo, I can’t seem to figure out your philosophy for deleting comments. You deleted one that referred to Ryan as “an injun” but let all those people call Holmquist disabled. Are there guidelines?

        Heraldo on June 5, 2010 at 2:35 pm
        One of those terms is racist. I deleted several comments from the Holmquist thread that were equally ugly. Is “disabled” an offensive term?


      • Just Watchin says:

        I do tend to set the bar a little high. Get it……drunk driver……a little high ! I crack me up…


    • LMOB says:

      John, you missed my admittedly too-subtle point.

      I am not a fan of Mike-Newman-Endorsing Mark Wheetley as a conservative Democrat in a liberal Democratic city and district, so I have been watching with interest how his DUI would be covered on THC days after proclaiming Mark the “esteemable and freaking awesome”…*

      …Unless I’m mistaken, he hasn’t been mentioned since.

      Yet hours after a THC bogeywoman boogeyman Terry Supahan’s misstep is publicly known, THC begins their non-moralizing moralizing.

      THC will refrain from pointing out how irresponsible, reprehensible, contemptible, horrible, and many other words ending with -ible, that drunk driving is.

      So, John, we don’t have to argue about what is a liberal, does the TS count as liberal reporting, etc. We are not looking at the hypocrisy of a movement or political ideology or some agglomeration of local newspapers. All we have to do is look at one individual’s double standard. Given that, I think my question was fair and I think my answer for THC is proven by their chosen topics and type-words.

      So let me try this again: should the personal be used to affect public policy?

      Imho, no. There are exceptions, there are grey areas, there are lines which shouldn’t be crossed, but we do have to always keep in mind the simple point of whom among us is going to cast the first stone?

      If you want to challenge me on my own hypocrisy, I would reference my opinions and comments asking the left to cool their jets when Chet Albin was taking heat regarding his interaction with a vendor in the months leading up to the 2014 ECC election.



  7. LMOB says:

    Here you go John… I feel funny quoting myself, but I couldn’t have written it better myself. Wait, what?. This is from August 16th on the TE.

    Personal and medical issues are involved in this story. Just stay away from these stories. We need to avoid this baloney of making politics about the personal. There is nothing more personal than a person’s medical issues. Even if Chet brought them up himself, it is crass to repeat it. The standard bar should be what would you repeat in public about a friend or family member who you happened to fundamentally disagree with on matters of policy and civics.

    I do hold us on the left to a higher standard only because I believe we are better than this and I know we can meet that standard. When we do, the elections will follow, because I believe it’s this arbitrary back and forth personal bs that really keeps people away from the polls.

    Let’s make politics about the policy not the personal. It’s a change each one of us has the power to make, that’s powerful, and I think the effects on local politics would be just as powerful.

    Save the anger and righteous indignation for things that matter – in my case, it’s the guiding principles of the GPU, a $12 minimum wage, among many other things. What are the things that matter to you?

    …Then this…

    These are good people, people with whom we disagree on ethics. I wouldn’t have handled this the same way as Chet or Mike, but I also wouldn’t have handled it the way Fritz did. The reason I’m not voting for Chet or Mike won’t have anything to do with this incident.

    Check out the lost coast thread on this. What you’ll find is a “damn the pols” attitude. That’s where this type of story leads – it leads to a fundamentally conservative meme – all polls (sic) are corrupt and thus government is corrupt.

    I agree that the press have a duty to report, but it should be in the gossip section, not the news section. Sadly, the internet doesn’t have that kind of filter. In this new age of media, the burden (or is it opportunity?) is on us to do much of the heavy lifting including figuring out how to react to these “news” stories.


    My go to on all this is Jonathan Haidt’s “The Righteous Mind: Why GOOD people are divided by politics and religion”.

    John, you are in the business of telling the stories and defining bad people for society. I’m glad you are out there doing your work, because I know I want no part of it. I want to focus on how to make people better and I’ll leave the crime and punishment blotter to good people like you.


    • John Chiv says:

      Jon, I don’t just report on the bad of people as you claim. I report on many success stories of the same people that only make the headlines. And, my work has benefitted society.

      You did stand up for me when the Tuluwat did that whole BS issue . They and others continue to do that. I have never hidden the fact that I changed my name, yet its a private issue. It continues to be used by some on the left because they cannot deal with the fact that my political/religious views are different. They have nothing to criticize in facts so they sink low and dirty, anonymously.

      It’s okay to be gay, transexual, a woman, a person of color as long as you are progressive or a Democrat to many on the left.

      That’s the kind of hypocrisy I am talking about.


  8. Just Watchin says:

    ……”Let’s make politics about the policy not the personal.” Any of you child molesters or wife beaters got any good policy ideas? Looks like there might be a place for you on the ballot !


  9. Mitch says:


    I’m pretty certain you fill find that the hypocrisy you are upset about is distributed pretty evenly across the political spectrum. It might be more apparent to us when it comes from those we dislike than when it comes from those we like.


    • John Chiv says:

      That may be true Mitch but I provided you not one, but two examples of hypocrisy. Why does the denial continue?

      I call out the hypocrisy whether it is Catholic or Republican, I want to see the party of “tolerance” to speak up against their own sexism, racism, homophobia and transphobia.


  10. Mitch says:

    Are you referring to your 5:27 citations as examples of hypocrisy? If that’s the case, you’re going to have to spell out for me how they are examples of hypocrisy.


  11. Mitch says:

    As for the party of “tolerance” speaking up against its own sexism, racism, homophobia, and transphobia, are you referring to the Democratic Party as the party of “tolerance?” While some Democrats may think their party is immune from the various isms you list, I don’t think most think it immune. But I do believe most feel, in my opinion with great justification, that there is less overt sexism, racism, homophobia and transphobia among Democrats than among Republicans, and that there is less acceptance of such behavior among Democrats than among Republicans. Would you be able to find examples of such behavior — I’m sure you would. As your examples of 5:27 demonstrate, though, there is less tolerance of such behavior among people on the left than among, say, the people hosting this blog. Just Watchin’s “firewater” comment is still up, and I don’t think the proprietors are leaving it up in a clever attempt to humiliate Just Watchin.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. yep says:

    From Mitch:

    “I’m pretty certain you fill find that the hypocrisy you are upset about is distributed pretty evenly across the political spectrum. It might be more apparent to us when it comes from those we dislike than when it comes from those we like.”

    THANK YOU MITCH!!! Yes, I am shouting this because it needs to be heard. We are probably far apart politically, but I have always respected you, as well as your comments, because it is never personal with you, and you walk the walk with regards to your activism – the vote transparency thing you do is something that is awesome.

    Where Jon and John get it wrong (IMO) is that he is unwilling to acknowledge that as you say, hypocrisy (as well as every negative human characteristic) is “distributed pretty evenly across the political spectrum”

    LMOB on occasion lectures his left of center friends at the TE when they cross the line, as if they are somehow better than this, because of the leanings of their politics.

    But you nailed it – we are all human, and regardless of our political, religious or any other beliefs, we all have the same shortcomings.

    I thought JW’s comment was silly, racist and stupid, and it did exactly what was intended to do, which was to elicit a reaction from LMOB.


    • Just Watchin says:

      The slip up of saying “he is unwilling” instead of “they are unwilling” blew your cover jonboy. You can change your name to “yep” to post, but your writing style is unmistakable.


      • John Chiv says:

        LOL JW. Even if it is not Jon, it is someone in denial like Jon and Mitch.

        Mitch, if you don’t see the hypocrisy, you are playing dumb. And I am not wasting my time convincing you. You are wrong. You refuse to acknowledge not one but numerous attempts by TE, commenters here that have put out personal information about me not relevant. Kathy Arabian got smacked, rightfully by the Humboldt Mirror when she did the same. Mitch, by your silence you are saying it is okay for the left to out conservative gays and other minorities just because they cannot deal with the fact that some people succeed without playing victim.

        The people defending Suphahan on this thread are hypocrites. He is a nice man but its OK that he did not research his future employer and its ok that he got a DUI.

        As pointed out, DUIs by people perceived to be in the right, whether they are or not, get different treatment. Don’t convince me Mitch, the facade of the left is being exposed locally and it is about time.


  13. Will McCovey says:

    Mitch, you are full of it. Left and right are equally full of it too. Supahan’s DUI is serious but may not be a defining action on him. If he had killed someone though? So one’s judgement does allow us to question his actions in all venues. He is on one hand a very nice person , yet on the other hand so stupid as to fall for this divisive HAF “Acorn” spawned True North BS and to drive drunk. .soooooo maybe he should clear his head in several areas. Mitch, by-the-by, the firewater stuff was obvious toung-in-cheek and you bit on it like a big mouth bass.


  14. Liu says:

    @John Chiv

    “LOL JW. Even if it is not Jon, it is someone in denial like Jon and Mitch.”

    I’m struggling to see what “yep” at 12:02 is in denial about. I would echo his/her sentiments when he/she says

    “But you nailed it – we are all human, and regardless of our political, religious or any other beliefs, we all have the same shortcomings.”

    Are you suggesting like that one side or the other of the politcal spectrum is less or more less vitriolic? That’s absurd. That you are a target sometimes unfortunately probably makes you feel the shit hurled out from the left leaning blogs more acutely, but a-holes about everywhere irrespective of their political leanings.


    • John Chiv says:

      Liu, the only thing absurd is you claiming to know what I feel and while I agree both right and left have jerks, locally , it is the left leaning blogs in denial and targeting more than just me, for having a different opinion.

      Amusing as this has been, the post is about Supahan, not me, but yes the left also veers off topic and then comes back repeating the same information hoping it will become fact. Unlike you, my opinion is based on real life, not blogs. And actual interaction and observation of people, who may comment on blogs.


      • Henchman Of Justice says:


        If you follow comments on blogs through observation and interaction, how is it not a disqualifier to your argument that your opinions are not based upon blogs, but reality?

        Is it not reality your opinion at times may be formed based upon your experiences that include the realities you discovered while blogging. Maybe you had an opinion “one way”, then blogged, experienced something, and it changed your opinion on something or somebody, even if ever so slightly.


  15. LMOB says:

    I’d like to ask one more time b/c we’ve used a great deal of type-words in this thread to talk down the left. Fine. But this question is simple and specific to THC, the only partisanship involved is their own, the only double standard their own. It’s really rare we get instances like this in real time, but we had one and I’d like to ask if this type of double standard is OK? Do we moralize only when those we disagree with misstep?

    Again, here is THC on their high horse “THC will refrain from pointing out how irresponsible, reprehensible, contemptible, horrible, and many other words ending with -ible, that drunk driving is.” with HAF and True North following 2 and 5 words after this proclamation of disdain.

    So here is the test. We have the above DUI March 25rh reported by John Chiv. This post took THC three days to compose.

    The control: (that part of an experiment which can be used to test results under “normal” circumstances). Regarding the 3rd District race for supervisor, THC wrote this on Dec 29th:
    “And while normally that’s just fine, in this particular race it creates a huge problem: Uri’s candidacy will take away votes from the esteemable and freaking awesome Mark Wheetley, thereby increasing the chances of an evil-empire style take over by the rotten Harbor Commissioner Mike Wilson.”. Nine days later Mark was arrested for DUI. Since then not a peep from THC, even given how “irresponsible, reprehensible, contemptible, horrible,” drunk driving is. What gives?

    Is this really about DUI’s and how serious they can be or about a cheap and easy way of playing gotcha politics?

    My question to THC and it’s readers. Is this OK? We don’t have to ask if the left does it, or if the right does it. We have an example here of a double standard based on who one likes and who one doesn’t like. Is this OK?

    I think what THC is doing is common and human, and I would ask if I’m caught doing the same thing to please call me out on it, but I think it is not OK. I would have hoped that we could agree on this.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Just Watchin says:

    This is THCs blog. They can say or do whatever they want. Everyone has the choice to NOT read it. You can always go over to the county libturd mouthpiece, the Tulatwat Examiner.


  17. Mitch says:

    Just Watchin, on behalf of the folks “in mom’s basement,” has composed the only retort available to Jon’s absolutely straightforward question w/r/t double standards. What remains is for the folks “in mom’s basement” and their readership to decide whether they think Just Watchin’s response meets their standards. I suspect it does, which is the pity.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Just Watchin says:

      The original “pity” was how you ran the Herald into the ground……


      • Mitch says:

        It was a no-win situation and you took full advantage of it. My only regret is having become involved, without being given the keys to the car. I offer no apologies for anything I said there, or for any actions I took with respect to trying to clean it up.


    • Howdy Mitch,

      Thanks for your insightful comments. We appreciate that you can articulate Jon’s thoughts in a better organized and more succinct manner. As far as a double standard goes we agree that a DUI represents a poor choice regardless of the offender. We didn’t take a position on Wheetley’s arrest because he doesn’t sit on a board that has a policy of deliberately inciting division in our community. One could suggest that the Arcata Council does enact divisive policies. The difference is that they do not take those kind of actions to deliberately damage and estrange our communities whereas Humboldt Area Foundation does so and with full malice and forethought. Hell, they have an entire staff whos job is to stir shit up. One might also consider that LOCO and other blogs are more than happy to inform the public of the failings of our more moderate officials. LOCO in particular refuses to expose the friends and associates of it’s owner Pat Cleary. Perhaps if there was even a semblance of even-handedness in more conventional sources we wouldn’t feel quite as compelled to level the playing field. Of course the other possibility is that we were just too messed up after a fresh case of Mike’s Hard Cider to notice Wheetly’s event.

      On another note does anyone know what Supahan’s Breathalyzer score was? We’d be curious to know if he can pound as many as we can. Of course when we’re hammered Mom always locks the basement door to keep us off the moped anyway.


      • Mitch says:


        Although I don’t know any of the characters in your various dramas, I do know that the main reason anyone acts to incite division is that they are frightened of what would happen were people to organize themselves and act in unity. Without knowing any details of True North, I admire anyone’s efforts to unite and organize people who are being collectively screwed, and I realize that anyone who makes such efforts will always — always — be demonized by those doing the screwing. It’s either a job hazard or a badge of honor, depending on how you see things.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Henchman Of Justice says:

        THC says HAF has a policy of inciting divisiveness but that Mark Wheatley does not sit on a board (council) of the same evil pedigree……


        THC admits that Wheatley oversees staff who practice policies that incites divisiveness.

        THC didn’t take a position on Wheatley’s DUI, what a hoot.

        Anyone know what specific policy THC suggests HAF is acting upon, afterall it must be a policy written down on paper somewhere………………


  18. Arcatan says:


    I could be wrong but I don’t think that THC’s beef is really with True North. In this case I believe that the frightened people you refer to are those at Humboldt Area Foundation. Otherwise I agree with your comment.


  19. LMOB says:

    Thank you THC and Mitch for translating my type-words for him.
    This is a great chance for us to review ethics, chief among them is the dreaded “double standard”.

    The Good News:
    We haven’t reached levels of Trump-dom in Humboldt’s social media. THC and I agree that it is unfair and wrong to use DUIs as a political cudgel. Here is THC decrying this perceived slight in the website LoCO: “Perhaps if there was even a semblance of even-handedness in more conventional sources”

    The Justification:
    If THC feels this way, how could he justify breaking his own ethic? His stated reasoning is that Mark Wheetley is not on a board that demands scrutiny b/c the Arcata City Council not been divisive. (Never-mind that opens up another double standard on THC’s own divisiveness, please.) I don’t understand this, but it’s interesting, I’ll take his word on it and we’ll see how the future goes. At least we have him on record.

    But here is the ultimate reason, the double standard is OK in this one case, and it goes back to the reason THC complains about LoCO in the first place “LOCO in particular refuses to expose the friends and associates of it’s owner Pat Cleary”. There isn’t a semblance of fairness, so THC on his white horse is set to make things fair by ignoring his own ethics in this case to right a greater wrong. Think of it as Humboldt’s local version of putting fairness and balance back into journalism.

    Yes, he’s doing the exact same thing that he is complaining that LoCO does, but this is in service of a righteous, and totally non-idiotic cause. If Evil Mike Wilson is Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars, THC is Luke Skywalker.

    The Politics:
    Back to what I keep going on about. This isn’t about good and evil as THC would like you to believe (tongue planted in cheek or not). This is about two sides looking for leverage in winning political elections. This is, btw, rightfully divisive. Many of the mundane decisions we have to make are. Will you pay me a living wage for a full month’s work – one that will pay for rent, food, transportation, education, health care, savings, and college for my kids? Should the North Coast be able to keep their excess water in a time of drought? How much of a role does the public have in creating (and thus ameliorating if not solving) houselessness? How can these decisions be made while sitting down with a nice cup of tea and exchanging pleasantries?

    Policies decisions stemming from very difficult decisions such as those listed above are examples that elected like Mark Wheetley have to make with some frequency (btw, Terry Supahan – not an elected). Where Mitch and I disagree is in the nature of the American middle class. I don’t want to misrepresent Mitch so I’ll let him type for himself if he chooses to. I believe in us. I believe in our middle class. I just think there is a backward, mean-spirited political movement out there that rationalizes their own bad behavior (ie sometimes breaking their own ethics) by creating an arch nemesis exploiting an otherwise majority fair-minded middle class and thus explaining how we have been voting so poorly as a nation for most of my adult life.

    Whether this nemesis is liberalism or or progressives or government or unions or community organizers or the media, or the takers, or Muslims, or …there is always someone out there whose worse behavior justifies the behavior of the right.

    So when Liu types this: “Are you suggesting like that one side or the other of the politcal spectrum is less or more less vitriolic? That’s absurd.”

    Really? You can say that in a political cycle with Donald Trump? You can say that with our current broadcast media? Please do link to an equivalent to left wing watch dogs such as Media Matters or Right Wing Watch which 90% of their content is the right wing in their own words. There simply is no left wing equivalent which has any purchase what-so-ever. (No AIM is not one)

    I’m sorry, there is no bothsiderism to this. One side, one party, one movement has made it’s goal to protect wealth and money at all costs including attacking exactly those people they are elected to represent.

    Once in a while we get a chance to see this double standard happen in real time. And even rarer, we’ll get a rationalization. Thank you THC for attempting to explain the double standard, apologies for the victory lap. I’m seeking leverage too. In the end, we’ll always be much more alike than different.

    For more on ethics, check out Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind: Good People Divided by Politics and Religion.


    • We are once again reminded of our policy of not engaging Jon. Anybody ever wonder about the underlying psychology of why we are so compelled to slow down and gawk as we pass the scene of an accident?


      • Just Watchin says:

        He types and hears brilliant and insightful thoughts. Everyone else hears blah blah blah blah. Actually kinda sad. Anyone wanna bet he doesn’t run for city council?


      • LMOB says:

        Sorry I couldn’t condense the thought into 140 characters for you THC. Like JW says, you don’t have to read the comments, just scroll down past all that truth that might make you mad.


  20. Just Watchin says:

    I suppose we can now look forward to “yep” posting and slappin lyinjon on the back!!


  21. LMOB says:

    THC, btw, thank you for leaving up the firewater comment, as someone has proposed, in an attempt to humiliate the one who composed it. You are truly a champion of opposing and calling out those who “deliberately incit(e) division” Especially those who might ” deliberately damage and estrange our communities”.

    Kudos! And apologies again to you and your readers for those long winded and confusing opinions.


    • Just Watchin says:

      Paleface speak with forked tongue…..


      • Mitch says:

        Sometime, perhaps you’ll have a spare moment and can learn why there’s a difference between stereotyping and/or “joking about” those in positions over others versus stereotyping and/or “joking about” those who are in some respects under the power of others. They might look similar on the surface, but when you examine what’s going on, it doesn’t take all that much insight to realize they are actually very different things. It does take a wee bit, though.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Just Watchin says:

        I say we call for a pow wow


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s