View Full Version : Article: Ammon Bundy Speaks From Occupied Oregon Refuge...
Ultralight
1-4-16, 11:32am
Thoughts on this situation?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/ammon-bundy-speaks-occupied-oregon-refuge-important-people/story?id=36078727
I'm not sure I understand what these guys are trying to accomplish. They seem to be upset over a couple of people being convicted of arson, but they don't seem to be demanding their release. The whole situation strikes me as similar to some of the more hysterical campus protests of the past year.
Ultralight
1-4-16, 12:06pm
I'm not sure I understand what these guys are trying to accomplish. They seem to be upset over a couple of people being convicted of arson, but they don't seem to be demanding their release. The whole situation strikes me as similar to some of the more hysterical campus protests of the past year.
Perhaps they are just trying to raise awareness.
But here is the thing. Imagine if they were Middle Eastern Muslims. How would they be treated differently?
From the news this morning, it sounds like it's about the government forcing them to sell their farmland, in order for a nature preserve to be expanded. I can understand their being upset. One guy (one of the Bundy's) said that he feels that the state and local governments haven't protected their rights and their land. Supposedly, the "arson" was when they burned their own acreage.........which farmers sometimes do. He said these farmers families have farmed this area for generations, and they are being told they have to give it up to expand a nature preserve.
Chicken lady
1-4-16, 1:06pm
I haven't read anything about the preserve expansion, but it is my understanding that the arson occurred on land where they had leased grazing rights, not on land they owned. The second is "their own acreage" the first is not.
You can cut all the trees down in your own yard. You cannot cut all of the trees down in "your" yard if "your" yard belongs to your landlord.
Imagine if they were Middle Eastern Muslims. How would they be treated differently?
1562
You can cut all the trees down in your own yard.
Not in some states, these days. For example, the critical areas environmental protection laws in my county and state place some significant restrictions on how you can use your if it contains or is near critical habitat, aquifer recharge zones, the shoreline, geohazardous zones, and so on. It also places burdens on the land owner to maintain or remedy certain conditions that may be present on the land.
As to these folks in Oregon, who knows what the truth is? Probably a bit early to be making Twitter fodder out of the situation though.
I'm not sure I understand what these guys are trying to accomplish. They seem to be upset over a couple of people being convicted of arson, but they don't seem to be demanding their release. The whole situation strikes me as similar to some of the more hysterical campus protests of the past year.
I think, for me at least, it stops being a protest when the protesters have guns and have taken over a government building.
I wonder if they laywered up.
I think, for me at least, it stops being a protest when the protesters have guns and have taken over a government building.
The info I've come across indicates the important government building is about the size of a highway rest stop bathroom.
What does "taken over" mean, btw? Are they forbidding others from coming/going? Holding hostages? Trespassing? Peaceably freezing theirs bleeps off in the middle of nowhere, and hoping to get Facebook/Twitter viralization and snacks brought in?
Peaceably freezing theirs bleeps off in the middle of nowhere, and hoping to get Facebook/Twitter viralization and snacks brought in?
This. :laff:
One data point - I just chatted with some friends in the area, they claim these folks are mostly moronic outside agitators, and the locals don't want 'em there.
I am curious how this thing will play out.
One data point - I just chatted with some friends in the area, they claim these folks are mostly moronic outside agitators, and the locals don't want 'em there.
Sort of like Occupy Wall Street with cowboy hats?
Sort of like Occupy Wall Street with cowboy hats?
Yup. And not a Starbucks in sight.
Sort of like Occupy Wall Street with cowboy hats?
I wonder what the government response to the Occupy protests would have been had the protesters been armed.
The info I've come across indicates the important government building is about the size of a highway rest stop bathroom.
What does "taken over" mean, btw? Are they forbidding others from coming/going? Holding hostages? Trespassing? Peaceably freezing theirs bleeps off in the middle of nowhere, and hoping to get Facebook/Twitter viralization and snacks brought in?
The size of the building seems irrelevant. Is it any less of a crime if I steal someone's Smart car versus someone's large SUV?
Please feel free to go down there and try to enter and let us know armed folks in the watchtower respond.
Please feel free to go down there and try to enter and let us know armed folks in the watchtower respond.
Being armed and threatening violence are two different things. I spent most of my adult life armed on a daily basis, and I'm a pussycat.
I wonder what the government response to the Occupy protests would have been had the protesters been armed.
So far it seems about the same except for the fashion choices. People squatting on public property making ambiguous demands while the authorities hope they'll get bored and go away before the available sanitary facilities are overwhelmed. But it's early in the show.
The size of the building seems irrelevant. Is it any less of a crime if I steal someone's Smart car versus someone's large SUV?
I was attempting to provide context to the "OMGZ they've occupied a Federal Building!!!!" tidal wave. I do see perhaps some difference between milling around a closed-for-the-season ticket booth/visitors interpretive center of a remote wildlife refuge and occupying the Governor's office or a State University President's office or blowing up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. But if it's handy to collapse all this into "angry armed white guy domestic terrorism" for the sake of convenience, heck, go for it. You can see the lust for blood in the social media sphere, so many folks are just slavering to see these morons cluster-bombed.
Please feel free to go down there and try to enter and let us know armed folks in the watchtower respond.
No thanks, I strive to maintain distance from disorder, and I can see no good at all coming of anyone being around that clown show. If I were the law enforcement folks in charge, I'd take photos of the participants, ignore them, wait for cold and hunger and lack-of-media to do its work, then roll around next month when they are sadly sitting at home and arrest them, if that was even necessary.
Might look to how Canada is handling the Wet’suwet’en's Unist’ot’en Camp blockade. (Weird, that one doesn't make the news much, wonder why...)
So far it seems about the same except for the fashion choices. People squatting on public property making ambiguous demands while the authorities hope they'll get bored and go away before the available sanitary facilities are overwhelmed. But it's early in the show.
It may be the same now, but I'd have been somewhat surprised if the police had just sat around if the situation had involved Occupy protesters with guns in a lookout tower.
I was attempting to provide context to the "OMGZ they've occupied a Federal Building!!!!" tidal wave. I do see perhaps some difference between milling around a closed-for-the-season ticket booth/visitors interpretive center of a remote wildlife refuge and occupying the Governor's office or a State University President's office or blowing up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. But if it's handy to collapse all this into "angry armed white guy domestic terrorism" for the sake of convenience, heck, go for it. You can see the lust for blood in the social media sphere, so many folks are just slavering to see these morons cluster-bombed.
No thanks, I strive to maintain distance from disorder, and I can see no good at all coming of anyone being around that clown show. If I were the law enforcement folks in charge, I'd take photos of the participants, ignore them, wait for cold and hunger and lack-of-media to do its work, then roll around next month when they are sadly sitting at home and arrest them, if that was even necessary.
Might look to how Canada is handling the Wet’suwet’en's Unist’ot’en Camp blockade. (Weird, that one doesn't make the news much, wonder why...)
I actually agree with your suggestion for how to handle the situation except that I'd remove "if that was even necessary" from the next to last paragraph. If the news reports are accurate then what they've done would certainly seem to be deserving of arrest.
It may be the same now, but I'd have been somewhat surprised if the police had just sat around if the situation had involved Occupy protesters with guns in a lookout tower.
Sure, but the laws applicable to carrying firearms probably differ quite a bit between NYC and rural Oregon.
I actually agree with your suggestion for how to handle the situation except that I'd remove "if that was even necessary" from the next to last paragraph. If the news reports are accurate then what they've done would certainly seem to be deserving of arrest.
I haven't been keeping up with the news - what specific things have they done?
Around here, I quite frequently observe federal, state, and local law enforcement officers decline to make an arrest, but instead simply issue a citation for things like trespassing, violations of fish/game rules, violations of environmental regulations, land use offenses, building code violations, traffic offenses, fire code violations, agricultural violations, ... If the accused doesn't show up in court for the citation, *then* a warrant for arrest is issued and you send out guys with guns to drag in the accused. This is the boring part of the process you don't see on crime shows on TV.
I understand the fun desire to send out armed men to wield the iron fist of the State to arrest folks because they are disrespecting you, but it's not the best way to do things generally. I am responsible for a jurisdiction that has police powers. I have subcontracted out our work to the local Sheriff's department, with instructions to avoid arrest whenever reasonable, but simply to catch/identify/cite problem children. Seems to produce decent results, and without so much waste of taxpayer money.
Arresting someone is expensive, time-consuming, and a logistical pain.
As to the two individuals whose sentencing seems to have provoked this:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2660399-Statement-USattorney.html
Williamsmith
1-4-16, 7:36pm
Simple really. Send the local Sheriff to advise them that they have committed a burglary and defiant trespass. They only acknowledge the Sheriff as authorized by the Constitution. They have 48 hrs to leave after that the building will be the target of a drone strike. Flatten it and have the Mexicans pay to have it rebuilt.
I think the government should just send them a notice letting them know what the price per night is for staying there - and a lease application if they plan to stay past the end of the month. Send them a bill when they vacate.
"I said I'd bring the bible and the flag and you would pack the food."
"No, I said I'd bring the pocket constitution and water the tree of liberty with the blood of our enemies and you'd pack the food."
The tension in the little refuge was so thick you could spread it on a piece of....well no, no you couldn't...
My take is that there are two issues. The first is around the local rancher(s) who may have been coerced to sell their land to the government to expand the refuge. Also the one rancher family who has been charged for committing terrorist acts for setting a range fire on federal land to provide better grazing range for which they had grazing rights. I can see where they might have a good point, and the charge and penalty seem out of proportion to the violation. They apparently do not support the radical bunch.
The second issue that is tied up in things is the rabble rousing from the Bundys and their followers who seem to think the government does not have the right to tell people what they can do on public land. (Is this fundamental Libertarian ism?) My take is that the Bundy bunch are kooks. The elder Bundy had caused all sorts of problems in Utah where there have been similar armed protests. He has been charged with not paying for grazing rights on BLM land many years in arrears. They want the feds to relinquish up control of the wildlife refuge so "the people can reclaim their resources." Their platform is apparently not wanting any restrictions on activities on public lands, such as mining, logging, and grazing.
To me it's a little confusing because one of the issues might make sense and the other is out in left field and they are only vaguely related.
I haven't been keeping up with the news - what specific things have they done?
Around here, I quite frequently observe federal, state, and local law enforcement officers decline to make an arrest, but instead simply issue a citation for things like trespassing, violations of fish/game rules, violations of environmental regulations, land use offenses, building code violations, traffic offenses, fire code violations, agricultural violations, ... If the accused doesn't show up in court for the citation, *then* a warrant for arrest is issued and you send out guys with guns to drag in the accused. This is the boring part of the process you don't see on crime shows on TV.
I understand the fun desire to send out armed men to wield the iron fist of the State to arrest folks because they are disrespecting you, but it's not the best way to do things generally. I am responsible for a jurisdiction that has police powers. I have subcontracted out our work to the local Sheriff's department, with instructions to avoid arrest whenever reasonable, but simply to catch/identify/cite problem children. Seems to produce decent results, and without so much waste of taxpayer money.
Arresting someone is expensive, time-consuming, and a logistical pain.
At this point they've at least broken into the place, trespassed on it, and presumably damaged some property in order to break in. Since we arrest unarmed people in this country for the crime of selling loose cigarettes and use enough force to actually kill them in the process I think we ought to be arresting these people as well. Or at least admit that we have a wildly unequal and unfair system for how we treat people who break laws.
I will give due consideration to your suggestion that I have people shot who fail to properly pay their parking, mooring or landing fees. Perhaps even sink the kayakers who illegally land on the tidelands at the end of the runway. Probably the noise will help scare off the wildlife, so it might even be a cost savings, as now we have to pay someone to do that.
No need to shoot them. Just have a bunch of people sit on them until they suffocate. After all, no sense wasting bullets if there's a more cost efficient way of killing the scofflaws.
Williamsmith
1-4-16, 10:52pm
This is a great opportunity for intelligence gathering. Anyone identified here will have an FBI file opened on them. They will be under surveillance, their communications will be monitored and their social media will be copied and saved. Their phone and text messaging will be monitored. Background investigations will be done on them all. They will be infiltrated and targeted.
They have provided all the probable cause for the NSA to obtain the most private information available. You don't embarrass federal agencies without consequences. The easiest way to get them will be through federal firearms laws. You can't carry on federal property. Later you can find yourself on no fly lists without due process. And some day if you are on a no fly list you will not be permitted to buy or possess a gun. The second amendment is gospel to the militia movement.
They will eventually all end up in federal prison for one thing or another. As we have seen in the past......there are factions who are willing to resort to terrorism to make their point. Just the way it is. It's not some juvenile urban protest. These guys are serious.
Some people have been making fun of them. I wouldn't take them lightly. They feel justified.
https://upvoted.com/2016/01/04/oregon-militia-asks-for-snacks-reddit-users-plan-to-send-glitter-instead/
Interesting story - seems the person complaining that the government should leave them alone stepped up to help himself to government handouts:
http://news.groopspeak.com/leader-of-the-anti-govt-oregon-protest-got-huge-handout-from-a-program-obama-created/
https://upvoted.com/2016/01/04/oregon-militia-asks-for-snacks-reddit-users-plan-to-send-glitter-instead/
I like it!
Interesting story - seems the person complaining that the government should leave them alone stepped up to help himself to government handouts:
http://news.groopspeak.com/leader-of-the-anti-govt-oregon-protest-got-huge-handout-from-a-program-obama-created/
I love it!
I'm confused. The news initially was that the government was forcing the Hammonds to sell their farmland so they could enlarge the nature preserve. Now it sounds like they were arrested for burning land that was already part of the nature preserve..........??
Ultralight
1-5-16, 11:43am
I think closing off ranches to let nature be preserved is a good thing. They should do this a lot more.
Some ideas for monikers
Yee-hawdists
Y'all Qaeda
Yokel Haram
Vanilla ISIS
Vanilla ISIS LOL.
I think the feds are showing good judgment by exercising patience on this. However, patience should have its limits. I continue to wonder, for example, why some of the people involved in the Cliven Bundy standoff aren't in jail or awaiting trial. The feds did the right thing there too by backing off--temporarily. Now that the furor has died down, though, why haven't they arrested the principals in that case? As a taxpayer, I want the cattle Bundy owes me.
It's certainly true that if the occupiers here were black or Muslim, the shrieks of the right-wing noise machine could be heard on the moon. But just because the authorities didn't hesitate to wade into the Occupy camps with batons and tear gas doesn't mean that's the right strategy here.
Teacher Terry
1-5-16, 3:04pm
The Bundies are nut jobs and I also wonder why they have not arrested him for the cattle he owes the government.
Possibly they don't want a replay of the Randy Weaver or Waco?
Vanilla ISIS LOL.
I think the feds are showing good judgment by exercising patience on this. However, patience should have its limits. I continue to wonder, for example, why some of the people involved in the Cliven Bundy standoff aren't in jail or awaiting trial. The feds did the right thing there too by backing off--temporarily. Now that the furor has died down, though, why haven't they arrested the principals in that case? As a taxpayer, I want the cattle Bundy owes me.
It's certainly true that if the occupiers here were black or Muslim, the shrieks of the right-wing noise machine could be heard on the moon. But just because the authorities didn't hesitate to wade into the Occupy camps with batons and tear gas doesn't mean that's the right strategy here.
agreed
And then there was the Black Lives Matter protest at the Mall of America a couple of weeks ago. Photo 17 shows the discrepancy in police response when it's (unarmed) black people protesting. I can imagine the response if they'd been armed...
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/12/23/photos-black-lives-matter-protesters-disrupt-mall-of-america-msp-airport#fig-159225
freshstart
1-6-16, 12:21am
Some ideas for monikers
Yee-hawdists
Y'all Qaeda
Yokel Haram
Vanilla ISIS
Y'all Qaeda is perfect
freshstart
1-6-16, 12:24am
And then there was the Black Lives Matter protest at the Mall of America a couple of weeks ago. Photo 17 shows the discrepancy in police response when it's (unarmed) black people protesting. I can imagine the response if they'd been armed...
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/12/23/photos-black-lives-matter-protesters-disrupt-mall-of-america-msp-airport#fig-159225
guess we know the answer to #18
Williamsmith
1-6-16, 4:48am
The Black Lives Matter movement needs to look itself in the mirror. The powers that be are and will use the movement to get changes they otherwise could not affect, those changes having nothing to do with keeping black people from being killed.
The protest leadership needs to clean up their clearinghouse and closely examine individual cases. It undermines the movement when you protest a justified response to an illegal act. Though still tragic, not notable. Foundations need to be built on solid rock not shifting sands.
What the movement has' in moral high ground and motivation it lacks in discretion and focus. Andlastly but most importantly, the movement needs to quit making dead people the face of the movement and find a living breathing inspiration to be the mouthpiece and influence not the powers in place but the hearts and minds of the common populace.
Oh yeah, one more thing. They need to stop'killing each other with reckless abandon. Sympathy and empathy are built where a true victimization exists.
Bundy is the tip of the iceberg waiting to become inverted.
And then there was the Black Lives Matter protest at the Mall of America a couple of weeks ago. Photo 17 shows the discrepancy in police response when it's (unarmed) black people protesting. I can imagine the response if they'd been armed...
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/12/23/photos-black-lives-matter-protesters-disrupt-mall-of-america-msp-airport#fig-159225
Based on the photos (I for example noticed ## 8, 13 and 18 when I was looking at the #17 you pointed us to) I'm not sure you can characterize the group as black people protesting. Maybe just people.
Seems to me this is more a matter of geography and ownership than race.
I was surprised at how quickly and how eagerly people brought race into this discussion. A group of zealots gather who may or may not have legitimate grievances against the federal government, and certainly have some eccentric views on the Constitution, occupy a bird sanctuary; and it prompts yet another raft of race commentary. At least we aren't being admonished about the potential backlash against the ranching community.
Ultralight
1-6-16, 10:04am
I was surprised at how quickly and how eagerly people brought race into this discussion. A group of zealots gather who may or may not have legitimate grievances against the federal government, and certainly have some eccentric views on the Constitution, occupy a bird sanctuary; and it prompts yet another raft of race commentary. At least we aren't being admonished about the potential backlash against the ranching community.
Straight white male privilege.
Straight white male privilege.
Now there's one of the more interesting bits of nonsense our era has produced. I see it used all the time as a sort of incantation intended to invalidate opinions.
Ultralight
1-6-16, 10:39am
Now there's one of the more interesting bits of nonsense our era has produced. I see it used all the time as a sort of incantation intended to invalidate opinions.
It doesn't invalidate opinions. Opinions are subjective and often not evidence-based. That is how they work.
But straight privilege is real. White privilege is real. Male privilege is real.
I have witnessed it.
I have also experienced problems as a result of Christian privilege in this society.
It doesn't invalidate opinions. Opinions are subjective and often not evidence-based. That is how they work.
But straight privilege is real. White privilege is real. Male privilege is real.
I have witnessed it.
I have also experienced problems as a result of Christian privilege in this society.
Piffle. Assigning a "privilege" label to everyone in a group that ranges from unemployed coal miners to Democratic presidential candidates goes beyond foolishness.
Piffle. Assigning a "privilege" label to everyone in a group that ranges from unemployed coal miners to Democratic presidential candidates goes beyond foolishness.
I agree, it's a way of diminishing one's successes without demeaning another's failures, and when taken as a whole, nonsensical. On the other hand, it does reinforce racism, so there's that.
Ultralight
1-6-16, 11:29am
Piffle. Assigning a "privilege" label to everyone in a group that ranges from unemployed coal miners to Democratic presidential candidates goes beyond foolishness.
Understanding privilege takes more intellectual sophistication than that.
Why? Because there is also class privilege. So the straight white coal miner guy has straight white male privilege. But the Democratic presidential candidate (let's say he is male, white, and straight) probably has socio-economic class privilege that the coal miner does not have.
Ya dig?
I have straight white male privilege. I have some level of class privilege being that I am what one would likely call "successful working class."
But I do not have Christian privilege, for instance. Nor do I have upper middle class privilege.
I have witnessed privilege on a very personal level. My significant other happens to be a black woman (with dark skin and kinky hair). I see the way she is treated differently because she does not have white male privilege.
Ultralight
1-6-16, 11:30am
I agree, it's a way of diminishing one's successes without demeaning another's failures, and when taken as a whole, nonsensical.
You can hold that opinion. But that does not mean your opinion reflects reality.
Understanding privilege takes more intellectual sophistication than that.
Why? Because there is also class privilege. So the straight white coal miner guy has straight white male privilege. But the Democratic presidential candidate (let's say he is male, white, and straight) probably has socio-economic class privilege that the coal miner does not have.
Ya dig?
I have straight white male privilege. I have some level of class privilege being that I am what one would likely call "successful working class."
But I do not have Christian privilege, for instance. Nor do I have upper middle class privilege.
I have witnessed privilege on a very personal level. My significant other happens to be a black woman (with dark skin and kinky hair). I see the way she is treated differently because she does not have white male privilege.
But if we take your "sophisticated" approach of classifying "privilege" by ever finer categories of victim and victimizer, aren't we ultimately reduced to dealing with one another as individuals and rendering your white privilege label meaningless?
Ultralight
1-6-16, 12:16pm
But if we take your "sophisticated" approach of classifying "privilege" by ever finer categories of victim and victimizer, aren't we ultimately reduced to dealing with one another as individuals and rendering your white privilege label meaningless?
No. That is not how it works and you know this.
No. That is not how it works and you know this.
What I know is the folly of applying blanket labels and thinking you’ve made a legitimate point.
Ultralight
1-6-16, 12:53pm
What I know is the folly of applying blanket labels and thinking you’ve made a legitimate point.
Uh... really? lol
That is not what is going on with these issues of privilege. Again: You know this.
Williamsmith
1-6-16, 1:03pm
Straight white privilege doctrine is excuse making for people of color and/ or other sexual preference. Excuse for under achievement. I'm straight, I'm white and I created my own opportunities without the assistance of government or white society. You need to look at it on a case by case basis and not worship blanket doctrines. It will lead you to false ideals and inappropriate application of so called solutions to societal problems. Which is a shame.
You can hold that opinion. But that does not mean your opinion reflects reality.Only if you define reality as what you hope it to be rather than what is.
Only if you define reality as what you hope it to be rather than what is.
It is important that you do not conflate your worldview and reality.
Straight white privilege doctrine is excuse making for people of color and/ or other sexual preference. Excuse for under achievement. I'm straight, I'm white and I created my own opportunities without the assistance of government or white society. You need to look at it on a case by case basis and not worship blanket doctrines. It will lead you to false ideals and inappropriate application of so called solutions to societal problems. Which is a shame.
Nope, not reality.
Uh... really? lol
That is not what is going on with these issues of privilege. Again: You know this.
I don't doubt that some individuals enjoy advantages others don't. Where I am doubtful is the claim that you can usefully taxonomize human relations by ever more granular physical, economic or cultural attributes. Either you end up making crude generalizations or you get trapped in a bottomless pit of intersectionality.
I don't doubt that some individuals enjoy advantages others don't. Where I am doubtful is the claim that you can usefully taxonomize human relations by ever more granular physical, economic or cultural attributes. Either you end up making crude generalizations or you get trapped in a bottomless pit of intersectionality.
Your rationale reminds me of those couples in college, perhaps you knew some. They acted like girlfriend and boyfriend. They went on dates. They were romantic and so forth. But if you asked if they were a couple they'd say: "We don't like labels."
To that I would say: "We have labels for a reason, like on automotive coolant so that no one thinks it is green Kool-aid."
So what I am saying here is that when we rightly label something white privilege or straight privilege, for instance, we are labeling it correctly as such.
Can something be mislabeled as privilege, I'd say so. But to say that they label does not apply at all -- or more accurately, a large -- is detrimentally dismissive and ignorant.
I don't doubt that some individuals enjoy advantages others don't.
And wouldn't you also say that some straight white men enjoy advantages others don't because they are straight, white, and male?
I'm straight, I'm white and I created my own opportunities without the assistance of government or white society....
I don't know the particulars of your situation--you may very well have overcome great obstacles in life, and if so I sincerely congratulate you. But I'm bound to point out that the above statement is perilously close what your born-on-third-base, country-club types like George W. Bush believe. I've seldom met one of these people who didn't believe that their position in life was the result of virtue rather than luck.
There's a spectrum here--from folks who have had everything in life handed to them on a plate to people who have genuinely overcome real hardship. Most of us fall in the middle of that spectrum. I have had good luck in life and bad; I've overcome some obstacles and been stymied by others.
There's certainly a good deal of whining nowadays by aggrieved groups of all kinds about things that are less about deliberate injustice than they are the inherent unfairness of life. But that doesn't mean injustice doesn't exist. To (hopefully) return to the topic of this thread, there's no doubt at all in my mind that the kooks in Oregon are getting kid glove treatment in part because they are white.
I don't know the particulars of your situation--you may very well have overcome great obstacles in life, and if so I sincerely congratulate you. But I'm bound to point out that the above statement is perilously close what your born-on-third-base, country-club types like George W. Bush believe. I've seldom met one of these people who didn't believe that their position in life was the result of virtue rather than luck.
There's a spectrum here--from folks who have had everything in life handed to them on a plate to people who have genuinely overcome real hardship. Most of us fall in the middle of that spectrum. I have had good luck in life and bad; I've overcome some obstacles and been stymied by others.
There's certainly a good deal of whining nowadays by aggrieved groups of all kinds about things that are less about deliberate injustice than they are the inherent unfairness of life. But that doesn't mean injustice doesn't exist. To (hopefully) return to the topic of this thread, there's no doubt at all in my mind that the kooks in Oregon are getting kid glove treatment in part because they are white.
Amen to this!
I don't doubt that some individuals enjoy advantages others don't. Where I am doubtful is the claim that you can usefully taxonomize human relations by ever more granular physical, economic or cultural attributes. Either you end up making crude generalizations or you get trapped in a bottomless pit of intersectionality.
You seem to be the only person trying to overly granularize things. UA listed the 4 or 5 main categories where certain people have privilege, not 315 million.
Your rationale reminds me of those couples in college, perhaps you knew some. They acted like girlfriend and boyfriend. They went on dates. They were romantic and so forth. But if you asked if they were a couple they'd say: "We don't like labels."
To that I would say: "We have labels for a reason, like on automotive coolant so that no one thinks it is green Kool-aid."
So what I am saying here is that when we rightly label something white privilege or straight privilege, for instance, we are labeling it correctly as such.
Can something be mislabeled as privilege, I'd say so. But to say that they label does not apply at all -- or more accurately, a large -- is detrimentally dismissive and ignorant.
I would argue that there is a great deal more variation in "white" than in "automotive coolant"; so much so that using terms like "white privilege" is valueless except as a sort of shorthand term in identity politics.
I would argue that there is a great deal more variation in "white" than in "automotive coolant"; so much so that using terms like "white privilege" is valueless except as a sort of shorthand term in identity politics.
Argue that all you want. But this is not about variants in coolant. You know this. Since you conflated actual coolant with the metaphor I used to illustrate why labels are important I will try another direction.
Let's get hyperbolic about it.
Could you say that the horrible institution of American Slavery that existed in our past was not the result of racism (what you might call a term used to "taxonomize human relations") but should be taken down to the individual level? Each white master enslaved each black individual for individual reasons, not because of racism?
You seem to be the only person trying to overly granularize things. UA listed the 4 or 5 main categories where certain people have privilege, not 315 million.
He is using a technique that I'd label "white washing." ;)
Williamsmith
1-6-16, 2:12pm
I don't know the particulars of your situation--you may very well have overcome great obstacles in life, and if so I sincerely congratulate you. But I'm bound to point out that the above statement is perilously close what your born-on-third-base, country-club types like George W. Bush believe. I've seldom met one of these people who didn't believe that their position in life was the result of virtue rather than luck.
There's a spectrum here--from folks who have had everything in life handed to them on a plate to people who have genuinely overcome real hardship. Most of us fall in the middle of that spectrum. I have had good luck in life and bad; I've overcome some obstacles and been stymied by others.
There's certainly a good deal of whining nowadays by aggrieved groups of all kinds about things that are less about deliberate injustice than they are the inherent unfairness of life. But that doesn't mean injustice doesn't exist. To (hopefully) return to the topic of this thread, there's no doubt at all in my mind that the kooks in Oregon are getting kid glove treatment in part because they are white.
This position fits well with you world view. I am not denying individualized straight white privilege, I am denying blanket application and the generalization to large slices of the population. It's the lazy mans way of creating an understanding of ones world. Put the time in to understand each situation.
For instance, the kooks in Oregon and their treatment has nothing to do with white privilege. It is a choice by law enforcement not to confront when confrontation is unnecessary. Believe it or not, they learned a thing or two from Waco and Ruby Ridge. The current view of law enforcement as jack booted thugs tempers reactionary policing. They will be held to the same standard any racial group would be who thumbed their noses at the federal government while being armed. They will be disarmed and incarcerated but it may be achieved by patience and not brute force. Same outcome.
This is has nothing I do with race. It has more to do with revolution.
While I find it good that the Feds are ignoring the people in Oregon until they go home cold and hungry - I wish they would show the same restraint in other situations where the people are not even armed.
I agree with ultra lite fisherman's well reasoned arguments throughout this topic.
This position fits well with you world view. I am not denying individualized straight white privilege, I am denying blanket application and the generalization to large slices of the population. It's the lazy mans way of creating an understanding of ones world. Put the time in to understand each situation.
For instance, the kooks in Oregon and their treatment has nothing to do with white privilege. It is a choice by law enforcement not to confront when confrontation is unnecessary. Believe it or not, they learned a thing or two from Waco and Ruby Ridge. The current view of law enforcement as jack booted thugs tempers reactionary policing. They will be held to the same standard any racial group would be who thumbed their noses at the federal government while being armed. They will be disarmed and incarcerated but it may be achieved by patience and not brute force. Same outcome.
This is has nothing I do with race. It has more to do with revolution.
I only apply straight white privilege to straight white people. Now, each case has its nuances. For instance one straight white person grew up in rural West Virginia in poverty. Another might have grown up privileged (oops, I said it!) in Naples, FL. But again, privilege also comes with higher class position in society.
Perhaps I see reality for what it is in the context of privilege and have then formed my worldview considering it. Yup, that is what I did.
:)
This situation would be so, so much different if the kooks in Oregon were Muslims. You know this.
Here is the thing, I think. Straight white men (and I can be labeled as such) fear that the idea of straight white privilege takes away from what they have accomplished in life. They fear it says "You did not work for what you got! Some of it was just bestowed upon you!"
Look, I was born to a working poor family and grew up in a tiny town full of alcoholics and pillbillies. I worked really hard to go to college and graduate. I worked hard in my internships and in graduate school. But I can tell you this my friend: It would have been a lot harder if I was a black trans-lesbian.
I like the phrase "born on third base". In fairness to those who merit the title, it's still a hard haul to get home, and you're the focus of much scrutiny, because that's where it really counts. In fairness to everyone else, I don't think everyone who is white, male and straight is born on third base ... but maybe somewhere between an intentional walk and second? This also goes for women or minorities or gays with money or status, but let's be real, sliding into home plate just isn't as likely if you have to manufacture a hit first. If you're a lousy hitter and you have to start at the plate, sucks for you.
In fairness to everyone else, I don't think everyone who is white, male and straight is born on third base ... but maybe somewhere between an intentional walk and second?
This seems reasonable.
Could you say that the horrible institution of American Slavery that existed in our past was not the result of racism (what you might call a term used to "taxonomize human relations") but should be taken down to the individual level? Each white master enslaved each black individual for individual reasons, not because of racism?
In terms of moral responsibility, yes. I am accountable for my own sins and not my neighbor's or my grandfather's. Certain subsets of a given population can share racist views, but there is no such thing as collective guilt. There may be such a thing as "Hillary Clinton Privilege", but there is no such thing as "white privilege" in any meaningful moral sense.
...there is no such thing as "white privilege" in any meaningful moral sense.
You know you're wrong about white privilege.
I also think you're missing the point.
I am going to let this go because I doubt much of anything will get you to admit this.
You keep telling me what I know. I'm curious as to your source.
You keep telling me what I know. I'm curious as to your source.
Maybe I just hope you know. haha
Who knows, it is possible you really don't.
ApatheticNoMore
1-6-16, 5:55pm
...there is no such thing as "white privilege" in any meaningful moral sense.
it's a really broad abstraction, and it's hard to understand the world at the level of such abstractions. How does it actually happen, what is the mechanism by which white privilege if that's what it is, happens? How high up does the decision to treat these people with kid gloves and minorities more harshly go? To Obama's desk? ;)
It's possible local law enforcement sees white people as more "like them" and yea that's "white privilege" at the level of basic human bias, at least the mechanism there is understandable, people are biased (sometimes overtly racist, but sometimes just unconsciously biased). It's possible urban law enforcement has become more hardened and brutal (I don't approve of it at all, but it may be the case).
It really has nothing to do with how a coal company sees a white person in Appalachia (as either something that stands in the way of or can be used toward profit and nothing more probably ... and then that is the overriding reality of their lives, not "white privilege"). The mechanisms and motives involved there aren't those involved in law enforcement making a decision how to treat a white or black lawbreaker. Whatever privilege some poor white person in coal country may enjoy is clearly not one they know how to use to give them any real advantages in life.
One could get into conspiracy theories, like these people are useful to companies that want to mine on public land etc.. They may be, and I don't like it. But the actual mechanism there, the smoking gun, would be the money trail, the corruption. Otherwise, they are kind of just useful idiots I suppose.
In terms of moral responsibility, yes. I am accountable for my own sins and not my neighbor's or my grandfather's. Certain subsets of a given population can share racist views, but there is no such thing as collective guilt. There may be such a thing as "Hillary Clinton Privilege", but there is no such thing as "white privilege" in any meaningful moral sense.
I thought about this statement more. Can you clarify? I want to make sure I know what you're saying.
Also: Being born white ain't no sin!
And: I think a collective of people can be guilty of something, like if a collective of 10 muggers beat up and rob a person.
One more thing: You brought up morals. And I can assure you that my morals are very different than yours. Many people's morals are different.
There is a respected environmental publication for us here in the west that has compared the various similar acts and how they have been punished. While the Hammond sentence may be severe and unprecedented, the Bundys have managed to get away unpunished in an unprecedented way. Somehow the Fed are going to have to eventually deal with him. Or at least you would think so.
http://www.hcn.org/articles/the-people-v-the-blm-bundy-hammonds-malheur
Williamsmith
1-7-16, 7:36pm
There is a respected environmental publication for us here in the west that has compared the various similar acts and how they have been punished. While the Hammond sentence may be severe and unprecedented, the Bundys have managed to get away unpunished in an unprecedented way. Somehow the Fed are going to have to eventually deal with him. Or at least you would think so.
http://www.hcn.org/articles/the-people-v-the-blm-bundy-hammonds-malheur
While I have no experience working with the BLM, I have conducted joint investigations with the FBI, IRS, US Marshalls and the BATF. My gut feeling is that the Bundys will be dealt with rather harshly. The line is being left out currently but it will suddenly be snapped up and the hook will be set rather deeply.
I. don't know what political affiliations the Bundys have but one can only go to the well so many times and sooner or later they will be cut loose to sink or float on their own.
For example, I know a certain person who espoused the elimination of the United Nations, warned of a New World Order, participated in the dissemination of Militia propaganda, held protests in public places, open carried semi automatic weapons in a legal manner.....all activities protected by the Constitution.......
however he brought attention to himself by operating a small homemade radio station without FCC licensing and being the owner of a gunshop attracted the attention of various Federal Agencies i.e. FBI, BATF. It wasn't long that an undercover wiretap was set up on his shop and soon evidence of illegal manufacturing of automatic firearms was developed. Those firearms and explosive devices were located and a long Federal sentence was handed down.
Federal Agencies don't like investing large resources without getting their pound of flesh. They will get it from the Bundys.
Williamsmith
1-12-16, 10:05am
The Bundy militia seems to be emboldened by the restraint being demonstrated by the Federal Government. They expanded their list of violations by tearing down a fence blocking a nearby ranchers access for grazing the public owned property but it had been set aside as a propagation area for wildlife and managed for sportsmen and anglers. Their second and perhaps more serious act was to access government files on refuge computers. Both of these activities do not bode well for them. Sport men's groups are now turning on them. Contrary to some belief, National Wildlife Refuges are very nice places for hunting and fishing activities. You just have to get permits and abide by Federal seasons and bag limits.
There are people being exposed by this incident and as long as intelligence agencies are increasing their information through both those who show up physically and those who support on social media, I suspect they will be satisfied to let them freeze and burn up their resources while digging themselves a huge hole. I have no opinion on the rightness of his protest but I believe this plan is horrible. It makes you wonder how these people can afford to be away from family and work for so long.
Ultralight
1-12-16, 10:33am
The Bundy militia seems to be emboldened by the restraint being demonstrated by the Federal Government. They expanded their list of violations by tearing down a fence blocking a nearby ranchers access for grazing the public owned property but it had been set aside as a propagation area for wildlife and managed for sportsmen and anglers. Their second and perhaps more serious act was to access government files on refuge computers. Both of these activities do not bode well for them. Sport men's groups are now turning on them. Contrary to some belief, National Wildlife Refuges are very nice places for hunting and fishing activities. You just have to get permits and abide by Federal seasons and bag limits.
There are people being exposed by this incident and as long as intelligence agencies are increasing their information through both those who show up physically and those who support on social media, I suspect they will be satisfied to let them freeze and burn up their resources while digging themselves a huge hole. I have no opinion on the rightness of his protest but I believe this plan is horrible. It makes you wonder how these people can afford to be away from family and work for so long.
My opinion is: Don't go messin' with a good fishin' hole!
My opinion is: Don't go messin' with a good fishin' hole!
Some Federal Wildlife Areas allow limited fishing and hunting. But they are there to protect a valuable wildlife habitat and may just have walking trails or bird watching. They are not just randomly selected and I don't think they are specifically for sportsmen, but have something special about their location that makes them valuable for wildlife. The Mahleur refuge is especially important to migratory birds and non-game species like cranes, ibis, and shorebirds. As I see it, the Bundy group is basically trespassing on land that belongs to me and a few hundred million others Americans and are taking advantage of the hospitality and good nature of the rest of us.
Some Federal Wildlife Areas allow limited fishing and hunting. But they are there to protect a valuable wildlife habitat and may just have walking trails or bird watching. They are not just randomly selected and I don't think they are specifically for sportsmen, but have something special about their location that makes them valuable for wildlife. The Mahleur refuge is especially important to migratory birds and non-game species like cranes, ibis, and shorebirds. As I see it, the Bundy group is basically trespassing on land that belongs to me and a few hundred million others Americans and are taking advantage of the hospitality and good nature of the rest of us.
Exactly. And now it's being reported they are rifling through files of documents in the refuge offices, I imagine looking for some type of evidence of federal malfeasance. They're reportedly watching (intimidating) some of the townfolk, too. I think the law enforcement agencies and FBI are being patient and prudent because they're trying to avoid a Waco-type confrontation. I've wondered from the beginning, if, as they say, they are in a "peaceful" protest, why all the guns? Could they have done this without all the artillery?
Ultralight
1-12-16, 12:56pm
I think the feds ought to storm the place.
Also: I am totally okay with refraining from fishing a fishin' hole if it is in crisis in some ecological way. I'd like to be able to canoe there though, but I can refrain from that if needed.
I think the feds ought to storm the place.
Because bloodshed is always so much fun...
Simple enough to wait them out, gather info, and deal with it peacefully. And not give the morons what they are looking for.
Ultralight
1-12-16, 1:07pm
Storming the place does not mean bloodshed. The Bundy Bunch could just put their guns down and get led out of there.
Storming the place does not mean bloodshed. The Bundy Bunch could just put their guns down and get led out of there.
Come now.
Ultralight
1-12-16, 1:37pm
Send in the Army to smoke them out of their holes?
This group of peaceful armed protesters was arrested almost immediately. I suppose the California State capital building is more sensitive than a wildlife refuge to some. There are possibly other differences.... I probably would side more with the Panthers than the Bundys.
https://lingitlatseen.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/9fde0-black-panthers-seattle-1969-armed-on-capitol-steps.jpg
Storming the place does not mean bloodshed. The Bundy Bunch could just put their guns down and get led out of there.
Terrorists don't put down their guns willingly.
Send in the Army to smoke them out of their holes?
Perhaps after it's over Obama can come flying in on a plane and hug an ibis or something as a big mission accomplished banner is unfurled. The patriotism invoked would almost be overwhelming.
Williamsmith
1-12-16, 2:00pm
Read some of James Wesley Rawles fictional novels on survivalist culture.....Survivers, Patriots, Liberators, Expatriots, Founders.......about preparing a remnant population to survive government collapse and anarchy.
Guns and militia involvement are a primary ingredient. So is martyrdom. Bundy doesn't want to commit suicide but he would like to join others as a hero in the movement. Going up against an abusive government will get you that fame. They brought their guns to defend themselves from any government aggression. And to posture while they seek publicity.
Nobody in the government agencies wants to die over a stupid building that means nothing to them. The only way they storm the place is if somebody gets squirrelly and takes a shot at somebody else. Maybe not even then.
Perhaps after it's over Obama can come flying in on a plane and hug an ibis or something as a big mission accomplished banner is unfurled. The patriotism invoked would almost be overwhelming.
You're thinking of Bush the Lesser.
And I don't think of these guys as terrorists--yet. The terrorist game involves seemingly random violent attacks on civilian populations, designed to instill persistent fear in members of a population as they go about their daily business. So far these characters are just annoying the Feds. And probably breaking multiple laws in the process.
Read some of James Wesley Rawles fictional novels on survivalist culture.....Survivers, Patriots, Liberators, Expatriots, Founders.......about preparing a remnant population to survive government collapse and anarchy.
Guns and militia involvement are a primary ingredient. So is martyrdom. Bundy doesn't want to commit suicide but he would like to join others as a hero in the movement. Going up against an abusive government will get you that fame. They brought their guns to defend themselves from any government aggression. And to posture while they seek publicity.
Nobody in the government agencies wants to die over a stupid building that means nothing to them. The only way they storm the place is if somebody gets squirrelly and takes a shot at somebody else. Maybe not even then.
See, I'd be happy with Williamsmith running the government's side of the show there. He seems to know what the deal is, and understand the realities of using force. And isn't just gleefully rubbing his hands together at the thought of spilling blood.
http://41.media.tumblr.com/869365b48f57e4ed0660dd0a82d2392a/tumblr_n5xsfbTHnk1rlo1q2o1_1280.jpg
rodeosweetheart
1-12-16, 6:15pm
See, I'd be happy with Williamsmith running the government's side of the show there. He seems to know what the deal is, and understand the realities of using force. And isn't just gleefully rubbing his hands together at the thought of spilling blood.
Yes, indeed. I thought this might be of interest, the Indian Alcatraz occupation, which went on for many months:
http://www.nps.gov/alca/learn/historyculture/we-hold-the-rock.htm
Williamsmith
1-21-16, 9:39am
The Governor of Oregon is impatient. Governor Kate Brown, a democrat and the press seemingly feels it is important to point out is openly bisexual, feels this little take over of a non descript building in a barren corner of her state is taking too long to resolve. Now Gov. Brown is drawing on her experience as an environmental lawyer and career politician citing how much it has cost the state of Oregon for support staff overtime and call out costs.
I wonder if if anyone has told her how much it could cost in legal fees and lawsuits if one or more people were to be killed in a confrontation with the militia there. Not all of them are looking for a fight but enough of them are just looking for an excuse to shoot their AR15 s to make it a powder keg.
There are two ways to handle this. Send them a warning that the building is about to be leveled with a (weapon of choice) or continue to negotiate and choke off their food and water supply until they decide that they don't have to be in a government building to be heard. Storming the building in a Waco like assault is foolish. And certain environmental lawyers counting beans need to shut their gib.
Ultralight
1-21-16, 9:53am
The Governor of Oregon is impatient. Governor Kate Brown, a democrat and the press seemingly feels it is important to point out is openly bisexual, feels this little take over of a non descript building in a barren corner of her state is taking too long to resolve. Now Gov. Brown is drawing on her experience as an environmental lawyer and career politician citing how much it has cost the state of Oregon for support staff overtime and call out costs.
I wonder if if anyone has told her how much it could cost in legal fees and lawsuits if one or more people were to be killed in a confrontation with the militia there. Not all of them are looking for a fight but enough of them are just looking for an excuse to shoot their AR15 s to make it a powder keg.
There are two ways to handle this. Send them a warning that the building is about to be leveled with a (weapon of choice) or continue to negotiate and choke off their food and water supply until they decide that they don't have to be in a government building to be heard. Storming the building in a Waco like assault is foolish. And certain environmental lawyers counting beans need to shut their gib.
Choke off their water and I give Vanilla ISIS three days until they come limping out asking for some Evian.
That's what I say...cut off electricity, internet, supplies, (esp. t.p.), barricade them in, no one coming in or out in relief. I don't understand why this hasn't been done already.
Ultralight
1-21-16, 12:42pm
I don't understand why this hasn't been done already.
They are white dudes!
Williamsmith
1-21-16, 5:54pm
They are white dudes!
Just when I think you are having a serious conversation, you go and say something like that. There is one thing you are right about....they are white dudes.
Ultralight
1-21-16, 6:36pm
Just when I think you are having a serious conversation, you go and say something like that. There is one thing you are right about....they are white dudes.
I am having a serious conversation. Want me to say it in a more serious tone?
The Bundy Bunch are heterosexual white males.
How do you know that they are heterosexual, or self-identify as male?
How do you know that they are heterosexual, or self-identify as male?
I came to the conclusion that they identified as heterosexual when they announced that they didn't appreciate the gift of lube. Of course, now that I think about it, he may not have been speaking for all of them.
I came to the conclusion that they identified as heterosexual when they announced that they didn't appreciate the gift of lube. Of course, now that I think about it, he may not have been speaking for all of them.
You need to get out more. Heterosexuals use lube too. Attributing specific lube-requirements to people based on a hetero/non-hetero classification scheme is just ignorant.
You need to get out more. Heterosexuals use lube too. Attributing specific lube-requirements to people based on a hetero/non-hetero classification scheme is just ignorant.
I just figured that since they are all guys that they wouldn't need lube during their stay there if they were straight. But through further research I have learned that they did in fact bring women with them so now I have no idea why they didn't like the gift or what their sexual orientations are.
Ultralight
1-21-16, 8:52pm
I just figured that since they are all guys that they wouldn't need lube during their stay there if they were straight. But through further research I have learned that they did in fact bring women with them so now I have no idea why they didn't like the gift or what their sexual orientations are.
Saliva is best.
Saliva is best.
Not if you're not fluid-bonded with your partner. And even then, saliva isn't the best technology for some jobs.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-standoff-20160126-story.html
And apparently it's over.
Williamsmith
1-27-16, 6:21am
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-standoff-20160126-story.html
And apparently it's over.
And now they have their martyr and more sacrificial lambs........it really is unfortunate that there is no other alternative when they choose a game of chicken with deadly weapons.
The full power of the federal government against them....they know who will eventually win but it is not about winning, it is about losing and in that creating a stronger more radical movement. And the next incident might not be so controlled. It might be that a leader arises that would be willing to take hostages or adopt more violent approaches to get the point across. When you are considered a terrorist and not a peaceful protester....this is what you get.
Peaceful protesters , don't haul rifles around with them saying they are not looking for a fight but will defend themselves. I would expect more incidents but possibly different tactics. They might more resemble the real terrorism that is at the heart and soul of their intentions.
Only a resolution to an event.....it is far from over.
Ultralight
1-27-16, 7:58am
And now they have their martyr and more sacrificial lambs........it really is unfortunate that there is no other alternative when they choose a game of chicken with deadly weapons.
The full power of the federal government against them....they know who will eventually win but it is not about winning, it is about losing and in that creating a stronger more radical movement. And the next incident might not be so controlled. It might be that a leader arises that would be willing to take hostages or adopt more violent approaches to get the point across. When you are considered a terrorist and not a peaceful protester....this is what you get.
Peaceful protesters , don't haul rifles around with them saying they are not looking for a fight but will defend themselves. I would expect more incidents but possibly different tactics. They might more resemble the real terrorism that is at the heart and soul of their intentions.
Only a resolution to an event.....it is far from over.
They thought they were defending the constitution. One of the problems with Americans is that they all think they are constitutional experts. I mean really -- they do! Heck, we have numerous constitutional experts on this forum!
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-standoff-20160126-story.html
And apparently it's over.
As of this morning some protesters continue to occupy the refuge. I suspect this won't last long. It's especially sad that someone had to loose a life, but I'm glad law enforcement has made a stand to correct the violation after patiently waiting for a different resolution. Hopefully it will establish precedence for other similar issues.
And I have to say, WTF. The Feds spent three weeks observing this and creating a plan to end it and someone still died? Why on earth bother with the armed shootout after all this time? It was almost becoming a non-issue. For once in history it appeared we might be treating childish attention seeking by ignoring the tantrum throwers. But no, gotta get out the paddle and make em pay, like the savage, childish, vengeful society we apparently are. $%^&*(.
ETA: and no, I don't think that turning off the power and water would have been as polarizing an event. They were free to leave if they didn't like conditions at "their" chosen home. The powers that be wanted to avoid martyrdom? Well, they FAILED. Miserably.
They thought they were defending the constitution. One of the problems with Americans is that they all think they are constitutional experts. I mean really -- they do! Heck, we have numerous constitutional experts on this forum!
I see some similarities to some religious fundamentalists, where the words of a document perceived as immutable are taken out of context or intentions. Jefferson himself said that the constitution should be reviewed every 20 years for it's relevance to the current generation and issues.
Ultralight
1-27-16, 9:56am
I see some similarities to some religious fundamentalists, where the words of a document perceived as immutable are taken out of context or intentions. Jefferson himself said that the constitution should be reviewed every 20 years for it's relevance to the current generation and issues.
One person's context is different than another's. Looks at the differences between the Founding Fathers.
Ultralight
1-27-16, 9:57am
And I have to say, WTF. The Feds spent three weeks observing this and creating a plan to end it and someone still died? Why on earth bother with the armed shootout after all this time? It was almost becoming a non-issue. For once in history it appeared we might be treating childish attention seeking by ignoring the tantrum throwers. But no, gotta get out the paddle and make em pay, like the savage, childish, vengeful society we apparently are. $%^&*(.
Meh...
Williamsmith
1-27-16, 9:59am
They thought they were defending the constitution. One of the problems with Americans is that they all think they are constitutional experts. I mean really -- they do! Heck, we have numerous constitutional experts on this forum!
Unfortunately it is not a defense of the Constitution that is their primary goal. There are plenty of defenders of the Constitution (some on this forum) who do not share primary goals with radical "patriots." They may have good arguments for limiting the ownership of land by the federal government. I may agree with them. What can't be negotiated is the right of government to enforce "violent resistance to laws." Please refer to the "Whiskey Rebellion" wiki........for a very early example of how our founding fathers...George Washington and Alexander Hamilton handled armed insurrection in Western PA during the first years of our fledgling country. You will find striking similarities and understand the difference between nonviolent resistance and armed insurrection. History does sometimes repeat itself especially when one only studies half the history books.
Ultralight
1-27-16, 10:01am
Unfortunately it is not a defense of the Constitution that is their primary goal. There are plenty of defenders of the Constitution (some on this forum) who do not share primary goals with radical "patriots." They may have good arguments for limiting the ownership of land by the federal government. I may agree with them. What can't be negotiated is the right of government to enforce "violent resistance to laws." Please refer to the "Whiskey Rebellion" wiki........for a very early example of how our founding fathers...George Washington and Alexander Hamilton handled armed insurrection in Western PA during the first years of our fledgling country. You will find striking similarities and understand the difference between nonviolent resistance and armed insurrection. History does sometimes repeat itself especially when one only studies half the history books.
Again every "constitutional expert" is different. A left winger thinks one thing. A right winger thinks a different thing.
It is like Christians and the Bible. They all have different interpretations.
Williamsmith
1-27-16, 10:13am
Well, UA, I am not going to let you skate on this one thing......you were quite vociferous about the so called "white male privilege" influence of the federal governments soft approach to the situation. Now that they have shot and killed one of the "heterosexual white males" can we have a "White Lives Matter" protest? Because it is coming?
Ultralight
1-27-16, 10:16am
Well, UA, I am not going to let you skate on this one thing......you were quite vociferous about the so called "white male privilege" influence of the federal governments soft approach to the situation. Now that they have shot and killed one of the "heterosexual white males" can we have a "White Lives Matter" protest? Because it is coming?
Do the math and then tell me who dies at the hands of the authorities more often, whites or blacks?
Sure, have a White Lives Matter protest. Protests are a good thing!
And I have to say, WTF. The Feds spent three weeks observing this and creating a plan to end it and someone still died? Why on earth bother with the armed shootout after all this time? It was almost becoming a non-issue. For once in history it appeared we might be treating childish attention seeking by ignoring the tantrum throwers. But no, gotta get out the paddle and make em pay, like the savage, childish, vengeful society we apparently are. $%^&*(.
ETA: and no, I don't think that turning off the power and water would have been as polarizing an event. They were free to leave if they didn't like conditions at "their" chosen home. The powers that be wanted to avoid martyrdom? Well, they FAILED. Miserably.
It really wasn't becoming a non-issue. Though it might have dropped out of the media, nothing had changed. Some of the activities were setting back the protection and preservation of wildlife years. See http://www.hcn.org/articles/carp-lady-linda-beck-malheur-standoff-could-set-back-conservation-by-three-years
Whether the shooting is justified or the arrests poorly executed or not waits to be seen. You try to arrest someone and they pull a gun, well...
So wait them out. Cut off supplies, move the wildlife operations to a different building, let the whole world see you have the power and the maturity and you won't be provoked into a tantrum of your own, and wait. This cops n robbers HAD to arrest them response - after three weeks, no less - is a manufactured drama.
Ultralight
1-27-16, 10:37am
So wait them out. Cut off supplies, move the wildlife operations to a different building, let the whole world see you have the power and the maturity and you won't be provoked into a tantrum of your own, and wait. This cops n robbers HAD to arrest them response - after three weeks, no less - is a manufactured drama.
The media are referring to the slain terrorist as an "activist."
So wait them out. Cut off supplies, move the wildlife operations to a different building, let the whole world see you have the power and the maturity and you won't be provoked into a tantrum of your own, and wait. This cops n robbers HAD to arrest them response - after three weeks, no less - is a manufactured drama.
In my humble opinion these guys were armed radicals impeding the good work of the Federal refuge managers and presenting a menace to the public. Some conservation work on public land that I share ownership of was set back years. They were consuming my tax dollars in the long term employ of law officials and by occupying public buildings. They destroyed fences and security cameras. They were given the opportunity to leave without incident and local opposition to their presence was growing. None of those arrested were Oregon residents. If they were of a difference race or religious persuasion the wait would have been much shorter. There was no indication of their intention to leave so this could have gone on for a very long time.
We'll see how the details play out.
Do the math and then tell me who dies at the hands of the authorities more often, whites or blacks?
This seems to be about the norm:
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1563&stc=1
Don't we need to keep the above numbers in context? 30% of people killed by police are black, but blacks are only 12.2% of the population. (Accd to Wikipedia: whites 63.7%, blacks 12.2%, Hispanics 16.3%, Asians 4.7%.)
Of course you can parse the numbers in other ways, such as by income level. But I'm guessing that if you compared the number of poor whites killed to poor blacks, the numbers would still look pretty lopsided--maybe more so.
Don't we need to keep the above numbers in context? Yes, but that is an accurate response to the question.
Williamsmith
1-27-16, 1:06pm
UA...you chose to make this particular incident an example of white male privilege, which is a generalization that can't "mathematically" be true for every white male living in this country. And in this particular instance you are wrong. Because if you are right, then being white and male means you get killed just a few weeks later than other races. When I made a traffic stop, and I made thousands of them, and I made them on armed individuals.......I didn't care if the offender was purple, blue, black or white...if they pointed a gun at me or came at me with a knife....or wrestled for my gun....they got shot and th got shot to stop the action which means center mass and double tap. Color, race, creed don't matter.
Williamsmith
1-29-16, 6:30am
An unedited video was released by the FBI regarding the joint FBI/OSP operation felony traffic stop of Lavoy Finicum. This is video shot from an aircraft. Here:
http://youtu.be/aAGxDWKrjPQ
The shooting occurs approximately at the 9-10 minute window.
Ultralight
1-29-16, 7:59am
Thoughts on the video?
Williamsmith
1-29-16, 10:20am
Try to put the action in context noting the history and what led up to the action as well as what statements were made by those involved.
There are certain legal definitions in play here and they may or may not stack up to any particular moral code. Some assumptions might be necessary. For instance there is no audio and we are not sure exactly what commands were being given to Finicum by LEOs.
But we can assume from standard police procedure, they are commanding him to keep is hands in plain sight and/or probably get on the ground. From the standpoint of justifiable homicide by a LEO......the video was released for the purpose of showing that Finicum did not have his hands in the air when shot and also chose not to submit to arrest and fled at high speed, endangering the public and those in the vehicle with him. He tried to circumvent a roadblock. If you factor in prior statements and his knowledge of and familiarity with firearms and explosives and that he went nowhere without carrying........One could justify the shooting.
There will someday be a completed investigation of the incident with diagrams, witness statements, evidence and videos. Undoubtedly it will all be released under the freedom of information act. Then it will be clearer.
Ultralight
1-29-16, 10:34am
Think they'll put the rest of the Bundy Bunch down in Guantanamo?
On top of Williamsmith's comments, they appear to have found a loaded automatic pistol in an inside pocket where he appeared to be reaching, although the video resolution is not quite there to show clearly what he was doing with his hands after he lowered them. Whether law enforcement was well versed and knew his identity before shooting, he had also said that he would not go to prison and intimated he would die first.
Pure speculation, but my guess is that the one's charged with felonies will get somewhere between probation and a year or two in prison if they are found guilty and it will be a long draw out court drama.
Ultralight
1-29-16, 2:14pm
No way they go that light on terrorists.
Think they'll put the rest of the Bundy Bunch down in Guantanamo?
Is that how you would like to see them treated?
Ultralight
1-29-16, 2:23pm
Is that how you would like to see them treated?
No.
As far as my legal knowledge goes, they aren't being charged with an act of terrorism. They could easily pile on more charges, but the best I could find is something like a fine not more than $5,000 and no more than 5 or 6 six years. I suspect they have sympathizers who will provide good lawyers.
Thoughts on the video?
I think there are a lot of things the fellow who got shot could have done differently that would have produced a more positive outcome.
I also think that the officer who jumped in front of the vehicle as it attempted to swerve around the roadblock should have been much more careful.
Ultralight
1-29-16, 2:40pm
As far as my legal knowledge goes, they aren't being charged with an act of terrorism.
I am gonna say it: White privilege.
I am gonna say it: White privilege.
I am gonna say it: ...
We start down a very dangerous slope when we confuse protesting, occupying, resisting and other forms of civil disobedience with terrorism. Even when civil disobedience devolves into low-level violence, it is not terrorism. Terrorism is a very specific tactic. It's the difference between abortion clinic protests and the murder of abortion providers. One may lead to the other, but they're not the same thing.
Williamsmith
1-29-16, 3:51pm
In the history of this country, there are plenty of instances when certain people have done similar or even less than these and been hanged for treason. This is not to say that we have softened our punishments. It is to say, there is no way to know what sentences will be doled out at this point.
No doubt, an attorney worth his salt will address the problem that led to this armed insurrection. The inability for the common man to address the federal government and express his dissatisfaction with current treatment through effective channels. Usually, when someone goes to means this extreme, there is a root problem that could have been negotiated.
I actually believe some these activists used a lot of restraint during this entire affair and it is not out of the realm of possibility to think many of them will not even be charged. That said, some of them got the fight they were looking for.
Bae....regarding the LEO who "jumped in front of the vehicle". It was my opinion that given how fast Finicum was driving, and that the roadblock was set up on a curve, the LEO perceived that he was going to be killed by the crash into the roadblock vehicles and was trying to run for safety. Unfortunately, that happened to be just when Finicum decided to steer around the roadblock and hit him.
Ultralight
1-29-16, 3:54pm
Bae....regarding the LEO who "jumped in front of the vehicle". It was my opinion that given how fast Finicum was driving, and that the roadblock was set up on a curve, the LEO perceived that he was going to be killed by the crash into the roadblock vehicles and was trying to run for safety. Unfortunately, that happened to be just when Finicum decided to steer around the roadblock and hit him.
This is very astute.
Bae....regarding the LEO who "jumped in front of the vehicle". It was my opinion that given how fast Finicum was driving, and that the roadblock was set up on a curve, the LEO perceived that he was going to be killed by the crash into the roadblock vehicles and was trying to run for safety. Unfortunately, that happened to be just when Finicum decided to steer around the roadblock and hit him.
Excellent observation. I'm more used to using much heavier vehicles to close roads with, and we do some math to set things up to deflect vehicles into a safe zone if they crash into the blocking vehicles. And stay out of the way ourselves, who wants to get squished?
Williamsmith
1-29-16, 5:22pm
I wish I could claim insights as a result of my intelligence. Truth is most of what I learn comes through happy circumstances or unfortunate experience. I was once nearly killed in a similar fashion. I can report through experience that it is very hard to run in deep snow and the sound of a vehicle chasing behind you through the snow is one you will never forget. I still have a small piece of my patrol car sitting in my drawer at home to remind me that I was granted more time on this earth and I aim to make the most of it.
The occupation is finally over. No one was killed; the last four are in custody. The father of Ammon Bundy, Cliven Bundy, was also apprehended by FBI at the airport this morning.
Here are some excerpts (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/11/3748715/cliven-bundy-fbi-complaint/) from the FBI agent's complaint in the original Bundy standoff. Chilling stuff. The feds are to be commended for staying cool and backing off to prevent bloodshed, possibly including that of children. Now that the Bundys are behind bars, the feds ought to track down every one that participated in the first standoff who can be identified and put them on trial, too.
Overall, it's hard to see how the feds could have handled this any better. As with his son, they waited until Bundy was away from his home base before they grabbed him. It's a credit to the FBI this business ended with only one death, and that of a guy who seemed pretty determined to commit suicide by cop.
I'm glad they've finally dealt with Cliven. He's facing some very serious charges and maybe a long jail sentence. I doubt that it's totally over and suspect there will be plenty of courtroom drama before the dust settles.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cliven-bundy-ammon-bundy-ryan-bundy-federal-indictment-nevada-oregon-standoff/
Williamsmith was correct. Patience worked out well for the feds. Assuming that these charges can be made to stick it will not be a happy ending for Cliven Bundy.
Williamsmith
3-18-16, 2:38am
http://youtu.be/KecQ41pbPiM
Shawna Cox cell phone video/audio of events inside the Finicum driven truck beginning at the initial stop and ending with their being taken into custody subsequent to Finicum being shot and killed as he exited the vehicle and confronted Oregon Troopers. Finicum recognized only the County Sheriff as legitimate law enforcement authority and was bound and determined to reject all other authority. You ride along with them and experience a felony traffic stop resulting the death of the driver. Extremely rare and raw video.
rodeosweetheart
3-18-16, 6:34am
http://youtu.be/KecQ41pbPiM
Shawna Cox cell phone video/audio of events inside the Finicum driven truck beginning at the initial stop and ending with their being taken into custody subsequent to Finicum being shot and killed as he exited the vehicle and confronted Oregon Troopers. Finicum recognized only the County Sheriff as legitimate law enforcement authority and was bound and determined to reject all other authority. You ride along with them and experience a felony traffic stop resulting the death of the driver. Extremely rare and raw video.
I think when they keep shooting at a woman and a child who are praying and crying, it does not engender good feelings towards the shooters.
It is very moving, very sad.
Ultralight
3-18-16, 8:41am
What are people's thoughts on this?
What are people's thoughts on this?
Poor outcomes often derive from doing stupid things with stupid people at stupid times in stupid places. The 4S rule.
What are people's thoughts on this?
I suspect that fifty people viewing that video might give fifty different interpretations of the event. There's an interesting article (especially the comments) on this at the Atlantic.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2016/03/malheur-oregon-occupation-lavoy-finicum-fbi/474219/
Williamsmith
3-18-16, 2:50pm
My opinion is that the Oregon State Police acted professionally and honorably in resolving the situation. My experience with joint operations with the FBI causes me to be somewhat harsh in evaluating their performance. They have a far superior crime scene evidence collection process than any agency I know but their special response teams operate very independently, do not share critical information and appear and vanish without any accountability at scenes where strict management of personel is useful.
So, If there was an inconsistency between what Oregon State Troopers observed and what the FBI did not document, I would believe that word of the Troopers on scene to the unidentifiable HRT members present but not accounted for.
My own agency has many SERT operations (Special Emergency Response Teams). I used them several times. They don't wear name tags, they don't prepare reports, they don't document evidence, they just get shit done. These are Spider-Man ninja type military operations. Sometimes it leaves a lot of things in question but it always left a suspect either with me in custody or dead. Of course, if need be answers could be obtained through channels but often it was better off not to inquire.
The two casings shouldnt have been picked up but have no influence on the justification of use of deadly force. It was clearly justified.
rodeosweetheart
3-18-16, 2:55pm
I appreciate your experience, Williamsmith.
To me it is not "clearly justified" to fire on a car with a child in it, but maybe that is routinely done under these circumstances.
Williamsmith
3-18-16, 3:06pm
I appreciate your experience, Williamsmith.
To me it is not "clearly justified" to fire on a car with a child in it, but maybe that is routinely done under these circumstances.
A few things.....it is probable that none of the Troopers / Agents involved knew exactly the number of occupants, age or sex of occupants. Many of the bangs heard are explosions designed to disorient the occupants not harm them or possibly ferret rounds containing a tear gas deaigned to force them to abandon the vehicle. It is unknown whether any of the remaining occupants are armed or not. And had law enforcement wanted to, they could have easily killed all three occupants in the truck. The metal will not defeat high velocity rifle rounds.
rodeosweetheart
3-18-16, 3:10pm
I see, that is helpful to know--I kept hearing what I thought were shots, even after she was yelling, with the windows blown open.
The reaction of the child is heartbreaking.
The reaction of the child is heartbreaking.
Indeed. That's why a good parent would never willingly put their child in this situation.
rodeosweetheart
3-19-16, 11:22am
Indeed. That's why a good parent would never willingly put their child in this situation.
Of course, but some children have horrible parents, and I don't think that gives the state the right to shoot at them.
early morning
3-19-16, 2:37pm
Why do we automatically presume that the life of a child - any child - is worth more than the life of anyone else?
Why do we automatically presume that the life of a child - any child - is worth more than the life of anyone else?
The implied innocence.
iris lilies
3-19-16, 3:05pm
Why do we automatically presume that the life of a child - any child - is worth more than the life of anyone else?
Children dont have the agency and often the choice to get themselves out of harm's way when their idiot caretakers put them there.
Teacher Terry
3-19-16, 3:16pm
IL: YOu are absolutely right.
early morning
3-19-16, 3:48pm
We have peak value at birth, then - perfect innocence - and become less and less important as human beings as we age?
I think this is not the time or place for this conversation, so I won't continue. It's just something I've been thinking more and more about, and I'm not sure of my own thinking just yet. But I thought it would be rude to post that question (in a weak moment!) and then just let it drop with no response.... sorry, I'll post it somewhere else when I'm more sure where I'm going with it.
Of course, but some children have horrible parents, and I don't think that gives the state the right to shoot at them.
Would you have expected the cops to allow themselves to get shot instead? Unfortunately Finicum didn't value his own life so it's not terribly surprising that he was willing to put the other people in the vehicle at risk as well.
rodeosweetheart
3-20-16, 9:10am
Would you have expected the cops to allow themselves to get shot instead? Unfortunately Finicum didn't value his own life so it's not terribly surprising that he was willing to put the other people in the vehicle at risk as well.
I don't know if they were shooting at the cops from inside of the vehicle. I don't know anything more than I saw/heard on the video. I don't know whether Finicum was reaching for a gun, or holding up empty hand.
From what I saw, my opinion is that they were going after the vehicle and its occupants too aggressively.
But I am not in law enforcement, so I don't know the ins and outs of rules of engagement.
From what I heard/saw, it appeared to me that Finicum was offering himself up to get shot, by going outside, so tht they would not shoot on the car. I would have thought shooting him dead would have brought things to a stop until they could evaluate, but again, I am not in law enforcement and do not know the rules of engagement. To me it looked like he was sacrificing himself for those in the car--"if they want to shoot somebody, let them shoot me," or words to tht effect, thought I hrd.
I think it is very sad that they shot Finicum. If Finicum had shot any officers, I would have thought that was very sad. Very, very sad that they could not negotiate a non-violent way to end this.]
That is my opinion on the matter, JP1.
I guess the,problem is that the law enforcement officers don't know what's going on in the car. One guy gets out and reaches for a gun in his pocket. They can't assume that he's 'taking one for the team' to save the rest of the people in the car. The cops have to assume the worst about the people in the car or they could end up dead.
rodeosweetheart
3-20-16, 9:25am
Exactly, the cops had know way of knowing who or what was going on in the car, and then the situation escalates, and things happen so fast. I am guessing that is why they have pretty strict rules of engagement, and then they have to see if they were followed.
Although it would be really hard to keep that at the top of one's mind during the event--I could never do that job, and I am glad that there are people who can, and very grateful for their service.
It is probably in most of the major medias, but Ammon and Ryan Bundy along with 5 other of the leaders in the standoff were found not guilty of conspiracy and firearms charges. The Bundys still face charges in Nevada for another armed standoff, but it looks like they are basically scot free of all their occupation charges in Oregon. From the brief reports I read, it sounded like some silver tonged talk from the defense, but I'm not sure I could rule out some sort of jury biased?
How you could stage an armed occupation of a federal facility that would in the very least put the general public, federal employees, and law enforcement in fear of their lives and safety, not to mention the cost to the tax payers, is a mystery. I can hardly believe that is the intent or protection under the right to bear arms. Something seems amiss?
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/27/499668126/defendants-in-oregon-wildlife-refuge-occupation-found-not-guilty
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.