Those Terrorists in Nevada

[maxparrish]

There was a slogan tossed around during the debate over illegal immigration...I'm sure you've heard of it...


"What part of ILLEGAL don't you understand?"


I would ask that same question of Bundy's ardent supporters.

You know I confess that after you mentioned that I had to give it some hard thought. Perhaps I should rephrase...

The left has a big problem with trespassing and illegally using federal land, but a big part of it stems from the overused term its “illegal” for every act or person. Used dispassionately and technically, there is nothing wrong with you calling them illegal users, but it is an irreducible modifier for a large and largely decent group of people, it is badly damaging. And as a code word for hatred of white rural folk and their culture, it is detestable.

These folks are illegal or unlawful only insofar their status as ranchers using unoccupied land. Lots of folks in the west use the rangeland unlawfully, and some are those who started using it legally but did not leave the land when they were told to do so. The statutory penalties associated with their misdeeds are not insignificant, but neither are they criminal. They get caught, they pay (or should only pay) a small fine - they don't, they get on with their life.

So for you all to call them unlawful goes too far. It is like a stain that leaves them diminished as a person, as if they are a member of a presumptive criminal class. They have rights: they have the presumption of innocence and the civil liberties that the Constitution wisely bestows on all Americans, not just favored groups.

Mind you, their use of the land is just undocumented or unauthorized - so have a sensible reaction proportional to the offense. The paralysis in Congress and the country over fixing western land use stems from our inability to get our heads around the wrenching change involved in making unauthorized use legal for all uses. Think of doing that with an actual crime, like arson. Unthinkable!

Meanwhile, out on the edges of the debate — edges that are coming closer to the mainstream every day — bigots pour all their loathing of white working rural people into a word. The rant about the white, rural, gun loving and right wing — call them criminals, thieves, nutjobs, idiots, assholes, whackadoodles — and people will nod and applaud. Yep, they will send money to your Web site and heed your calls to deluge lawmakers with phone calls and faxes.

This is not only ugly, it is counterproductive, paralyzing any effort toward western land use reform. Comprehensive legislation in Congress and sensible policies at the state and local level have all been stymied and will be forever, as long as anything positive can be branded as "endangering the desert tortoise".

We are stuck with a bogus, deceptive strategy. None of those enforcement policies have a trace of honesty or realism. At least they don’t reward the hard working 'unauthorized' land users, and that, for now, is all the Left wants.

 

[Ford]

You know I confess that after you mentioned that I had to give it some hard thought. Perhaps I should rephrase...

The left has a big problem with trespassing and illegally using federal land

I stopped reading right there.

 

[RavenSky]

Let's see, when police confront OWS protesters they are jack-booted thugs.
When they confront right-wing protestors they are just defending themselves against armed militias and crazed relations of Bundy.

I see...yes...I see.

They didn't confront Bundy and his bunch. It was the reverse.

BLM was out in the desert rounding up cows on federal land.

Moreover, the point here is the hypocrisy of the right. You are the ones defending Bundy's lawlessness.

 

[funinspace]

Funny...I don't remember that being the only OWS occupation. Your all ALL CAPS are kind of weird...

OWS was not a matter of stealing resources from others (government or private) - it was a protest. Moreover, when the protestors have been hanging out in Zuccotti Park for 20 years, then we might have a slim comparison.

You and Playball40 need to find someone who is arguing about Zuccotti Park, if you want to argue about it, as I haven’t said jack about that particular park. Or and unless you are suggesting that the OWS movement was singularly confined to Zuccotti Park. My point was about public parks being occupied indefinitely by “protestors” camping out. Last time I looked around semi-permanent camps in public parks was not a legitimate/legal form of protest as various US cities struggled to find a balance between maintaining city order/rules and allowing this general outburst of frustration at the “system”.

This guy isn't protesting anything, regardless his wackadoodle claims of him not recognizing the existence of the federal government. He is either crazy or a thief.

Yeah, that is kind of what I said…maybe you missed my first statement below in your zeal to pounce upon a perceived contrarian?

Another minor point is that the land in question receives very little rain. This kind of land shouldn't even be used for over 1,000lb grazing animals. The rogue rancher lost this battle years ago. His cattle should have been forcibly removed years ago. I have no more sympathy for this fool, than I do when I read about my lazy, uneducated, and redneck nephews on FaceBook whining about how they are being hurt by lazy welfare people, illegal immigrants, et.al.

Not paying government taxes/charges has been a form of protest by many people, whether or not I find this particular event a legitimate protest or not. People also protest via civil disobedience by trespassing on military bases. Most of those protestors don’t whine when they get politely arrested for trespassing. Regardless, in this specific case I think this thief rancher has no more right to use BLM land at a cost he thinks is right, thereby refusing to pay anything, than I have a right to go into National Forests and set up camp where ever I feel like it and not pay for my use just because I think their charges are too high. He also has no standing, just because he has ancestors that ranched in the area as free range before the BLM existed. If that is the case, I’m sure some Native Americans wouldn’t mind setting up a camp on his ranch. He is worse than the fabled lazy welfare abuser. He is more akin to the welfare fraudster stealing via multiples of false identities.

- - - Updated - - -

They didn't confront Bundy and his bunch. It was the reverse.

BLM was out in the desert rounding up cows on federal land.

Moreover, the point here is the hypocrisy of the right. You are the ones defending Bundy's lawlessness.

Yup, just imagine if a couple dozen OWS protestors showed up in the Parks showing off guns... Yeah, in my city the officials were freaking out that a couple of them might have real knives...

 

[dismal]

Yup, just imagine if a couple dozen OWS protestors showed up in the Parks showing off guns... Yeah, in my city the officials were freaking out that a couple of them might have real knives...

Have we already forgotten the brave heroes of Occupy Oakland?

I guess we have.

 

[funinspace]

Have we already forgotten the brave heroes of Occupy Oakland?

I guess we have.

Yeah, that was one of the more violent ones…not that I remembered many details about it.

Yeah, it was a mess. However, I don’t see anything about a couple dozen protestors brandishing guns, and implicitly or not, threatening police officers with their guns. And wow…go figure the police arrested hundreds of people for violence et.al. Cops tend to get way more paranoid when people brandish guns over knives and mace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Oakland#Protestor_conduct_and_controversies

During protests, police have allegedly confiscated knives, scissors, mace, and tear gas, as well as large corrugated metal shields from protesters.[151] Protesters have also been accused of throwing bottles, metal pipe, rocks, spray cans, improvised explosive devices, and lit flares at police.[152] Police accused protesters of slashing tires and invading vacant buildings during protests,
<snip>
City Hall break-in

On the night of January 28, 2012, Occupy Oakland protesters reconvened at Frank Ogawa Plaza, entered and vandalized City Hall, following the day of clashes during which 409 were arrested. Members of Occupy Oakland were seen on surveillance video prying open the building's doors and strewed garbage inside the building, knocked over a 100-year-old replica of the city hall and damaged a children's art exhibit before taking several items, including an American flag, and setting it on fire.[158][159] Protestors also allegedly smashed display cases, broke down doors, overturned vending machines, damaged a classroom, cut wires in the building and sprayed graffiti inside.

I’m still waiting for the FBI’s Special Weapons and Tactics Team to assist the BLM in restoring order and the rule of law in this remote part of Nevada, and arrest anyone/everyone who refuses to comply with orders to put down their guns and what not, so the BLM can complete their court sanctioned removal of cattle. I wonder how many illegal weapons they would find in such an event…

 

[The Paul]

Or better yet we could have reasonable law enforcement that doesn't engage overwhelming intimidation for non-violent issues.

Yeah... when dozens of armed men come to take the property of someone who wasn't planning any kind of violence said property gets seized pretty easily, so that's, ah, not what happened here.

 

[The Paul]

Let's see, when police confront OWS protesters they are jack-booted thugs.
When they confront right-wing protestors they are just defending themselves against armed militias and crazed relations of Bundy.

I see...yes...I see.

You know I confess that after you mentioned that I had to give it some hard thought. Perhaps I should rephrase...

The left has a big problem with trespassing and illegally using federal land, but a big part of it stems from the overused term its “illegal” for every act or person. Used dispassionately and technically, there is nothing wrong with you calling them illegal users, but it is an irreducible modifier for a large and largely decent group of people, it is badly damaging. And as a code word for hatred of white rural folk and their culture, it is detestable.

These folks are illegal or unlawful only insofar their status as ranchers using unoccupied land. Lots of folks in the west use the rangeland unlawfully, and some are those who started using it legally but did not leave the land when they were told to do so. The statutory penalties associated with their misdeeds are not insignificant, but neither are they criminal. They get caught, they pay (or should only pay) a small fine - they don't, they get on with their life.

So for you all to call them unlawful goes too far. It is like a stain that leaves them diminished as a person, as if they are a member of a presumptive criminal class. They have rights: they have the presumption of innocence and the civil liberties that the Constitution wisely bestows on all Americans, not just favored groups.

Mind you, their use of the land is just undocumented or unauthorized - so have a sensible reaction proportional to the offense. The paralysis in Congress and the country over fixing western land use stems from our inability to get our heads around the wrenching change involved in making unauthorized use legal for all uses. Think of doing that with an actual crime, like arson. Unthinkable!

Meanwhile, out on the edges of the debate — edges that are coming closer to the mainstream every day — bigots pour all their loathing of white working rural people into a word. The rant about the white, rural, gun loving and right wing — call them criminals, thieves, nutjobs, idiots, assholes, whackadoodles — and people will nod and applaud. Yep, they will send money to your Web site and heed your calls to deluge lawmakers with phone calls and faxes.

This is not only ugly, it is counterproductive, paralyzing any effort toward western land use reform. Comprehensive legislation in Congress and sensible policies at the state and local level have all been stymied and will be forever, as long as anything positive can be branded as "endangering the desert tortoise".

We are stuck with a bogus, deceptive strategy. None of those enforcement policies have a trace of honesty or realism. At least they don’t reward the hard working 'unauthorized' land users, and that, for now, is all the Left wants.

So over the last couple weeks you've put on pretty thorough display of your concept of right and wrong being entirely determined by your concept of right and left.

In light of this, your tirades about "liberal group-think" and similar make sense. You're simply assuming other people's process for assessment of the morality of a situation is similar to yours.

 

[RavenSky]

You and Playball40 need to find someone who is arguing about Zuccotti Park, if you want to argue about it, as I haven’t said jack about that particular park. Or and unless you are suggesting that the OWS movement was singularly confined to Zuccotti Park. My point was about public parks being occupied indefinitely by “protestors” camping out. Last time I looked around semi-permanent camps in public parks was not a legitimate/legal form of protest as various US cities struggled to find a balance between maintaining city order/rules and allowing this general outburst of frustration at the “system”.

perhaps in your own zeal to be contrarian (as you wrong accuse me of being) you need to notice that I was not confining my response to Zucotti park. I clearly stated ANY park - public or private... until OWS has been continuously occupying it for 20 years, it isn't an analogy for what Bundy has been doing.

I don't think you and I really disagree on this point

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sending 100's of militarized agents over unpaid cow fees is shock and awe.

Not enough shock and awe. It didn't deter an armed robbery.

 

[dismal]

I clearly stated ANY park - public or private... until OWS has been continuously occupying it for 20 years, it isn't an analogy for what Bundy has been doing.

So your position is that it's OK to occupy public land without permission as long as you don't do it for 20 years?

That seems like an odd positon.

Why does it suddenly become bad at the 20 year mark?

 

[ksen]

Ravensky didn't say that was her position.

But you probably already knew that.

 

[maxparrish]

So over the last couple weeks you've put on pretty thorough display of your concept of right and wrong being entirely determined by your concept of right and left.

In light of this, your tirades about "liberal group-think" and similar make sense. You're simply assuming other people's process for assessment of the morality of a situation is similar to yours.

Perhaps you can more clearly explain what is wrong with my rethought post? I would have thought it might appeal to your better self?

 

[dismal]

Ravensky didn't say that was her position.

But you probably already knew that.

Really?

Clearly the length of time of an occupation is some sort of factor in Ravensky's principles, is it not? The stated length of time when it can start to be talked about was 20 years.

But she probably can clarify why and how time is a factor without your help.

 

[ksen]

Really?

Really.

Clearly the length of time of an occupation is some sort of factor in Ravensky's principles, is it not? The stated length of time when it can start to be talked about was 20 years.

Nah, clearly the principles of people not being concerned with Bundy squatting on land not his for 20 years but being indignant at OWS protestors squatting on land not theirs for a much shorter time was what interested her.

But she probably can clarify why and how time is a factor without your help.

She probably could. But so could a book used to teach third grade reading.

 

[dismal]

Nah, clearly the principles of people not being concerned with Bundy squatting on land not his for 20 years but being indignant at OWS protestors squatting on land not theirs for a much shorter time was what interested her.

I was not indignant with Bundy these last 20 years because I never heard of him.

And I think the question being wondered about here is why some people here who are indginant about Bundy were OK with OWS occupying public land. (We can still dig up the threads, I think..)

The only answer offered so far seems to be that it wasn't for 20 years...

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I was not indignant with Bundy these last 20 years because I never heard of him.

And I think the question being wondered about here is why some people here who are indginant about Bundy were OK with OWS occupying public land. (We can still dig up the threads, I think..)

The only answer offered so far seems to be that it wasn't for 20 years...

There's a big difference between standing on public land and using public land to generate a profit for your business. Simply accessing public land is a different issue than using the resources of public land to make money for your private business.

 

[dismal]

There's a big difference between standing on public land and using public land to generate a profit for your business. Simply accessing public land is a different issue than using the resources of public land to make money for your private business.

Why is that a meaningful difference?

I would think the relevant issue is who is being deprived of the land being used as intended.

Certainly, occupying a park in Oakland prevents a lot more people from using the land as intended than cattle grazing on scrub in Nevada.

 

[ksen]

Never really thought I'd see the day dismal came out against property rights.

Maybe it's lingering effects from the blood moon.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why is that a meaningful difference?

I would think the relevant issue is who is being deprived of the land being used as intended.

Certainly, occupying a park in Oakland prevents a lot more people from using the land as intended than cattle grazing on scrub in Nevada.

It's meaningful in relation to the accusation of hypocrisy towards those holding the two different positions. If they can disinguish between accessing the land and profiting off the land, then the notion that there's a hypocritical disconnect between their positions on the two matters is a strawman.