So, a group of armed terrorists has occupied a federal building

[albeto.]

Carrying guns is not always a sign of being combative or agressive.  There are many situations where it isn't. 

 

Other than the guns, their methods are very similar to things we see in other kinds of protests.

 

A military type action with guns is clearly agressive, but that has not, yet, happened.

 

If we want to call them militants, without them having yet done something along those lines, I think the test would be - is their goal in having their guns there to carry out a military type action? 

 

I don't think that is why they have their guns there.  I doubt they thought deeply about it at all - I'd say they likely felt, on an emotional level, that they should bring them.  Why feel that way - because their political identity as citizens includes having a gun.  Kind of like people in a religious protest might bring a religious symbol.

 

So... these guys who warned violent retribution against anyone coming towards them with the intent of carrying out the law are not combative or aggressive.

 

Because carrying guns is not always a sign of being combative or aggressive.

 

In the same way cake doesn't have calories if you eat it standing up.

[albeto.]

Just as a bit of an aside -

 

I'm surprised how few commentators are noting that these guys are LDS - theology matters, especially in discussions of land sovereignty here. They have more motivation than your average joe to do something like this.

 

Can you connect the dots for me? What LDS theology do you suspect is motivating them?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So... these guys who warned violent retribution against anyone coming towards them with the intent of carrying out the law are not combative or aggressive.

 

Because carrying guns is not always a sign of being combative or aggressive.

 

In the same way cake doesn't have calories if you eat it standing up.

 

I am sure they brought the guns by accident though.

[Bluegoat]

Are your serious?  They said they brought the guns to defend themselves if the federal government tried to retake the building.  Others in the group have posted statements online about fighting and dying for their cause. 

 

A good rule of thumb is that when an armed group takes over property that doesn't belong to them then it is quite reasonable to call them militant.  Gee whiz.

 

 

Lots of people make statements about fighting and dying for their cause.

 

You can use militant if you want, I would not say it is wrong - people seem to have climed down from calling them terrorists which I really object to. 

 

I don't think they are conceptualizing being arrested in a normal kind of way - they are prone to conspiracy theories.  They think the government might come in and attack them in some kind of military operation.  (And, I suppose it isn't surprising they could believe that, the police aren't known for being sensible with how they deal with protestors.)  Would they resist being ordered out in a low-key way, or even arrested, by becoming violent?  I suspect unless some of them are really hot-heads they wouldn't, but it is possible.

[Ravin]

Can you connect the dots for me? What LDS theology do you suspect is motivating them?

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/04/461944989/mormon-faith-serves-as-powerful-symbol-for-oregon-protesters

[December]

I am sure they brought the guns by accident though.

 

 

Well, when you are always carrying them around, I am sure it doesn't even cross your mind to leave them behind!

 

I can't even understand the comparisons to gun with religious symbols.  Guns are tools used for killing.  There are some places where it is inappropriate or illegal to carry them.  If you can't understand that, you shouldn't be armed.  You don't get a pass just because guns are meaningful and symbolic to you; that's just ridiculous and to me indicates that you don't have the proper respect for them.

[Bluegoat]

This is hilarious!

 

A kid had a toy gun and was shot dead in less than five seconds.

 

A kid brought a clock to school and was picked up by the cops and processed as a criminal.

 

But a bunch of grown men in swat gear and guns take over a federal building and now we have to have sympathy for their plight?

 

This is crazy talk.

 

No, I don't know that we should be sympathetic.  Creful with people who think they are protesting for their rights, even if it is stupid - yes.  Careful not to escalate a situation that will probably resolve naturally?  Yes.

 

Also - people should not shoot kids with toy guns, nor should they send kids that build clocks to jail, so arguing with that as a basis doesn't strike me as a good place to start.

[Leav97]

And don't forget some of these involved here actually POINTED firearms at federal agents during the standoff at the Bundy ranch.  For an oppressive dictatorship that allegedly has its boots on the throat of these folks, our government sure is showing a tremendous amount of restraint.

 

Where is #bluelivesmatter?  Shouldn't they be out protesting?  Making sure everyone is aware LEO lives are being threatened? 

[Guest]

They are not doing this b/c they are LDS come on.

That wasn't what I was getting at.

[Word Nerd]

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/04/461944989/mormon-faith-serves-as-powerful-symbol-for-oregon-protesters

 

Also: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/why-the-bundy-militia-mixes-mormon-symbolism-with-anti-government-sentiment/

[Guest]

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/04/461944989/mormon-faith-serves-as-powerful-symbol-for-oregon-protesters

That *is* what I was getting at. Thanks!

 

And I appreciate NPR covering this more in depth with fairness to all sides, including the Mormons who disagree. But just because they disagree doesn't mean the Bundys et al aren't claiming it regardless. Even their monikers point to their motives in some respects.

 

It adds a layer of complexity to the land rights and sentencing issues, and it's something that has been largely ignored. Not totally, thankfully.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[Guest]

Also: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/why-the-bundy-militia-mixes-mormon-symbolism-with-anti-government-sentiment/

That PBS article is excellent.

[Ravin]

So they waived their right to appeal in exchange for a short sentence, but then a judge ruled they couldn't have a short sentence?  Does that mean they can now appeal?  I don't understand why prosecutors would make deals with people that can't legally be upheld.

 

They waived their right to appeal the convictions the jury gave on the arson charges in exchange for:

 

1. all other charges pending or being tried or stemming from the same allegations being dropped or would not be pressed

 

2. a recommendation of a favorable sentence from prosecutors, including that the sentences be concurrent (for the  individual who had two convictions). 

 

The prosecutors recommended the mandatory minimum, which was five years, with concurrent sentence. The District Judge found that this shocked the conscience (a legal term of art) and on 8th amendment grounds gave them a lighter sentence, deciding that what they actually did can't have been what Congress had in mind when they passed the mandatory minimum (I frankly agree with the District Judge here).

 

The U.S. Attorney appealed this deviation from the mandatory sentencing scheme, and won before the 9th Circuit, which said that the sentencing scheme was not so unreasonable that it shocked the conscience (and to be fair, the bar set for that by the Supreme Court IS very high and the ruling by the 9th Circuit on the matter was not unreasonable), that mandatory minimums are not suggestions, and the District Court was not free to use discretion when they exist, and it wasn't the District Judge's job to decide what Congress meant. 

 

They can ask the Supreme Court for writ on the 9th Circuit decision, but it's unlikely to happen. If it did, and the SCOTUS ruled for the Hammonds, it would invite a whole lot of chaos and disruption and appeals into the Federal courts over other mandatory minimum sentences.

[Tsuga]

 

4) NOT a hotly debated political issue

 

Really? Where I live, in WA, federal lands, land management, rural vs. urban, terrorism, libertarianism, etc. are very hotly debated and very much issues. People care very much how land is managed and whether it's federal or tribal or state land. This is an extremely hot-button issue.

 

Maybe that explains the disconnect. For some of us, this is a huge issue. Perhaps for others it's a done deal?

 

And based on the defenses given in this thread, is the idea that it is somehow not threatening if a bunch of "Islamic" militants occupy a Parks and Rec building after it is closed? Like that's okay, that's not terrorism? Even if they set up a base there and ask for snacks?

 

I do think that there is a salient difference, of course, between using occupation of federal buildings as a tool for intimidation, vs. killing masses of people. "Salient" being an understatement-the difference is clear and critical.

 

But then... this is getting a lot of reports here as well.

[albeto.]

That *is* what I was getting at. Thanks!

 

And I appreciate NPR covering this more in depth with fairness to all sides, including the Mormons who disagree. But just because they disagree doesn't mean the Bundys et al aren't claiming it regardless. Even their monikers point to their motives in some respects.

 

It adds a layer of complexity to the land rights and sentencing issues, and it's something that has been largely ignored. Not totally, thankfully.

 

I disagree it adds a layer of complexity to land rights and sentencing issues as our government is by design secular. I agree with you that if the Bundys claim religious inspiration, it's inappropriate to dismiss it. It may embarrass other mormons, and understandably so, but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant to the inspiration behind the action. Indeed, it sounds like a direct influence. According to Ravin's link:

 

 

SEPULVADO: Well, according to Latter-day Saints Scripture, Captain Moroni became a commander of his people, called the Nephites, when he turned 25. And he basically introduced a bunch of new tactics and new ways to think about fighting. And one day, this really kind of corrupt king comes to Captain Moroni, and he's basically telling him, we're going to take your people over. And Captain Moroni says, uh-uh, that's not going to happen. He takes his coat, tears a piece of it off. He scrawls that quote I just told you, puts that on a pole, and he calls this his title of liberty. People see this flag. They flock to him. So many people come to join him in the fight that the king gets scared and he moves and goes away without there ever being a confrontation.

[Tsuga]

They can ask the Supreme Court for writ on the 9th Circuit decision, but it's unlikely to happen. If it did, and the SCOTUS ruled for the Hammonds, it would invite a whole lot of chaos and disruption and appeals into the Federal courts over other mandatory minimum sentences.

 

Man oh man, I wish they would though. I know mandatory minimums were put in place to be tough on crime and also to be more fair, but it's really had so many unintended consequences.

[Guest]

Tsuga - it's a major issue here too, and anywhere there are a ton of federal and state lands and a rural population, I'd say.

[Ravin]

 

 

And based on the defenses given in this thread, is the idea that it is somehow not threatening if a bunch of "Islamic" militants occupy a Parks and Rec building after it is closed? Like that's okay, that's not terrorism? Even if they set up a base there and ask for snacks?

 

 

They need to make this an episode of the TV show Parks and Rec. Just because. Though they don't have to be "Islamic". They could have some off the wall sitcom militants.

[Ravin]

In a nutshell, the analysis is that Bundy thinks he's a latter day Captain Moroni.

 

I'm thinking not so much. This may tie into the theology and narcissism thread?

[MSNative]

This ia a good editorial on it. It is sympathetic to the underlying issues but rightly critical of the Bundys actions.

"The proper remedy in a free society of laws is, as always, to be found in peaceful agitation and persuasion, and ultimately the ballot box. Play-acting a revolution will only bring derision — and should anyone take it too seriously, much worse."

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/01/06/the_bundys_unlawful_and_distasteful_occupation_129222.html

[albeto.]

In a nutshell, the analysis is that Bundy thinks he's a latter day Captain Moroni.

 

I'm thinking not so much. This may tie into the theology and narcissism thread?

 

If this was a group of muslims, there's no doubt their religion would be a major factor in most news stories, whether or not it's relevant or has the support of religious leaders and local believers. Perhaps this is why AM commented on their religion in the first place. It's another example of a glaring double standard in our society. 

 

They seem to be reenacting an event they believe to be divinely orchestrated for the good of mankind. It makes sense now why they are making no demands and are simply calling dibs on an otherwise irrelevant piece of land. If the feds recognize this, they'll likely use this belief in negotiations for a peaceful outcome. How is this any more narcissistic than Mother Teresa thanking god for poverty and suffering. Oh wait...

[Lb20inblue]

No, I don't know that we should be sympathetic. Creful with people who think they are protesting for their rights, even if it is stupid - yes. Careful not to escalate a situation that will probably resolve naturally? Yes.

 

Also - people should not shoot kids with toy guns, nor should they send kids that build clocks to jail, so arguing with that as a basis doesn't strike me as a good place to start.

In my daily life, in the real, my Facebook groups, and other online board, the idea from people of color is basically the same. No other group is afford the right to express grievances against the government to this way. It doesn't happen. And if it does happen, the end result is more than likely tragic.

 

The fact the the media is going out their way to present nuances to their grievances is amazing.

 

Of course, I don't speak for all people of color but of my wide circle of Asains, Latinos, Africans and African Americans the thoughts are the same on this issue.

[MSNative]

 

If this was a group of muslims, there's no doubt their religion would be a major factor in most news stories, whether or not it's relevant or has the support of religious leaders and local believers. Perhaps this is why AM commented on their religion in the first place. It's another example of a glaring double standard in our society.

 

They seem to be reenacting an event they believe to be divinely orchestrated for the good of mankind. It makes sense now why they are making no demands and are simply calling dibs on an otherwise irrelevant piece of land. If the feds recognize this, they'll likely use this belief in negotiations for a peaceful outcome. How is this any more narcissistic than Mother Teresa thanking god for poverty and suffering. Oh wait...

I've never heard Mother Teresa called a narcissist.

[Amira]

If this were simply a reenactment of a scriptural event then it would be as weird as a bunch of people standing around the outskirts of Jericho, Israel, today striking up a band and yelling in an attempt to promote their political cause.  I think religion is being used as a justification here but that it isn't the real motivator. That doesn't mean that I think that the media should ignore the Mormon connection, but that I don't think it really is the issue and reducing it to a religious thing is an oversimplification.

 

I also happen to think that a great deal of what is labeled "Islamic" terrorism is not so much about religion as it is about power and politics.  Religion just makes a handy justification or recruiting tool (or a way to stir up fear among your constituency) and our focus on the religion of the militants and/or terrorists can distract from the real concerns.

[happi duck]

I am sure they brought the guns by accident though.

They were in a hurry...grabbed the guns instead of the snacks.

[Pam in CT]

re: religion as justification of individuals furthering particular causes, vs. normative values of mainstream adherents:

If this were simply a reenactment of a scriptural event then it would be as weird as a bunch of people standing around the outskirts of Jericho, Israel, today striking up a band and yelling in an attempt to promote their political cause.  I think religion is being used as a justification here but that it isn't the real motivator. That doesn't mean that I think that the media should ignore the Mormon connection, but that I don't think it really is the issue and reducing it to a religious thing is an oversimplification.

 

Which, I am sorry to say, happens.  Sometimes the outcome is violent.

 

As many Muslims say in the aftermath of violence perpetrated in the name of Islam, and as increasing numbers of Christians are beginning to say in the aftermath of violence perpetrated in the name of white Christian supremacy, not in God's name, and neither in mine.

 

 

...

 

I also happen to think that a great deal of what is labeled "Islamic" terrorism is not so much about religion as it is about power and politics.  Religion just makes a handy justification or recruiting tool (or a way to stir up fear among your constituency) and our focus on the religion of the militants and/or terrorists can distract from the real concerns.

 

 

:iagree: 

 

Religious historian Karen Armstrong has made the observation for years that our faith traditions -- all of them -- have the capacity to call us to our best selves, and also to provide justification and cover for our worst selves.

 

We only have the one planet here, so here's hoping we can learn to discern the difference and choose well.  

 

(Sigh.  Sorry.  I'm a bit depressed today.)

[Tsuga]

They need to make this an episode of the TV show Parks and Rec. Just because. Though they don't have to be "Islamic". They could have some off the wall sitcom militants.

 

Can it be like, a Symbionese Liberation Army redux? Because I feel like America needs that. We need to watch the left disintegrate somehow. 

[Tsuga]

I've never heard Mother Teresa called a narcissist.

 

There is this dude, and he is super popular on reddit, named Chris Hitchins. I cannot stand him. Can. Not. He wants so badly to be a thinker but he's a hack. Basically, this is the guy who makes atheists look like hysterical, unthinking acolytes. What, you say, you haven't seen atheists act like that en masse? Well go to a Hitchins speech or read a thread on him on reddit or 4chan and you're in for a real treat. By "real treat" I mean that no matter what your personal belief system, if you love truth and care about human beings, he will make you want to gouge your own eyes out.

 

ETA: He thinks Mother Theresa is a narcissist. 

Edited January 6, 2016 by Tsuga

[Word Nerd]

I think religion is being used as a justification here but that it isn't the real motivator. That doesn't mean that I think that the media should ignore the Mormon connection, but that I don't think it really is the issue and reducing it to a religious thing is an oversimplification.

 

I don't think it's the key issue either, but neither do I think Arctic Mama or the articles linked are reducing it to a religious thing or using it as a justification. They just mentioned there is a connection.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Word Nerd

[poppy]

This is hilarious!

 

A kid had a toy gun and was shot dead in less than five seconds.

 

A kid brought a clock to school and was picked up by the cops and processed as a criminal.

 

But a bunch of grown men in swat gear and guns take over a federal building and now we have to have sympathy for their plight?

 

This is crazy talk.

 

The police who shot the kid with the toy gun were not indicted by the grand jury.   Tamir Rice.  Because when LEO see a gun, it is reasonable for them to react with deadly force (said the grand jury).  

 

 

 

Other than the guns, their methods are very similar to things we see in other kinds of protests.

The guns aren't incidental. 

They have the right to bear arms.

They have the right to protest.

They do not have the right to put LEO in danger.  

Protesting with guns that they have indicated they will USE.

They are threatening to kill cops, basically, or to martyr themselves. 

Patriots?

 

I have read up a bit about the definition of terrorist.  It usually involves willingness to use violence against non-combatants, or directly targeting non-combatants.  These guys don't appear to have any desire to do that. So I guess they are not terrorists.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The police who shot the kid with the toy gun were not indicted by the grand jury.   Tamir Rice.  Because when LEO see a gun, it is reasonable for them to react with deadly force (said the grand jury).  

 

 

 

The guns aren't incidental. 

They have the right to bear arms.

They have the right to protest.

They do not have the right to put LEO in danger.  

Protesting with guns that they have indicated they will USE.

They are threatening to kill cops, basically, or to martyr themselves. 

Patriots?

 

I have read up a bit about the definition of terrorist.  It usually involves willingness to use violence against non-combatants, or directly targeting non-combatants.  These guys don't appear to have any desire to do that. So I guess they are not terrorists.  

 

Terrorism is not restricted to non-combatants. 

 

[redsquirrel]

There is this dude, and he is super popular on reddit, named Chris Hitchins. I cannot stand him. Can. Not. He wants so badly to be a thinker but he's a hack. Basically, this is the guy who makes atheists look like hysterical, unthinking acolytes. What, you say, you haven't seen atheists act like that en masse? Well go to a Hitchins speech or read a thread on him on reddit or 4chan and you're in for a real treat. By "real treat" I mean that no matter what your personal belief system, if you love truth and care about human beings, he will make you want to gouge your own eyes out.

 

ETA: He thinks Mother Theresa is a narcissist. 

 

Do you mean the writer Christopher Hitchins? 

 

He's on reddit?

 

That is odd because he died a few years ago. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

 

I didn't always agree with Hitch but I would have sacrificed a small body part to be as intelligent.  I agree he was abrasive and confounding...and very, very difficult to beat in an argument.

 

But, if someone is on reddit arguing as him, or using his name, well, it's not him, lol. And I can assure you that reddit and certainly 4chan would NOT have been his style, more like Paris Review or Vanity Fair.

 

He did write the books "God is Not Great" and another book about Mother Theresa.

 

And you read on 4chan? how do you stand it? That is like an open sewer. If anyone is interested in what Christopher Hitchens has written, just take one of his books out of the library. He won't get any money from it (or his family, b/c he is dead) and you will save yourself wading into places like 4chan or the nether regions of reddit.  At least that way you won't have to clorox your browser.

Edited January 6, 2016 by redsquirrel

[Lady Florida.]

There is this dude, and he is super popular on reddit, named Chris Hitchins. I cannot stand him. Can. Not. He wants so badly to be a thinker but he's a hack. Basically, this is the guy who makes atheists look like hysterical, unthinking acolytes. What, you say, you haven't seen atheists act like that en masse? Well go to a Hitchins speech or read a thread on him on reddit or 4chan and you're in for a real treat. By "real treat" I mean that no matter what your personal belief system, if you love truth and care about human beings, he will make you want to gouge your own eyes out.

 

ETA: He thinks Mother Theresa is a narcissist. 

 

That dude named Chris has been dead for several years. I haven't read his book on Mother Theresa but I don't disagree with his opinion of her. A lot of people feel that way about her. I've read a few of his other books and was impressed. 

Edited January 6, 2016 by Lady Florida

[albeto.]

If this were simply a reenactment of a scriptural event then it would be as weird as a bunch of people standing around the outskirts of Jericho, Israel, today striking up a band and yelling in an attempt to promote their political cause.  I think religion is being used as a justification here but that it isn't the real motivator. That doesn't mean that I think that the media should ignore the Mormon connection, but that I don't think it really is the issue and reducing it to a religious thing is an oversimplification.

 

I also happen to think that a great deal of what is labeled "Islamic" terrorism is not so much about religion as it is about power and politics.  Religion just makes a handy justification or recruiting tool (or a way to stir up fear among your constituency) and our focus on the religion of the militants and/or terrorists can distract from the real concerns.

 

I think these folks camped out in the visitor's center there are clearly inspired by public policies they consider unjust, but the method of rectifying their grievances (this stand off specifically) seems to be taken right out of LDS religious stories. They appeal to people to listen to Jesus "tell" them what to do. They seem to be waiting for the same outcome as Captain Moroni experienced. How is religion no more than a justification here? It seems to be used as a blueprint for a successful revolution? 

 

It's disingenuous to allow religion to be the motivator for when things go well, but dismissed when things go poorly. It's a double standard that should be rejected. 

 

Having said that, I do think it's a rather unimportant variable in this whole set up, other than to understand the motivations behind the act. With regard to racial and religious prejudice, I think this event is a grand example of both. 

[albeto.]

There is this dude, and he is super popular on reddit, named Chris Hitchins. I cannot stand him. Can. Not. He wants so badly to be a thinker but he's a hack. Basically, this is the guy who makes atheists look like hysterical, unthinking acolytes. What, you say, you haven't seen atheists act like that en masse? Well go to a Hitchins speech or read a thread on him on reddit or 4chan and you're in for a real treat. By "real treat" I mean that no matter what your personal belief system, if you love truth and care about human beings, he will make you want to gouge your own eyes out.

 

ETA: He thinks Mother Theresa is a narcissist. 

 

Huh. I must not love truth or care about human beings.

 

I'm more evil than I thought!

 

:laugh:

[Lady Florida.]

 

I also think it is ironic that these guys are claiming the land should be returned to it's 'rightful owners'. I keep imagining the local Native Americans showing up to claim it and saying, 'thanks, guys!"

 

Remember back on page 2 when you posted this redsquirrel? You weren't far off, except for the part about Native Americans thanking them.

 

Native American tribe says Oregon occupiers are desecrating sacred land

 

From the article, and the reason why I quoted you:

 

Tribal Chairperson Charlotte Rodrique says that she is "offended by occupiers' statements about returning the land to its rightful owners," Amanda reports.

"You know, who are the rightful owners?" says Rodrique. "It just really rubs me the wrong way that we have a bunch of misinformed people in here — they're not the original owners."

[Lady Florida.]

Huh. I must not love truth or care about human beings.

 

I'm more evil than I thought!

 

:laugh:

Have you eaten any babies today?  :p

[KathyBC]

 

 

Personally, I truly don't understand what the Oregon guys WANT.  OK, maybe that will emerge over time.  Hopefully, peacefully.

 

 

Posting somewhat on the fly, but I'm sure somewhere up thread it mentions they would prefer control of BLM lands moved from federal to state jurisdiction.

[Tsuga]

Do you mean the writer Christopher Hitchins? 

 

He's on reddit?

 

No, his fans are on reddit. He is in the reddit angry-young-atheist pantheon of heroes.

 

That is odd because he died a few years ago. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

 

I didn't always agree with Hitch but I would have sacrificed a small body part to be as intelligent.  I agree he was abrasive and confounding...and very, very difficult to beat in an argument.

 

He talked over people, he didn't win, he just ignored. He literally did not listen and he did not consider other points of view. I don't know about where you went to school, but his arguments were regularly riddled EDIT: RIDICULED, sorry, ridicule me for that one, hah-- in the (atheist, humanist) philosophy department where I studied. He thought he won but frequently he simply did not consider other people's thoughts and just re-iterated the same tired anger again and again. Listening to him was like listening to Donald Trump, except Hitchens was classier and started at a different point. But he was no less of a jerk in debates, no less impervious to other points of view even when people made very relevant comments.

 

But, if someone is on reddit arguing as him, or using his name, well, it's not him, lol. And I can assure you that reddit and certainly 4chan would NOT have been his style, more like Paris Review or Vanity Fair.

 

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. He is a hero on reddit--not a top poster.

 

He did write the books "God is Not Great" and another book about Mother Theresa.

 

And you read on 4chan? how do you stand it? That is like an open sewer. If anyone is interested in what Christopher Hitchens has written, just take one of his books out of the library. He won't get any money from it (or his family, b/c he is dead) and you will save yourself wading into places like 4chan or the nether regions of reddit.  At least that way you won't have to clorox your browser.

 

I read everywhere, less so on 4Chan but funnily enough, I got to 4chan by arguing with someone about Hitchens. They were quoting their hero, and I use the term "hero" in the most condescending way possible. Finally I went to read where they were getting their second-hand quotes from. "Holy crap, these people are just as insane as you'd expect to find Hitchens' acolytes," I thought.

 

He is a convincing writer and speaker but to my mind, those are simply party tricks. Tease out his arguments and they are just whiny, repetitive diatribes against religion, full of a most narrow understanding of human value and humanist values, misogynistic undertones, and finally total inability to see beyond his narrow upper-class coddled upbringing to speak about life and religion and philosophy in anything close to a nuanced way... and I could go on but he's not worth it.

 

Here is just ONE example (there are so many) of the way he "debates" and "thinks":

 

http://iamkoream.com/hitchens-calls-north-koreans-racist-dwarves-fails-to-see-irony/

 

For more fun like this, just Google "Christopher Hitchens on Women" or "racist comments by Christopher Hitchens" or read anything he wrote in Vanity Fair or Slate. Boy don't Americans like that fancy turn of phrase, but I think he was horrid. Interestingly, when you strip off the accent, he's much less convincing and there's a reason he wasn't big in Britain as he was here... 

 

http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/comment/articles/2013-04/01/michael-wolff-on-christopher-hitchens/viewall

 

Edited January 6, 2016 by Tsuga

[Pam in CT]

re: what the occupiers want, and relatedly what they would deem to be a "successful" resolution of the current situation:

Posting somewhat on the fly, but I'm sure somewhere up thread it mentions they would prefer control of BLM lands moved from federal to state jurisdiction.

 

if this is indeed the case (I've only seen this idea attributed to them by others speculating on what they might want -- please direct me to better information if you can), then I hope they are able soon to clarify exactly who they are asking to do what.  Such a transfer would clearly require legislation, and the necessary prior political process, on both ends.  (And probably a budget appropriations as well to cover services currently being provided at the federal level).  

 

Even if the various political constituencies on other sides of the issue -- the birders and environmentalists and other parties to the water issues etc -- all came to agreement that a federal-to-state transfer was desirable, the execution of such a move would take... quite a while.  

 

A critical aspect of political strategy is matching the "ask" with a negotiation partner who actually has the ability to respond to it.  If something can be accomplished through municipal ordinance, the goal is to seek negotiations at that level (mass peaceful protests with a disruption of traffic effect might do the job).  If it can be accomplished through the courts, the goal is to get the issue into the court system at the appropriate level (which could start with an action that is likely to provoke arrest).  Many changes require legislation -- this is obviously harder, but the big picture strategy is to engender sufficiently widespread sympathy for the cause that a "tipping point" in public opinion takes place.

 

It really isn't at all clear to me what the occupiers believe can happen (within the context of the legal and legislative process and within, say, a two month? interval) in order to step away from the conflict.  From the outside, they appear to be setting themselves up.

[Lady Florida.]

I couldn't quote you Tsuga because you wrote inside the quote, but you wrote:

 

He talked over people, he didn't win, he just ignored. He literally did not listen and he did not consider other points of view. I don't know about where you went to school, but his arguments were regularly riddled EDIT: RIDICULED, sorry, ridicule me for that one, hah-- in the (atheist, humanist) philosophy department where I studied. He thought he won but frequently he simply did not consider other people's thoughts and just re-iterated the same tired anger again and again. Listening to him was like listening to Donald Trump, except Hitchens was classier and started at a different point. But he was no less of a jerk in debates, no less impervious to other points of view even when people made very relevant comments.

 

You must not have watched many full debates then. Here's 2-1/2 hours of him not talking over his opponent (he does a few times respectfully and briefly, but so does his opponent). There is also no ridicule here either. And this debate is not the exception. He participated in many, many debates like this one. It looks like you've found, or have been directed to only certain types of videos.

 

 

Edited January 7, 2016 by Lady Florida

[Amira]

re: what the occupiers want, and relatedly what they would deem to be a "successful" resolution of the current situation:

 

if this is indeed the case (I've only seen this idea attributed to them by others speculating on what they might want -- please direct me to better information if you can), then I hope they are able soon to clarify exactly who they are asking to do what.  Such a transfer would clearly require legislation, and the necessary prior political process, on both ends.  (And probably a budget appropriations as well to cover services currently being provided at the federal level).  

 

Even if the various political constituencies on other sides of the issue -- the birders and environmentalists and other parties to the water issues etc -- all came to agreement that a federal-to-state transfer was desirable, the execution of such a move would take... quite a while.  

 

A critical aspect of political strategy is matching the "ask" with a negotiation partner who actually has the ability to respond to it.  If something can be accomplished through municipal ordinance, the goal is to seek negotiations at that level (mass peaceful protests with a disruption of traffic effect might do the job).  If it can be accomplished through the courts, the goal is to get the issue into the court system at the appropriate level (which could start with an action that is likely to provoke arrest).  Many changes require legislation -- this is obviously harder, but the big picture strategy is to engender sufficiently widespread sympathy for the cause that a "tipping point" in public opinion takes place.

 

It really isn't at all clear to me what the occupiers believe can happen (within the context of the legal and legislative process and within, say, a two month? interval) in order to step away from the conflict.  From the outside, they appear to be setting themselves up.

 

Bundy did a phone interview with The Oregonian a couple of days ago where he stated that they want the Hammonds released from prison and the refuge under local control.  I can't find a direct quote of what he said but it seems pretty clear that they told that to The Oregonian.  He said again today that they want the refuge to be under local control.  

[redsquirrel]

I am very aware of the faults of Christopher Hitchens, and they were many. He's not a hero of mine, lol. But I did respect his intellect. There are plenty of people with whom I disagree but whose intelligence I can acknowledge and respect. Doesn't mean I wanted to spend any time with him. I just thought it was odd to see you post about him in the context of reddit and 4chan. Most people would have referenced his books, referred to him as an author, from the context of your earlier quoted post, you used the present tense etc and it did look to me like you were saying he was alive and posting on 4chan.

 

I have no desire to debate or discuss Hitchens, I am certainly not going to defend his many indefensible positions.

 

 

There is currently a community meeting with the town and the millitants

 

Here are some twitter feeds of local reporters who are live tweeting the meeting. :

 

https://twitter.com/IanKullgren

 

https://twitter.com/LesZaitz

 

https://twitter.com/bethnakamura

 

 

Here is a buzzfeed reporter who is also at the meeting and is live tweeting:

 

https://twitter.com/SalHernandez

 

It sounds like law enforcement have been harassed by these guys. The sheriff said his wife's tires were slashed, some law enforcement families have left town for the duration of this etc.

 

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/salvadorhernandez/patience-frays-in-oregon-town-paralyzed-by-militias-protest?utm_term=.rc9oMEyRq#.vhdVBE13K

 

 

That article is by the same reporter whose twitter feed I posted.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Just going to leave this here:

#bundyeroticfanfic

 

:lol:

[Xuzi]

Just going to leave this here:

#bundyeroticfanfic

 

:lol:

Rule #34.

[Halftime Hope]

No, the government does not have carte blanche to take any land, but 100+ years ago, when the land was "up for grabs", land that was not homesteaded became a wildlife preserve. That is vastly oversimplifying, but, this is a very specific spot of land where ownership was legally established.  Not "any land, any time".

 

There is a big difference between "previously owned the land" and "used it for their livelihood".  "Use it for their livelihood" was basically how all land was in England, until the idea of private property evolved. But now, I am going to guess the ranchers don't just assume spot of land THEY own is up for grabs if it's not actively part of the business......... why on earth would they get to take the govt's land? 

 

These guys just want the land to make money off it, you know that right?

 

 

Hunting food on a wildlife preserve to live is not violence or terrorism. These guys are doing it to protest, as a political statement.  Since it's illegal, and they are really flaunting their actions, they should face legal consequences for it.   

 

gently:   

 

flout, verb

gerund or present participle: flouting

openly disregard (a rule, law or convention).

"these same companies still flout basic ethical practices"

synonyms: defy, refuse to obey, disobey, break, violate, fail to comply with, fail to observe, contravene, infringe, breach, commit a breach of, transgress against; More

[Halftime Hope]

 

The problem with taking land to hand over to corporations and such has become as outrageous as it has thanks to the supreme court decision in Kelo v. City of New London (2005) where they said that furthering an economic development plan was a "public use" for which eminent domain can be exercised.

 

This is right up there with Citizens United in the recent Supreme Court hall of Lousy Decisions.

 

I kept wanting to add this when I read your earlier posts about eminent domain.  The government (general, all levels of government) has a lousy track record and this decision simply made the malfeasance newly lawful.

 

My SIL's family had a lovely little beachfront ranch house, with a biiiiiig yard, half-way up the eastern coast of FL.  Their family had bought it in the '40s, so three generations of family had used it.  All the other homes in the row had slowly been sold off and each property had been developed as condos or hotels; the least dense was the property that had a handful of tiny vacation cottages on it.

 

Over the years (90s) SIL's grandfather was contacted numerous times by developers and he always rebuffed their offers, wanting to keep the house in the family.  In the early 2000s, a city commissioner quietly took her granddad aside and told him he needed to get out while he could, before the city moved action against them to its front burner.  (Note: this property was owned lawfully, no taxes were in arrears, it was simply that the city wanted to develop the land for greater tax revenue.)

 

When Kelo was taken up by the Supreme Court, the family threw in the towel and sold the property to a developer, since their understanding was that if they did not, the city would seize the property under eminent domain and then resell it to a developer for the purposes of increasing the tax base. 

 

Now there is a three or four story condo building on the property.  At least SIL's family was paid handsomely by the developer rather than being paid "fair market value" (not) by the city.

 

One should not have to sell off a beach home that is in the family, just so the city can reap more tax revenue from the property.  That whole episode may have been lawful, but it was wrong.

[Word Nerd]

Just going to leave this here:

#bundyeroticfanfic

 

:lol:

 

I'm not sure which would be more disturbing—fanfic about these Bundys, or Ted.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm not sure which would be more disturbing—fanfic about these Bundys, or Ted.

Ted = disturbing

These guys = funny

[justasque]

... Here's 2-1/2 hours of him not talking over his opponent (he does a few times respectfully and briefly, but so does his opponent). There is also no ridicule here either. And this debate is not the exception. He participated in many, many debates like this one. It looks like you've found, or have been directed to only certain types of videos.

 

Link?  (Not that I have 2 1/2 hours, but someone else might be interested...)