NPR is reporting on this tale of direct action:
A self-styled militia in eastern Oregon grabbed national headlines Saturday when they broke into the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. There the armed group remains Sunday, occupying the federal building in protest of what it sees as government overreach on rangelands throughout the western United States.
"We stand in defense," Ammon Bundy, the group's apparent leader and spokesperson, told Oregon Public Broadcasting. "And when the time is right we will begin to defend the people of Harney County, [Ore.,] in using the land and the resources."
Ammon's brother, Ryan, has reportedly used harsher rhetoric, saying members of the militia are willing to kill or be killed.
Their last name may ring a bell. Ammon and Ryan Bundy are sons of rancher Cliven Bundy, who notably took part in an armed standoff with the federal Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, in Nevada in 2014.
Ammon Bundy now is part of a group of 15 to 150 people — depending on which source you believe — who are protesting the arson convictions of two Oregon ranchers, Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son, Steven.
Also at Oregon Live, NYT, and the Associated Press.
Related Stories
Previously: Militia Occupies Federal Building in Oregon After Rancher Arson Convictions
Russia Today reports:
Ammon Bundy, the leader of the armed group occupying a federal wildlife refuge near Burns, Oregon, and four others have been arrested by law enforcement amid gunfire, according to the FBI.
At 4:25 pm on [January 26], the FBI and Oregon State Police "began an enforcement action to bring into custody a number of individuals associated with the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. During that arrest, there were shots fired", the Bureau said in a statement.
The FBI said one person who was "a subject of a federal probable cause arrest is deceased". He said they are not releasing any information on the person "pending identification by the medical examiner's office".
One person suffered non-life threatening injuries and was taken to a local hospital for treatment. He was arrested and is in custody.
The arrested individuals include:
- Ammon Edward Bundy, age 40, of Emmett, Idaho.
- Ryan C. Bundy, age 43, of Bunkerville, Nevada.
- Brian Cavalier, age 44, of Bunkerville, Nevada.
- Shawna Cox, age 59, of Kanab, Utah.
- Ryan Waylen Payne, age 32, of Anaconda, Montana.
CNN, NYT, Washington Post, BBC, OregonLive.
Catholic Online reports
On Thursday [October 27], the Bundy gang of ranchers who took over a federal building in Oregon and led a 41-day standoff were acquitted on all charges. At least five of the seven surviving militia members will now walk free from federal custody as a result. Ammon Bundy will not be released however because he still faces charges in Nevada over the standoff at his father's ranch two years ago. His brother, Ryan Bundy also remains in custody. An eighth member of their gang was killed by police when the standoff drew to an end.
[...]The Bundy gang also staged their occupation on sacred Native American land. This cannot be condoned; it would be like legitimizing the armed takeover of a parish church.
[...]At the same time the Bundy gang was being acquitted, heavily armed paramilitary-police moved into the crowds at Cannonball, North Dakota gassing and arresting protesters. The key difference in this case is [that] the protesters in North Dakota are peaceful and unarmed.
[...] During Thursday's protest, a fire broke out at the site and police moved in with riot gear and military-grade armored vehicles. They attacked the crowd with tear gas, a sound cannon, batons, and bean-bag ammunition. Police are evicting the protesters by force to make way for the pipeline's construction. Protesters have built barricades to keep authorities at bay.
Peoples World continues
[Continues...]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by snick on Monday January 04 2016, @04:26PM
#YallQueda #YeeHawd #VanillaISIS #YokelHaram #CowTippingTerrorists #FailQueda #Infantada #WhiteSIS #SaturdayNightTreason
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @04:55PM
#TeaTaliban
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @05:33AM
#Tealiban is shorter.
#Moojahideen
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Monday January 04 2016, @05:15PM
So far I've yet to see random attacks by these folks against any targets, let alone a single bullet fly. But the hashtags do show how quickly everyone is to fall in worship of the state regardless of its outdated ownership of much of the western states.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday January 04 2016, @06:02PM
Well, they've already committed multiple counts of breaking-and-entering, which should matter. Also, they're armed to the teeth and saying that they will fight to the death if the cops come and try and arrest them.
Also, in the case of the Bundy family, back in Nevada they pointed rifles at government agents who were attempting to enforce the law. That's attempted capital murder, and a 12-year-old was killed in a city park for less.
You don't like the laws? Fine: Lobby your congressman. Your congressman won't do what you ask? Fine: Either run against him yourself, or at the very least campaign for his opponent. You don't like the idea of having a government in the first place? Fine: Move to someplace where there isn't one, like Somalia or rural Afghanistan. But this game of "I can break the law anytime I want, and anybody who disagrees with me believes the government can do no wrong" is total hogwash.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @06:05PM
Well, they've already committed multiple counts of breaking-and-entering, which should matter. Also, they're armed to the teeth and saying that they will fight to the death if the cops come and try and arrest them.
Still a lot more peaceful than Black Lives Matter :^)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @08:24PM
I don't agree with these rancher clowns, but there is a reason revolutions break out. Petitioning corrupt officials, or trying to work inside of a broken system doesn't always work. I was totally against fracking anywhere, and thought that at least no one would let it happen in CA of all places, but I was wrong. Corps get to buy their way and people are left to suffer the consequences.
This is the right-wing version of tying themselves to the trees...
(Score: 2, Troll) by TheGratefulNet on Monday January 04 2016, @08:47PM
all of your 'cures' are false ones. you can't fight congress (who, here, can compete with PAC money? not a single one of us!). you can't correct an out-of-control government once its gone too far down the rabbit hole (like ours).
while I don't agree with bundy and his goons, I also don't agree that there are existing peaceful ways to bring our country back on track again.
I have no solution. but I am not dumb enough to think the system can self correct once its gone as far off course as ours has.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday January 04 2016, @10:23PM
Not a single person, of course, but a lot of ordinary people can - $20 * 300,000 people = the cost of an average Senate campaign. Sure, that's not as much fun as playing cowboy out west, but it's at least as likely to work as anything else that you could try. Candidates like Bernie Sanders survive because of this kind of math.
And you know what else? Dollars don't vote, and incumbents can and have been sunk by poorly-funded insurgent candidates just because the voters were upset with them.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by rondon on Tuesday January 05 2016, @01:49PM
Just to be clear, I read that as you suggesting that we recruit 10% of the US population to influence one senate election... does that seem realistic to you? It seems wildly unfair to me that one tenth of the US population should have to donate the equivalent of 3 (or more) day's meals in order to be represented with 1% of the senate.
I think you have put forth more evidence that the system is broken.
(Score: 2) by rondon on Tuesday January 05 2016, @01:51PM
Crap, major math fail. My apologies. 300,000 is certainly not 10% of 300 million :(
And it is making me wait for my mea culpa... ugh.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Monday January 04 2016, @09:48PM
Uhhh, no it is not. Moreover, I don't think anybody disagreeing with me believes the government can do wrong. I certainly know you're not a blind cheerleader for government.
Let's back up a minute....
Yeah, I'm still with you. Not a reason to violate the law.
Starting to lose me. I thought you were bringing an actual solution, but I'll still play along.
I'm supposed to be surprised right? Well, golly gee willickers, look at that.... Politician didn't represent us. Huh.
You are aware of the reasons business outsource specific tasks? Becoming a politician isn't my core business, and it's more than little ridiculous I need to become a politician to prevent other politicians from stealing my land or property. According to you, we all need to be politicians in the same way everybody should own guns. We would be safer and left more alone right?
That's HOGWASH. I shouldn't have needed to drastically alter my life away from a career around computing, just so that I could keep Glass-Steagall in place, just to keep Wall Street well regulated, just so that I could prevent the near economic collapse and raping of America. It's my fault I lost multiple houses to such regulatory failure, because I forgot to become a politician, and be a King of Thieves.
No sir, we should not all be forced to be politicians. The legislative branch simply needs more regulations, accountability, and severe punishments . We need 20 year prison sentences for certain offenses when you're an elected official. Not the apathy and apparent support they get now.
I would start to speak of campaign finance reform, but that would be a belief the system can be salvaged. That's not a belief that I have either.
Not liking what your government does, and how it *doesn't* represent you, is not equivalent to not liking government at all. I'm a huge fan of representative government that serves to create a viable foundation upon which an advanced society can thrive. It would be super nice to live in one before I died, but I've long accepted that the government I alluded to isn't here, or coming any time soon.
So is this statement. At some point, civil disobedience is greatly required in order for freedom to be maintained. Armed men taking over a federal building is a bit past civil disobedience, but then again, we did need to go to extraordinary lengths (a civil war) to decide if the law granting me ownership of a nigger was ethically appropriate and in keeping with our Constitution. Of course, at this point in our history we celebrate it as evidence of how we evolved and got "better" as a country.
Enforcing corrupt laws isn't a protection against accountability. The Bundy family was correct in pointing guns at government agents. That argument goes back all the way to the 1800s, and evidence of political thievery of land. In my own family history, I'm sure we've actually killed bankers at some point coming for us. When people are coming for you and your land, there really is only one response: Rifles and bullets. I've got multiple experiences with that in my family history too, including the Oklahoma Sooners. We shot an entire family of brothers dead because they came to our farm a month after the race to run us off with rifles. Shooed their horses off after burying them in three graves on the property. Even shot them in the backs after we graciously kowtow'd and said we would leave so they dropped their guard :) My family takes the whole "live free or die" motto very seriously.
The land, and cattle, belong to the Bundy family, and this has been true for generations of their family. I've not heard the arguments about Oregon, but if it is anything like Nevada, the federal government is quite firmly in the wrong. I don't believe these are valid issues of emminent domain either, and I've not heard any arguments for public safety and well being mandating that land or animals be taken away from farmers and ranchers.
I'm trying to find out more about the specific arguments against federal government here before I simply conclude these men are terrorists. I'm not doing that until I hear the arguments. For that matter, you will find out how good the arguments are if hundreds of thousands of riled up men start pouring into Oregon like they did with Nevada. In that case Nevada acted correctly, by backing down to the Bundys and giving them back their cattle. If these men are truly stupid and without any valid arguments, then we will see far less support appear for them. Meanwhile, I'm still looking to see exactly what is going on, and why they feel this is the only way for government to listen to them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @01:21AM
Might makes right? Screw rule of law?
Wow.
Just. Plain. Wow.
You have convinced me: the entire lot of you are as batshit insane as rabid dogs. Thanks for clearing that up.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday January 05 2016, @02:15AM
The rule of law only exists when all men are ruled by it equally, and the laws themselves are fairly and equitably drafted. When the law itself fails, then the law itself is subject to massive regulatory and political capture, then the rule of law you so highly cherish doesn't exist. The federal government has lost all moral authority in their claims that their laws are just, impartial, and for the sole benefit of the citizenry. In almost every meaningful way, the federal government only exists as an arm of special monied interests, and shareholder concerns.
In the case of the Bundys, they actually owned the rights to the land decades ahead of the "laws" that took it away. "Might makes right" is actually a term that defines the actions of the federal government WRT Clive Bundy and his family ranch owned and operated for many generations since the Wild West came into existence. It was the federal government, specifically the environmental organizations, that unilaterally rezoned the Bundy's property as new federal land. I've yet to hear an argument that justifies such seizures by eminent domain, and I can't blame a ranch family for one second fighting the stealing of their long held ancestral lands by government. You know, there are no federal buildings, no research buildings, no highways, nothing justifying the land seized by the federal government in that case. Just a weak argument that the government owns it, which is quite weak indeed.
The Bundys only had to bring out guns, after decades of bureaucratic maneuvering caused federal government to steal and hold their cattle for destruction (they were preparing to kill thousands of cattle to send a message). While the government may want to spin it as the Bundys refusing to accept government mandates, but that would be transparent corruption and bullshit. The truth is that the federal government finally ceased their arguments (incorrect arguments) and decided to start seizing property (the cattle on federal land in name only) to strong arm the Bundys into giving up land. Due process wasn't going the federal government's way, so then they needed to bypass due process entirely.
That's not proper government, and *THAT* is Might Makes Right. The Bundys had every reason, and legal right, to continue their battle with the federal government for as many decades as it took. Quite frankly, anytime the government is seizing land, that should be up for a vote and a heck of a lot more transparent.
You forget. The Bundys were pushed to physically protect their cattle with armed guards after arguing about the government seizing land originally held by their great-great-great-great grandfathers. Screw the law? Hardly. The Bundys are practically a model of restraint given their specific circumstances.
I'm not a rabid dog. I'm a citizen that realizes when his government fails him, it needs to be reminded of who it truly serves. All of your vapid protestations and appeals to emotion overlook the instances in my country (possibly ours) where the citizenry needed to fight (up to and including civil war) to ensure America's freedoms remain untainted.
I would agree with you, only if the government was impeccable and beyond reproach (at least in the majority). However, starting with the Patriot Act, its become ever more apparent that a civil war is entirely necessary for us to get back on track, and yes, that will involve guns being pointed against various agents-of-the-state.
Ironically, it is I fighting against Might Makes Right. We agree on that, and both wish for rule of law. The major salient difference between us? You think rule of law still exists, while I'm trying to bring it back......
As for Oregon? It will depend on the arguments. Given the amazing situation in which the federal government has horrendously abused the Bundy family for around a 100 years, I refuse to see these "terrorists" as the rabid dogs you claim we are, until I hear exactly what the argument is about. I don't rule out the federal government being wrong here too, or the need for a massive standoff just to get proper due process back in government.
Government is not automatically correct, and I now give the benefit of the doubt to the domestic "terrorists". Especially, since increasingly more and more, being an activist and against government corruption and overreach gets you categorized that way.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @03:16AM
*Sigh* I'm not even sure this is worth the effort, but here goes...
And where the hell is your evidence that the Bundys et al are not being treated just the same as everyone else under the law? They already had their day in court. The lost their case and BLM showed up to confiscate their cattle for not paying their taxes. Don't like the court's ruling? Don't think they rendered the correct verdict? I got news for you: just because you and Cliven Bundy et al don't like the verdict does not mean that they were not treated just like everyone else under the law. And you and Cliven Bundy do have remedies for laws which you feel are not "equitably drafted". You are still allowed to petition your government for redress of grievances, just like everyone else. This is what equality under the law actually means. It doesn't mean that you get to take whatever you want whenever you feel that the government didn't rule in your favor.
I realize that "regulatory capture" is now the favorite catch phrase of libertarians and conservative republicans but this is utter bullshit. Here, we live in a representative democracy, flawed though it may be. You seem to actually be advocating for anarchy. The government has always had authority to regulate public lands. If you don't like this, go find a deserted island to live on.
Oh, Puleeze! Stop draping yourself in the flag! You ain't the hero you apparently suppose yourself to be. You are actually advocating for anarchy. If you were actually the champion of rule of law, you would be fighting this in the legislatures and the courts, not advocating for armed insurrection.
While I agree that government is not automatically correct, I think your conflation in this case of activist with terrorist is highly overwrought. While I disagree with the terrorism label, the reason why some are characterizing them that way is not because they are engaging in civil disobedience. It's that part about threats of violence that has linked them in the minds of some to terrorists. The fact that you view them as misunderstood heroes speaks volumes about your (poor) judgement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @04:11AM
Go do a wikipedia search for unpopulated islands and laugh in amazement.
Every deserted island in the world is claimed by the British, French, US, or others. The US specifically claimed them under the 1800s era Guano Act, which was used to secure the guano covered ones for saltpeter reserves. Any islands that might have been missed have since been claimed under Nature Conservation/Preservation acts, even if they are grossly outside of national boundaries.
The Islands surrounding Pitcairn are another example. Only one out of 4-5 is populated (Pitcairn), but the Crown claims all of them, including EEZs (which only 2 of them COULD qualify for, and only Pitcairn actually does, since it is populated.)
As another example: Go read about Minerva. That is what happens if somebody tries to colonize a deserted island. The politicos do not want anyone new coming to the game.
For further reading, see UNICLOS. The index should make the relevant articles easy to find.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @03:33AM
So just when are the Bundys going to give the land back to the Native Americans?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @11:42AM
They're dead. Might makes right,
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @07:59AM
EdIII? Meds, bro! Meds! Get back on 'em! These guys are pirates, wanting to use public land as their own fiefdom. I say "fie" and "charge them double!" Anyone who cannot make money ranching under these terms must either be an incompetent business person, or a fundie Mormon with no future. So which are you, edIII? We already know that you are almost singlehandedly responsible for race-based slavery in the Americas. What other sins is your White ass responsible for? Huh?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @11:38AM
Wow, just wow. It's 2016. I can't even.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday January 05 2016, @03:34AM
No sir, we should not all be forced to be politicians. The legislative branch simply needs more regulations, accountability, and severe punishments . We need 20 year prison sentences for certain offenses when you're an elected official. Not the apathy and apparent support they get now.
I would start to speak of campaign finance reform, but that would be a belief the system can be salvaged. That's not a belief that I have either.
What we need is for people to do their duty as citizens, become informed and vote. That is what the system requires to function. We won't fix things in one election, it took far longer than that to create this mess, but we can start. It is the apathy of the American public that is at fault. If everyone eligible to vote took an interest and voted, hopefully voting out the corrupt, the inept, the liars and the thieves (in short, our current Congress), but even if nearly everyone was re-elected 100% participation would frighten the politicians more than anything else. But no, voter participation is pathetically low and despite a roughly 10% approval rating, 90% of Congress is re-elected, over and over, despite failing over and over to govern as they should. Of course, it all comes back to being informed. If one gets their knowledge of current issues from Facebook shares, or Fox News, or MSNBC, or pretty much any single source, one is not informed, which, ultimately, is why the current situation exists.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday January 05 2016, @09:36AM
In my own family history, I'm sure we've actually killed bankers at some point coming for us. When people are coming for you and your land, there really is only one response: Rifles and bullets.
Okay, so, if I'm reading this right, your ancestors defaulted on their mortage, then murdered their creditors when they came to lawfully take possession of the agreed-upon security for the debt. And you think this is not only okay to do, in general, but also the only option.
That is LSD trip-level battiness.
(Score: 2) by dmc on Tuesday January 05 2016, @06:22AM
Dumb question but- don't you have to like, attempt murder in order to be guilty of attempted murder?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @09:30AM
Dumb question but- don't you have to like, attempt murder in order to be guilty of attempted murder?
If you were to draw a bead on me with a loaded, or hell, even an unloaded weapon, it would be attempted murder and your unfortunate demise would be in self-defense. And I would cut the Feds more slack, since they represent all of us and if you draw down on them, you draw down on me. The restraint of the Feds with these yahoos constantly amazes me. But yes, they are guilty, guilty as sin, and twice as dirty. Hornswagglers! Dry-gulchers! Horse-thieves and grazing-fee welchers! Ranching Welfare Cheats! Scum of the West! Maybe it will require some vigilantes to put an end to this stupidity? Careful where you go, "militia" dudes!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @08:00PM
no it's not, you dumbass
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tathra on Monday January 04 2016, @06:35PM
since when is calling terrorists terrorists worshiping the state? they're using violence and threats of violence to facilitate political aims, no matter how you look at it, that's terrorism. these guys are terrorists, plain and simple.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @08:38PM
We are moving into a scared new world where the people are so scared of violence that they give up their freedoms. Terrorist is the new bogeyman and is being slowly but surely painted to cover anything that resembles dissent. How easy it will be, have the talking heads call anyone the T word and bam they are guilty in the eyes of the population. Throw em in prison! Let god sort em out! Seems like these guys should go to prison, but we are using buzzwords instead of proper vocabulary like criminal, justice, trial, violators, felony. None of that grabs people like 'terrist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @09:35PM
"are moving"? Been that way since I've been alive, and I wasn't born yesterday.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday January 05 2016, @05:20AM
but terrorist is the proper word to use here. see the definition [reference.com] of the word "terrorism":
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
which is exactly what these people doing, using violence and threats of violence to intimidate and coerce, especially for political purposes. the only apt word to succinctly and perfectly describe what these people are is "terrorist".
(Score: 2) by dmc on Tuesday January 05 2016, @06:29AM
the real answer of course is "star trek deep space nine". One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter as they say. The government propagandizes to get people to forget that when it wants, and propagandizes the other way when the tactical winds change.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Monday January 04 2016, @08:50PM
and the government that continually tries to SCARE US INTO DOING WHAT THEY WANT - how is that NOT terrorism?
many people don't see the government as faultless and the label 'terrorist' equally applies to those in positions of official power just as much as those who grab it or try to grab it.
if you are trying to get your way to scaring people, that meets the def. would you really say that our (US) gov is not using fear in a constant manner to further ITS goals?
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @06:50PM
> So far I've yet to see random attacks by these folks against any targets
Vegas Cop Killers associated with Cliven Bundy. [nydailynews.com] If guilt by association works for muslims it certainly works for these guys.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @08:42PM
Guilt by association works for no group.
Muslims are condemned by their own "holy" books, which literally call for a world war until all religion is Allah's. All that contradictory garbage about "no, no, Islam is a religion of peace!" is due to either ignorance of the source material, or "holy lying" called taqiyya.
What is the source material for "Constitutionalists"?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @10:17PM
> Guilt by association works for no group.
>
> Muslims are condemned by their own "holy" books, which literally call for a world war until all religion is Allah's.
Lol you are such a fucksqueak.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @10:52PM
... and you apparently have no response other than to ignore the message and attack the messenger.
I guess that means my point stands uncontested. Judge a person by their actions and their words.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @11:39PM
I guess that means my point stands uncontested.
Except you missed the part about you being a "fucksqueak". So the f***squeak's point stands uncontested, in the opinion of the very same f**squeak. Yeah, that's enough to convince me! (Oh, same AC as the other ACs here!)
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday January 04 2016, @06:13PM
An even better tweet [imgur.com]
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @07:27PM
Daily reminder that in 8 out of the 10 most liberal-identifying states [gallup.com] cousin marriage is completely legal, [wikipedia.org] while this is true only for 3 out of the 10 most conservative-identifying states.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @10:21PM
> Daily reminder that in 8 out of the 10 most liberal-identifying states cousin marriage is completely legal,
Wow. Daily? Sounds like cousin-marriage is something of an obsession for you...
Meanwhile its only illegal in the conservative states because that's where it has been a problem. The liberal states don't have laws forbidding it because they don't need them. Kind of like how we don't have laws forbidding people from marrying their cars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @12:03PM
Wow. Daily? Sounds like cousin-marriage is something of an obsession for you...
Sounds like you don't know dank maymays when you see them.
The liberal states don't have laws forbidding it because they don't need them.
It seems that the liberal states have had huge parent-children, inter-sibling, uncle/aunt-niece/nephew marriage problems, since they all have laws prohibiting it (example: CA 2200 [ca.gov]).
Perhaps they were just big fans of the legend of Oedipus.
(Score: 2) by snufu on Monday January 04 2016, @06:51PM
#ImbecileStateInOregon
#Inbredels
#PropaneCaliphate
#Fatwaddle
#ChawAkbar
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @07:32PM
It does sum it up nicely: you have no problems stereotyping an entire group of people.
Wasn't there a name for people who do that?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @12:23AM
It does sum it up nicely: you have no problems stereotyping an entire group of people.
Wasn't there a name for people who do that?
Sane?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @07:34PM
Wow. Besides being a fantastically pathetic means of snarkily commenting on a current event of some importance, several of those come down to "like Muslims except white". #MondayMorningRacism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @07:38PM
Snark is all they have. They can't actually form a coherent opinion so they just snark at everything.
Wow, just wow. It's 2016.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @08:16PM
Wow. Besides being a fantastically pathetic means of snarkily commenting on a current event of some importance, several of those come down to "like Muslims except white". #MondayMorningRacism.
LoL. Sounds like you've got sympathy for the yokel haram. The "like muslims but white" is not racist [loonwatch.com] it is commentary on how these guys get people like you to be sympathetic but if they were muslim its all dirka-dirka, allu akhbar and the only good muslim is a former muslim.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @01:29AM
I've noticed a trend of throwing in these nonsense words which adds nothing to the discussion. Please stop. It just makes you look (even more) stupid. Just sayin'.
(Score: 2) by snick on Monday January 04 2016, @09:11PM
Not very bright, are you?
These tags aren't calling them terrorists. They are calling them clowns. The difference between this crowd and actual terrorists is that if shit ever got real, this bunch would piss themselves*.
But, nice move equating terrorist organization names with "Muslims." #MondayMorningRacism #SelfAwarenessDeficitDisorder.
* case in point: While declaring that they are ready to die for the cause, they were confronted by a 78 year old woman (the sheriff's mother) at a yard sale. Evidently she talked mean to them. So, they went to the sheriff's office and complained that the 78 year old had threatened them. Typical bullies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @10:24PM
oh come on! you gotta give us a link for that because it sure doesn't show up in a cursor gooogle search.
(Score: 2) by snick on Monday January 04 2016, @11:09PM
Google: militia sheriff mother
It is the top result: http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/12/militiamen_ranchers_in_showdow.html [oregonlive.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @12:17AM
you gotta give us a link for that because it sure doesn't show up in a cursor gooogle search.
Found your problem! See, if you are looking for your cursor on Google, well, probably not gonna find it. If you are typing in gooogle, you probably will not find your cursor either. Or maybe, since you cannot find your cursor, you cannot see what you are typing? Are you on a tablet? Are you running Windows 7?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by canopic jug on Monday January 04 2016, @04:27PM
"The first was reportedly set in 2001 to cover up their illegal poaching of a deer on government property. [rollingstone.com]". So they are poachers, too, on top of everything else and that is directly related to the first fire. They're just common criminals.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 5, Informative) by snick on Monday January 04 2016, @04:36PM
The ranchers/poachers/arsonists weren't thrilled to be re-sentenced, but were/are cooperating with the process and are expected to report to prison south of LA some time today. They have no association with the armed yahoos who stormed the bird sanctuary, and have explicitly condemned them.
The ranchers may be common criminals, (they were convicted as such) but the "militia" action to protect the citizenry from the federally supervised watching of birds is its own crazy train.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by ikanreed on Monday January 04 2016, @05:08PM
The armed yahoos are a side effect of right wing media bubbles, not a genuine reaction to the quite normal background levels of private misuse of federal lands and prosecution thereof. They're an easily radicalized subset of the population actively being told that every federal conflict, no matter the scale, is a threat to their freedom.
Much like the Planned Parenthood shooter was radicalized by a fabricated video, these guys there was just too many people trying to make Bundy into the most oppressive thing ever as part of unrelated culture war, and they got drawn in. It's exactly the same process* that radicalizes people for ISIS or Al Qaeda, only those go through back-channels, and this through at least a few major news outlets.
*That process is really simple.
1. See that things are fucked up.
2. Have a source you trust give a narrative blaming [Insert Cultural Conflict Here]
3. Have a personality that favors extreme solutions to problems
4. Go down the rabbit hole of crazier, more violent, and more paranoid sources on [Cultural Conflict]
5. Take action or join a group that organizes action.
Most of the US plan on preventing Islamic radicalization involves bombing those at the center of #4. My personal feeling is that once someone is at #3 they're going to find all the #4 they could want no matter what you do.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday January 04 2016, @05:21PM
It also definitely helps them that now it's very easy for those at stage 2 to avoid any source of information that challenges the narrative. And there's a couple of reasons for that:
1. The demise of the Fairness Doctrine [wikipedia.org], which required that TV and radio stations include coverage of public interest in a way that included contrasting views. When that went away in 1987, that allowed nutjobs like Rush Limbaugh (there are some smart and articulate people out there advocating conservative viewpoints, but Limbaugh is definitely not one of them) to really take over the radio and later TV airwaves.
2. The Internet makes it really easy for like-minded folks to find each other, but also to avoid all discussion with folks with differing views. This creates an echo chamber where nutty ideas (e.g. 9/11 conspiracy theories, moon landing hoax theories) to be reinforced rather than challenged.
In the case of these folks, some of the blame should land squarely on Fox News, who has continued to treat Cliven Bundy as something other than a criminal engaged in armed rebellion against the lawful authority of the federal government.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday January 04 2016, @05:38PM
The natural problem with the fairness doctrine is that there aren't 2 perspectives on everything.
Sometimes there's just 1. Global warming is real and man-made, evolution is real, people saying otherwise are just very loud about their wrongness. Neutrality about these subjects is just, well, wrong. Wikipedia, as an example had to tack a "Fringe science isn't science" rider to their own neutral point of view policy because of rampant abuse.
Sometimes there's millions. If I say the top marginal tax rate ought to be 57% starting at 2MM a year, and my cohost says it ought be 15% starting at 100k, have we adequately represented contrasting views?
The solution to this particular problem has to be journalists holding themselves to a minimal standard of not deceiving the public.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday January 04 2016, @05:48PM
My experience is that in situations where people are responsible for holding themselves to a minimal standard, they don't. It requires some sort of external pressure to hold people to a minimal standard, like a threat of a lawsuit or public shaming.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @05:57PM
The natural problem with the fairness doctrine is that there aren't 2 perspectives on everything.
Sometimes there's just 1. Peptic ulcers are caused by stress or spicy food, people saying otherwise are just very loud about their wrongness. Especially those pesky Warren and Marshall. I mean, there's scientific consensus that ulcers aren't caused by H. pylori. Obviously, they're just deniers.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Vanderhoth on Monday January 04 2016, @06:24PM
This is actually not entirely true. I think you arrive at the right conclusion that journalists are the issue here, but the concept of "2 perspectives" is overly simplified. It's not always black and white, right and wrong. It's a distraction from the fact that there are multiple views or uncertainty of how bad/good things actually are. Yes, global warming is happening and it's man made, but journalists in the *left* media aren't anymore qualified to interrupter the data than journalists in the *right* media.
FYI, I work with climate data. The left paints it as a doomsday scenario, but are ultimately just slightly less wrong than the *right* media, which still insists on having it's head in the sand. I support doing something about climate because ultimately the worst that can happen is we end up with more efficient energy solutions, less pollution and a healthier planet, but I don't think we need to lie about what's going on to achieve that. Journalists from either side paint things based on their personal bias for people that happen to agree with their bias and click on their articles. Objective journalism is dead, it's all about click bait these days, the more sensationalized and/or controversial and/or ridiculous, the more clicks they get.
Just because the media is telling you one thing doesn't automatically mean there's only two positions and you're either right or wrong. There's a plethora of information you're likely not even seeing because it doesn't fit the story the journalist wants to tell, or even directly contradicts it. Aside from a lot of articles are actually just parrots of parrots. It's like a perverted game of telephone with each journalists inserting their own personal spin on what some other journalist has spun, which when you follow the links back to the source will be an opinion piece in itself with little to no supporting citations. That doesn't mean they're always wrong, rather they're likely pushing an extremist view for extremists that will read their articles for the confirmation bias. You'd be surprised how easy it is for a journalists to tie in unrelated events and issues to push a narrative and paint any and all opposition as bad guys so no one will question them. Most "news" these days isn't really fact based, it's opinions retweeted, blogged about, shared and parroted.
Wikipedia is just as bad. All it takes to make a "factual" wikipedia article is to write a joke/fake article, get a journalist to print something based on the fake information, then rewrite the article citing that article to make it fact. It's a lot more common than you think. Just go read some of the talk pages for "controversial" topics. Wikipedians clearly push personal agendas and will argue over what sources to include/exclude (sometimes from the same publications) in order to make an article say what they want. As well and use and abuse cliques and admin privileges to make sure their topics are covered the way they want them covered. Once Wiki states something if a journalist wants to be quoted in the wiki article they better agree with what the article says. If they don't they'll just be ignored anyway, so might as well cash in on those citation bucks, which might not be a lot, but it's likely more than zero.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @06:54PM
> FYI, I work with climate data.
Are you now claiming to be a climatologist?
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Monday January 04 2016, @07:03PM
No, I am not.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @07:29PM
You'd better not. Only climatologists are allowed to interpret climate data. If anyone else does it, we burn them at the stake.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Monday January 04 2016, @07:59PM
I'd settle for someone with a reasonable understanding of math, basic statistics and how models actually work.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @11:56PM
So just an utterly irrelevant detail you threw in to give your claims false legitimacy.
I am not surprised.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Tuesday January 05 2016, @01:55AM
The point is, I've seen the data first hand which is why I know the claims journalist are making are mostly sensationalized bullshit.
That's the real kicker though. I have a background that's heavily math based and I know I can't make inferences on data journalist pass off as an inevitable doomsday, and yet no one questions them because, "a new study shows..."
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @07:39AM
. I have a background that's heavily math based and I know I can't make inferences
Wow, just Wow! This level of self-awareness is so rare here on SoylentNews! Now, if you could just stop making inferences about journalism, a discipline about which it is obvious you know nothing?
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Tuesday January 05 2016, @11:32AM
Journalist are suppose to report the facts, not insert their personal bias and misinformation to sway public opinion. I can't even count the number of times I've read, "A new study shows...", then gone and read the study only to find out it says the opposite of what was being reported, or the study is bumpkiss based on a sample size of ten people, or was a firggn twitter poll. What's worse is when you catch a journalist making false claims or getting the information wrong other journalists and their hippy dippy followers will step in to protect them rather than just tell the truth and admit they were wrong.
It seems all that's required to be a "journalist" these days is to have a blog with a following, if you're mad take it out on the "professional bloggers" and "journalists" who are ruining the profession, not some rando on the internet telling it like it is.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @12:10PM
Wow, just wow. It's 2016, I can't even.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bradley13 on Monday January 04 2016, @08:45PM
You talk about it using the example of climate data, and you're right: all sides have an ax to grind. Essentially no one even tries to present you with the objective truth.
If you read the history of this case, which includes something like 20 years of backstory, the federal government's hands are anything but clean. The people at the center of the story own a ranch that is nearly surrounded by a wildlife refuge. The refuge has grown by taking over neighboring ranches, and the federal bureaucrats are irritated by these people who don't want to sell. So the feds have done all sorts of unpleasant things, to try to drive them into capitulation. Just one example: barricading the roads they use to access their own land, even though the roads exist, and have been used for decades. Another example: prosecuting them for setting wildfires, using terrorism laws. Whatever the law around wildfires (and this is a huge gray zone), prosecuting them as terrorist is idiocy. And "re-sentencing" after someone has served their sentence and been released? In what kind of justice system does that make sense?
I'm not saying that occupying the wildlife refuge headquarters makes any sense - it doesn't. But I totally understand why certain groups of people are totally fed up with the feds. The federal government is a power-hungry monstrousity, and its bureaucrats demand your obeisance. If you're in a position where that doesn't matter, then you don't understand how utterly unjust this can become.
Just another random example: I have an acquaintance who blew off filing his taxes - out of sheer laziness - for ten years. Finally got caught, fair enough. Worked out a payment plan with the IRS, including plenty of penalties, fair enough. But the IRS has him where it wants him. Regularly, two or three times a year, he finds that the IRS has emptied his bank account, even though he hasn't missed a payment. Of course, this causes his mortgage payment to be late, check to bounce, etc.. He complains, they put the money back - but no apology, and certainly no compensation for the very real costs that this incurs. Why do they do it? Because they can, and because no one holds the federal bureaucrats responsible for abusing their power.
If you get on the wrong side of power-loving, panty-waisted federal bureaucrats, they can and will make your life hell. If you haven't witnessed this, you have no idea just how bad it can get. I totally understand how people can say "enough", even if the actions they take may seem a bit strange to people who haven't been in their situation.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @06:35PM
My God! It will be SystemD all over again!
These people must be stopped!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @07:32PM
"...by a fabricated video"
I don't think that word means what you think it does, but please do keep repeating it for the cause.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @07:35PM
The video was Photoshopped, I tells you! I could tell by some of the pixels!
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday January 04 2016, @07:57PM
Falsified? misleadingly edited? stupid-as-fuck-and-purely-intended-to-be-provocation?
Whatever.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday January 04 2016, @05:10PM
Also, there was a significant-sized peaceful protest march about it, and most of those in the protest march didn't want anything to do with the plan to engage in armed rebellion.
But this is nothing new for the Bundy folks. Cliven Bundy has all but stated that he's in armed rebellion against the United States. And his reasons are described perfectly in the following pair of quotations:
- "The one I get the grazing fee bill from is the United States government. I don’t recognize them having any jurisdiction or authority over this land."
- "I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro. ... They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom."
All available evidence suggests that the Bundy family completely stopped recognizing the federal government's authority on January 20, 2009, the day that "the Negro" became the duly elected president of the United States.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Monday January 04 2016, @05:25PM
And Bundy and friends are stirring these people up without putting their own necks on the line.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 4, Informative) by Hawkwind on Monday January 04 2016, @09:16PM
Interesting article from Oregon Public Broadcasting. Goes in to how extreme Mormonism is the driving force behind this. First time I've stumbled across this angle.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Monday January 04 2016, @09:37PM
I didn't know they were Mormons. I just figured they typoed the 'n'.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Monday January 04 2016, @09:45PM
Err, typoed the "m" in "typoed the 'n'". Damnit!
Okay, so I have some serious ass typoing the typoing problems. But see how easy it is?! Typos are really easy, with the adding letters and the putting letters where they don't belong!
Yeah, I'll get my things.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @12:13PM
Sounds like you are the mormo here, my friend.
No wait, it was the 'm' I needed to remove. You big ormon.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday January 04 2016, @10:47PM
Cliven appeared on television with a pamphlet by W. Cleon Skousen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Cleon_Skousen [wikipedia.org] on almost every occasion. Ol' Cleon pretty much defines wacko right-wing Mormonism, but guess who else considers himself a follower? Yes, Ben Carson, and he's a neuro-surgeon, so there can't be any craziness here, right? Can we divide the non-orthodox Mormons into the pedophile polygamists ( Warren Jeffs), and the Moroni Successionists? Of course, the lines are faint. Skousen was born in Canada, spent time at a Mormon community in Mexico, and as you may recall, Romney's father was born in Mexico. Many Mormons left the US when the church was "encouraged" to have a "revelation" renouncing polygamy, as a condition of Utah statehood. I guess many (or at least 15) Latter Day Saints are still upset about that.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @11:03PM
Hate to interrupt but... BEN CARSON IS A SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST. Ok, go on with your mormon bashing there...
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday January 04 2016, @11:21PM
. BEN CARSON IS A SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST.
Yes, I know, you don't have to shout. Do you have to be a mormon to be a follower of a mormon right-wing nutjob? Besides, Mormonism is actually just 19th Century Scientology, complete with magic "seer stones" and a Xenu named "God", so it is not that far away from other fundie pretenders to true, universal, established by Jesus his own self, Christianity. Or maybe Carson just doesn't know. He seems to be a bit, um, conservative, when it comes to knowing stuff.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @04:04AM
First, these chumps are just a bunch of terrorists with guns.
Definitely NOT a militia.
-THIS- is a militia. Fayetteville Independent Light Infantry [google.com]
Has actually fought in wars.
In continuous existence since 1793.
Has an actual chain of command--not just a ragtag band of idiots.
there was a significant-sized peaceful protest march
Related:
Oregon Considers Wall to Keep Out Angry White Men [newyorker.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by VLM on Monday January 04 2016, @05:22PM
The ranchers may be common criminals, (they were convicted as such)
Oh I wouldn't say that, based on the facts.
They were sentenced to more than half a murder conviction and almost half a million bucks because the government doesn't like them. Not exactly "common criminals".
They may or may not have poached a deer, and they definitely did a controlled burn of invasive species without filling out all the permits. That's all they did.
If they were being treated as common criminals, here's a stereotypical state land enforcement action:
http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes/wisconsin-pair-convicted-of-poaching-40-deer [fieldandstream.com]
So killing a deer means one day in the slammer per deer, two hours of community service per deer, a hundred bucks per deer, and no legal hunting for half a decade, if the state prosecutes you.
On the other hand, if the feds prosecute you, and you've been declared an enemy of the state, its a half a million bucks and half a decade in prison.
That seems juuuuust a little unfair.
Its hard to get a straight answer on fire code violation enforcement. I suppose if you treat what they did as a rather severe violation of OSHA rules by a major business, then $50K violation fee might not have been out of line. Of course if they didn't remove the invasive species, they'd get cited just as bad, so they'd have to hire $50K worth of illegal immigrants to hand pick the invasive weeds. Either way they'd be out tens of thousands of dollars.
Nope they're definitely not being treated like common criminals. They are getting the enemy of the state treatment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @06:34PM
They were sentenced to more than half a murder conviction and almost half a million bucks because the government doesn't like them. Not exactly "common criminals".
They were given the minimum sentence based on being convicted of their crime. They poached, they started a fire to cover up the crime and burned hundreds of hectares of public land, they were duly convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of these activities, and were given the minimum sentence.
Perhaps you're right. Had they been "common" criminals they would have gotten a heavier sentence ... something in the mid-range maybe ... instead of the minimum reserved for the privileged.
(Score: 3, Informative) by M. Baranczak on Monday January 04 2016, @08:08PM
They may or may not have poached a deer, and they definitely did a controlled burn of invasive species without filling out all the permits. That's all they did.
That's not what the federal prosecutors are saying. I'm certainly not assuming that the prosecutors are telling the truth, but it seems that a jury agreed with them, so at the very least you should read their side of the story: http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison [justice.gov]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @04:27PM
"I'm defending our rights to get the government off of our backs by fighting for our god-given rights to Federal subsidies for ranching."
You can't make stupid like this up.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @05:02PM
You can't make stupid like this up.
Except you just did.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @09:14AM
No, he plagiarized it from the Bundys! Just think of all the great Bundys American has had! Al Bundy! Shoe salesman. Ted Bundy! Mass-murderer! And now Ammon Bundy! Wait, doesn't that sound like a Muslin name?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Monday January 04 2016, @05:12PM
In middle-American states, the land would have long ago gone to those who use and cultivate that land. In the western states the federal government acts as a permanent landlord, reducing those states to Reconstruction-era interference. Is this the America we want?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fadrian on Monday January 04 2016, @05:23PM
Actually, yes. I'd rather the land be held in trust for my descendants rather than squandered by idiots like Bundy and his ilk. As far as I'm concerned, the feds can shut off the whole grazing program and give a big FU to the ranchers. Asking them to follow rules and pay a pittance to be allowed to graze on my land sounds like a pretty fucking good deal to both parties. It's a shame idiots like you and Bundy can't see what a sweet deal they're already getting.
That is all.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday January 04 2016, @05:29PM
Asking them to follow rules and pay a pittance to be allowed to graze on my land sounds
Its not your land.
Secondly you missed the third required step, which is to always agree with and support big brother at all times, or else you too will get a murder-level sentence for poaching a deer and not filing certain meaningless paperwork.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fadrian on Monday January 04 2016, @09:02PM
It is my land. And the land of all of the people in this country. It sure as hell doesn't belong to the asshats who are sitting in that center now. And we, as a people, under our government, made laws saying how this land should be used. People need to follow laws. Unless you think that anyone who thinks that they're right should bypass the courts, the government, and (quite frankly) the will of the people at both the state and country levels by means of arms. I hope the feds put some bullets in heads. It should show these little militia pissants what's what.
That is all.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday January 05 2016, @01:23PM
made laws saying how this land should be used
No, we didn't. That's kind of the core of the problem.
Weirdly enough congress sets the price per grazing animal/month for the whole country, and there are no problems with the billing side. Its hard to believe congress ever did anything right, but they did, for that small part. The laws are not a problem.
Lease terms are written on the spot by political appointment hacks and are widely seen as corrupt as hell. Nothing to do with biology or ecology and a lot more to do with party membership and saying the right things to the right people and having the right friends and making the right campaign contributions. Not all are crooked, in fact probably most are not, but enough are, and there is basically no oversight or legal remedy other than taking up arms, sounds crazy but its true.
A pretty good SN car analogy of the situation would be driving-while-black. The muni council or governing body sets the costs for local driving tickets, parking tickets, etc. Then some fraction of the cops selectively bust black people for driving on what they declare to be white roads. The problem is not the careful regulation and oversight of the price of tickets, the problem is the complete lack of regulation and oversight of the above the law cops.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @03:54AM
It's not yours either unless you're a Native American.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @09:17AM
Are you suggesting that Native Americans are not citizens of America, and so do not own the land in question? Or are you just stupid?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @04:29AM
That is exactly what 'Reservation Sovereignity' is all about, and also the plan in the 40s-60s to buy reservations in exchange for Native Americans becoming wholly American Citizens (Like the Amish and Quakers and a few others, they have a unique status, for better and sometimes worse apart from that of normal American citizens.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @04:26AM
BLM land is much more for the people than privately owned land. Since it belongs to all it needs to be managed accordingly. You can camp on BLM land near indefinitely but must move camp after a few weeks, you can move freely across it. Of course I'm sure I'm sure there are some restricted areas, but I really prefer BLM managers to ranchers with guns who think we're still in the wild west. The world is getting crowded, and as much as I love the idea of absolute freedom, it is easy to see that it is not feasible and some rules are needed. Keep the park rangers, get rid of the surveillance tech.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday January 04 2016, @05:34PM
One of the fines against him is for letting his cattle feed on land reserved for an endangered species.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Monday January 04 2016, @08:56PM
Oh you mean a little thing that the rest of us call "compliance with the law".
That is all.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @04:45PM
We had the Occupy Wall-Street movement, but "Occupy Wildlife Gift-Shop" doesn't quite have the same punch.
(Score: 3, Informative) by GungnirSniper on Monday January 04 2016, @05:09PM
Over a hundred and fifty years after Oregon joined the federal union, why does the federal government still own and control more than half the land in the state? [nytimes.com]
The federal government owns a tiny percent of land east of the Mississippi river. [washingtonpost.com] So the western states appear to have a valid grievance against a government headquartered on the other side of the continent.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by Covalent on Monday January 04 2016, @05:19PM
Because it was owned by the federal government and no one bought it!
When the western states became states, they were virtually 100% owned by the government. Slowly the land was purchased (railroads, cities, etc.) and that became privately held land. But the western states are enormous, and most of the land is not particularly useful for anything that takes a lot of land (i.e. farming, ranching, etc.) That's why most of Nevada is owned by the feds...no one wants it!
So if you want to "poach" deer legally, or do whatever you want really, you have to BUY the land. Then it's not poaching, it's hunting, because you own the land (and hunting on your own property is generally legal if you have a license).
tl;dr: Buy the land or shut up. Ain't nothin' for free.
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
(Score: 1) by legont on Monday January 04 2016, @05:49PM
Yes; and ones the land is bought, they have to provide water and roads to it. I assume they are fine without electricity. Let's see if they could collect enough taxes for that.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @06:01PM
That is not how poaching, or hunting rights in general, work at all. A person is perfectly entitled to hunt on federal lands if they are licensed and the activity is listed as permitted, or in some areas, not explicitly denied. In fact, most hunting is done on land the hunter does not own. That is how it works in the same way that most hikes happen on land the hiker does not own.
Really, cubicle warriors have no place making up facts about hunting, guns, ranching, farming, or just about anything else that cant be done from an office chair yet 90% of the posts here are precisely those sorts of detached, ignorant people reinforcing their own misinformed echo chamber.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by VLM on Monday January 04 2016, @06:02PM
Congress stopped the BLM from selling land in the 70s. The have only done marginal stuff since then (like if one type of land is surrounded by the other type, the'll be a buyout to make it contiguous, etc)
BLM is truly bizarre. Like people don't believe it when they're told about it.
From the business side, its basically communism. From each according to their ability to pay for licenses/rights, and to each according to their needs for raw materials or grazing land or recreational use. Communism has kind of a bad name outside the coasts and colleges, but it is literally true. In the details its gets weirder in that the BLM costs about a billion bucks to run per year, but generates like ten billion bucks in leases.
If you're not involved on the business side, BLM is a bottom tier national park. You can camp or hunt or fish or WTF completely for free. There is staggering butthurt when someone east coaster wants to empire build and create some new sinecures for his cronies so he changes some words on a map and suddenly completely free BLM land requires a national park sticker and permits to camp and all that BS yet nothing improves on the ground. Its a pretty screwed up situation.
There is also a lot of butt hurt out west about roads on BLM land. Who gets to use them and why.
It costs about a buck per month per animal to graze BLM land, so it not worth cheating, if you sell a grown cow for a kilobuck. The real expense is in the completely unregulated and arguably corrupt as hell lease requirements. Say the correct political things, kiss the right butts, or else your arbitrarily written graze lease will suddenly only permit like 2 cows for a month or whatever other corruption in order to punish you. The finance side isn't crooked, its the lease writing side that's basically racketeering.
Essentially the BLM is an abusive nosy landlord who rents below market rates to his friends and refuses to sell out despite market pressure.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Non Sequor on Monday January 04 2016, @06:53PM
Well it may be more complex than that. In the 19th century, basically the Federal government encouraged western development by granting land to private interests. It seems slightly curious to me that the Federal government was always treated as the originator of all land titles rather than making that a State role. I'm guessing that the model for new state founding during the westward expansion was that the territory came under Federal control first and statehood was recognized for settlements within those territories with the Federal government retaining title on undeveloped land.
Around the late 19th and early 20th century, the focus of policy shifted to give public interests other than economic development consideration in use of Federal land. The establishment of national parks is one of the early examples. This was starting to happen at the same time as the states with high percentages of Federal land entered the union. In some cases, lack of land viable for agriculture may have also been a factor. Urbanization may have reduced the emphasis on developing large tracts of land.
Basically the model for Federal land use changed between the settlement of the eastern states and the settlement of the western states with the effect that land use disputes may have a different character between the two. In the east, most land is held by private individuals or state and municipal governments and basically any disagreements are going to be settled at the local and state level. In the west, Federal land holdings are significant and land use based on Federal policy may be in conflict with the views of private individuals and local and state governments.
It's kind of interesting that any policy at the Federal level to earmark land for particular purposes is going to disproportionately affect the Western states. This is actually a clear example of the basis for giving every state two senators rather than representation proportional to population. The states themselves have distinct issues tied to their geography and history.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by fadrian on Monday January 04 2016, @05:25PM
Except that the majority of the actual residents of the states don't have an issue with that either. Fuck these rancher asshats. Go in and blow away the terrorists. You'd do the same for Muslims.
That is all.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday January 04 2016, @05:32PM
If you were to buy the land, there's not a whole lot you could do with it. Mining I suppose, that works well in the desert.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday January 04 2016, @07:19PM
You can graze cattle on it, apparently.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @09:20AM
You can graze cattle on it, apparently.
Barely. Carrying capacity is approx. one square mile per cow/calf unit, the lowest of anywhere outside of Saudi Arabia. Hmmm, interesting. Deserts, radical religious terrorists: could there be a connection?
(Score: 2) by arulatas on Tuesday January 05 2016, @06:57PM
I know there was according to a historical book I read about Arrakis.
http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Arrakis/ [wikia.com]
----- 10 turns around
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @06:53PM
Why does where the capital is headquartered matter? Also, the federal government is larger in Oklahoma City than in Washington DC
(Score: 3, Disagree) by dltaylor on Monday January 04 2016, @05:32PM
12-year-old black kids with toy guns are "fair game" to be murdered by cops, but white terrorists are not to be met with lethal force?
Too bad that entire clan and their lunatic followers weren't taken out last time; then there wouldn't be a "this time".
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @06:31PM
How is that in any way different from The Final Solution?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @08:54PM
"Americans that I disagree with over a minor non-violent event should be murdered in cold blood."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 04 2016, @05:43PM
I generally disapprove of the feds being involved in local affairs. The feds are into everyone's business. Put a couple water barrels under the eaves of your house, and the feds claim rights to the water. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/03/24/it-is-actually-illegal-in-colorado-to-collect-the-rain-that-falls-on-your-home/ [washingtonpost.com] It's senseless.
The first standoff between the Bundy's and government revolved around some "developers" who saw an opportunity to make some money on federal land. Those so-called developers had freinds in government, and they were prepared to walk over the ranchers to get what they wanted. The Bundy clan rebelled against being walked over.
It's not really clear to me what they hope to accomplish here. The papers are really busy pushing the OTHER SIDE of the story. I'd sure like to hear more of what the core issues are.
Maybe the Bundy people are just nucking phutts. Maybe they are battling government over nonsense. Where is Paul Harvey when you need him? I want to hear the rest of the story.
And, no, I don't accept MSM's presentation of the facts. Far to often, they lie to promote the side of the story they want promoted.
(Score: 2) by dltaylor on Monday January 04 2016, @06:23PM
For a long time, the BLM has neglected to determine the the cost to the rest of us for managing rangelands and mitigating the effects of many ranching practices. Now (mostly 'cause the Congress-critters mis/micro-manage their budget), that is finally being done and these to-date freeloaders are objecting to the BLM doing its job and A) actually managing the rangelands; B) charging appropriate fees to cover the cost of the management.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by ilPapa on Monday January 04 2016, @06:29PM
You stupid sonofabitch. If you would have bothered to read your own link, you'd have learned that it's not "the feds" who are all up in your rainbarrells, but local Colorado government.
You belong in the bird sanctuary in Oregon with the other yahoos. And if you go, be sure to bring snacks, because apparently, the Redneck Caliphate forgot to pack the pork rinds.
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/oregon-terrorists-dont-plan-siege-very-well-put-out-plea-for-snacks-and-supplies--ZJglh9sRjx [independent.co.uk]
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Monday January 04 2016, @07:00PM
Well that escalated quickly. [youtube.com]
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 3, Touché) by ilPapa on Monday January 04 2016, @09:13PM
Yeah, I'm sorry about that. Really.
I get a little tetchy when I'm faced with the realization that I'm sharing a country with people who think the feds are fixin' to come and seize their rainbarrels and then it occurs to me that those people are also allowed to vote and carry guns in public.
Once the vodka and Xanax kick in, I'll be OK.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 04 2016, @07:08PM
Uhhhhh - stupid? Who has the guns to enforce those damned "laws"? The federal government gives it's tacit approval to those laws, and in fact, helps to enforce them.
foxnews link to farmer sued for a stock watering pond: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/03/24/it-is-actually-illegal-in-colorado-to-collect-the-rain-that-falls-on-your-home/ [washingtonpost.com]
The Supreme Court not only upheld those water rights laws, but extended them as recently as 1982. http://www.justice.gov/enrd/federal-reserved-water-rights-and-state-law-claims [justice.gov]
Be careful who you're calling a stupid son of a bitch - apparently, you're not as bright as you think you are. The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld these laws at every challenge, or they would have been stricken by now.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Monday January 04 2016, @09:06PM
The Colorado State Police and National Guard. The Federal Government has no authority to enforce Colorado state laws. You really are a numbskull. You should delete your account right now in shame.
How dare you. Did you read that link? The water rights extended in 1982 were for federal lands, not over the rainbarrel in your back yard.
I'm extremely careful about that. I reserve "stupid sonofabitch" for not only those among the most clueless who are most intractably certain that they're right. And for today, that's you.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 04 2016, @09:40PM
Yes, I'm ashamed for you. But, whatever, keep on spouting the party line. Which party are you with, anyway?
The whole water rights thing is flawed, beyond redemption. But, the Supremes uphold it, all the same. WTF are they farming in the desert again? Because - water rights. First come, first serve. The farmers got dibs on the water a century ago, and no one has successfully challenged that crap yet. The FEDERAL government has upheld the "legitimacy" of those laws.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday January 04 2016, @10:25PM
It is really not helpful to call Runaway "stupid", he takes it as a badge of honor. He has his own facts, and if you call him on those, you are probably a Social Justice person instead of a Moron(i) Mormon Militant. And I agree that we should leave his mother out of this. And as for leaving, hmm, the truth is not going to do it, maybe if we tried bribes?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @09:52PM
Where is Paul Harvey when you need him?
Dead and gone? And nobody ever needed him. I hear he is in a special hell reserved for Fox News, pedo-Catholics, and Moroni Mormon Militants.
(Score: 2) by jimbrooking on Monday January 04 2016, @08:40PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition [wikipedia.org]
And there should be consequences.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @09:34PM
In order for rebellion against authority to be a crime, the authority must be legitimate.
It's quite clear to any honest observer that the overwhelming vast majority of authority claimed by the federal government is entirely illegitimate and therefore is literally criminal. Feel free to attack my premise, detailed here [soylentnews.org] and here [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @11:07PM
This is the same part of US government which ceded right to gas companies who are polluting the crap out of everywhere they're drilling.
Seems these people have a valid gripe, where even the EPA are being paid to look the other way.
Armed disobedience makes perfect sense in this context: if someone came to my home and started deploying chemical weapons involving known neurotoxins, I'd be pretty upset too : even more so if it seemed no part of the government seemed to be taking responsibility.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @01:38AM
Peaceful protest is one thing. Carry guns for the purpose of firing at Federal Officials is not a peaceful action.
The funny part is that these ranchers think they have a chance. The government will stamp them out like an old cigarette. The ranchers can't match the firepower on their best day, and the government's worst day, combined.
(Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Tuesday January 05 2016, @05:26PM
No way the government wants a shout-out. They'll never cross that line and the ranchers know it.