Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Breaking News
posted by takyon on Wednesday January 27 2016, @11:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the i-fought-the-law-and... dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Bobs on Wednesday January 27 2016, @11:13AM

    by Bobs (1462) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @11:13AM (#295224)

    I am saddened that people got injured and killed.

    Am glad that the government is starting to get the situation under control before it spins up.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 27 2016, @01:11PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @01:11PM (#295253)

      I am saddened that people got injured and killed.

      I have mixed feelings about that: On the one hand, yeah, there's a guy dead, and that sucks because it would be much better to put him on trial and in jail. On the other hand, this was a guy who wanted to go down fighting the US government and by all appearances did exactly that.

      What's also probably true is that Mr Finicum will become the latest name spoken with reverence in the right-wing whackaloon militia community, just like Carl Drega and Timothy McVeigh. That's the trouble with would-be martyrs: There are always some idiots who will support them no matter how evil they were. There are libertarian types that are already claiming (without a shred of evidence) that the cops just started shooting without warning or justification.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:04PM

        by ikanreed (3164) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:04PM (#295321) Journal

        It's entirely possible that that's true. Guns complicate any tense situation, and you don't have to pull a trigger or even point one for someone to be scared for their life. An FBI agent or cop could have shot this poor guy for totally spurious or questionable reasons. That's straight-up possible.

        But I'll say this. Someone at the FBI absolutely told these agents and cops something very much like "You are walking into a media shitstorm, if you discharge your weapon, you'd better have a damn good reason."

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by Tork on Wednesday January 27 2016, @06:04PM

          by Tork (3914) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @06:04PM (#295440)

          Guns complicate any tense situation, and you don't have to pull a trigger or even point one for someone to be scared for their life.

          There's an old cliche: "An armed society is a polite society." It should be changed to: "An armed society is a fearful society."

          --
          Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:19PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:19PM (#295477)

            Gun nuts always like to say that guns help protect people from the bad guys.

            The problem is very very many normal people often are bad guys at least once in their lives. So stuff is more likely to be worse if they happen to have a gun at that time.

            If you don't believe me just go look at the drivers on the road. Now imagine all those people doing stupid stuff do stupid stuff with guns.

            Another example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/26/man-who-feared-mass-shootings-brings-gun-to-movie-theater-accidentally-shoots-woman/ [washingtonpost.com]
            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12121056/Dane-Gallion-Man-who-feared-mass-shooting-accidentally-shoots-woman-in-cinema.html [telegraph.co.uk]

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @09:29AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @09:29AM (#295854)

              Gun nuts always like to say that guns help protect people from the bad guys.

              The problem is very very many normal people often are bad guys at least once in their lives.

              This applies equally to your police as it does to the average joe on the street. I don't think anybody should have guns but as long as police are driving around in tanks and carrying fully automatic weapons (for use against their own citizenry!) I think every last citizen should carry a gun.

              You guys have just gotten so used to being your government's bitches, you think it is normal. America, home of the brave, you guys killed them all off and placed them in reservations to make room for the fed.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by J053 on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:25PM

            by J053 (3532) <reversethis-{xc. ... s} {ta} {enikad}> on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:25PM (#295484) Homepage

            There's an old cliche: "An armed society is a polite society."

            That's a quote from a fictional character in Heinlein's If This Goes On, and even Heinlein wasn't saying that the society depicted therein was a good one. I wish people would quit saying this.

            • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday January 28 2016, @01:25AM

              by HiThere (866) on Thursday January 28 2016, @01:25AM (#295697) Journal

              FWIW, I believe that Heinlein first used that line in "Beyond This Horizon", and he *was* saying that that society was a good society.

              --
              Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
              • (Score: 2) by naubol on Thursday January 28 2016, @04:15AM

                by naubol (1918) on Thursday January 28 2016, @04:15AM (#295765)

                If I recall correctly, the story was commissioned for Campbell, who was enamored of an armed society. This post corroborates that line of thinking... http://torforgeblog.com/2010/07/12/whats-your-favorite-heinlein-novel-david-brin/ [torforgeblog.com]

                Whether or not he believed the idea at the time of writing, in the novel Beyond This Horizon someone almost gets shot over what is a very minor faux pas. Heinlein changed his views on politics many times in his life and also wrote politically conflicting works. I have often believed that he experimented with ideas and his 'voice' did not always represent convicted views.

                Quoting Heinlein is a political rorschach.

              • (Score: 2) by J053 on Thursday January 28 2016, @06:16PM

                by J053 (3532) <reversethis-{xc. ... s} {ta} {enikad}> on Thursday January 28 2016, @06:16PM (#296037) Homepage
                You're right - it was Beyond This Horizon - I should have known that, as I re-read it not that long ago. I still didn't get the impression Heinlein was advocating for that kind of a society rather than just using it as a background for the main story.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:15PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:15PM (#295468)
          If only cops were so careful with black lives. Tasing black guy who had a stroke, shooting some guy who had a knife (but was just mostly trying to walk away). Driving up next to a kid with a toy gun and shooting him within seconds. etc etc.
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:05PM

        by curunir_wolf (4772) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:05PM (#295322)

        the latest name spoken with reverence in the right-wing whackaloon militia community, just like Carl Drega and Timothy McVeigh.

        How disingenuous. I'm sure you're using hyperbole here, as those two were simply killers, and I've never heard of them being celebrated or revered by anyone. Sure, McVeigh was set up by government agents, but it was his plan to blow up a federal building and he did it - no group or movement that I've ever heard of supports or reveres him. Seriously, this is just bigotry on your part.

        There are libertarian types that are already claiming (without a shred of evidence) that the cops just started shooting without warning or justification.

        And since the government is so trustworthy, of course that can't be true. Regardless of the fact that they aren't denying it, not releasing any details of the confrontation, and are actively involved in convincing the media not to publish any information about the incident except from "official" sources. The history of Federal agents during this incident, and, indeed, their treatment of ranchers (specifically the BLM) ever since the Sagebrush Rebellion in the 1970s and 1980s.

        I mean, it's not like the feds have ever laid siege to a private compound with tanks and armored vehicles, set fire to it, and killed most of the women and children that ... oh, wait.

        --
        I am a crackpot
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:25PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:25PM (#295341)

          I've never heard of them being celebrated or revered by anyone.

          Here's someone who has written substantially about Carl Drega as a hero [amazon.com]. And an article suggesting the same thing about Tim McVeigh [attackthesystem.com].

          Yes, they're a tiny minority. The vast majority of libertarians and conservatives don't think like these guys, just like the vast majority of liberals in the 1970's didn't support the idea that black people should shoot cops at any opportunity. But don't think for a minute that there isn't a subculture that supports these kinds of people.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
          • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:06PM

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:06PM (#295465) Journal

            What's also probably true is that Mr Finicum will become the latest name spoken with reverence in the right-wing whackaloon militia community
             
            It's already happening! Google "Finnicum patriot."
             
            Various hits:
            "LaVoy Finicum a Patriot to the Constitution - Murdered by..." (the Feds I assume, no way in hell I'm actually clicking any of these links!)
             
            "LaVoy Finicum: ARIZONA PATRIOT COWBOY DESCRIBES ..."
             
            "The First Martyr of the Patriot Movement in 2016, the 2nd ..."
             
            Hard to argue hyperbole when actual examples are staring you in the face.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:57PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:57PM (#295516)

              Again, is there any evidence this is in any way anything other than an extreme minority? Whatever your argument is, it's like saying all Muslims support terrorist acts because is Muslim. Even amongst the libertarian communities, these guys have been regarded as nutbags.

              • (Score: 4, Insightful) by curunir_wolf on Thursday January 28 2016, @12:20AM

                by curunir_wolf (4772) on Thursday January 28 2016, @12:20AM (#295675)

                Even amongst the libertarian communities, these guys have been regarded as nutbags.

                Quite true, and yet, look through this thread and you see lots of people describing him as a "terrorist". That's interesting, because I doubt any one of these people would say the same about Eric Holder, and yet, he did the exact same thing [wikipedia.org] as these guys.

                Finnigan did not kill anyone, did not threaten or assault anyone, never created bombs or threatened to blow anything up. And yet, participating in a peaceful occupation of a federal building (abandoned at the time) has everyone parroting the party line of the bad actors in the Federal government that they were protesting.

                Yes, they were armed. They are western ranchers. They are pretty much always "armed" - it's just a fact of daily life for them. They are protecting their herds from predators, after all.

                Why did the federal agents kill him? It turns out, straight from the agents themselves, it was for "failure to follow orders." During a traffic stop. If this happened to a black man in an urban neighborhood everyone would be up in arms (as they should). But this guy doesn't even get the benefit of the doubt.

                It would be amusing how wrapped up so many people are with the propaganda put out by the Federal government to protect their power. It would be, if it wasn't so tragic.

                --
                I am a crackpot
                • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday January 28 2016, @01:28AM

                  by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday January 28 2016, @01:28AM (#295699) Journal

                  It would be amusing how wrapped up so many people are with the propaganda put out by the Federal government to protect their power. It would be, if it wasn't so tragic.

                  Anymore it seems attributable to doublethink. The evidence of government crimes is overwhelming, but instead of doing something about that many people prefer to twist themselves into knots to avoid having to take a stand. Moral cowardice at its finest.

                  --
                  Washington DC delenda est.
                • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday January 28 2016, @05:57AM

                  by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday January 28 2016, @05:57AM (#295795) Journal

                  The shooting was captured on camera by the SWAT team. FBI and Oregon police officials are discussing possibly releasing the video, in part to counter claims by supporters that Finicum was gunned down while trying to surrender.

                  http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/27/us/oregon-siege-traffic-stop/ [cnn.com]

                  Obviously, if they don't release the video, the shooting was dirty. If they do release it, it will speak for itself.

                  I'm sort of surprised to see how the word "terrorist" is being misused even here, though not surprised that so many in other outlets use that term. Apparently, 15 years of brainwashing by the Feds and it's lapdog press has a large portion of the population ready to call anybody a terrorist -- even if they don't kill anybody. That's scary because once a person is labeled a terrorist that person is in a Constitution-free zone, and the Feds are hardly a paragon of virtue and morality.

                  I'm also surprised at how much faith people put in the Feds for honesty. If DC was a puppet, it would have a nose stretching from the Atlantic seaboard to Guam. My take is simple, the video will speak for itself and if it is never publicly shown, I presume its contents would dispute the government's claims.

          • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday January 28 2016, @12:23AM

            by curunir_wolf (4772) on Thursday January 28 2016, @12:23AM (#295677)

            Thanks. The article was interesting reading, but I'm not really interested in reading the book (are you? Or do like to keep away from reading material that challenges your world view?).

            In any case, I don't think either of those links proves your point. Just the opposite, really.

            --
            I am a crackpot
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday January 28 2016, @01:24AM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday January 28 2016, @01:24AM (#295696) Journal

          Or Ruby Ridge. Yeah, a white supremacist, which is a despicable philosophy, but he's entitled to it if he's not harming anyone else. And living peacefully with your wife and kids on top of a remote mountain in Idaho is pretty much the definition of "not harming anyone else." But, hey, why not launch an armed assault on said cabin and shoot the wife and kids dead?

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @07:41PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @07:41PM (#296075)

          or shoot a mother in the head while she holds her baby(lon horiuchi). or spray an 8 year old in the back with an mp5(i don't know which fbi pos did that). ruby ridge idaho

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by shortscreen on Wednesday January 27 2016, @06:54PM

        by shortscreen (2252) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @06:54PM (#295458) Journal

        That's the trouble with governments: There are always some idiots who will support them no matter how evil they were. There are liberal types that are already repeating (without a shred of evidence) whatever the corporate media tell them to.

        FTFY.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @10:51PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @10:51PM (#295627)

          Ohhhhhh, I see what you did there. That's really funny. He was saying one thing and you changed a word and made it say another REALLY INSIGHTFUL thing!

          You are a clever, clever guy.

          Really.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @01:14PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @01:14PM (#295254)

      He's a terrorist; you have no obligation to feel bad for him.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @01:50PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @01:50PM (#295268)

        He can't be a terrorist, he's a white christian who did it because he was inspired by God.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:05PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:05PM (#295273)

        He's a terrorist; you have no obligation to feel bad for him.

        No obligation, yes. But in respect for another human soul I am saddened that his life was wasted this way.

        From a religious, spiritual and practical perspective I would rather have him alive.

        The ideal way to deal with an enemy is to turn him into an ally.

        For example, though I am glad Osama Bin Laden is gone, I would much prefer having him around telling his former followers and potential recruits that they and ISIS are pansies and loons.

        When someone is alive there is hope they can learn and get better.

        When they are dead all you have is a corpse, a memory and possibly a martyr.

        But sometimes the only practical option is to kill them.

        Hopefully he won’t act like such an ass his next time around.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @01:20AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @01:20AM (#295695)

          Hopefully he won’t act like such an ass his next time around.

          His "next time around"? He's dead! Are you a believer in reincarnation?

          Besides that, though, I agree with everything else you wrote.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Wednesday January 27 2016, @05:50PM

        by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @05:50PM (#295431)

        Every terrorist is first and foremost a human being, and as such we should have sympathy not only for their passing, but also for the fact that they lived a life that pushed them into a position that becoming a terrorist seemed like a good idea.

        Now these guys appear to to be wackos with too much time on their hands and an overblown sense of entitlement, but I can still sympathize that they weren't raised better.

      • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:19PM

        by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:19PM (#295478) Journal

        He's a terrorist

        He's a plain old criminal. Throwing the word terrorist around like that is just perpetuating the bullshit the Feds and mass media sell to expand tyrannical power. To be clear, a terrorist is someone who kills or maims uninvolved bystanders for a political purpose. None of the Bundy group bombed stores or shot up theaters. They were trespassers and ordinary criminals, nothing more.

        Ultimately, what you have here are two groups of uber-dicks: the Feds and the Militia, with good people in the west caught in the middle.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:35PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:35PM (#295500)

      What do you expect from people that cant pump their own gas?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @07:46PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @07:46PM (#296080)

      you probably supported the government when they murdered kids at waco too. because they had parents who thought they were free americans. can't have that shit spreading. better send in the pigs from the atf and the fbi to burn them alive.

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @11:14AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @11:14AM (#295227)

    "During that arrest, there were shots fired", the Bureau said in a statement.

    #shotsfired

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by RedBear on Wednesday January 27 2016, @12:01PM

    by RedBear (1734) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 27 2016, @12:01PM (#295237)

    Courtesy of CBS News website:

    The heavily armed militants said they believe their cause was not only just, but an act of divine intervention.

    "God wants us here, there's a sense that's beckoning and it comes from heaven," militiaman Kelly Gneiting told KOIN. "We're doing what's right, we're doing what the founding fathers would do because we're inspired by God, also."

    Y'all just go ahead and take from that what you will.

    --
    ¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
    ... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday January 27 2016, @12:28PM

      by Vanderhoth (61) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @12:28PM (#295242)

      I have to wonder if this is real or if it's the journalist getting fed some line from a troll, or if the journalist is making things up. Googling "Kelly Gneiting" brings up a ton of stuff about a fat athlete (seriously he's a sumo and the heaviest person to ever complete a marathon apparently.)

      You can't trust journalist these days, they'll print whatever pushes the narrative they want to be true. As an example my sister is an animal control officer, every time there's a dog attack you can be sure the media will print it as Pitbull attack. If they're wrong they quietly correct it later, but by the time that's happened ten's of thousands of people have already seen the original story and people don't go back to re-read it afterwards.

      There's tons of examples of journalist being tricked into printing things from trolls on the net then refusing to admit they were fooled, blaming others for their own lack of fact checking or quietly updating the story later and pretending it never happened.

      --
      "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
      • (Score: 5, Informative) by ilPapa on Wednesday January 27 2016, @01:02PM

        by ilPapa (2366) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @01:02PM (#295250) Journal

        The statement is from Ammon Bundy and he sent it out via social media. It's not a liberal media conspiracy.

        --
        You are still welcome on my lawn.
        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @01:52PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @01:52PM (#295271)

          Vandy is just exercising a healthy skepticism because reality has a well-known liberal bias. You just can trust reality.

          • (Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:23PM

            by Vanderhoth (61) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:23PM (#295286)

            I actually am liberal, it doesn't mean I automatically believe everything I read, but I'm not really sure how this has anything to do with politics though.

            I've seen some pretty sensationalized exaggerations printed and things made up or plucked from twitter to support click bait that was right out false. Is it more acceptable to believe a journalists opinions (which can be mixed in, conflated and indistinguishable from the facts) because that journalists is a "liberal"?

            Seriously just google "Kelly Gneiting" (the guy quoted), the only results I got back were for a guy that's a sumo wrestling athlete, and reading his twitter feed and other articles quoting him it doesn't seem like something he would say. So it COULD be another "Kelly Gneiting", but it's just as likely the journalist was duped into printing something because it made the people that take an opposite position to them look like back water country bumpkins.

            All I'm doing is pointing out there's a possibility no one actually said that, and I'm fully willing to accept I could just be being overly cautions and wrong.

            --
            "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
            • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:27PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:27PM (#295287)

              > I actually am liberal,

              Keep telling yourself that bud. At best you are alt-right.

              > Seriously just google "Kelly Gneiting"

              When seeking to verify the authenticity of a quote you should google the quote not the author because people tend to say a lot of things in the course of their lives. Your attempt to rationalize making stupid assumptions is not doing you any favors.

              • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:09PM

                by ikanreed (3164) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:09PM (#295326) Journal

                Dude, don't ideology police.

                Our "side" is chock full of disingenuous, conspiracy-mongering idiots too. They notably aren't front runners for president or staging armed takeovers of wildlife sanctuaries, but they're real, they're common, and on many things they agree with us(gasp).

                • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:00PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:00PM (#295365)

                  > Dude, don't ideology police.

                  Have you read his posting history? He a "LINO." Like that guy who always trots out the fact that 30+ years ago he was in greenpeace (which he only joined to get laid) as proof of being a libural. Come to think of it, I haven't seen that story reposted for a while, maybe whoever that guy is realized how transparent that was.

                  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:14PM

                    by ikanreed (3164) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:14PM (#295374) Journal

                    Fair enough.

                  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday January 27 2016, @05:35PM

                    by Vanderhoth (61) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @05:35PM (#295423)

                    So you're only allowed to have liberal beliefs if you're willing to swallow the bullshit spoon and all.

                    "No room for questioning here, get back in line citizen"

                    If anything, I'd say you're likely a conservative extremist here pretending to be liberal while acting like an ass to make moderates less sympathetic to progressive views. If not, you're doing a damn fine job of chasing moderates away.

                    --
                    "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
                  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday January 28 2016, @01:44AM

                    by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday January 28 2016, @01:44AM (#295703) Journal

                    Well, there are many shades of ideology, and it's possible to move through them throughout your life as experience leads you to different conclusions. Consider, also, that the definition of those labels morphs a heck of a lot over the time scale of a human life. "liberal" after WWII described Milton Friedman and his fellows who wore the label as a counter-point to FDR's social welfare policies. Today most people would call Milton Friedman to the right of Jamie Dimon.

                    But ikanreed is right. There are lots of shades of crazy on the left, too. I used to be a member of the Green Party and there was this radical vegan lady in the local chapter who tried to strongarm every meeting into centrally revolving around protests against meat. Anytime everyone else, and it was really everyone else, tried to talk about something not related to diet, she would scream "fascist" and throw tantrums. Then there was the nebbishy guy who did the same thing, but about pesticide spraying against the West Nile virus mosquito.

                    Even then, though, I believed firmly in the right to bear arms and had a very strong antipathy for big government, having grown up in the Rockies the way I had, which I'm sure would have caused them to lynch me.

                    --
                    Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:37PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:37PM (#295293)

              Yeah, sure does sound out of character for Mr Guardians, Patriots and the “ALL of God” [independentamericanparty.org] Gneiting. He would never say God told him to do anything...

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:28PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:28PM (#295381)

              living in Oregon, there are plenty of soundbites and video footage in our media outlets by the occupiers saying just that, in their own words and voices.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:12PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:12PM (#295280)

        Yeah, such as everybody forgot that it was Putin who brokered Iran's nuke deal. Probably to bring down oil prices and his stolen wealth along with it, right?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:33PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:33PM (#295291)

      It worked nicely for George W "Dybya" Bush...

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday January 27 2016, @12:04PM

    by cubancigar11 (330) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @12:04PM (#295239) Homepage Journal
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday January 27 2016, @12:36PM

      by Vanderhoth (61) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @12:36PM (#295244)

      Ugh, Gawker is as bad as, sometimes worse than, fox news. I don't believe anything they print. I can't wait for all the things they're being sued for to wrap up so they can go into receivership and burn.

      --
      "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @01:46PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @01:46PM (#295266)

        And yet the article about Finicum is just the facts. So yeah, terrible.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:12PM

        by ikanreed (3164) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:12PM (#295328) Journal

        I'm glad you're hear to post your personal incredulity of easily verified facts so we can know what websites you hate. Where would we be without you?

        • (Score: 3, Funny) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:32PM

          by Vanderhoth (61) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:32PM (#295347)

          Screaming about how nerds need to be bullied and complaining about Jennifer Lawrence's nudes while diddling kids and watching Hulk Hogan's sex tape?

          --
          "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
          • (Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday January 27 2016, @11:24PM

            by Vanderhoth (61) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @11:24PM (#295647)

            I was being facetious, but I'm actually quite happy to accept the flame bait mod for this, it's all actual true though.

            Bullying nerds [imgur.com]
            Lawrence's nudes [gawker.com]
            Defending paedophiles [gawker.com]
            Hulk Hogan's sex tape [gawker.com]

            And that's not even the tip of the iceberg for the crap Gawker prints and does. So mod away, doesn't change reality.

            --
            "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:02PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:02PM (#295366)

        Found the Gamergater.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @05:39PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @05:39PM (#295424)

          They're more welcome here than dipshit SRS trolls, now back to reddit with you.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @06:01PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @06:01PM (#295437)

          > Found the Gamergater.

          You got modded Troll but you were exactly right. [soylentnews.org] It's not trolling if it is factual.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @06:46PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @06:46PM (#295455)

            If you're dismissive about people that called out Gawker as bullshit then you're as bad as untra-cons who call people libtards for pointing out faux is bullshit. Stop trying to pretending you're a different troll, it's not fooling anyone.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:04PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:04PM (#295463)

              Nope, just dismissive of one guy who isn't calling out gawker for anything other than his personal butt-hurt.

              Also, you are clearly the original troll just making illogical arguments so that you can come along and knock them down in order to make your original post look even more insightful. I know you are but what am I?

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by gman003 on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:27PM

        by gman003 (4155) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:27PM (#295488)

        Gawker has their share of problems. They publish all kinds of unsubstantiated rumors, idiotic ramblings and blatant clickbait. Some of their sites are just worthless - Gizmodo is usually crap, Jezebel is a waste of time, Lifehacker is obvious, and the main Gawker is half-assed. Oh, and their comments system is rubbish. They've got some decent posters, but if you don't get into the first five posts, good luck having anyone ever read it.

        But you know what? They make up for that.

        1) They aren't owned by outside interests. They don't toe to any corporate line like the rest of the mainstream media does. Sometimes the position they take is stupid, but at least it's a new kind of stupid.

        2) They aren't afraid to do the right thing, even if it pisses off big companies. Kotaku's been blacklisted by a couple game publishers, sometimes for breaking NDAs they didn't even sign. Just today, Jalopnik basically told Honda to go fuck themselves [jalopnik.com]. I don't know of any time anyone's been able to make them back down - even sometimes when they should have, like that Hulk Hogan sextape thing.

        3) After that big hack, they started taking privacy and security seriously. As seen above, they have a "burner account" system that's resistant to even legal-system attacks. For a while they were PGP-signing posts - been a while since I noticed it, might have just moved it somewhere or stopped doing it on trivial posts.

        4) While half of their reporters seem to have been dropped on the head as infants, a lot of them actually know their shit. Whoever it is who writes for Foxtrot Alpha, for instance. Even some of their entertainment writers are good - Doug DeMuro doesn't write about anything important, but he's consistently one of the funniest writers I've read.

        And you know what? When it comes to factual reporting, they get it wrong less often than others. I'd be sad to see them go, if they ever do.

        • (Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday January 27 2016, @08:04PM

          by Vanderhoth (61) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @08:04PM (#295521)

          We're just going to have to disagree on a lot of this. For starters Gawker, and most of their subsidiaries, are gossip sites, not news.

          They don't toe to any corporate line like the rest of the mainstream media does. Sometimes the position they take is stupid, but at least it's a new kind of stupid.

          True, they do what suits them, but in a lot of cases this is actually worse. Because they're not accountable they can spread unsubstantiated gossip and ruin people apologetically. So they can claim it's awful that Jennifer Lawrence's nudes were released in one article and pretend to have a moral high ground stance while passing around Hulk Hogan's sex tape or spreading gossip / outing a gay rival.

          They aren't afraid to do the right thing, even if it pisses off big companies. Kotaku's been blacklisted by a couple game publishers

          The "right thing" in your example using Kotaku is releasing game elements of something that was in development so they could harp on how sexist it was. It was hardly for "the public good", which is the only time journalists whistle blowing is justified, not because they didn't like the outfit or story element of a game that hasn't been released. If I was a game developer the last thing I'd want is to be sharing PR with a gossip site that specializes in making everything a sex/race controversy. You can't force a company to talk to people they KNOW are going to misrepresent them then flush them down the shitter for no other reason than it gets page views.

          It's also really hypocritical of them to whine about being blacklisted, then turn around and blacklist others [youtube.com].

          After that big hack, they started taking privacy and security seriously. As seen above, they have a "burner account" system that's resistant to even legal-system attacks. For a while they were PGP-signing posts - been a while since I noticed it, might have just moved it somewhere or stopped doing it on trivial posts.

          I've never noticed this, but if true it'd step down to a 9.5 from a 10 for sites I avoid because they're almost all irrelevant opinion pieces that misrepresent everything. Right now they're pretty much the gold standard for me for what to avoid, but you can't help clicking on their links every now and then when people are linking to irrelevant puff pieces to support their personal politics.

          While half of their reporters seem to have been dropped on the head as infants, a lot of them actually know their shit. Whoever it is who writes for Foxtrot Alpha, for instance. Even some of their entertainment writers are good - Doug DeMuro doesn't write about anything important, but he's consistently one of the funniest writers I've read.

          I can't comment on Foxtrot Alpha as I've never read it, but of their official subsidiaries (Cink, Deadspin, Gawker.com, Gizmodo, io9, Jalopnik, Jezebel, Kotaku, Lifehacker) a LOT of people will argue they're all a waste of time.

          I don't mean to be condescending, because I appreciate you taking the time to type out a reasonable response, but the negatives, which you yourself pointed out, out way the occasional good article.

          As an aside, looks like Nick Denton is stepping down as Gawker's chief executive, maybe things will improve?

          --
          "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @04:56AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @04:56AM (#295777)

            The "right thing" in your example using Kotaku is releasing game elements of something that was in development so they could harp on how sexist it was. It was hardly for "the public good"

            Yeah social criticism ... that's hardly for the public good. Its all about making vanderhoth's butt hurt and that's not good.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @01:32AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @01:32AM (#295701)

          1) They [Gawker] aren't owned by outside interests. They don't toe to any corporate line like the rest of the mainstream media does. Sometimes the position they take is stupid, but at least it's a new kind of stupid.

          Gawker: We're a new kind of stupid!

          Sounds like just the kind of place I want to get my news! </sarcasm>

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @12:41PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @12:41PM (#295245)

    Audio of various militia men communicating by ham radio about the events that transpired can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXHiu0_bpok [youtube.com]

    It devolves into audible shitposting towards the end.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @01:06PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @01:06PM (#295251)

    Guys like these make livings out of grazing and other uses under very heavy Federal subsidies. That blatant irony is lost on them, and in fact lost on most of the "get the government off my back" types that live in the western US. Acreage-wise, a very large part of the US is propped up by the Federal government, but these are the "reddest" states filled with "small government" types. They should truly live up to their principles for a year and get the government off their back by sending back all the subsidies they get, pay fair market value for grazing, etc., and then we can see whether they've gained any more insight into slinging around words like "freeloader" at people who get government support.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @01:26PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @01:26PM (#295256)

      They argue that the government should not own any land in the first place.

      Of course, they think they land should belong to them, because their great-great-grandparents stole it from the natives fair and square.

      • (Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:46PM

        by SanityCheck (5190) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:46PM (#295353)

        Yes, even more lost irony, but that is exactly what they believe. Then again in terms of Historical context, the land always belongs to the person who stole it last.

      • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:28PM

        by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:28PM (#295490)

        Of course, they think they land should belong to them, because their great-great-grandparents stole it from the natives fair and square.

        Correction, the Federal government cleared the land of natives for them so they could settle in relatively unopposed.

    • (Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:29PM

      by legont (4179) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:29PM (#295288)

      Well, most population west of 100 meridian can survive only on Federal subsides. It's pretty much either desert and/or very rugged terrain.

      Yeah, government had to let the pressure out when revolutions were burning everywhere, protect the coast from Japan or whatever - there were big reasons to do it - but the fact remains: West survives sucking East's money.

      Water situation is getting worse though and nowadays it does not appear likely another reclamation era is about to start. They will be on their own faster than they wish they will.

      --
      "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:19PM

        by curunir_wolf (4772) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:19PM (#295334)

        They will be on their own faster than they wish they will.

        Well, they will probably survive longer than the folks in the East Coast metropolises after the food trucks stop rolling in ...

        --
        I am a crackpot
        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:30PM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:30PM (#295345) Journal

          No kidding. From what I've seen in 20 years living in New York City, that time line is about 24 hours. Every time a snow storm hits (a common occurrence in winter, can we all agree?) New Yorkers freak out and grab everything off the shelves in the Gristedes. City dwellers on the East Coast, even the suburbanites, have many fine qualities, but self-reliance is so not one of them. Biggest bunch of helpless cry-baby pansies, actually.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:56PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:56PM (#295362)

          Well, actually, most of the big agricultural breadbasket of the US is east of 100W, because that includes most of Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and about half of Texas. Also, it's not like there isn't agriculture at all in the east: over half of Ohio and Kentucky is farmed, for example. Even New York is about 25% cultivated.

          But really, the dependency goes in both directions: No farms => no food => no cities. But no cities => no farm equipment => no farms.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
          • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday January 28 2016, @12:30AM

            by curunir_wolf (4772) on Thursday January 28 2016, @12:30AM (#295680)

            Quite true, it's a symbiotic relationship (between urban and all the rural dwellers, in the East too). Unfortunately, many city dwellers don't see it that way, or don't understand what it's like to run the farms that produce the food.

            Anyway, that's not really relevant to Western state ranchers. Things are so spread out, there's really no farm equipment used for raising the cattle, just enough land to move around a lot. In fact, most of the fencing was put up by the BLM, in order to carve out the land the ranchers are required to pay grazing fees to use (and at what part of the year).

            --
            I am a crackpot
          • (Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Thursday January 28 2016, @12:58AM

            by Magic Oddball (3847) on Thursday January 28 2016, @12:58AM (#295688) Journal

            Well, actually, most of the big agricultural breadbasket of the US is east of 100W

            If you're referring just to grains (a literal "breadbasket") [slate.com], sure — but the vast majority of fruit, vegetables, and nuts are grown in California [motherjones.com].

        • (Score: 2) by RedGreen on Wednesday January 27 2016, @05:42PM

          by RedGreen (888) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @05:42PM (#295427)

          "Well, they will probably survive longer than the folks in the East Coast metropolises after the food trucks stop rolling in ... "

          Dream on it is easy enough to have the food trucks roll in from a closer distance, you will see how quick all the NIMBYs change their tune when it comes down to a farm next door when they have nothing to eat...

          --
          "I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
        • (Score: 2) by legont on Thursday January 28 2016, @04:17AM

          by legont (4179) on Thursday January 28 2016, @04:17AM (#295766)

          Food is grown, mostly, east of 100 meridian (and east of 100 is only where it could be grown without subsides). Sure, east coast is dead without farmers, but on the other hand where exactly farmers are going to send their food?

          My only point was that we don't need that much population on the west half of the country and it would make sense to discourage dwelling over there by say cutting subsides, which is exactly what those guys want. I find the whole thing somewhat amusing.

          --
          "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:42PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:42PM (#295300)

      Their arguments were not that the government should not own land, but that the federal government should not own land. They try and justify this opinion by going to the constitution and pulling from a section that says the fed can own seven types of land six being defense and one being the district of columbia. The other justification they used was that the western states were entered into the union against the constitutional outline granted to previous states, states were intended to be entered in as equals but unlike the eastern states and those after the Louisiana purchase.

      One of the stipulations to being brought in as equals was equal land ownership. Yet western states can max out at 80% of federal ownership of land. Compare to Louisiana's ~4.5.

      The argument I heard against them was a lot of "they aren't from oregon" but this is a western state vs eastern state issue. I reside in oregon and I don't agree with their methods but I can see where they come from. I spent some time in Alaska where there are pretty big land disputes between the state/people and the fed.

      One example I always enjoy.
      http://www.adn.com/article/cantwell-resident-trouble-helping-troopers-salvage-caribou [adn.com]

      Not sure how many of you spend time out in the woods, here in Oregon I always make sure to have a couple different BLM maps on me because of stories like above, and there are many. Boundaries change often and are not always marked, but that wont save you from getting arrested if you arent careful.

      But hey I live in Oregon where the fed is not heavy handed, so fuck those cooks right? Good riddens I say.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:19PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:19PM (#295335)

        In a practical sense, of the western states that have 80% Fed ownership, do those states want that 30% on their books? At the state level, has this been brought up? I'm sure it is an issue when the Fed says something can or can't be done on the land that the state disagrees with and then it is horribly unfair, but what about when there are disasters, fires, floods, earthquakes, etc.? I'm pretty sure the Bundys of the world would regret their position if the states got that land back and charged them grazing fees that are closer to market value. Then what, that the states aren't allowed to own land either?

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:47PM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:47PM (#295354) Journal

          Market value? If they pay "market value" for the feed you will pay for that "market value" in the store. Ready to pay $20/lb for that hamburger? Sure, vegans will smile and say that's mete, but carnivores won't be happy about that at all, and there are orders of magnitude more carnivores than vegans.

          There is a common conceit I hear from life-long suburbanites and urbanites, that farmers and ranchers don't matter because they're poor and few and remote and dumb etc, etc, etc. But the veg and meat that magically shows up in their corner delis is produced by those farmers and ranchers, and the suburbanites and urbanites wouldn't last a fortnight without it because sure as shootin' none of them could grow a vegetable or catch a fish or raise livestock to save their lives. Worse, the ones under 30 would cease to exist if take-out stopped working, never having deigned to eat canned food or cook their own meals in their lives.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:24PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:24PM (#295380)

            So you are one of those snookered into the "family farm" thing, huh? Those farm bills we aren't allowed to question, presumably because of our "common conceit", because it is all about the little farmers, you know Dorothy's family, those two in that Grant Wood painting, you know the ones who look so sad because of those nasty urbanites looking down on them, those farm bills that small farmers opppose [organicconsumers.org] but are told it is all about them? I've seen plenty of your posts decrying the "support the troops" mantra? How is that different? What about the children? The children of the troops? Are you really so callous to be so mean to the little faces? Other than in that vacuous cranium of yours, who the hell says farmers and ranchers don't matter? Pulling out the old GWB "they say" rhetoric, are we ("there are those out there who say we should deport poor women, children, and stomp on puppies, cute puppies, but not me! I say not on my watch!")?

            No, I'm talking about market value for the grazing rights. Ones that are 5X larger when it is even state land, let alone private land [biologicaldiversity.org]. But even if we stick to your example, the price of hamburger isn't driven by freeloaders who squat on Federal land, refuse to pay at all, then try to make this into an oppressive government issue instead.

            • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday January 28 2016, @02:10AM

              by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday January 28 2016, @02:10AM (#295712) Journal

              I don't even know if you're talking to me AC, because you must have me confused with someone else. I never decry the "support the troops" mantra because I never talk about that topic at all.

              In case you were talking to me, then I'll point out I was talking about ranchers, not farmers, because the issue is grazing rights. Nobody but a dyed-in-the-wool city slicker would confuse those two groups, because they have much different lives and outlooks. If we were talking about farmers and farm bills, etc., then of course we'd have to talk about Archer Daniels Midland and Monsanto, etc, but as far as I'm aware there is no equivalent of ADM for ranchers. But we're talking about ranchers, not farmers, so your point is moot.

              You better believe that if the federal government socks it to the ranchers you will feel it in your pocketbook if you eat meat. They don't have margins to absorb that cost without passing it on. If they can't pass the cost along, they will go out of business, the available supply of meat will drop, and the price you pay at the market will anyway.

              --
              Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 2) by slinches on Wednesday January 27 2016, @06:33PM

          by slinches (5049) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @06:33PM (#295450)

          I can understand the federal government owning and maintaining the land required to successfully execute the responsibilities required of them by the constitution. Outside of that, land within the state should belong to the state and the federal government should have no say in its use (with the exception of inter-state disputes like water rights).

          • (Score: 2) by dry on Thursday January 28 2016, @09:06AM

            by dry (223) on Thursday January 28 2016, @09:06AM (#295853) Journal

            That's how it works in Canada. The Provinces are in control of most all the land in their respective Province with a few exceptions. Though some are a bit weird like railways seem to be solely Federal, possibly written into the Constitution when BC joined under the condition of a rail link.

            • (Score: 2) by slinches on Thursday January 28 2016, @02:39PM

              by slinches (5049) on Thursday January 28 2016, @02:39PM (#295924)

              Yeah, a quick look at this map [worldofmaps.net] will help illustrate why some people are pissed off about it. Only the plain white parts are state land.

      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:39PM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:39PM (#295350) Journal

        Jesus, that Alaska story perfectly encapsulates how clueless feds are. They ordered a guy in a boat going down a river to stop, so he pulled over to the bank instead of stopping in mid-stream so they arrested him for failure to comply? Is it any wonder that these guys have a deep and abiding hatred for idiot bureaucrats?

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:17PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:17PM (#295333) Journal

      I'm from that part of the world and can perhaps offer a little perspective on the subject of grazing. Many of the ranching families like the Bundys homesteaded the land a long time ago before there were states there. There was no federal land per se, just lots of open prairie. They grazed their herds all over. Much later when the federal government came along and started putting up barbed wire fences and allotting itself land, letting the ranchers continue to graze their herds on the land they always had was a compromise so the people in those areas would accept what the federal government was doing. So it's really the opposite of what most people from the cities or the coasts assume, which is that the ranchers only exist because of the good will of the federal government letting them graze on federal land.

      That said, ranching is a tough, tough life with razor-thin margins. The only guy who ever really got rich from it was Conrad Kohrs, who sold fresh animals to the wagon trains headed west on the Oregon Trail, at the cost of 2 worn-out animals for 1 fresh. But for the ranchers today, if you cut off their access to the lands they've always needed to graze on, you kill them. It's make-or-break for them.

      Bureaucrats sitting inside the Beltway or oblivious city dwellers who get their dinner from the magic supermarket don't get that. But if they drive the ranchers out of existence one thing they will not continue to get from the magic supermarket is steak, ribs, and hamburger at a price they're willing to pay.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:28PM

        by curunir_wolf (4772) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:28PM (#295344)

        Bureaucrats sitting inside the Beltway or oblivious city dwellers who get their dinner from the magic supermarket don't get that. But if they drive the ranchers out of existence one thing they will not continue to get from the magic supermarket is steak, ribs, and hamburger at a price they're willing to pay.

        And that's exactly what those elites want to happen. They don't want the unwashed masses eating meat at all - they would prefer to feed them bugs. [nationalgeographic.com] They are turning up the heat very slowly, until they have the proles subsisting on Soylent [soylent.com].

        --
        I am a crackpot
        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:51PM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:51PM (#295356) Journal

          Yeah, I read the "trend" toward entomophagy the same way, another way to put the screws to the proles.

          But I think driving those people to consider non-traditional sources of food is quite risky. I hear champagne- and caviar-fed plutocrat has a delighful flavor.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:51PM

        by SanityCheck (5190) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:51PM (#295358)

        Right on Phoenix. The land should not be owned by the Government, but should return to the original owners so they can live off the land peacefully as their fore-fathers once did.

        At that point any White* ranchers can petition to join their tribe so they too can live off the land, too...

        *Disclaimer: I am White.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:34PM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:34PM (#295384) Journal

          I'm OK with that, too. But it's not so much about land ownership, but that previously there was no ownership. It wasn't that the federal government came along and took the land away from the ranchers, but that nobody "owned" the land the federal government "took." It wasn't ever an issue until the farmers came along and got upset that the free-roaming herds would trample their crops; that brought barbwire fences, the force that truly ended the Old West, and suddenly all the open land was parceled off and inaccessible.

          Only, for the record, those guys you're referring to were not peaceful. Especially not these guys [wikipedia.org] or these guys [wikipedia.org]. They were not morally superior. They were not idyllic natives displaced by the evil white man. They were people, who were displaced by other people, who had better guns.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Wednesday January 27 2016, @05:04PM

            by SanityCheck (5190) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @05:04PM (#295407)

            True enough, I should not make the claim that the party was peaceful (which was not intentional), but rather I would expect them to be peaceful going forward.

            So in the end it's bunch of people (Ranchers vs Farmers) arguing over who has what rights to what land, the outcome being decided by the Government, and then the losers not being happy with the fact they lost. If I were them I would never make the claim that the land had no ownership, there is no such land anywhere, and to expect that to be true is naive. The Government had more incentive to have the land farmed rather than grazed I'm sure, that is why it sided with the Farmers. It may seem oppressive to the Ranchers, but we are dealing with the standard form of Government oppression which only doesn't exist in Anarchy.

          • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 27 2016, @09:49PM

            by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @09:49PM (#295584)

            It's not so much about land ownership, but that previously there was no ownership. It wasn't that the federal government came along and took the land away from the ranchers, but that nobody "owned" the land the federal government "took."

            The idea that First Nations peoples didn't have a concept of land ownership is total nonsense. As in, they fought wars with each other and later the US government over it.

            The old story of selling Manhattan for a few beads was not about a lack of understanding of land ownership, but because the Dutch who made the deal paid the people who were in charge in Brooklyn, not the people who owned Manhattan. As you can imagine, the people from Brooklyn were pretty happy with the deal, just like you would be if somebody paid you a bunch of money for your neighbor's house. And the people who actually owned Manhattan reacted about as well as your neighbor would if the people you just sold his house to showed up and started moving in.

            --
            The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
            • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday January 28 2016, @02:22AM

              by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday January 28 2016, @02:22AM (#295716) Journal

              I think it's more accurate to say they had a sense of territory rather than ownership in the sense we mean it, whereby you have legal title to it and pay taxes on it. That sense of territory was quite fluid. Even tribes that farmed, like the Iroquois, would pick up and move the whole village every once in a while to give the land a chance to rest.

              Nevertheless I was talking specifically about the land in the West that became federal land, upon which the ranchers grazed their herds before the federal government came along, surveyed discrete parcels, and declared it theirs. What obtained for the ranchers before that was much closer to the sense of territory the Indians had, in that there were no surveyed parcels for which you owned a deed and on which you paid taxes. That's what I meant.

              --
              Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 2, Funny) by Arik on Wednesday January 27 2016, @11:47PM

          by Arik (4543) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @11:47PM (#295656) Journal
          "*Disclaimer: I am White."

          Is that a medical condition?
          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
          • (Score: 3, Funny) by SanityCheck on Thursday January 28 2016, @02:04AM

            by SanityCheck (5190) on Thursday January 28 2016, @02:04AM (#295710)

            I wouldn't characterize it as such, but apparently I "suffer" from it.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @10:44PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @10:44PM (#295619)

        Many of the ranching families like the Bundys homesteaded the land a long time ago before there were states there. There was no federal land per se, just lots of open prairie. They grazed their herds all over. Much later when the federal government came along and started putting up barbed wire fences and allotting itself land, letting the ranchers continue to graze their herds on the land they always had was a compromise so the people in those areas would accept what the federal government was doing. So it's really the opposite of what most people from the cities or the coasts assume, which is that the ranchers only exist because of the good will of the federal government letting them graze on federal land.

        You left out the really big part about the territories having conventions to decide if they want statehood and to join the Union whereupon they voted to join. You seem to have this Dances With Wolves view of homesteading where you make it sound like they were just doing their thing and this all happened to them. It didn't. Some of the biggest issues were between big ranchers and small ranchers, between big farmers and little farmers, between ranchers and farmers, etc. It wasn't all peaceful free herding until the Big Evil Gmen came, it was Big Evil and Rich Ranchers who wanted all the land or the herds, etc., that there was a desire to have the resources of the Government to bring order. If the Bundys actually did think along those lines, then they really are dumbasses because you can't just ignore 150 years in-between like they do in the Middle East (or sometimes 1500 years in-between).

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by Phoenix666 on Thursday January 28 2016, @02:42AM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday January 28 2016, @02:42AM (#295725) Journal

          You seem to have this Dances With Wolves view of homesteading where you make it sound like they were just doing their thing and this all happened to them.

          No, I have a "grew up in the Rockies and have known ranching and farming families all my life, whose ancestors homesteaded; and my own family which homesteaded across America before crossing over into being scientists and engineers" view of homesteading. So I have first-hand accounts from my grandparents, who grew up in homestead households, and my great-grandparents, who lived on until I was 20, first-hand knowledge from friends and acquaintances who still ranch and farm, and formal education in school about the history of "how the West was won."

          There were lots of forces that drove the passage of territories into statehood, including but not limited to Manifest Destiny, Gold rushes, the Indian Wars, the railroads, and cultural inertia, but none of them obviate the transition from open grazing land to federal lands ranchers could still graze their herds on.

          And for what it's worth, Dances with Wolves was a movie about Indians, not about homesteaders. If you're gonna cite movies to belittle someone's contribution to a conversation about ranching in the West, you'd better brush up on your Westerns.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @10:12PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @10:12PM (#296131)

            Yeah, well apparently your argumentative skills are VERY narrowed down to single-topic. Dances With Wolves reference was about how a remarkably one-sided, idyllic, and over-simplified view of Native Americans vs. Evil White Guys approach is being applied by your remarkably one-sided, idyllic, and over-simplified view of homesteaders vs. Evil Gubmit views. Sorry if it was too nuanced; I included the words "view of" immediately in front of "homesteading" to show that I was applying the tenets of that movie to the topic of homesteading, but I apologize and I will refrain from complicated forms of expression.

            And yes, you are right, there were many reasons that drove the population to want Statehood, but quite frankly, your deeply rooted ancestral views going back three generations don't mean shit because they are irrelevant to the subject owing to the fact that they were already living in a state of the US. You see, when the territory became a state, it became subject to the conditions of being a state. Your revered grandparents can't say "50 years ago this is what we did". If you want to take your specific state as an example, they became a state under a number of conditions including:

            and that the people inhabiting said Territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said Territory and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States

            I don't question whether you have the same misguided, self-serving and selfish beliefs as the Bundys, but get off your fucking high horse with your attitude if those were the conditions in fucking 1876 that they signed on to, and I think it is very easy to say that they've reaped far more benefits from being a state than they lost. So contrary to your myopic beliefs, it isn't an urbanite outlook looking down on ranchers, it is calling out blatant and unabashed entitlement attitude.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @04:55PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @04:55PM (#295994)

        Many of the ranching families like the Bundys homesteaded the land a long time ago before there were states there.

        So, because they started using that land when they were territorres, that somehow gives them magic powers? Some asshole from spain stuck a flag in central america and claimed the entire Nrtoh American landmass for the spanish queen. Should we honor that? Should we petition England for readmitance?

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Arik on Thursday January 28 2016, @12:01AM

      by Arik (4543) on Thursday January 28 2016, @12:01AM (#295662) Journal
      Doesnt really sound like you know what you are talking about.

      The complaint here is that charges were filed under *terrorism* laws for a couple of brush fires, set on their own land but in each case spreading over the line into the commons. There are disagreements as to some of the facts of the case, but no one disputes those basic facts. The first was set to destroy invasive vegetation, grew slightly larger than intended, and was put out by the ranchers themselves, though only after it had crossed that line. The second was a more complicated situation -  a wildfire was burning on the commons land and threatening to take out the ranch. They burned fire breaks to protect their ranch. Those fires again appear to have crossed the property line, and they have been accused of endangering the firefighters currently active, though I have seen no evidence that is in fact true. Based on the 'terrorism' charge mandatory minimum sentences were invoked, leaving even the judge to express that the outcome was wrong but his hands were tied.

      At worst perhaps a lapse of judgement, but this justifies using terrorism charges how?

      Seen within context, the ranchers were in this area long before the government. BLM was given title to the land with the idea that they would conserve and protect these commons for future generations of ranchers. These days, BLM would prefer to be viewed as simply the owner, rather then the curator of a public trust. The terrorism charges were a firecracker thrown into an already volatile situation.

      If these guys hadnt happened to be social conservatives the left would have raised a hue and cry in their defense on the issues raised - expansive use of terrorism to trump civil liberties, along with mandatory minimum sentences, both issues many leftists have written on. Instead they advocate lynching. A sad measure of how divided our society has become, and how little either the left or the right seems to have any meaning beyond bare tribal identification.

      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by No Respect on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:22PM

    by No Respect (991) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:22PM (#295285)

    Well, this is it for me. For this type of site, the spritual successor to pre-beta slashdot, to be fucking infested with political bullshit is a bridge too far. I'm outta here. Fuck you all for sticking around because you think Soylent is any better than slashdot because it's not. It's just more bullshit that I no longer need to waste my time on. It's worse than slashdot. If I wanted politically charged stories there are better (worse?) places to find them online. Sayonara it was fun while it lasted.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:38PM

      by Vanderhoth (61) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:38PM (#295294)

      That's a shame. I've been here since the creation and even financially back the site.

      I actually agree with you that things are becoming too politically charged, I'd appreciate it if people could set aside the gender/political/ideological stories. It really sucks when just about every comment you make gets you accused of being a woman hating conservative kkk supporting bigot. It serves no purpose and just turn into a mess of ACs taking potshots at each other, all name calling with no actual points.

      I've actually been dipping back over to /. now and then recently. Even if the site is crap and they have more crap content, at least there's also more "non-crap" content to sift though.

      That said it's our choice to click an article and our responsibility to submit better content if we don't like what's being posted.

      Sorry to see you go.

      --
      "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:06PM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:06PM (#295370) Journal

        I actually agree with you that things are becoming too politically charged, I'd appreciate it if people could set aside the gender/political/ideological stories. It really sucks when just about every comment you make gets you accused of being a woman hating conservative kkk supporting bigot. It serves no purpose and just turn into a mess of ACs taking potshots at each other, all name calling with no actual points.

        I've said much the same thing on a couple occasions. But there is no getting around the heart of the matter, which you nailed:

        That said it's our choice to click an article and our responsibility to submit better content if we don't like what's being posted.

        I must say that the first point about politics is eternal. I remember the earliest days on the BBS'es and it was no different. On many topics, like Security vs. Freedom, there haven't even been any new points or insights that have been made. You could copy & paste arguments from 1990 into these forums today and you would not be able to tell the difference.

        The only difference between then and now is the content that we, the members of the community, submit, and the moderation we accord each other to help sift the signal out of the noise. If we don't do that as community members, then we sink back into the eternal political mire of the BBS'es.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday January 27 2016, @05:27PM

          by Vanderhoth (61) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @05:27PM (#295420)

          Have some mod points for a well stated summary ^_^

          --
          "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @10:47PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @10:47PM (#295621)

        And what's up with the title? Why only mention the Bundys because there were a bunch of them arrested, or to be arrested? And when you only mention them, the second part sounds like one of the Bundys were killed.

        Terrible article title to go with a terrible story for this site.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:47PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:47PM (#295306)

      It's worse than slashdot.

      You have not been back there in a few months I take it? SD is just as bad as it ever was. I think it is actually worse.

      I agree though this is a political trash 'clicky bait' sort of thing. I can understand why you want out.

      It is funny I click on SD and here to get a bit of tech news. The luddites come out in droves. I then head on over to reddit.com/r/programming and the posts are MUCH more balanced (which is sad considering it is reddit). If I want political trash I can head over to their front page. Unfortunately that site is *heavily* edited so many times the posts are not very interesting but kinda bland. Healthy skepticism is a good thing. But what I read on SD and here is beyond that. Take for example self driving cars. That is an 'OMG! *amazing*' accomplishment. However, it seems to be a major yawn to most people to the "it is not perfect so therefore everyone is going to DIE and steal your children's jobs!!!" on these two sites.

      Click bait works and the seven deadly sins is its fuel.

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:24PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:24PM (#295340)

        Yeah I've been skimming the last couple weeks and it seems like most of the decent posters left. Obviously they didn't all come here; maybe they just left?

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @10:27PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @10:27PM (#296138)

        Click bait works and the seven deadly sins is its fuel.

        Good title for a listicle. :)

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by pTamok on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:48PM

      by pTamok (3042) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:48PM (#295307)

      Please reconsider leaving, and post content you want to see, and use your mod points to encourage more of what you want.

      If you still want to go, thanks for participating, at least for a while.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by dyingtolive on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:49PM

      by dyingtolive (952) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:49PM (#295311)

      Cool story bro, but none of that has been in the mission statement. Like, ever. They've said, almost from day one, that the intent isn't just tech and science, but also public interest.

      Go enjoy your GNAA trolls, ads, and corporate sponsored videos.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:07PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:07PM (#295324)

        "Public interest" is like Slashdot's "stuff that matters", which is a weaselly catch-all to justify retort's like yours. Are you willing to argue that we could regularly post stuff about what the Kardashians are up to, or sports analysis here? I'd wager that you'd say no, but these very easily fit into "public interest" because the public is very interested in this (and in fact, it wouldn't be welcome here because it is interesting to the general public, which means "Joe Sixpack", who we hold to be in great contempt). Here, "public interest" is what YOU think is worthy. You can't define it, but you know it when you see it.

        And I think that goes to the heart of what he's saying.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by dyingtolive on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:28PM

          by dyingtolive (952) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:28PM (#295343)

          Maybe I'm the odd man out, but I came here to get away from the spam, advertising and corporate influence, not questionably off-topic stories.

          While I get what you're saying, in this case, I think it's a stretch to conflate news reports on armed insurrection in a developed country with sports or celebrity news.

          --
          Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
          • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:33PM

            by curunir_wolf (4772) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:33PM (#295349)
            Hear, hear!
            --
            I am a crackpot
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @09:12PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @09:12PM (#295564)

            This story aside, my point is that there is usually a retort or two, when push gets shove and someone questions why a certain story is posted to the site (here or at Slashdot), that goes "See, it says 'Stuff that Matters' right at the top of the page, and this is Stuff that Matters" or "This isn't a tech site." But those aren't answers, or if they are, they are slimy weaselly answers because tell me then, what kind of site is it? What's "important"? Not popular culture, unless it is Star Wars or Trek. A lot of the non-science and tech stories are pretty much the same anyway in their content. It all goes back to "I know it when I see it," which is not a very satisfying answer if you are out of phase with the echo chamber.

      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:09PM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:09PM (#295371) Journal

        Yeah, that is the answer to this kind of comment. I really, really ought to write a macro to automatically point that out everytime, and every time I mean to, and then life moves on until the next occasion.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @11:04PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @11:04PM (#295636)

          I guess you don't realize that isn't an answer to these kind of questions. Ok, it IS an answer, but it is an entirely disingenuous, dismissive, and all-around shitty answer that only serves to show that you really DON'T have a good answer to that question. It's the "because I said so" answer.

          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday January 28 2016, @03:04AM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday January 28 2016, @03:04AM (#295735) Journal

            Sigh. Here we go again. Were you ever a Slashdot reader? Do you have any history on that site, or here, or are you too young or too recently arrived for that? I participated in Slashdot from the very beginning, which is where the "Stuff that Matters" topic we're talking about began. I swear this same gripe you are airing here cropped up at least once a week, every week, there, from that first moment. And the answer is always the same. There are things that happen that have nothing to do with tech or science, but about which geeks care and want to discuss anyway. Some of those things are world events, some are closer to home.

            Here's a short list: Columbine, 9/11, and Rob Malda proposing to his girlfriend. Columbine had absolutely nothing to do with tech or science, but it was most definitely "Stuff that Matters." So many geeks are/have been bullied that it elicited a great deal of heartfelt discussion and was a very important moment in that community. 9/11 ought to be self-explanatory, but apparently not since folks like you keep throwing this same objection at absolutely everything that's not related to network protocols or somesuch. So 9/11 was big, tragic, and world-changing. Geeks, too, are interested in that sort of thing, being part of said world. Rob Malda (aka CmdrTaco, and if you don't know who that is go and Google it you whippersnapper) proposing to his girlfriend also had nothing to do with tech, but it was awesome and we were all glad he shared that moment with us. It was community-building.

            In each of those cases, and many others, I appreciate the chance to discuss these matters with intelligent people who are not empty talking heads, like you get on any news channel or from any government source. Slashdot members were, and Soylent members are, often people who are part of the events as they are happening, or engineers or technicians who were directly involved with the stuff in question, and I have gotten so much valuable behind-the-scenes perspective that have left me feeling very well informed, indeed, for a large chunk of my adult life.

            Got that? That's the answer. Stamp it on your hand so you can remember it next time. Now off with you and compose 5 submissions to the story queue that focus exclusively on math, computers, science, and tech as penance for your impertinence.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @10:33PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @10:33PM (#296139)

              Yes, indeed I am a long long time Slashdot expat. What I hate is that what is considered "Stuff that Matters" is entirely arbitrary and cliquish. Man up and call it out for what it is and stop trying to make it sound like it is "general interest" because it isn't. And no, I didn't give a flying fuck about a public proposal and I found a number of other stories to simply be out of place there. Just because you got a warm and fuzzy, don't assume that everyone else did. For instance, a number of years ago there was a Nelson Mandela passing story at Slashdot. It was being covered by 99 percent of every outlet everywhere on the Net and over the air, with tons of retrospectives, reflections, and historical significance analyses. Yes he was a great man, but what's the geek angle there? The only retort there was "hey, this is Stuff that Matters."

              People like me ask this stuff because it is arbitrary and entirely up to the editors to decide what their favorite issues are. There's a fine line between that and the Wiki squatters. The arrogance in your answer in that you know what is appropriate and what isn't doesn't sit well with everyone, and you don't do yourself any favors by flippantly dismissing them away on account of your sheer brilliance. I am also an expat from kuro5hin from many many years ago and I saw the shithole that descended into when you lose your way. As a self-appointed keeper of the shrine, you should keep that in mind.

              • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday January 29 2016, @12:57PM

                by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Friday January 29 2016, @12:57PM (#296359) Journal

                According to our last batch of stats, we reject only about 1/6 of submissions. Out of those, some portion are dupes or spambots.

                You do the math. It's not just the editors that decide what gets on the site, it's the submitters. In fact, it's mainly the submitters.

                --
                [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:08PM (#295325)

      Wait, what?

      This story is too political for you? All those shit-stirring stories from buzzard didn't make a dent but this one about an obscure group of dummies camping in the wilderness to support people who didn't even want their support is a problem? As current events stories goes this one is pretty damn blah. If that guy hadn't wanted to die (he literally said he preferred to die than be arrested [msnbc.com] on camera) this wouldn't even be a story.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:17PM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:17PM (#295376) Journal

        There's another point to be made about stories like this. Most of the time they are irrelevant, but sometimes they are incredibly relevant and lead to huge things. Only, it's not easy to know that except in hindsight. If we only ever paid attention to official versions of which things matter, we'd miss the importance of a fruit vendor [washingtonpost.com] setting himself on fire or the assassination of a distant, unknown nobleman [wikipedia.org] by a student, or a traffic stop [wikipedia.org].

        History-making events don't always arrive in the guise you expect.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @05:04PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @05:04PM (#295406)

          Nope.

          There are literally billions of random irrelevant events every single day. The one time some random event is part of a major chain reaction doesn't justifying calling attention to every other irrelevant event.

          The spark that lights the fire is no more important than any other spark. What is important are the combustible conditions that made it so a spark could ignite a forest fire. Stories like this are all about sparks with practically nothing about the context.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @08:37PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @08:37PM (#295537)

            Tell that to the forest.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @09:16PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @09:16PM (#295566)

              If that forest didn't want to catch fire, it should have kept hydrated.

              The arab spring didn't happen because one street vendor suicided. It happened because the entire region had reached a breaking point. You want to look at the straw that broke the camel's back, I want to look at the camel because a straw is just a straw.

              • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday January 28 2016, @03:16AM

                by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday January 28 2016, @03:16AM (#295741) Journal

                because a straw is just a straw

                Until that straw falls in that place on that camel's back, it is. Then it's pivotal.

                Lots of people have been saying for years that the Middle East is a powder keg. I remember that exact phrase used to describe the region in my first social studies textbook in grade school. But the state of being a powder keg doesn't mean a whole lot if you take the lit match out of the picture.

                So, yes, one street vendor having committed suicide would not have touched off the Arab Spring without the long-pent up anger and frustration of millions of people suffering under autocratic regimes. But neither would that breaking point have been discovered or the wave of revolutions kicked off had that thing not happened at that place at that time.

                In this case, it's as plausible against the backdrop of deep discontent, no, anger, at the direction of the country for confrontations with the government like this one to touch off something larger. The murder of Michael Brown has touched off something much larger, which we all must concede no matter where we stand on that question. The original Occupy Wall Street protest touched off something much larger, too.

                --
                Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:36PM

          by dyingtolive (952) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:36PM (#295502)

          I tried making that argument once and was told that I was relying on "lottery logic".

          --
          Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @08:05PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @08:05PM (#295523)

            So you and phoenix both like to play the lottery.

            How's that working out for ya?

            • (Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday January 27 2016, @08:30PM

              by dyingtolive (952) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @08:30PM (#295534)

              You also fail to realize the difference in scope between someone else logging a potentially trivial (or not) event on a website, and someone betting personal finite resources in hopes it will provide disproportionately large payoff of the same type of resource, I see.

              --
              Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @09:11PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @09:11PM (#295562)

                What? Buying a $2 lotto ticket consumes "personal finite resources" but the time consumed posting and discussing trivial events is not a finite personal resource? If anything the lotto ticket is the one with better odds - powerball has a 1 in 25 chance of hitting. [powerball.com]

                Sounds like your sense of scope has been warped by butthurt.

                • (Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Thursday January 28 2016, @01:06AM

                  by dyingtolive (952) on Thursday January 28 2016, @01:06AM (#295692)

                  Nope. You're still missing it.

                  --
                  Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:43PM

      by Tork (3914) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:43PM (#295352)
      I run across stories I have no interest in, too. For example, anything involving the Linux Foundation. Only I just scroll past them instead of posting a Live Journal rant.
      --
      Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:58PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:58PM (#295364) Journal

      Or you could submit other, technical stories. Anyone can. Copy & paste a couple representative paragraphs from the article, put in the link to the original article and title, and you're set. 2-3 minutes per once you get the hang of it.

      There's a wiki, too, if you need more information, on best practices for submitting articles.

      If you really cared about the quality and quantity of the stories on the front page, you'd chip in a couple minutes here & there to keep the pipeline full. Else, you're storming off to cause a scene.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:48PM

      by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:48PM (#295397) Journal

      Ah, the infamous Soylent Quitter.

      You've made about a comment a month or less on science stories. You've submitted zero stories. Your last reference to your distaste was this cryptic and non-useful 4 word response [soylentnews.org].

      But fuck us for wasting your time (on a site with a different mission statement). It's not like you can throw SoylentNews into an RSS live bookmark and avoid clicking on political stories. Or change your settings so that breaking news doesn't appear on your main page.

      I even slotted this between two existing stories so that no story was delayed to make room for this news.

      So, will you respond to these replies to your ragequit?

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @03:32AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @03:32AM (#295747)

      Some people have no respect.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:48PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:48PM (#295308)

    the mass murderer? I tried googling once and the search failed.

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:19PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:19PM (#295377) Journal

      20 years I've been waiting to see the Buttafuocos in the news again. I miss those guys. The late night riffs were awesome.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @10:30PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @10:30PM (#295604)

      Al Bunsy, shoe salesman extraordinnaire (sp?).