Do you ever look back and cringe at the way you acted as a child when you didn’t get your way? Throwing fits. Refusing to do chores. Sneaking out at night. Running away from home. Luckily, we eventually learned that it was better for us to leave that all behind once we joined the adult world.
Well, most of us did. Looking at the debate over public lands in the West, it seems as if not everyone learned how to leave those childish behaviors behind – and they are raising the stakes by throwing their temper tantrums with guns.
While that Constitution has existed since the nation called The United States of America founded, it did little to prevent those "temper tantrums with guns".
Why did as example the State of Montana have more lynchings in its history then the entire country called Canada to the North of it in its own history? It was not just blacks being lynched. (82 whites , 2 blacks)
It the mentality of "Privilege" in that whatever rules formed by the greater society do not apply to a single select group, in this case generally white males. If in fact rules made to be followed are the marks of a civilized society, it hard to conclude that the USA as a Country has ever been "civilized" and with it having dropped some 20,000 plus bombs in the past year on Muslim countries abroad it hard to conclude it ever will be , at least not as long as the "freedom loving" Sociopaths are allowed to rise to power.
Unfortunately, the puerile petulance that Mr. Thomas describes is how USAns have typically defined "freedom". When USAns talk about "freedom" like in that awful Trump Freedom Girl song and (ugh) dance, they really mean impunity - the iron-fisted, gun-leveraged impunity of a gangster.
What was not mentioned about the Hammonds' burning illegally that set fire to public lands on which they grazed their cattle, was that they set the fires to cover up their illegal poaching of wildlife. But that never made the MSM...only the distorted blogs promoting the Hammonds' actions (and to their credit, which they fessed up to with the evidence of their misdeeds staring them in their faces) and the subsequent Bundy Bunch armed takeover.
Sorry, but there is a huge difference between protesting by sitting in a tree, locking oneself to a bulldozier, Occupying Wall Street, stopping traffic, etc, and, taking over public property with weapons drawn, vandalizing such property by the removal of government fences in order to let cows trespass on public property destroying such property in the process, not paying one's grazing fees owed in the amount of over one million dollars to the federal treasury and protesting these fees with armed resurrection (the cows are still grazing fee-free on these public lands and no back fees have been paid). The Bundy boys still reside on our "wildlife refuge" and the feds have not even turned off the electricity to the buildings or shut off the water. No one deserves to die over this, but all these armed protestors need to be removed, arrested and prosecuted. Their father Clive Bundy has to pay his owed grazing fees and his cows removed from public lands forever. Those threatening federal employees in the 2014 resurrection in Nevada need to be arrested and prosecuted. Why are the feds so quick to arrest and prosecute people peacefully protesting in defense of our public lands while people like the Bundy's threaten public officials with violence, even death, vandalize and desecrate our public assests and are let free to repeat their atrocities later? One reason is these are not small, family farmers and ranchers to be pitied, but rather politically powerful bullies, physical and political bullies, who are feared by local officials and smiled at by their puppets higher up the political stairs.
Petergreen--am giving you the same response I provided last week to your inane remarks about the tyranny of government protecting the commons against the grabbing of the few: try reading some books and getting an education. Your argument is tedious because it is so uninformed.
That's not a particularly useful, insightful, or constructive thing to say. This kind of brazen vindictiveness is precisely the problem with these sorts of online discussions.
Telling someone to read a book because you disagree with them is not acceptable in person, so why is it acceptable on the internet?
I actually read a lot of books and I think there's some truth to what petergreen is saying. Should I send you a link to my Goodreads account?
Specifically in relation to this article, framing the issue as a bunch of people who are "upset to find out it is ilegal to burn federal land" is an outright lie. petergreen is obviously right in saying that this author has no idea what they are talking about. That, or they are being intentionally misleading in order to score points against those with whom they have cultural/poltiical disagreements.
That's not what happened. It doesn't matter whether you characterize yourself as being on the Right or the Left. Talking about it like that is no different from those who characterized Occupy as a bunch of bored, unemployed millenials upset about their entitlements. I don't particularly care for guns or ranchers, but I certainly care less for governments using anti-terrorism laws to put people in prison for 5 years over a land dispute.
"Upon becoming adults, we learned how to deal with those with whom we don’t agree. We learned how to talk with others, discuss issues, compromise and negotiate. "
Are you fu___ng kidding me? Discuss and compromise? 5 years in prison upon appeal of the trial judge's initial sentence of 1 year. Where's the opportunity for compromise? Since when do we get to negotiate with the State?
"I don't particularly care for guns or ranchers, but I certainly care less for governments using anti-terrorism laws to put people in prison for 5 years over a land dispute."
i also denounce the government using anti-terror laws in this case, but calling it a "land dispute" misrepresents the goals and actions of both the Hammonds and the Bundys.
And the Bundys are working a different agenda than the Hammonds, who have said (as have some of their neighbors) that the Bundys do not represent them.
The simple fact that these tools are "standing up to the government" by itself means zero to me. Their agenda and their "movement" are approximately as repugnant to me, as is the current system. If they succeed in imposing their vision of "land use" and "freedom," i'll denounce and oppose them, just as i denounce and oppose the current political economic power structure.
Also, the failure of discussion and compromise did not suddenly pop up at this trial. The Hammonds' entire approach to "the government" and anyone else bears not a scintilla of discussion or compromise.
Really? That's what you suspect? Or are you just being a jerk to provoke people over the internet?
They didn't commit an act of political violence by any stretch of the imagination, nor have a great many of the people convicted by the national security state. It's used against animal rights activists, it's used against ranchers. It will be used against anyone, whenever it is convenient for the State to do so. They didn't light fire to an elementary school, they set a fire (it seems like on their own land) which spread to burn a pretty insignificant amount of park land. What is it, like an acre? How many acres burned that season? You think that's "maybe" terrorism? I scoff.
None of the accounts I've read of the fire which they were convicted of starting mentions anything about that. You're saying their intention was to light the country on fire and kill a bunch of firefighters and wasn't to perform the entirely commonplace action of setting a controlled burn?
I wonder who the source would be for such a claim, anyways. Between the father and son, who made that testimony?
What you should have a problem with is injustice, regardless of whether it is met with by people you find personally attractive or not. You're either in favor of the national security state (ie. "anti-terrorism laws") and the industrialized prison system or you aren't. It's just as obnoxious when people on the "left" sneer at those on the "right" as is the inverse.
I don't see anyone disagreeing about the fact that the "justice" system is racist. Yes, the prison system in the U.S is overtly racist. But you also have 25% of the world's prison population incarcerated in the United States. That means there's a lot of people of all ethnicities unjustly incarcerated. Disproportionately they are Black. Lots of them aren't. They are all victims of state violence.
Behold the ongoing political success of the Culture Wars.
Islamic terrorism and petulant American rich brats really dont belong in the same article in the way the writer has posited it. In fact Islamic terrorism if anyone bothered to read ISIS's mission statement (they have one ) or listened to what Bin Laden was saying, would know they have been saying (for decades now) that they want self entitled rich American brats to get the fuck out of their countries. Islamic terrorists have clearly said they wish to stop self entitled rich brats ('exceptional' is the term used by self entitled rich brats to describe themselves) from stealing their countries resources.
So the guys in the park are really no different than those in charge of liberty, freedom and the American way. At least they make it a domestic affair. They are far more responsible self entitled brats than the self entitled brats who have been formulating US foreign policy for the last 100 + years. I guess the domestic self entitled brats are not as exceptional.
Those petulant idiots are like renters who've decided they own the place they're renting because they've been living in it - and then bring out guns when their assertions about ownership are challenged.
Mr. Thomas may be well-intentioned, but he's very naïve.
How about the assassinations of JFK, Dr. King, Malcolm X, Robert Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, the Shah of Iran in l953, Bin Laden's "double," and whole-scale wars of aggression?
He likely never read Chomsky, Zinn, or Perkins.
This comment is unbelievably elementary in scope, context, and legitimacy:
"This same type of learning and progression happened over the course of human society. It used to be that societal disagreements were solved through assassinations, rebellions, and revolutions. If the people didn’t agree with the policies of the king, they would murder him. Thankfully, the wanton death and destruction came to be viewed as uncivilized and people came up with a better way to deal with their differences. A new form of society was created through which citizens would discuss, debate, and vote on issues and come together as a collective whole through representative government."
There is something big happening that Bush arranged under presidential directive 51 and 20. In the event of a financial collapse, environmental disaster, civil unrest or pandemic emergency, the Constitution is suspended along with Congress and the Supreme Court, and the presidents rules alone with FEMA and DHS. And if a pandemic emergency is declared by the WHO, and the president asks for help, the UN and WHO take over using crisis committees.
You can read all about this Bush plan at "The Elite are Laughing" at the website Co-creating Our Future On Planet Earth, and the "Elite are Laughing - a followup."
What is planned is in writing and impossible to ignore. It's plain now how various orders and agreements lock into each other but the larger picture is not visible without seeing those hidden pieces.
Meanwhile, the country is looking elsewhere than this immense, immense thing is planned in such obsessive detail.
How hypocritical of you. Here you are defending the behavior of using the force of weapons drawn to, as you put it, score points against those with whom they have cultural/political disagreements…and then you have the audacity to get indignant that someone tells you on a forum to read some books as a rhetorical rebuttal.