Just to take the focus away from the Ukraine, I found this news report interesting:
Quote
Nevada ranching family claims victory as U.S. government releases cattle
By Jennifer Dobner
BUNKERVILLE, Nevada Sat Apr 12, 2014 9:16pm EDT
(Reuters) - U.S. officials ended a stand-off with hundreds of armed protesters in the Nevada desert on Saturday, calling off the government's roundup of cattle it said were illegally grazing on federal land and giving about 300 animals back to the rancher who owned them.
The dispute less than 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas between rancher Cliven Bundy and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management had simmered for days. Bundy had stopped paying fees for grazing his cattle on the government land and officials said he had ignored court orders.
Anti-government groups, right-wing politicians and gun-rights activists camped around Bundy's ranch to support him, in a standoff that tapped into long-simmering anger in Nevada and other Western states, where vast tracts of land are owned and governed by federal agencies.
The bureau had called in a team of armed rangers to Nevada to seize the 1,000 head of cattle on Saturday but backed down in the interests of safety.
"Based on information about conditions on the ground and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public," the bureau's director, Neil Kornze, said in a statement.
The protesters, who at the height of the standoff numbered about 1,000, met the news with applause. Then they quickly advanced on the metal pens where the cattle confiscated earlier in the week were being held.
After consultations with the rancher's family, the bureau decided to release the cattle it had rounded up, and the crowd began to disperse.
"This is what I prayed for," said Margaret Houston, one of Bundy's sisters. "We are so proud of the American people for being here with us and standing with us."
A number of Bundy's supporters, who included militia members from California, Idaho and other states, dressed in camouflage and carried rifles and sidearms. During the stand-off, some chanted "open that gate" and "free the people."
A man who identified himself as Scott, 43, said he had traveled from Idaho along with two fellow militia members to support Bundy.
"If we don't show up everywhere, there is no reason to show up anywhere," said the man, dressed in camouflage pants and a black flak jacket crouched behind a concrete highway barrier, holding an AR-15 rifle. "I'm ready to pull the trigger if fired upon," Scott said.
.....
Full item here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/13/us-usa-ranchers-nevada-idUSBREA3B03Q20140413?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/13/us-usa-ranchers-nevada-idUSBREA3B03Q20140413?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs1.reutersmedia.net%2Fresources%2Fr%2F%3Fm%3D02%26amp%3Bd%3D20140413%26amp%3Bt%3D2%26amp%3Bi%3D884426760%26amp%3Bw%3D%26amp%3Bfh%3D%26amp%3Bfw%3D%26amp%3Bll%3D700%26amp%3Bpl%3D378%26amp%3Br%3DCBREA3B1JJZ00&hash=969cbafa89154b83201f7b19293b197182c05be6)
USA! USA!
Damn Free Grazers.
Obama is no George Washington. :(
Janet Reno is twitching somewhere.
Quote from: 11B4V on April 12, 2014, 09:35:35 PM
USA! USA!
:lol: That picture just screams:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHqUipinDyw&feature=kp
What the value these right wingers are protecting here? The right to take shit that is not yours for free?
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2014, 10:32:23 PM
What the value these right wingers are protecting here? The right to take shit that is not yours for free?
Maybe they're Putin's deep cover agents ? :ph34r:
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2014, 10:32:23 PM
What the value these right wingers are protecting here? The right to take shit that is not yours for free?
Looks like it.
The anti enclosure movement fights on!
:yes: I'm sure that Cliven Bundy lets other people farm and raise livestock on his land, so he should be able to graze his herd on the people's.
So what's their train of thought? It's federal land, so it belongs to the public for free use?
Thinking is for city folks with their fancy ways.
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2014, 10:32:23 PM
What the value these right wingers are protecting here? The right to take shit that is not yours for free?
Asshole cattle rancher doesn't recognize Federal property, just state of Nevada property.
Quote from: 11B4V on April 12, 2014, 09:35:35 PM
USA! USA!
The guy owes you as an American taxpayer over $1 million dollars in unpaid grazing fees on Federal property.
I hope you see your portion deducted in the form of a highway pothole that rips your tire off, asshole.
Quote from: Syt on April 13, 2014, 12:36:40 AM
So what's their train of thought? It's federal land, so it belongs to the public for free use?
No, that there is no such thing as "Federal" authority over Nevada.
QuoteBundy, 67, and his large family cast their resistance to the roundup as a constitutional stand. He says he doesn't recognize federal authority over state land.
Christ, I fucking hate the West as much as the South. Fucking Dumbfuckistan.
So, basically a tea party type who one day want the government to stay out of medicare and the next demand that the federal government stay out of federal land?
Black single mothers getting $90 more dollars' worth of food stamps a month: bad
Cattle ranchers who owe US taxpayers $1.1 million in fees because of "states rights": good
Can't be about skin color; after all, the cattle is brown, too.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2014, 06:45:41 AM
Black single mothers getting $90 more dollars' worth of food stamps a month: bad
Cattle ranchers who owe US taxpayers $1.1 million in fees because of "states rights": good
Can't be about skin color; after all, the cattle is brown, too.
No, it's about social class. They hate poor urban whites too.
Quote from: Viking on April 13, 2014, 06:38:29 AM
So, basically a tea party type who one day want the government to stay out of medicare and the next demand that the federal government stay out of federal land?
If a brush fire destroyed all of the grazing land, he'd probably want a federal bailout.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2014, 06:24:59 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2014, 10:32:23 PM
What the value these right wingers are protecting here? The right to take shit that is not yours for free?
Asshole cattle rancher doesn't recognize Federal property, just state of Nevada property.
No matter whose property it is, it isn't his. If he considers it property of the State of Nevada he should have offered to pay the governor.
Damn The Man. All power to the people. Just burn the land and the cattle and we'll all eat steak.
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2014, 04:26:04 PM
No matter whose property it is, it isn't his. If he considers it property of the State of Nevada he should have offered to pay the governor.
From what I heard on the way back here, that's exactly what he does. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 14, 2014, 02:33:59 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2014, 04:26:04 PM
No matter whose property it is, it isn't his. If he considers it property of the State of Nevada he should have offered to pay the governor.
From what I heard on the way back here, that's exactly what he does. :P
So then the Governor can just give the money to the Feds. Everybody wins.
So where's all this stuff about denying federal authority and stuff? I haven't seen that in any of the news about it. Are some of you guys reading stormfront or something?
I'm not really sympathetic to that Bundy dude, but this Old West-style cowboy shit is hilarious.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 14, 2014, 02:51:27 AM
So where's all this stuff about denying federal authority and stuff? I haven't seen that in any of the news about it. Are some of you guys reading stormfront or something?
I have no idea what the excuse is for using grazing land for free, I was just reacting to what CdM said :P
What is his rational here? What is the Nevada press saying?
Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2014, 09:30:47 AM
I have no idea what the excuse is for using grazing land for free, I was just reacting to what CdM said :P
What is his rational here? What is the Nevada press saying?
I thought he claimed to actually own the land and that it was in his family since 1870.
Well here's a little context.
First off, the BLM. The agency has a relationship with the public that is, frankly poisonous. The locals hate the BLM so much that even when it does good things, people are looking for a hidden agenda knife-in-the-back surprise. They manage 87% of the land in the state. I personally do not think it can be saved. The only way to restore confidence would be to eliminate the BLM and place its powers and responsibilities in the hands of a different agency.
In any conflict between BLM and anybody, regardless of the facts therein, the BLM will always be Darth Vader to the people and thus in the wrong. It has reached a point where anyone in a conflict with BLM can most likely count on a mob to help him out. See: That auction that was boycotted a few years ago and BLM ended up selling cattle to a kid who had stolen his grandma's credit card. Klamath bucket brigade, now this thing. This will not be the last time. When these cattle do eventually get seized, the auction should be even more drama.
Oh, and when you do an asset seizure the normal practice is to bring the sheriff, not feds. Why was he not involved here? Maybe he refused.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 14, 2014, 03:32:25 PM
Oh, and when you do an asset seizure the normal practice is to bring the sheriff, not feds. Why was he not involved here? Maybe he refused.
Are you sure normal procedure for asset seizure on federal land is to bring the sheriff? He has no jurisdiction there.
Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2014, 05:47:35 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 14, 2014, 03:32:25 PM
Oh, and when you do an asset seizure the normal practice is to bring the sheriff, not feds. Why was he not involved here? Maybe he refused.
Are you sure normal procedure for asset seizure on federal land is to bring the sheriff? He has no jurisdiction there.
They brought him the previous time this happened. It was a different county, but iirc that time the sheriff was not as cooperative with the feds as they hoped. I think it's likely they didn't invite him to the party this time.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 14, 2014, 02:51:27 AM
So where's all this stuff about denying federal authority and stuff? I haven't seen that in any of the news about it. Are some of you guys reading stormfront or something?
From the reactionary
Nevada Sun:
Quote
Citing safety concerns, BLM calls off cattle roundup
Feds release all cows gathered
By Ed Komenda
Updated Saturday, April 12, 2014 | 7:18 p.m.
The campaign to round up Cliven Bundy's cattle has been canceled.
The Bureau of Land Management announced today that federal agents would conclude their one-month operation to seize the 900 cattle roaming on federally owned land about 75 miles northeast of Las Vegas.
Additionally, federal land managers confirmed they released all 400 head of Bundy's cattle from corrals outside Mesquite.
The BLM took the action Saturday afternoon after hundreds of states' rights protesters, including militia and Tea Party members, showed up at corrals outside Mesquite to demand the animals' return to Bundy.
The bureau issued a brief statement saying the cattle were released "due to escalating tensions."
Some protesters were armed with handguns and rifles, but there were no reports of shots fired or injuries.
"Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public," BLM Director Neil Kornze said in a statement.
"We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner," he said.
Clark County Sheriff Douglas Gillespie helped mediate the agreement between the Bundy family and the BLM, according to a Metro Police press release.
Business owners in Mesquite had received threats related to the dispute, according to the release.
"I want to stress to all of you that as the sheriff of Clark County, I cannot interfere with the federal government when it is operating on federal land," Gillespie said in a statement. "And because this is BLM property, it is in their jurisdiction. But when a group of protesters threaten civil unrest or violence in this county — it is my job to step in and ensure the safety of citizens."
Officers will remain in Bunkerville and the Mesquite area through the weekend, Metro said.
A scuffle between the BLM and Bundy's supporters broke out earlier this week when agents subdued Bundy's son with a stun gun and knocked his daughter to the ground.
The incident prompted a visit from Operation Mutual Aid — a national militia with members from California to Missouri. The militiamen said they set up a camp just in case things got out of hand again.
Before the BLM pulled the plug on its operation, dozens of Bundy's supporters and relatives protested at an encampment.
The BLM, meanwhile, says the fight is far from over.
"The BLM will continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially," Kornze said.
Bundy didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Gov. Brian Sandoval, who had complained about the BLM's handling of the roundup, issued a statement praising the agency for its willingness to listen to the state's concerns.
Nevada's congressional delegation urged the protesters to be calm and to leave the area.
"The dispute is over, the BLM is leaving, but emotions and tensions are still near the boiling point, and we desperately need a peaceful conclusion to this conflict," U.S. Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., said in a statement. "I urge all the people involved to please return to your homes and allow the BLM officers to collect their equipment and depart without interference."
Some 400 cows were gathered during the roundup that began a week ago, short of the BLM's goal of 900 cows that it says have been trespassing on U.S. land without required grazing permits for over 20 years.
The fight between Bundy and the BLM has widened into a debate about states' rights and federal land-use policy. The bureau revoked Bundy's grazing rights after he stopped paying grazing fees and disregarded federal court orders to remove his animals.
Bundy, 67, doesn't recognize federal authority on land he insists belongs to Nevada. His Mormon family has operated a ranch near the tiny community of Bunkerville since the 1870s near Mesquite a few miles from the Utah line.
"Good morning America, good morning world, isn't it a beautiful day in Bunkerville?" Bundy told a cheering crowd after Saturday's announcements were made, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
The crowd protesting Saturday recited the pledge of allegiance, and many offered prayers. Others waved placards reading, "This land is your land," and "We teach our children not to bully. How do we teach our government not to be big bullies?" according to the Review-Journal.
It's the latest skirmish since the 1980s when the Sagebrush Rebellion challenged federal ownership of Nevada rangeland ranchers said was rightfully theirs.
A federal judge in Las Vegas first ordered Bundy to remove his trespassing cattle in 1998. The bureau was implementing two federal court orders last year to remove Bundy's cattle after making repeated efforts to resolve the matter outside court, Kornze said, adding the rancher has not paid grazing fees in 20 years.
"This is a matter of fairness and equity, and we remain disappointed that Cliven Bundy continues to not comply with the same laws that 16,000 public-lands ranchers do every year," Kornze said. "After 20 years and multiple court orders to remove the trespass cattle, Mr. Bundy owes the American taxpayers in excess of $1 million. The BLM will continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially."
Militia fruitcakes: "We're going to set up camp 'in case things get out of hand'."
United States Government: "We're calling this off, out of an abundance of safety. And so the FBI HRT doesn't come out here and kill all of you."
Militia fruitcakes: "We win!"
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 14, 2014, 07:05:13 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 14, 2014, 02:51:27 AM
So where's all this stuff about denying federal authority and stuff? I haven't seen that in any of the news about it. Are some of you guys reading stormfront or something?
From the reactionary Nevada Sun:
Quote
Citing safety concerns, BLM calls off cattle roundup
Feds release all cows gathered
Militia fruitcakes: "We're going to set up camp 'in case things get out of hand'."
United States Government: "We're calling this off, out of an abundance of safety. And so the FBI HRT doesn't come out here and kill all of you."
Militia fruitcakes: "We win!"
:nelson: Suck it
If you can't shoot the people shoot the cows.
I saw that Captain. :P
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 14, 2014, 09:01:11 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on April 14, 2014, 08:59:22 PM
I saw that Captain. :P
^_^
So did I. :P
All I can say is, things get confusing in Dumbfuckistan. The hypocrisy is underwhelming sometimes.
Share with the class
Quote from: HVC on April 14, 2014, 09:02:49 PM
Share with the class
Me, quoting B4:
":yeahright: Sez the cop on the federal installation..?"
EDIT: Then I decided I didn't feel like sharing so much after all.
Quote from: HVC on April 14, 2014, 09:02:49 PM
Share with the class
When the shooting finally starts, 11Bravo's going all green-on-blue. FREEDOM ACKBAR
Quote from: HVC on April 14, 2014, 08:58:45 PM
If you can't shoot the people shoot the cows.
Really. This seems straightforward. Declare them a menace to publicly-owned lands, tell the owner to remove them of they will be shot, then shoot them if he fails to comply. Problem solved. If he goes all 11B4Rambo, just wait him out, snipe a few a night, and he can't win. You probably wouldn't even have to pay the sniper except in steak.
Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2014, 09:34:38 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 14, 2014, 08:58:45 PM
If you can't shoot the people shoot the cows.
Really. This seems straightforward. Declare them a menace to publicly-owned lands, tell the owner to remove them of they will be shot, then shoot them if he fails to comply. Problem solved. If he goes all 11B4Rambo, just wait him out, snipe a few a night, and he can't win. You probably wouldn't even have to pay the sniper except in steak.
just to be clear, snipe the cows, not 11B4V, right? :unsure: :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 14, 2014, 09:02:13 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 14, 2014, 09:01:11 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on April 14, 2014, 08:59:22 PM
I saw that Captain. :P
^_^
So did I. :P
All I can say is, things get confusing in Dumbfuckistan. The hypocrisy is underwhelming sometimes.
Quit being so obstinant :P.
Quote from: HVC on April 14, 2014, 09:36:11 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2014, 09:34:38 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 14, 2014, 08:58:45 PM
If you can't shoot the people shoot the cows.
Really. This seems straightforward. Declare them a menace to publicly-owned lands, tell the owner to remove them of they will be shot, then shoot them if he fails to comply. Problem solved. If he goes all 11B4Rambo, just wait him out, snipe a few a night, and he can't win. You probably wouldn't even have to pay the sniper except in steak.
just to be clear, snipe the cows, not 11B4V, right? :unsure: :P
Aim for a meaty flesh wound. I could stringout a good paid vacation for a year or so. Govmint workers FTW.
The locals are so damn tired of not being able to do dick without the BLM saying so. This is how Harry Reid made his money. BLM says no to X project. Reid's son's company magically gets permission after some senator applies pressure. Business as usual.
Since when did you start getting Teabagged? BLM says no to X project, because they're the Bureau of LAND MANAGEMENT.
And no, the local yahoos don't get to do what they want on it, because they don't MANAGE the LAND when they do.
Without regulatory guidance, you have shit like towns in Texas getting blown up and chemicals in West Virginia water supplies. The locals? Fuck the locals. Fucking monkeys can't be trusted with their own dicks, let alone Federal land.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 15, 2014, 04:09:25 AM
The locals are so damn tired of not being able to do dick without the BLM saying so. This is how Harry Reid made his money. BLM says no to X project. Reid's son's company magically gets permission after some senator applies pressure. Business as usual.
Oh, I understand the frustration. I don't think the US government should be in the land-managing business (per se) at all. It should sell off all that Western land* at auction and use the proceeds to pay down debt.
You'd need to manage the sales so that megacorps don't just buy it all for pennies on the mineral rights dollar asnd so that locals get the first crack at it, but that should be doable.
*not, obviously, to inclue national parks.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2014, 06:01:17 AM
And no, the local yahoos don't get to do what they want on it, because they don't MANAGE the LAND when they do.
Actually as much as I hate to defend Bundy, he was taking care of the land, managing & improving the irrigation systems & whatnot.
Nothing that napalm can't fix.
Quote from: Norgy on April 15, 2014, 08:55:47 AM
Nothing that napalm can't fix.
Don't use too much. I like my steak medium rare.
One thing I have never gotten is why the Feds own like 90% of Nevada. I thought maybe because it was a massive desert national park or something but clearly not.
Quote from: Valmy on April 15, 2014, 08:57:45 AM
One thing I have never gotten is why the Feds own like 90% of Nevada. I thought maybe because it was a massive desert national park or something but clearly not.
To protect turtles or something.
Was the hand ever privately held?
Quote from: Valmy on April 15, 2014, 08:57:45 AM
One thing I have never gotten is why the Feds own like 90% of Nevada. I thought maybe because it was a massive desert national park or something but clearly not.
DHS need some place to stockpile all their ammunition in preparation for, well, you know what.
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2014, 09:09:17 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 15, 2014, 08:57:45 AM
One thing I have never gotten is why the Feds own like 90% of Nevada. I thought maybe because it was a massive desert national park or something but clearly not.
To protect turtles or something.
Might be something to do with 19th century railroad-building? I am fairly certain you won't find a turtle in a landlocked area. A tortoise, maybe.
Quote from: Norgy on April 15, 2014, 09:17:21 AM
I am fairly certain you won't find a turtle in a landlocked area. A tortoise, maybe.
:nerd:
Anyway here in 'Murica they're all turtles.
BLM land is basically all the land covered by things like the Mexican Cession, the Louisiana Purchase and etc that was previously covered by the Homestead Act. That's why the BLM owns very little land East of the Mississippi. It's basically all the land that people didn't homestead, which incidentally tended to be mostly the worst land for agriculture, so your deserts and such. Some of the land though is perfectly suitable for grazing, but not for large scale agriculture so for ages people had grazed their cattle on the land.
Bundy claims his family has grazed cattle on this parcel since the 1870s, but research into that claim has shown it to be questionable (he did have an ancestor in the area in the 1870s, but I don't believe they can prove he was a cattle rancher.) Anyway, prior to the 1930s people grazed on the land since it was basically unclaimed land. When the BLM was officially organized and Homesteading ended, they wrote in provisions allowing various uses of the land. Some people have grazed cattle on BLM land, some have extracted natural resources etc.
For decades there was no fee, and then Reagan started imposing fees in the 1980s. Essentially to correct free riding, because people were making money off of the land and paying nothing, which isn't necessarily bad, but the BLM was actually building access roads for people, maintaining the land in various ways and etc. So these people were actually getting the benefits of land ownership without the expenses, and the Federal government was making up the difference. I believe the grazing fees are very paltry, it's only so high for Bundy because of the size of the land he's using and the fact that he's literally never paid these fees for almost 30 years running.
Bundy's argument is basically "I used to do this and there were no fees, I don't like that there are fees now, so I won't pay them."
A bigger issue than these fees though is the unfortunate environmentalist tactic now of using lawsuits to close off perfectly productive Federal lands. They make BS claims about animals that are dispersed through the entire West being threatened by productive commercial activity on BLM lands, and with the Obama White House being responsible for defending these suits, they just immediately settle and cave to the environmental groups. It's been a "back door" way for environmentalists and the White House to essentially close off access to public lands. It's for no legitimate environmental reason, but just because of that vein of environmentalists who believe any profit from natural resources is immoral. I've always considered myself a conservationist and do donate to conservationist causes, but the people trying to stop all productive commerce west of the Mississippi due to endangered quail or something are a blight on mankind.
Quote from: Norgy on April 15, 2014, 09:17:21 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2014, 09:09:17 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 15, 2014, 08:57:45 AM
One thing I have never gotten is why the Feds own like 90% of Nevada. I thought maybe because it was a massive desert national park or something but clearly not.
To protect turtles or something.
Might be something to do with 19th century railroad-building? I am fairly certain you won't find a turtle in a landlocked area. A tortoise, maybe.
It seems that it has to do with the purchase of land after the Mexican war. It was never Bundy's land. He was just a renter The BLM became concerned about over grazing back in 1990's and curtailed grazing over parts of it. At that point Bundy refused to recognized the Federal government or whatever he does and became a squatter.
And something to show the character of the right wing militia's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZd61_9hofE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZd61_9hofE) Human shields.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2014, 06:18:19 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 15, 2014, 04:09:25 AM
The locals are so damn tired of not being able to do dick without the BLM saying so. This is how Harry Reid made his money. BLM says no to X project. Reid's son's company magically gets permission after some senator applies pressure. Business as usual.
Oh, I understand the frustration. I don't think the US government should be in the land-managing business (per se) at all. It should sell off all that Western land* at auction and use the proceeds to pay down debt.
You'd need to manage the sales so that megacorps don't just buy it all for pennies on the mineral rights dollar asnd so that locals get the first crack at it, but that should be doable.
*not, obviously, to inclue national parks.
I don't know. Here in Canada probably over half of the country is "Crown land", that is land owned by the government. Here it's owned by the provincial government, not Federal, but in the end (and despite what Bundy thinks) it really makes no difference - it'd be managed the same way.
The trouble is that the land is not agricultural land. If it was, someone would have already have homesteaded it (and it's still quite possible to do so). So it's unclear who would ever buy such land. If you price it low enough, sure someone will buy, but since the land is also very important wildlife habitat it doesn't seem to make sense to sell it on a pennies for the acre basis.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 15, 2014, 09:25:30 AM
A bigger issue than these fees though is the unfortunate environmentalist tactic now of using lawsuits to close off perfectly productive Federal lands. They make BS claims about animals that are dispersed through the entire West being threatened by productive commercial activity on BLM lands, and with the Obama White House being responsible for defending these suits, they just immediately settle and cave to the environmental groups. It's been a "back door" way for environmentalists and the White House to essentially close off access to public lands. It's for no legitimate environmental reason, but just because of that vein of environmentalists who believe any profit from natural resources is immoral. I've always considered myself a conservationist and do donate to conservationist causes, but the people trying to stop all productive commerce west of the Mississippi due to endangered quail or something are a blight on mankind.
No that's a non-issue, it doesn't matter if it's because of erosion from over grazing or because it scares away the unicorn population, it's not his land and he doesn't have a right to it.
Quote from: Barrister on April 15, 2014, 09:35:35 AM
I don't know. Here in Canada probably over half of the country is "Crown land", that is land owned by the government. Here it's owned by the provincial government, not Federal, but in the end (and despite what Bundy thinks) it really makes no difference - it'd be managed the same way.
The trouble is that the land is not agricultural land. If it was, someone would have already have homesteaded it (and it's still quite possible to do so). So it's unclear who would ever buy such land. If you price it low enough, sure someone will buy, but since the land is also very important wildlife habitat it doesn't seem to make sense to sell it on a pennies for the acre basis.
I think that a key difference is that, in the US, we consider government to be a necessary evil, and not an asset to be cherished. You don't see the US government owning anything like such a huge percentage of the land in the US east of the Mississippi, and yet that area isn't void of wild life, so I don't think you can justify Federal ownership of western land as a need based on wildlife concerns.
In the end, the US federal government owns so much land because it hasn't tried to sell the land that it owns. Bundy would be better off either buying the land or renting it from someone else who buys the land, and so would everyone else.
I rather suspect that Bundy would need to learn Chinese to talk directly to his new landlords, but they would hire an English-speaking manager, so Bundy would talk to that person.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2014, 09:42:05 AM
I rather suspect that Bundy would need to learn Chinese to talk directly to his new landlords, but they would hire an English-speaking manager, so Bundy would talk to that person.
:lol:
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2014, 09:42:05 AM
I think that a key difference is that, in the US, we I consider government to be a necessary evil, and not an asset to be cherished. You don't see the US government owning anything like such a huge percentage of the land in the US east of the Mississippi, and yet that area isn't void of wild life, so I don't think you can justify Federal ownership of western land as a need based on wildlife concerns.
In the end, the US federal government owns so much land because it hasn't tried to sell the land that it owns. Bundy would be better off either buying the land or renting it from someone else who buys the land, and so would everyone else.
I rather suspect that Bundy would need to learn Chinese to talk directly to his new landlords, but they would hire an English-speaking manager, so Bundy would talk to that person.
Fixed it for you.
I feel sorry for you, Raz :(
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2014, 09:57:35 AM
I feel sorry for you, Raz :(
Grumbler is gonna rip him a new one. Which should be entertaining.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2014, 09:38:10 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 15, 2014, 09:25:30 AM
A bigger issue than these fees though is the unfortunate environmentalist tactic now of using lawsuits to close off perfectly productive Federal lands. They make BS claims about animals that are dispersed through the entire West being threatened by productive commercial activity on BLM lands, and with the Obama White House being responsible for defending these suits, they just immediately settle and cave to the environmental groups. It's been a "back door" way for environmentalists and the White House to essentially close off access to public lands. It's for no legitimate environmental reason, but just because of that vein of environmentalists who believe any profit from natural resources is immoral. I've always considered myself a conservationist and do donate to conservationist causes, but the people trying to stop all productive commerce west of the Mississippi due to endangered quail or something are a blight on mankind.
No that's a non-issue, it doesn't matter if it's because of erosion from over grazing or because it scares away the unicorn population, it's not his land and he doesn't have a right to it.
I think you misunderstand--I don't view the environmental issue as relevant to the Bundy case. Bundy refused to pay grazing fees and after 20 years there was a court order that barred him from ever grazing again because of this and also required him to repay $1m in unpaid fees. That's not really disputable based on any legal means.
But BLM land isn't supposed to be held as a nature preserve, where it can be put to use by the public it should be. This isn't medieval England where the King can deny use of the land just because he doesn't want the peasants hunting in it. Sham environmental causes absolutely should not be used to halt large scale oil/gas drilling and ranching that generate billions of dollars in economic value for the country.
Apparently the fedrul gubmit declared that grazing land to be a habitat for the desert tortoise in 1993 and imposed more restrictions or requirements on Bundy for using the land and that's when he stopped paying.
Quote from: Barrister on April 15, 2014, 09:35:35 AMI don't know. Here in Canada probably over half of the country is "Crown land", that is land owned by the government. Here it's owned by the provincial government, not Federal, but in the end (and despite what Bundy thinks) it really makes no difference - it'd be managed the same way.
The trouble is that the land is not agricultural land. If it was, someone would have already have homesteaded it (and it's still quite possible to do so). So it's unclear who would ever buy such land. If you price it low enough, sure someone will buy, but since the land is also very important wildlife habitat it doesn't seem to make sense to sell it on a pennies for the acre basis.
I think the only buyers would be natural resource speculators who'd buy up huge swathes, although I expect the Trust for Public Land (a conservation charity I donate to that buys land for nature preservation purposes) and the Nature Conservancy along with Ted Turner types would probably buy large swathes as well.
Most Westerners would love it if the BLM land had been turned over to the States instead of the Federal government. Most States are not anti-business as the EPA is. I'm someone that recognizes a need for environmental regulation, but when you have a situation where an animal that is genuinely not in any danger can pre-empt things like farmers getting water for their land or people being allowed to graze I think you have a problem. The "sue and settle" tactic I mentioned above is particularly onerous when you have a government that is derelict in its duty to vigorously defend against such suits. Congress doesn't want this to happen, but since private concerns can sue the government over environmental claims, and the executive branch has full discretion to just settle those cases immediately in favor of the plaintiff you're seeing lots of productive land being shut down by specious concerns over again, environmentalists that object to the concept of any land being used to generate economic value.
Livestock does pose environmental concerns, though. The animals are not in any danger; they are the danger. They're in the food chain.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 15, 2014, 09:59:01 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2014, 09:57:35 AM
I feel sorry for you, Raz :(
Grumbler is gonna rip him a new one. Which should be entertaining.
Sorry to disappoint, but homie stopped playing that game long ago. Raz does enough damage to himself by posting what he thinks are clever comments. He doesn't need me when he wants a new asshole ripped, he just has to post.
:(
Right, I'm fine with BLM / EPA doing legitimate land management where there are true environmental risks to genuinely endangered species, and prohibiting large scale agriculture in those select cases.
But the problem with sue and settle is two fold:
-The environmentalists can actually sue to compel the Feds to fast track species onto the endangered species list. This is something that should only be done through scientific study, not through a lawsuit.
-One that is complete, they can sue the Feds to require them to restrict usage in certain parcels of land or broad swathes of land.
If the Feds were willing to vigorously defend from such suits we wouldn't have a problem as they'd probably prevail in court as Federal agencies have a lot of leeway in how they choose to exercise discretion in their regulatory efforts. But a compliant Federal bureaucracy that actually wants these lawsuits because it lets them expand their reach without needing congressional approval or even a formal internal process are a concern.
I believe there is a case pending that would see a type of grouse added to the ESA that basically inhabits the entire West, and all of the major oil and gas fields. Theoretically it could mean the end of all resource extraction in the West, which is why I suspect the Obama Administration will draw a line on that one. I'm not sure Obama has any genuine opinions on the environment because it doesn't involve poor urbanites, but his relationship with the environmental lobby is best described as "feed them shit I don't care about whenever I can to keep them happy, but avoid giving them anything major that might hurt the economy or my approval ratings." Keystone XL is basically the only exception where he's drawn a line in the sand on the environmental side where it conflicts with a very large business interest, but it is also the only environmental lobby that environmentalist billionaires have pumped a mount of money and effort into.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 15, 2014, 10:01:00 AM
Sham environmental causes absolutely should not be used to halt large scale oil/gas drilling and ranching that generate billions of dollars in economic value for the country.
I read a post elsewhere from someone local to Nevada, and that person claimed that cattle ranching in that area is growing increasingly less economically viable in large part due to decreasing rainfall.
It wasn't a for or against argument, but merely a note that cattle ranching is under increasing economic pressure in that part of Nevada (or perhaps the whole state?)
Quote from: Jacob on April 15, 2014, 10:36:41 AM
I read a post elsewhere from someone local to Nevada, and that person claimed that cattle ranching in that area is growing increasingly less economically viable in large part due to decreasing rainfall.
It wasn't a for or against argument, but merely a note that cattle ranching is under increasing economic pressure in that part of Nevada (or perhaps the whole state?)
There has been a drought (which further limits the number of head of cattle any given acreage can support, whether the land is under BLM control or not), but I don't think that this is seen as a trend so permanent as to call it "increasingly less viable." The problem is that ranchers would obviously rather over-graze land they rent than land they own, so federal lands are more subject to abuse than private land.
The fact that cattle ranching is one of the most damaging activities to the climate doesn't strike home, I suppose. Once again, napalm. Lots of it.
Quote from: Norgy on April 15, 2014, 12:21:28 PM
The fact that cattle ranching is one of the most damaging activities to the climate doesn't strike home, I suppose.
I suppose not. After all, mankind has only been raising domesticated cattle for ten thousand years or so, and already cattle ranching has wiped out the human race four or five times.
QuoteOnce again, napalm. Lots of it.
Because napalm is not "one of the most damaging activities to the climate"...
Quote from: Norgy on April 15, 2014, 12:21:28 PM
The fact that cattle ranching is one of the most damaging activities to the climate doesn't strike home, I suppose. Once again, napalm. Lots of it.
To be fair, cattle ranching is the viable only economic activity on marginal land like in Nevada, or Alberta.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2014, 10:41:13 AMThere has been a drought (which further limits the number of head of cattle any given acreage can support, whether the land is under BLM control or not), but I don't think that this is seen as a trend so permanent as to call it "increasingly less viable." The problem is that ranchers would obviously rather over-graze land they rent than land they own, so federal lands are more subject to abuse than private land.
The person in question was claiming that it was seen as a trend. That, of course, could be simple rancher grousing; or it could simply be wrong.
Make no mistake, I don't want cattle ranching, nor any other livestock farming to end.
But the CO2 emissions from especially cattle play some part in greenhouse gas composition. Drilling for oil and oil extraction obviously is the number one culprit along with CO2 emissions from cars. My own country is in a bit of a pickle. For most households, hydroelectric power and renewables are enough. However, our continental shelf is full of oil and natural gas, and our economy is basically built on oil money. We're a Kuwait in Scandiweenia.
So while we may formally be against climate change per se, we have very little incentive to be part of the solution. Statoil is deeply involved in shale and oil sand in Canada. And it's owned by the state.
Napalm burns out faster than cows do, by the way. ;)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.standeyo.com%2FNEWS%2F10_USA%2F10_USA_pics%2F100528.federal.land.jpg&hash=a409207b6df6701588aeaa2705a820f96c9b1046)
Eh, why does the DoD own part of the Missouri River...? :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on April 15, 2014, 12:30:54 PM
Quote from: Norgy on April 15, 2014, 12:21:28 PM
The fact that cattle ranching is one of the most damaging activities to the climate doesn't strike home, I suppose. Once again, napalm. Lots of it.
To be fair, cattle ranching is the viable only economic activity on marginal land like in Nevada, or Alberta.
Plains, right? Poor soil and not great weather conditions either.
Compare that to say Brazil where they chop down ages old rainforest to clear land for grazing. That's the kind of activity I really had in mind.
Quote from: Norgy on April 15, 2014, 12:42:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 15, 2014, 12:30:54 PM
Quote from: Norgy on April 15, 2014, 12:21:28 PM
The fact that cattle ranching is one of the most damaging activities to the climate doesn't strike home, I suppose. Once again, napalm. Lots of it.
To be fair, cattle ranching is the viable only economic activity on marginal land like in Nevada, or Alberta.
Plains, right? Poor soil and not great weather conditions either.
Compare that to say Brazil where they chop down ages old rainforest to clear land for grazing. That's the kind of activity I really had in mind.
Soil is okay, it's lack of rainfall that makes in unsuitable to grain.
I actually didn't know southern Canada was that dry. Learn something new every day, I suppose. :)
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2014, 12:27:04 PM
I suppose not. After all, mankind has only been raising domesticated cattle for ten thousand years or so, and already cattle ranching has wiped out the human race four or five times.
Seven thousand years ago the region that is now the Sahara was covered with herds of cattle, sheep and goats. Northern and Western Europe was a great forest.
I don't know whether there is a cause and effect relationship there, but having seen first-hand what effect cattle have on bush land after just 10-15 years I can make some good guesses.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2014, 10:19:38 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 15, 2014, 09:59:01 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2014, 09:57:35 AM
I feel sorry for you, Raz :(
Grumbler is gonna rip him a new one. Which should be entertaining.
Sorry to disappoint, but homie stopped playing that game long ago. Raz does enough damage to himself by posting what he thinks are clever comments. He doesn't need me when he wants a new asshole ripped, he just has to post.
So did you ever work in a theater, cause you got projecting down pat.
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2014, 09:57:35 AM
I feel sorry for you, Raz :(
I love my country, I don't see it as a necessary evil.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2014, 01:43:21 PM
I love my country, I don't see it as a necessary evil.
Wow. So to you your country = a very large federal government? Not so much the people?
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2014, 01:51:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2014, 01:43:21 PM
I love my country, I don't see it as a necessary evil.
Wow. So to you your country = a very large federal government? Not so much the people?
He said he doesn't see the government as a necessary evil, I thought. That's different from "country = very large federal government".
Also, presumably in a representational democracy, the government represents the people and the country. It's supposed to be of the people, for the people, no?
I was more interested in the armed men intimidating with impunity state officials angle.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbytesizedwombat.com.au%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2Fitshappening.gif&hash=df5baac007e9c27c0ecc28ee0c45d24af7cc7fc3)
Yes, I was late with this.
Quote from: Jacob on April 15, 2014, 01:53:38 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2014, 01:51:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2014, 01:43:21 PM
I love my country, I don't see it as a necessary evil.
Wow. So to you your country = a very large federal government? Not so much the people?
He said he doesn't see the government as a necessary evil, I thought. That's different from "country = very large federal government".
Also, presumably in a representational democracy, the government represents the people and the country. It's supposed to be of the people, for the people, no?
In an ideal world. Nowadays, we are seeing candidates bought and sold. Left and right. Organised labour and government employees own the Labour Party here. The Conservatives are owned by capital interests. No government can be formed without one of the two these days. So it's basically a choice between plague and cholera.
Quote from: Norgy on April 15, 2014, 02:00:46 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 15, 2014, 01:53:38 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2014, 01:51:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2014, 01:43:21 PM
I love my country, I don't see it as a necessary evil.
Wow. So to you your country = a very large federal government? Not so much the people?
He said he doesn't see the government as a necessary evil, I thought. That's different from "country = very large federal government".
Also, presumably in a representational democracy, the government represents the people and the country. It's supposed to be of the people, for the people, no?
In an ideal world. Nowadays, we are seeing candidates bought and sold. Left and right. Organised labour and government employees own the Labour Party here. The Conservatives are owned by capital interests. No government can be formed without one of the two these days. So it's basically a choice between plague and cholera.
And even ignoring the representative portions of the government, bureaucrats employed by the government are just as likely to engage in empire-building and other behavior that isn't in the public interest as any other kind of bureaucrat.
Quote from: Neil on April 15, 2014, 02:06:42 PM
Quote from: Norgy on April 15, 2014, 02:00:46 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 15, 2014, 01:53:38 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2014, 01:51:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2014, 01:43:21 PM
I love my country, I don't see it as a necessary evil.
Wow. So to you your country = a very large federal government? Not so much the people?
He said he doesn't see the government as a necessary evil, I thought. That's different from "country = very large federal government".
Also, presumably in a representational democracy, the government represents the people and the country. It's supposed to be of the people, for the people, no?
In an ideal world. Nowadays, we are seeing candidates bought and sold. Left and right. Organised labour and government employees own the Labour Party here. The Conservatives are owned by capital interests. No government can be formed without one of the two these days. So it's basically a choice between plague and cholera.
And even ignoring the representative portions of the government, bureaucrats employed by the government are just as likely to engage in empire-building and other behavior that isn't in the public interest as any other kind of bureaucrat.
:mad:
We're motivated solely by our desire to serve the public interest.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2014, 10:41:13 AM
Quote from: Jacob on April 15, 2014, 10:36:41 AM
I read a post elsewhere from someone local to Nevada, and that person claimed that cattle ranching in that area is growing increasingly less economically viable in large part due to decreasing rainfall.
It wasn't a for or against argument, but merely a note that cattle ranching is under increasing economic pressure in that part of Nevada (or perhaps the whole state?)
There has been a drought (which further limits the number of head of cattle any given acreage can support, whether the land is under BLM control or not), but I don't think that this is seen as a trend so permanent as to call it "increasingly less viable." The problem is that ranchers would obviously rather over-graze land they rent than land they own, so federal lands are more subject to abuse than private land.
It's less the drought than the horses.
We've got these "wild" horses out there eating everything all summer. They are a foreign invasive species but BLM lets them go wild out there and every winter rounds them all up and feeds them. They can't survive otherwise. So now the wild sheep, mountain goats, mule deer and sage grouse are harder and harder to find. The horses are eating all their habitat.
Quote from: Barrister on April 15, 2014, 02:07:25 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 15, 2014, 02:06:42 PM
Quote from: Norgy on April 15, 2014, 02:00:46 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 15, 2014, 01:53:38 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2014, 01:51:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2014, 01:43:21 PM
I love my country, I don't see it as a necessary evil.
Wow. So to you your country = a very large federal government? Not so much the people?
He said he doesn't see the government as a necessary evil, I thought. That's different from "country = very large federal government".
Also, presumably in a representational democracy, the government represents the people and the country. It's supposed to be of the people, for the people, no?
In an ideal world. Nowadays, we are seeing candidates bought and sold. Left and right. Organised labour and government employees own the Labour Party here. The Conservatives are owned by capital interests. No government can be formed without one of the two these days. So it's basically a choice between plague and cholera.
And even ignoring the representative portions of the government, bureaucrats employed by the government are just as likely to engage in empire-building and other behavior that isn't in the public interest as any other kind of bureaucrat.
:mad:
We're motivated solely by our desire to serve the public interest.
Even if that were true of bureaucrats, you're a lawyer. People don't become lawyers unless there's hate in their heart. Hell, the entire profession of lawyering depends on empire-building.
Quote from: Neil on April 15, 2014, 02:11:09 PM
Even if that were true of bureaucrats, you're a lawyer. People don't become lawyers unless there's hate in their heart. Hell, the entire profession of lawyering depends on empire-building.
:( But I direct my hate towards those people who deserve it, like shoplifters, wife-beaters, pot-heads and single mothers.
Quote from: Neil on April 15, 2014, 02:06:42 PM
Quote from: Norgy on April 15, 2014, 02:00:46 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 15, 2014, 01:53:38 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2014, 01:51:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2014, 01:43:21 PM
I love my country, I don't see it as a necessary evil.
Wow. So to you your country = a very large federal government? Not so much the people?
He said he doesn't see the government as a necessary evil, I thought. That's different from "country = very large federal government".
Also, presumably in a representational democracy, the government represents the people and the country. It's supposed to be of the people, for the people, no?
In an ideal world. Nowadays, we are seeing candidates bought and sold. Left and right. Organised labour and government employees own the Labour Party here. The Conservatives are owned by capital interests. No government can be formed without one of the two these days. So it's basically a choice between plague and cholera.
And even ignoring the representative portions of the government, bureaucrats employed by the government are just as likely to engage in empire-building and other behavior that isn't in the public interest as any other kind of bureaucrat.
Pretty much, yes. And rendering representative democracy a fine idea at the time, but a brilliant mistake.
Quote from: Jacob on April 15, 2014, 01:53:38 PM
He said he doesn't see the government as a necessary evil, I thought. That's different from "country = very large federal government".
Also, presumably in a representational democracy, the government represents the people and the country. It's supposed to be of the people, for the people, no?
I was talking about the United States as a whole, not Raz. If you have read any history, you will discover that the founders of the US very much viewed government as a necessary evil (they were, after all, Enlightenment liberals and government as a necessary evil was a central idea of the Enlightenment). If you read the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence, the Federalist papers, and the like, you will find many examples of arguments where the necessity of a given government power is weighed against the downsides of giving government that power. Unlike the Westminster model, the US model is a model of government in which the people are sovereign and government is just what the people tolerate to get its benefits.
It isn't a matter of loving your country if you love government, or being obligated to love government or be guilty of not loving your country. It is a matter of believing that the people are the country and the sovereign, and government is the servant, not the master.
Quote from: Norgy on April 15, 2014, 02:22:25 PM
Pretty much, yes. And rendering representative democracy a fine idea at the time, but a brilliant mistake.
The worst system of government, in fact.
Except for all the others.
Quote from: Maximus on April 15, 2014, 02:27:48 PM
Quote from: Norgy on April 15, 2014, 02:22:25 PM
Pretty much, yes. And rendering representative democracy a fine idea at the time, but a brilliant mistake.
The worst system of government, in fact.
Except for all the others.
I agree. Even the notion of being able to influence policy making is valuable in itself. It empowers us. The fact that so few of us take part in elections is troubling, though.
Quote from: Norgy on April 15, 2014, 02:00:46 PMIn an ideal world. Nowadays, we are seeing candidates bought and sold. Left and right. Organised labour and government employees own the Labour Party here. The Conservatives are owned by capital interests. No government can be formed without one of the two these days. So it's basically a choice between plague and cholera.
Yeah, of course there is horse trading and vested interests. Those vested interests also exist in non-representative democracies, but the conflicts between them have even worse resolution mechanics.
Capital interests will always have a strong influence on government policy; the point of representative democracy is not to remove their ability to influence policy, but to channel it into less destructive methods and to give other interests a seat at the table.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 15, 2014, 02:07:52 PM
It's less the drought than the horses.
We've got these "wild" horses out there eating everything all summer. They are a foreign invasive species but BLM lets them go wild out there and every winter rounds them all up and feeds them. They can't survive otherwise. So now the wild sheep, mountain goats, mule deer and sage grouse are harder and harder to find. The horses are eating all their habitat.
That sounds crappy :(
Quote from: Jacob on April 15, 2014, 02:34:11 PM
Quote from: Norgy on April 15, 2014, 02:00:46 PMIn an ideal world. Nowadays, we are seeing candidates bought and sold. Left and right. Organised labour and government employees own the Labour Party here. The Conservatives are owned by capital interests. No government can be formed without one of the two these days. So it's basically a choice between plague and cholera.
Yeah, of course there is horse trading and vested interests. Those vested interests also exist in non-representative democracies, but the conflicts between them have even worse resolution mechanics.
Capital interests will always have a strong influence on government policy; the point of representative democracy is not to remove their ability to influence policy, but to channel it into less destructive methods and to give other interests a seat at the table.
It boils down to a game of positions. Who can get what position. I think the Scandiweenian countries have been successful because none have been neglected, except perhaps the Slargosian racists. And like you say, conflict resolution has been rather peaceful since the 20s and 30s. I believe Denmark had an agreement between organised labour, employers and the state in place already in 1899?
But several of those attributes are present in a fascist system. The three-part regime of labour, capital and state is a wet dream of Mussolini.
Just sayin', as I have had ample time to study the phenomenon of Italian fascism. And yes, it is back.
Quote from: Barrister on April 15, 2014, 02:15:32 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 15, 2014, 02:11:09 PM
Even if that were true of bureaucrats, you're a lawyer. People don't become lawyers unless there's hate in their heart. Hell, the entire profession of lawyering depends on empire-building.
:( But I direct my hate towards those people who deserve it, like shoplifters, wife-beaters, pot-heads and single mothers.
Admirable, but when the method you use is flawed, it damages the outcome.
Don't mess with single moms, BB. They are the easiest and best lays. :mad:
Quote from: Norgy on April 15, 2014, 02:46:34 PM
But several of those attributes are present in a fascist system. The three-part regime of labour, capital and state is a wet dream of Mussolini.
Needs more territorial expansion.
psst... invade Ethiopia.
We'll probably claim Antarctica as a territory and see how it goes. Fuck the world. Norway found that pole. And just to spite people, we will cover ourselves in whale blubber and aquavit.
Quote from: Norgy on April 15, 2014, 03:37:20 PM
And just to spite people, we will cover ourselves in whale blubber and aquavit.
As if every Norwegian doesn't do that already...
It's therapy.
Quote from: mongers on April 15, 2014, 01:54:53 PM
I was more interested in the armed men intimidating with impunity state officials angle.
We have to dispense with that, as that's an issue of Freedomism and Libertyhood at work; sorta like how Otto managed to conflate the evils of the environmental lobby's control of the Obama Administration with this event, a simple issue of outstanding court-ordered debt collection.
Quote from: Norgy on April 15, 2014, 03:42:17 PM
It's therapy.
I thought that was what wood-stacking was for.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2014, 03:45:17 PM
Quote from: mongers on April 15, 2014, 01:54:53 PM
I was more interested in the armed men intimidating with impunity state officials angle.
We have to dispense with that, as that's an issue of Freedomism and Libertyhood at work; sorta like how Otto managed to conflate the evils of the environmental lobby's control of the Obama Administration with this event, a simple issue of outstanding court-ordered debt collection.
:hmm:
So if those gun toting Slavs in E.Ukraine framed their intimidation in those terms, they'd get a pass from Derspiessenrepublica ?
Well, on a more serious note, stacking firewood is good therapy.
Not as good as chopping and sawing, though.
As a sidenote, I got my first axe when I was 5 years old. Me and my arthritic grandfather were chopping firewood. Being just 5 years old and not very strong, the axe slipped and stuck in my thigh. This was at the family cabin far away from everything. So basically I just got a bandage and was told to "stick with it and shut the hell up".
I love 70s parenting. And grandparenting. Sugar or death threats.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2014, 03:45:17 PM
Quote from: mongers on April 15, 2014, 01:54:53 PM
I was more interested in the armed men intimidating with impunity state officials angle.
We have to dispense with that, as that's an issue of Freedomism and Libertyhood at work; sorta like how Otto managed to conflate the evils of the environmental lobby's control of the Obama Administration with this event, a simple issue of outstanding court-ordered debt collection.
Yeah, you can the conflict in Derspeiss and Otto over this. The heart wants to join the militias opposing the evil federal government, but their mind is telling them "This guy just wants a free ride".
You couldn't be further from the truth on me Raz, I've always been an authoritarian. I'm much more Pinochet than Paul.
Quote from: Norgy on April 15, 2014, 04:09:56 PM
I love 70s parenting. And grandparenting. Sugar or death threats.
But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.
Philip Larkin. From Nottingham, if I am not mistaken.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 15, 2014, 04:40:42 PM
You couldn't be further from the truth on me Raz, I've always been an authoritarian. I'm much more Pinochet than Paul.
Then you really shouldn't waste time going on about environmentalists. That's the traitor's talking points.
Quote from: Norgy on April 15, 2014, 04:51:01 PM
Philip Larkin. From Nottingham, if I am not mistaken.
Coventry. But always best associated with Hull.
There's a tragic synopsis of a life.
Edit: And my favourite Larkin detail, his father had a statue of Hitler which he'd bought at a Nuremberg Rally. He kept it on the mantelpiece and when you pressed a button it would do the Nazi salute.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 15, 2014, 05:21:27 PM
Quote from: Norgy on April 15, 2014, 04:51:01 PM
Philip Larkin. From Nottingham, if I am not mistaken.
Coventry. But always best associated with Hull.
There's a tragic synopsis of a life.
Edit: And my favourite Larkin detail, his father had a statue of Hitler which he'd bought at a Nuremberg Rally. He kept it on the mantelpiece and when you pressed a button it would do the Nazi salute.
From Coventry to Hull... well, that's almost punishment.
I remember Larkin from my English studies almost 20 years ago now. He, Robert Frost, Poe's "The Raven" and "Bartleby the Scrivener" (by Henry James) sort of stick with me.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/cliven-bundy-wants-to-tell-you-all-about-the-negro/361152/
Ther article is basically a big rant about modern conservatives = white supremacists; but that doesn't change the awfulness of this freedom fighter's quote.
QuoteCliven Bundy Wants to Tell You All About 'the Negro'
QuoteRep. Pat Garofalo @PatGarofalo
Let's be honest, 70% of teams in NBA could fold tomorrow + nobody would notice a difference w/ possible exception of increase in streetcrime
12:33 AM - 10 Mar 2014
1,930 Retweets 592 Favorites
A couple days ago Jonathan Chait asserted that modern conservatism is "doomed" because it is "rooted in white supremacy." The first claim may or may not be true, but there's little doubt about the second. Whether it's the Senate minority leader claiming that America should have remained legally segregated, a beloved cultural figure fondly recalling how happy black people were living under lynch law, a presidential candidate calling Barack Obama a "food-stamp president," or a campaign surrogate calling Barack Obama "a subhuman mongrel," the preponderance of evidence shows that modern conservatism just can't quit white supremacy.
This is unsurprising. White supremacy is one of the most dominant forces in the history of American politics. In a democracy, it would be silly to expect it to go unexpressed. Thus anyone with a sense of American history should be equally unsurprised to discover that rugged individualist Cliven Bundy is the bearer of some very interesting theories:
"I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro," he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, "and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids—and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch—they didn't have nothing to do. They didn't have nothing for their kids to do. They didn't have nothing for their young girls to do.
"And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?" he asked. "They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I've often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn't get no more freedom. They got less freedom."
Prick a movement built on white supremacy and it bleeds ... white supremacy. That said, I think it's always worth clarifying what we mean when we use words like "slavery" and "freedom" in an American context.
I took a flight to L.A. last night and brought with me Thavolia Glymph's bruising monograph Out of the House of Bondage. Glymph is mostly concerned with the plantation house as a workspace during enslavement, and thus the scene of horrendous violence primarily dished out by "ladies of the house."
In general, a silence surrounds white women's contributions to the basic nature of slavery, its maintenance, and, especially, one of its central tendencies, the maiming and destruction of black life.
The maiming and destruction of black life. This is key. What Glymph is discussing is not merely the theft of labor but the total plunder of the human body. Slavery is torture as a system of governance, corporal destruction taken as the mere cost of doing business.
Here are a few additions, courtesy of Glymph, to your morning reading:
Item: Enslaved woman Mandy Cooper was not quick enough churning milk, and thus her mistress had no butter to serve her party along with the cornbread and biscuits. Cooper's mistress and her two guests—all women—then set upon Moore and "beat me from angah." Moore's mistress grabbed a heavy board. Another friend grabbed a whip.
Item: Enslaved woman Alice Shaw was given the task of fanning flies and clearing the dinner table. When she dropped a dish, her mistress "beat her on her head."
Item: Clara Young did not always respond quickly enough to her mistress's summons. Her mistress lifted her dress and beat her.
Item: Lila Nichols failed to gather enough eggs. She was beaten by her mistress. This same mistress later set upon an enslaved woman whom she suspected of poisoning her, "leaving her back 'in gashes.' She then ordered the slave woman chained until she had recovered sufficiently enough to be sold."
Item: Delia Garlic was responsible for nursing and caring for her mistress' baby. "One day I was playin' wid de baby," she reported. "It hurt its li'l han' an' commenced to cry, an' [my mistress] whirl on me, pick up a hot iron an' run it all down my arm an' han'. It took off de flesh when she done it."
Item: "Slaves was punished by whip and starving," reported freedwoman Harriet Robinson. "Master Sam didn't never whip me but Miss Julia whipped me everyday in the morning. During the war she beat me terrible. She say 'Your master's out fighting and losing blood trying to save you from the Yankees, so you kin get your'n here.'"
The idea that Robinson's master was fighting on behalf of the slaves is both rich and telling. Mostly it shows that Cliven Bundy's theories are not original but inherited via white supremacy.
Enslaved black people were, with some regularity, beat with cowhide whips, tongs, pokers, chairs, and wooden boards. Nails were driven through their palms, pins through their tongues. Eyes were gouged out for the smallest offense.
When people like Cliven Bundy assert the primacy of the past it is important that we do not recount it selectively. American enslavement is the destruction of the black body for profit. That is the past that Cliven Bundy believes "the Negro" to have been better off in. He is, regrettably, not alone.
I am not shocked to find out the old coot has some outdated views on race.
Yeah, I don't think it's fair to claim Cliven Bundy as a spokesperson for "modern Conservatism".
Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2014, 10:51:07 AM
Yeah, I don't think it's fair to claim Cliven Bundy as a spokesperson for "modern Conservatism".
The article is full of intellectually dishonest claims. I don't think the author is the slightest bit interested in being fair.
Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2014, 10:51:07 AM
Yeah, I don't think it's fair to claim Cliven Bundy as a spokesperson for "modern Conservatism".
True, but his cause was championed by all sorts from the right.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2014, 02:22:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2014, 10:51:07 AM
Yeah, I don't think it's fair to claim Cliven Bundy as a spokesperson for "modern Conservatism".
True, but his cause was championed by all sorts from the right.
Rodney King's case was championed by all sorts from the left. Certainly didn't make Rodney King a spokesperson for liberalism.
And, for the record, as a proud Conservative, I think very little of Bundy's "cause".
Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2014, 10:51:07 AM
Yeah, I don't think it's fair to claim Cliven Bundy as a spokesperson for "modern Conservatism".
Anybody else picturing Al Bundy every time this guy's being discussed? :blush:
Quote from: celedhring on April 24, 2014, 02:35:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2014, 10:51:07 AM
Yeah, I don't think it's fair to claim Cliven Bundy as a spokesperson for "modern Conservatism".
Anybody else picturing Al Bundy every time this guy's being discussed? :blush:
I wish. I pictured Ted Bundy for a while.
Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2014, 02:27:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2014, 02:22:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2014, 10:51:07 AM
Yeah, I don't think it's fair to claim Cliven Bundy as a spokesperson for "modern Conservatism".
True, but his cause was championed by all sorts from the right.
Rodney King's case was championed by all sorts from the left. Certainly didn't make Rodney King a spokesperson for liberalism.
And, for the record, as a proud Conservative, I think very little of Bundy's "cause".
I will accept that opposition to police brutality is a cause the left has championed.
Accept all you want-- I'll just forget it in a few hours :(
Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2014, 10:51:07 AM
Yeah, I don't think it's fair to claim Cliven Bundy as a spokesperson for "modern Conservatism".
Agreed, though I do think that the people who see Bundy as a spokesperson and cause celebre would identify their cause as "true Conservatism" or some such. That, of course, does not mean it actually is, and I certainly don't think the brand of Conservatism you espouse has much in common with Bundy and his merry band.
That said, whatever Conservative politicians and pundits who made utterances sympathetic to Bundy do contribute to the claims that he represent some form of Conservatism, and one they support in some manner. I expect there'll be fewer of them - the repudiations have already begun - since Bundy starting philosophizing about Negros being better off as slaves in public.
Dont worry, Jake, the collective mouthbreathers of Dumbfuckistan Nation will find another "hero", just like Bundy, and George Zimmerman before him, and on and on, never mind the little details.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 24, 2014, 03:58:33 PM
Dont worry, Jake, the collective mouthbreathers of Dumbfuckistan Nation will find another "hero", just like Bundy, and George Zimmerman before him, and on and on, never mind the little details.
Joe the Plumber is probably rested up for a second go.
Yes, because what the GOP needs is moar anti-intullektualist candidates.
Yessir.
Quote from: derspiess on April 24, 2014, 04:09:53 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 24, 2014, 03:58:33 PM
Dont worry, Jake, the collective mouthbreathers of Dumbfuckistan Nation will find another "hero", just like Bundy, and George Zimmerman before him, and on and on, never mind the little details.
Joe the Plumber is probably rested up for a second go.
He's in the UAW now.
Quote from: Jacob on April 24, 2014, 03:04:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2014, 10:51:07 AM
Yeah, I don't think it's fair to claim Cliven Bundy as a spokesperson for "modern Conservatism".
Agreed, though I do think that the people who see Bundy as a spokesperson and cause celebre would identify their cause as "true Conservatism" or some such. That, of course, does not mean it actually is, and I certainly don't think the brand of Conservatism you espouse has much in common with Bundy and his merry band.
That said, whatever Conservative politicians and pundits who made utterances sympathetic to Bundy do contribute to the claims that he represent some form of Conservatism, and one they support in some manner. I expect there'll be fewer of them - the repudiations have already begun - since Bundy starting philosophizing about Negros being better off as slaves in public.
I suspect there are plenty of conservatives who sympathize with the slavery thing as well, they are just prevented from saying so by the tyranny of, "political correctness".
I really don't think so. More likely Bundy is just going senile.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2014, 04:54:08 PM
He's in the UAW now.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblackathlete.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F03%2Fdamn.jpg&hash=a2275f8d9b3dfeec9a3f011a5cd804a328356bfc)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 24, 2014, 04:57:03 PM
I really don't think so. More likely Bundy is just going senile.
I don't think those are mutually exclusive. Something like 25% of public thought the South was right.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/12/civil-war-still-divides-americans/
Quote from: celedhring on April 24, 2014, 02:35:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2014, 10:51:07 AM
Yeah, I don't think it's fair to claim Cliven Bundy as a spokesperson for "modern Conservatism".
Anybody else picturing Al Bundy every time this guy's being discussed? :blush:
King King Bundy over here.
Quote from: derspiess on April 24, 2014, 04:57:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2014, 04:54:08 PM
He's in the UAW now.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblackathlete.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F03%2Fdamn.jpg&hash=a2275f8d9b3dfeec9a3f011a5cd804a328356bfc)
So he parleyed 15 minutes of fame into 20 years of security from the auto bailout :lol:
I imagine he can still play a businessman on TV.
Quote from: Zanza on April 15, 2014, 12:39:20 PM
Eh, why does the DoD own part of the Missouri River...? :huh:
Probably Army Corp of Engineers and related to flood control.
Well, a least he likes the Hispanics: http://www.vox.com/2014/4/25/5651432/cliven-bundy-spanish-people
QuoteNow let me talk about the Spanish people. Now I understand that they come over here against our Constitution and cross our borders. But they're here, and they're people. And I've worked beside a lot of them. Don't tell me they don't work, and don't tell me they don't pay taxes. And don't tell me they don't have better family structures than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they're together, they picnic together, they're spending their time together. And I'll tell you, in my way of thinking, they're awful nice people. And we need to have those people going to be with us.
Open borders types :rolleyes:
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 24, 2014, 07:34:01 PM
Quote from: Zanza on April 15, 2014, 12:39:20 PM
Eh, why does the DoD own part of the Missouri River...? :huh:
Probably Army Corp of Engineers and related to flood control.
I think that you probably have it... land that is paid off on the Federal flood insurance program cannot, in some cases, be settled again, so the federal government buys it. It would make sense that they turn it over to the ACoE.
Quote from: Jacob on April 24, 2014, 03:04:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2014, 10:51:07 AM
Yeah, I don't think it's fair to claim Cliven Bundy as a spokesperson for "modern Conservatism".
Agreed, though I do think that the people who see Bundy as a spokesperson and cause celebre would identify their cause as "true Conservatism" or some such. That, of course, does not mean it actually is, and I certainly don't think the brand of Conservatism you espouse has much in common with Bundy and his merry band.
That said, whatever Conservative politicians and pundits who made utterances sympathetic to Bundy do contribute to the claims that he represent some form of Conservatism, and one they support in some manner. I expect there'll be fewer of them - the repudiations have already begun - since Bundy starting philosophizing about Negros being better off as slaves in public.
Yep, Bundy is getting hammered on this stuff and rightly so, and support dropping off for him. But the oveall issue is land management and that's been an issues in other states as well, and with other landowners small and large. Texas is also now fighting the BLM and they're not nearly as likely to roll over as Nevada as the Feds already own so much land in Nevada.
Bundy compared himself to Rosa Parks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2613388/Nevada-rancher-Cliven-Bundy-makes-MORE-racist-remarks.html
PR Situation: fixed.
Quote from: derspiess on April 25, 2014, 03:58:26 PM
Bundy compared himself to Rosa Parks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2613388/Nevada-rancher-Cliven-Bundy-makes-MORE-racist-remarks.html
PR Situation: fixed.
:lol:
So I heard these fine fighters for American freedom are now setting up roadblocks and checking ID's.
Quote from: HVC on April 29, 2014, 10:34:25 AM
So I heard these fine fighters for American freedom are now setting up roadblocks and checking ID's.
No the BLM/authorities are doing that. They aren't letting any more people into the area who don't live there because more militia weirdos keep showing up to help.