Monday Night Open Thread

Tonight is the first night of Passover, the inspirational holiday that celebrates freedom and the release of the Jews from slavery in Egypt 3,000 years ago. The full story is here. Our best wishes to all who are observing.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Mexico AG: Unhappy with Zambada-Niebla Deal, No Plan to Extradite El Chapo | Pistorius Testimony Over, Back to Expert Witnesses >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Criminal Ranchers (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 11:59:52 PM EST
    These ranchers who will not pay their BLM fees are unreal....

    This dispute goes back to the 1970s....But cattle is not native to Nevada....and grazing them in arid grassland that is basically desert is an environmental disaster....

    Sean Hannity is basically advocating terrorism....a modern day Jefferson Davis.....I watched his show and it was truly surreal.

    Hannity and his pals just want another Waco (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 05:34:12 AM EST
    They don't care who gets hurt as long as it is embarrassing to Obama.

    There have to be better ways to make the rancher pay the fines then going in there with a physical confrontation. I'm glad the administration pulled back. These people are obviously unhinged.


    The way the govt guys handled (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 07:49:11 AM EST
    It from the beginning of the recent action was ham handed.  The whole situation is infuriating.

    And I am afraid it sets the precedent that all you have to do to break a law is father a bunch of yahoos with guns.  They couldn't bear the occupy people sleeping in a park but this is just fine.  In this case the right wing media is both more to blame and more worrying


    The Irony of Clive Bundy's (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 07:20:56 AM EST
    ugh (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by sj on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:05:49 AM EST
    I can't believe the BLM returned the confiscated livestock. Putting away the tasers was good, but no reason to set this up to continue for another 20 years.

    And opening the door (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:07:43 AM EST
    for every other yahoo who wants to make the same claims.

    Electile disfunction (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 07:52:49 AM EST
    ok, the guy is a wing nut

    But this is funny

    "If you have a Boehner lasting more than 23 years, seek immediate medical attention," the ad says.


    If you have a Boehner... (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by unitron on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 07:05:59 PM EST
    ...lasting more than 23 years, does that count as electile dysfunction?

    Ooops! (none / 0) (#149)
    by unitron on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 07:07:48 PM EST
    Should have RTF actual article at the link (and thereby have seen its headline) before replying.

    Says the candidate (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:25:46 AM EST
    Whose name is "Winteregg".

    I can't get worked up.... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:03:38 AM EST
    about the enviromental impact of cattle-grazing in a region where the feds set off god knows how many atomic bombs.  I mean c'mon man...that's weak tea.

    I'm glad the BLM backed off...nothing so important as to get anybody hurt a la Waco or Ruby Ridge.  Don't sweat the small stuff I say...let the militia nuts have their fun, and let the locals deal with them.  A federal response just lends creedence to anti-government sentiment, and perhaps rightly so.  Snipers, Swat Teams, etc. over some stupid cattle?  Who are the adults here?

    And if you're not troubled by the militarization of law enforcement be it federal, state, or local...you should be.  This time it's a right-wing nut job rancher...but next time it might be a community garden, a squat, or something/someone more sympathetic the feds come to smack around.


    You know what (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:15:07 AM EST
    If it was

    a community garden, a squat, or something/someone more sympathetic

    It would have been over long ago.  I hate this.   I hate the way it emboldens the gun toteing wing nuts and I hate that this a$$hole who is in fact a very well to do person has been magically turned into some Everyman hero.  He is not.  

    Also you might want to make your case to the 99.99% of farmers in the state who PAY to graze their cows.  This is a $hit sandwich.  Pure and simple.  


    Look around dog (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:16:33 AM EST
    Your allies should concern you.

    Got no allies... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:39:14 AM EST
    in this fight...clowns to the left, jokers to the right my friend.  Trying to be remain somewhat objective, despite my anti-government bias.

    Are you still maintaining (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:43:51 AM EST
    The "I am not informed but just rooting for the little guy" thing?
    Because if you are you might want to do a little googling and find out what is actually being talked about.  Because it is a brilliant example of the stunning hypocrisy of the right wing media that I find it hard to believe you would want to be associated with.
    Beyond that I'm done arguing about it

    Of course... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:09:00 AM EST
    there is stunning hypocrisy...on the "left" too, we had no problem with Occupy protestors "breaking the law".  Or at least I didn't, the law broke us first.

    Sorry dog (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:11:30 AM EST
    I like you but this is an ignorant comment

    How so? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:27:02 AM EST
    If you care to elaborate, or we can move on.

    Can't you see the hypocrisy on both sides?  If these protestors were squatting federal land to protect the desert tortoise from ranchers paying their BLM fees in full, the leftie media would be singing their praises, and Hannity would be calling for summary execution...that's just the way these things go, surely you see that.


    kdog (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:10:16 PM EST
    The government is what protects the weak against the strong.

    Eliminating government power means the powerful will have no check.  Might will make right.


    If they were armed (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:32:29 AM EST
    They certainly would not be.

    For the record, HAVE you actually bothered to do any reading about what is actually going on here?  Because you recently said you had not. Personally I think that if you don't actually know what is going on you should be cautious about having an opinion.

    And what exactly are you suggesting? That the occupy people should have been armed.  Because that is what it sounds like.


    I've read a little bit... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:49:53 AM EST
    since last week...the government is "legally" right, but that's not saying much.  I mean the government is "legally" right to arrest guys like us 24/7/365...'nuff said.

    I'm more concerned with who is morally right...and the best answer I got is none of the above, lots of wrong to go around.  To the BLM for f8cking with them in the first place changing the terms to the deal mid-stream, and to the militia nuts for...umm, being militia nuts.

    I'm not suggesting Occupy should have been armed...I'm for non-violence.  Just saying if they were, they'd have been a lot harder to evict from their encampments....no?  What gave the BLM pause?  Unfortunately, it's the guns.


    Your problem is (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:55:02 AM EST
    We live in a nation of laws.

    And do you really want to live in a country where we decide thing about who is "morally right"?  Really?  Whose morals?  That sounds an awful like what the evangelicals want this country to look like.  

    Bundy owes $1.2 million.

    I want my d@mn money.


    Not exactly... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:15:27 AM EST
    we live in a nation of just and unjust laws enforced unequally and passed in a crooked corrupted manner...that's our "nation of laws" for ya.

    I already live my life based on what is morally right and wrong...not what is legal/illegal.  A couple run-ins with the law aside, it's working pretty good for me.  Morally, at best, we're taking about a minor moral infraction of the cattle possibly f*cking with the desert tortoises habitat.  I couldn't care less about any money past due...if anything I think I'm safer if the rancher has the money, seeing some of the ways the government spends our money.


    You live your life (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:22:53 AM EST
    on what you think is morally right and wrong.  Others would disagree. That's really a nebulous premise to base a society on.

    In this case however, it's pretty black and white - the cows shouldn't be on federal property to graze without the government's permission and the requirement to pay a fee to do so. Bundy is not only upset with this law, he is willfully violating it, and being enriched in the process (which is unfair to competitors who actually follow the rules).  So, the government is taking that property, which is on their land, so he can no longer make money off of committing an act that is in violation of the law. Pretty simple.

    Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, as they say.


    What is law.... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:46:34 AM EST
    but a reflection of a society's morals?  This endless reams of federal law we got ain't a refelction of my morals, and I'm confident millions of Americans can say the same.

    You're taking a one-sided over-simplified view of the dispute.  The feds woke up one day and changed the terms to the grazing lease agreement, the rancher disputed the change in terms and withheld fees while in dispute.  One party will withold fees while in a dispute with another party all the time...it's nothing outrageous.  The federal response, and the militia response to the federal response, is what could be considered outrageous.  

    Somebody is gonna get shot over fees and cattle grazing...it's crazy.  And you're ranting about your money and your land when it's neither your money or land.


    Not a new thing (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by sj on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:59:32 AM EST
    Somebody is gonna get shot over fees and cattle grazing...it's crazy.
    The cattle/sheep wars weren't bloodless. This expectation of entitlement on the part of cattlemen is not new. I find myself with jb on this on -- even though it's a "lawn order" issue.

    I pretty much have nothing but contempt for Bundy, the sort who thinks his needs/wants have precedence over any others'.  I've seen his type all my life.


    You leave out some important facts (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:00:30 AM EST
    1. This didn't happen last week.  This has been going on for twenty years.

    2. He isn't "withholding fees while it is in dispute" - several courts have already determined that the case isn't in dispute and that he needs to pay the fees and stop grazing his cattle there. He also

    3. And you're ranting about your money and your land when it's neither your money or land.

    Actually, it is.  It belongs to the US government, so it's my land, your land, etc.  What it is not, however, is Cliven Bundy's land for his personal use.

    And by the way, they "didn't change the terms".  Bundy's assertion is that his family has ranched there since 1880, but the Nevada Constitution (which pre-dates that by 16 years) clearly states that Nevada residents will, above all,show fealty to the US government. He NEVER had the right, ergo, no "change of terms".


    Courts don't get it wrong? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:29:55 AM EST
    British justice ruled George Washington and all rebels were guilty of treason and tax dodging...case closed, off with their heads, all hail the queen....right?

    If it was really our land we wouldn't have had to risk getting locked up using our land during the government shutdown.  It's our land only in theory, in practice it belongs to the people with guns, or the people with influence to get a mining or fracking or grazing lease.


    No, the Ranchers are not (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:15:48 PM EST
    morally right.  

    You do realize they are wealthy?  You got that part, right?

    Grazing cattle in arid grasslands creates deserts....You cannot graze cattle in Nevada (except for perhaps in the Reno area or near the Sierras) in an economically profitable way or in a way that does not do substantial damage to the environment.

    Cattle are not native the West.  And the best place to graze cattle?  Where the buffalo roam....Dallas, flat, flat Dallas with its endless flat grass, is where you can graze cattle.  Not arid Nevada where the cattle have to have so very many square miles of range to live....just not that many blades of grass to eat in a near desert area.


    No MKS (none / 0) (#176)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:37:55 PM EST
    you can graze cattle almost anyplace as long as you adjust the number of "cows per acre" to the habitat.

    Out there it is about 1 per 300-350 acres.

    No one has claimed this is about over grazing.


    You read something (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 12:46:28 AM EST
    on a right wing site?....Sure you can adjust....but desert grassland is still not well suited to grazing.....and cattle just doesn't spread out on a mathematical scale.

    You need a heckuva lot of desert grassland to feed a herd the size of this welfare cheat.  And recognize not much else will be able to live on that 350 acres....Times that by the head of cattle and you can watch how quickly an arid grassland valley becomes desert never to recover.  This type of land just doesn't bounce back.....

    You do not know ranching, Jim.  Stick to propaganda for oil companies...

    Without massive subsidies, ranching is not economically viable in arid land--too hard to do, too labor intensive.  Nebraska and Iowa much cheaper.....or Dallas flatland....

    Why you support these criminals is beyond me.....


    And (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:44:50 AM EST
    You DO have allies.  If you want them or not

    I think we got a dueling... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:24:59 AM EST
    "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing going on...you think Bundy and the Militia Nuts are your enemy, so Uncle Sam's BLM mercs are your friends by default.  I tend to think the opposite.

    Then you are projecting (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:43:31 AM EST
    That could not be further from my thoughts.

    IMO Bundy and what he represents is more of a danger to my country that any Islamic terrorist.  You can be sure that now every time some crackpot has a problem with any law all he has to do is throw a whack-a-paloza with every militia nut he can gather.  It is a dangerous and frightening possibility


    On the flip.... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:52:56 AM EST
    It's good to see people standing up for their rights, and not justing bending over and taking it from the feds.  I wish we saw more of that from the working class...albeit unarmed.

    It's not saying much that Bundy and his ilk are a greater threat to the nation than Islamic terrorism.  I'd call 'em both a far lesser threat than the finance/banking cartel or the military industrial complex or even the Federal Government itself...but they're all "legal" and/or "too big to prosecute" so all is well once..err, all is well once we hang Rancher Bundy.  


    I wonder if you will (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:09:32 AM EST
    Think is as "good" when a bunch of armed militia morons stand in a church doorway to prevent a gay marriage.

    Think that's a stretch? I don't.


    Howdy, why did I know this would (1.50 / 2) (#178)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:39:22 PM EST
    be,sooner or later, about Gay Rights?



    In that case... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:18:58 AM EST
    they wouldn't be standing up for their (disputed)grazing rights, they'd be impeding on the mariage rights of others.  Not a good analogy.

    I say again, I don't like the armed aspect anymore than you do...but I'm sorry to say the sh*t works...till it doesn't and your arse gets shot.  


    For the record (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:25:25 AM EST
    And I'm done

    The grazing rights are NOT disputed


    Oops (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:27:43 AM EST
    I sent that before I meant to so I have to say one more thing the precedent you are setting here is going to lead to exactly that.  If you don't like a law saddle up and grab your guns.  I'm sorry you can't see that.

    No I'm done.


    That precedent was set... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:38:45 AM EST
    the day after the gun was invented man...the only reason we have US law is some guys picked up guns in lieu of obeying British law.  It's very very rare to fight the law and win without guns...I can only think of MLK Jr. and Ghandi and Mandela as succesful non-violent law-breakers...while history is full of armed law breakers who fought the law, won, and re-wrote their laws.

    I appreciate that your point of view (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by sj on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:49:02 AM EST
    is completely consistent. Your standard of ethics are about the purest I've ever known and your position now is... well... completely consistent. No situational ethics for you!

    Having said that, I think you're way off base on this. Bundy, like that other famous Bundy, thinks his needs/wants/desires supercedes all others. He may be no serial killer, but he's a psychopath all the same.

    In my opinion.


    I am trying like hell... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:59:41 AM EST
    not to let my personal opinion of the Bundy Brigade cloud the issue.  

    Believe you me my personal opinion of these folks is no different than yours...but I'm concerned about their rights, and by extension all our rights.

    And honestly I don't see who he is really hurting by grazing...it's gotta be about the money, it's always about the money...and I don't care too much for money, because money can't buy me love.  ;)


    That's not the point, really (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by sj on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 12:29:14 PM EST
    And honestly I don't see who he is really hurting by grazing.
    Although he actually could be hurting the land with over-grazing (I don't know if he is, or he isn't). But if one can do whatever one wills on public land with impunity, what about fracking? mining? draining wetlands?

    He deoesn't get a special pass.


    I don't know either... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 12:33:38 PM EST
    if he is causing irreparable harm to the land or not...but I do know the BLM allows great harm to public lands with their mining, fracking, and logging leases.  Cattle grazing, though unnatural, is helluva lot more natural than mining & fracking, all which occurs on public lands with BLM approval, as long as you pay the piper.

    Apparently... (none / 0) (#151)
    by unitron on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 07:19:45 PM EST
    ...he's just letting the cattle roam wherever they can get to--public land, other people's private land, roads, anywhere a physical barrier doesn't halt them.

    Until I started reading about this guy, I'd never seen or heard the word "feral" used in reference to cattle.


    I hate it too... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:50:35 AM EST
    ya need a gun to get respect from your government...very frustrating for those with a grievance that abhor guns and violence.

    Being a citizen isn't enough to get respect, being right isn't enough...ya need to be "legal" and/or be armed to have a prayer.  I hate it too.


    I totally disagree, k-dog (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:45:59 AM EST
    I am from a ranching family from the West. My mom ran a little ranch until five years ago.  I have a photo hanging on the wall of my great grandfather on horseback with six shooter and sweat stained hat and shirt and lasso in hand.  A real cowboy.  I rode horses long before I ever drove a car.  I did a little junior rodeo in my junior high school days.

    Those guys are criminals. They are not cute little ranchers.  Armed thugs.

    The desert may be just a bombed out nothing to New Yorkers but it is vast and beautiful and full of life and fragile.  You can still see the wagon wheel ruts from the old Butterfield Stage route.  
    What you do not understand is how vast Nevada is.  It takes the better part of an entire day to drive from Yosemite to Salt Lake City.  I have made that drive a number of times.  Not every inch of the Nevada Basin was bombed out....  

    Did the Occupy people ever--ever--threaten violence or brandish weapons?.....There is no equivalence.   Get back to me the next time anyone on the Left threatens to wage a violent war on Federal officials.

    Those guys should be arrested for all manner of violent felonies.....Brandishing weapons, etc. Spoiled freeloaders....who are probably also wealthy.  Got to have their government welfare....No comparison to the Occupy people.

    This is a reprise of the Reagan Era Sagebrush Rebellion.  These nuts will die off soon  enough.  I hope the feds seize their bank accounts and drive them out of business.


    That's my point... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:03:16 AM EST
    the Occupy protestors were not violent and not armed...and were evicted from their encampments & defeated by the armed and violent.  These loons are armed and have yet to be defeated.

    The targets of the government have nothing in common except they've targeted...agreed.


    I get it Kdog. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:03:14 AM EST
    It's sad but true. The goons took care of the Occupy movement, why, because they could. BLM goons backed down because they were confronted by more goons. It's simple risk assessment. It's how cops operate every day. Who do you bust? You bust the guys that offer the least resistance.

    Kdog maybe you need to update your ideas about (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by ZtoA on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:56:37 AM EST
    wall street sharks. They do the same thing. Not following laws, not paying their due, taking money with entitlement. Bundy is just like them. He is not a poor farmer. Wall street uses a certain kind of violence, and so does bundy. Neither wants to play by the rules, but are just out for themselves. Also not all wealthy ranchers act this way and likewise not all of Wall street does.

    Maybe we need to replace the SEC... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 12:10:22 PM EST
    with the BLM? The BLM ain't f8cking around!

    I see your point, which just furthur illustrates the inequality under the law epidemic that leads to people disregarding the law and having no respect for the law.  "If Wall St. can steal, why can't I?"

    But for Bundy to equate to Wall St. criminality, he'd have to be stealing the entire State of Nevada, maybe even the whole southwest to even approach equivalency with Wall St.


    Or replace both with the DEA (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ZtoA on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 01:47:28 PM EST
    actually that would be horrible. Enriching one's personal self by disregarding laws one does not like is very much what both are doing. Both the Wall Street criminals and Bundy stole from the government. Both got away with it for years and years. Both showed their muscles and the government  backed off. "If Wall Street and wealthy ranchers can steal, why can't I?"

    Yes that would be horrible;)... (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 01:59:01 PM EST
    Speaking of legal thievery, the DEA are masters of the trade!

    Wall St. stole from citizens and the government, and paid some fines to the government that paled in comparison to the scope of their fraud and theft.  Bundy never robbed or defrauded any individual citizen or pension fund etc. afaik, just refused to pay government fees.  A little different...more similar to tax evasion than stealing imo.


    Not quite the same, kdog (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:24:13 PM EST
    It is not exactly like tax evasion, since, while Bundy is not robbing or defrauding any individual citizen, he is robbing our future by endangering the ecosystem of the West, the endangered species, and the water system.
    To be frank, grazing cattle, sheep, etc, on these lands is not, ultimately, sustainable.
    If individuals are going to continue to rape the Western environment in this way, the very least they could do is pony up some money for this.

    You got that exactly right (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:40:28 PM EST
    The romantic ideal of the cattle rancher can only be economically sustained in a few places in the West....Hint--you need large swaths of grassland, and near-deserts don't count.

    In environments where cattle can graze, it is really, really hard to do so without messing up the environment---destroying creeks and meadows, etc....and there are other critters out there.  Even in arid Nevada there are antelopes, hawks, foxes, coyotes, all kinds of birds, and sometimes wild horses....

    Colorado has had a few ranches that are able to graze cattle without wiping out the watershed....and that is in green Colorado....not arid Nevada....

    These bozos in Nevada should be put out of business...


    As far as ecosystem rapists go... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:41:33 PM EST
    Bundy is so far down on the list of offenders he doesn't even rate Zorba.  His crime is failure to pay the vig...nothing more nothing less.

    The real enviromental crimes occur with the blessing of the BLM, EPA, etc., with perps who pay the vig on time to keep the criminal enterprise flowing.  Bundy ain't burning coal or fracking or dumping nuclear waste...just grazing.

    As for unsustainabity, I hear ya, our entire way of life is unsustainable with the resources we consume and the waste we produce.  Guilty as charged over here...burning oil all winter for heat and all year long driving, using potable drinking water to flush my toilet, eating Bundy's beef...probably all grounds for going straight to hell, if hell exists. But all legal here in the USA, in fact consumption is encouraged.  

    Go figure, it ain't my code, I'm just expected to live by it by birth lottery and the right to vote in a corrupt two party duopoly.


    Bundy is certainly not (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:58:19 PM EST
    as bad as the frackers or coal burners, etc.
    And I would say that they need to be severely regulated, as well.
    But just because they are not being regulated the way they need to be, that does not mean that we should ignore Bundy or anyone else of his ilk.
    If you cannot catch the "big ones," that does not mean that you should ignore the smaller ones.
    I am thinking of my kids, their kids, and all the future generations.
    I think that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, my friend.

    You, me... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 03:34:04 PM EST
    and a lot of people will have to agree to disagree Sister;)  

    Remember though the Bundy's were paying all their fees from '66-'93, when the BLM wanted to protect the desert tortoise and subjected the Bundy lease agreement to tortoise sitings.  At that point, right or wrong, Bundy got pissed off and stopped paying/following orders, and tried to pay Clark County his fees.  And here we are.

    As someone who has wanted to tell Uncle Sam to go f*ck himself and the horse he rode in on many many times in my life...I can't help but relate a little bit to the Bundy's....even if they are rich right-wing arseholes with which I have nothing in common aside from being down on how Uncle Sam rolls.  

    And I'm kind of amazed that here at Talkleft, so many are willing to take the government's side no questions asked just because the offender is a d*ck.  We've had more sympathy for accused murdererers and terrorists and their rights than we do for this guy...I find that kind of strange.


    Bundy is no hero. (5.00 / 7) (#120)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 03:44:06 PM EST
    No more than I would be if I'd showed up at someone's house in 1998 with all my stuff and refused to pay rent, or accede to requests, followed by demands, followed by court orders, that I move.  

    I think people are allowing themselves to be swayed by the fact that the Bundy squat is taking place on wide-open land, and not in the middle of a neighborhood.  They're allowing themselves to think that because it seems "natural" - animals eating grass - that there's no harm.  They would be wrong. People who live in cities and towns have a hard time grasping this.  It's not happening next door to anyone, so what's the big deal, right?.  And just because he's one person, Bundy's not "the little guy," not the way you want him to be.

    Seems to me this is a classic case of most people talking out of their a$$es about things they don't know much about.  

    Been frustrating reading this thread - lots of really bad logic and terrible analogies being thrown around in service to what looks like stubborn, if not blind, allegiance to the principle that the government is always bad.   Lord knows I've been plenty critical of government, but even I know it's not all bad, all the time.


    Thanks, Anne. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 05:40:19 PM EST
    The conflicts and misunderstandings between urban and rural locales is something with which we had to grapple a lot while I worked at the state legislature, and they still do.

    It's exacerbated because our state's third largest island (Oahu) is also extensively urbanized with 70% of our 1.4 million residents, and its second largest (Maui) is primarily rural but has many of the amenities traditionally associated with high-end urban living, by virtue of its status as a world-class resort community. But the rest of the state really isn't like that at all.

    The remaining 300,000 Hawaii residents  -- many of whom are Native Hawaiian -- are for the most part scattered across farms, ranches, fishing villages and small towns on the other six main islands, one of which (the island of Hawaii) is over twice again as big in size and area as the rest of the Hawaiian Islands together. The largest "city" on the neighbor islands is Hilo, which 220 miles southeast of Honolulu on east side of Hawaii island and has about 40,000 residents.

    Yet by and large, people who reside in Honolulu and urban Oahu and the gated white enclaves of Maui and Kona tend to be almost blissfully, even comically ignorant of the corresponding facts that 90% of Hawaii is actually rural in nature, and that this is where most of our Native Hawaiians live. Set aside our admittedly exotic reputation and locale, and in many ways we are the quintessential U.S. rural state, as most people would generally understand the traditional sense of the term.

    (And if you as a dashing urbanite can't get away from it all in Hawaii, then you're really not trying very hard.)

    I'm sure you and Zorba in rural Maryland also run into that attitude more than occasionally when having to interact with residents of the greater Baltimore-Washington metro area.



    Some of us are siding with Mama Nature ;) (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 03:50:56 PM EST
    Yes, exactly, nycstray (none / 0) (#129)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:08:05 PM EST

    kdog, you are now seeing (1.50 / 2) (#179)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:44:41 PM EST
    that the Left is not about individual freedom, but group think and group speak.

    And you can't agree with just one thing and no another. You have to agree on EVERYTHING.

    And this is the situation that has flushed them out.


    Oh, please (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:59:29 PM EST
    No one is telling Kdog he "has to agree with them on EVERYTHING."  Kdog has a anti-authoritarian/libertarian philosophy that means he almost always disagrees with government action to enforce laws.

    The only thing being "flushed" here is your ridiculous claim that "the Left is not about individual freedom, but group think and group speak."


    Gosh, Jim, you figured us all out. (none / 0) (#196)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 01:19:18 AM EST
    You're just too smart for us.

    I don't think that this is about the feds. (5.00 / 6) (#106)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:46:39 PM EST
    Last I saw, it wasn't the BLM that was misappropriating the proceeds of a community garden.

    Rather, this is about a wealthy, right-wing cattleman who consciously and willingly flouts the law for the better part of two decades, and who thinks he can continue to get away with it because his wingbat friends now threaten violence to protect what they believe to be that crackpot's constitutional right to freeload because he conveniently decides to ignore the public trust's title to the land in question.

    Anti-government cuckoos like that frighten me one helluva lot more than any armed feds, because they're angry (more at life than anything else), unhinged and have long since proven quite capable of hurting and killing innocent bystanders -- including babies and children -- in their neverending quest to confront the "guvmint." They are the ones who first threatened violence, not the feds.

    How are the feds supposed to respond to armed threats like this -- by sending in an unarmed process server dressed in a suit to give the guy a subpoena? These are not sympathetic citizens who are being oppressed. They are dangerous people spoiling for a fight because they've apparently nothing better to do in their miserable and pointless lives.

    That said, the feds did good to back off. Now that they know what these clowns are about, they should just surround the place and seal it off from the outside world, cut off all utilities, not let anyone else or any food and supplies in or out of the property, and simply wait them out.

    Then when the malevolent Buffalo Bob and the rest of his cockadoodle Howdy Doody chorus are out of food and water and have had enough, arrest and charge every single damned one of them to the full extent of the law to make examples of them, and let Clarabelle Hannity and the rest of the white-wing media squeal away to their clueless Peanut Gallery, like the phuquing Koch-snorting pigs that they are.



    Indeed, indeed your point is (2.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:13:50 AM EST
    dead on.

    And I can't pass up the hypocrisy of all the love and support showered on the adult children roosting in our parks and streets demonstrating against the Wall Streeters versus the attacks against the ranchers.


    Governments love... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:30:58 AM EST
    unarmed protestors, that's for damn sure.  Much easier to push around and bust some heads a la Occupy.

    So, you want armed protests? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:09:40 PM EST
    That is not a good idea.

    ... is frankly a disservice to the Occupy movement, its participants and their supporters. Nothing noteworthy can be learned by searching for common traits shared by a bushel basket of Granny Smith apples and a 50 lb. bag of Quickrete mortar mix. These are two entirely different cases, each rooted in its own unique set of issues, claims and circumstances.

    Uh, no one was comparing the two (none / 0) (#168)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:19:38 PM EST

    My comparison is between what the Left wing supporters want.


    I really knew all this (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:21:47 PM EST
    conservative talk of law and order was really claptrap....

    You do know the difference between the Occupy Protestors and these ranchers.....The Occupy people used non violent passive resistance.  You know, the Gandhi way,  MLK's way.

    Your blessed ranchers?  They are using the Southern way.  Secession.  Armed and traitorous rebellion.   After the surrender of the South at Appomattox Courthouse, one would think this armed rebellion conceit would end.


    misinterpretation.... (none / 0) (#102)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:42:38 PM EST
    I know what the history books say about the "surrender of the South at Appomattox Courthouse," but, many Southerners today feel that it was just a temporary "truce" not a surrender.

    And, that thinking is why we have two countries today, and, will never have a "United" States of America.

    Why do you think there is no debate, negotiation, and/or compromise in the dealings between the Red States and the Blue? According to "Them," you, simply, don't negotiate with the Enemy.

    Rather than a united country think of it more like North and South Korea.  



    I don't know. (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 05:20:00 PM EST
    I have hope. The problem is that the GOP breathed life into these people. I rue the day the GOP joined forces with these people. They pushed the neoconfederate agenda for decades longer that it would have survived had they had to form a party of their own. They would have realized that they would have had to get in the modern world in order to survive. Now since these people have been coddled we are now literally decades behind the rest of the country.

    There is going to be a point though where they get tired of always being on the losing side of everything. I read also where 59% of the babies under the age of one here in GA are minorities. What is going to happen then? In a few short years unless the GOP kicks these people (dixiecrats) to curb and returns to their roots as being the party of Lincoln and modernizes themselves they are going to become obsolete.


    I hope you are right (none / 0) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 05:38:41 PM EST
    I really do.
    But I am less optimistic.  At least in the near term.  Fact is there enough people to win elections now.  They don't vote.  Will they start?  I hope they will but I have been hoping that for a long time.  Meanwhile the reds will do everything they can do to keep,their claws in the meat of power.  They seriously are no longer concerned with public relations.  It's right out in the open.  They will do what they need to do and brag about it at CPAC.  Voter suppression is the new front in the civil rights war.  And I fear we have only seen the opening salvos.

    You are correct (none / 0) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 07:14:36 PM EST
    in the near term they are going to fight to try to suppress voting or anything else they can do in their desperation to hold onto power. So far it has not been working.

    There's always the problem of voters not showing up. The GOP elite say that it's a myth that they need to get minority voters. They are saying the same thing about the white vote--not enough of them showed up and that's why they lost.

    As far as voting, well, I don't know how you get people to vote? So many people just don't seem to care and I'm not sure HOW you make them care.


    Well, that's the issue, (none / 0) (#154)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 07:55:08 PM EST
    isn't it?

    "I don't know how you get people to vote?"

    As you can see, The GOP is in a constant state of "attack." And, the dimwitted Dems' only "message" is to try and fend off, or, blunt the assault.

    Now, you tell me, and, this is one of the most intriguing political dilemmas in my memory. Half of all the States (all headed by Republican Governors) have told their citizens, "screw you." While the federal gov't. is standing there with billions of dollars in their fists, begging to give it to the states if they only expand their Medicaid coverage for their poorest citizens (which costs them almost nothing). Virtually, billions of free dollars just waiting for the people who need it most to reach out and grab it.

    And, this money would not only provide health care to millions of folks who have never had any kind of coverage. But, that would be billions of new dollars flowing into their economies and triggering a huge "multiplier" economic boom. I have posted earlier where expert studies have shown that countless thousands will die, needlessly, due to this inexplicable, sadistic, denial by Republican Governors of these desperately needed funds.

    What kind of people can hear/read this outrage, and, meekly, bend over and whisper, "Yes Sirs, we're ready for you to cram it to us."

    How do explain THESE people not voting?


    It's almost unbelievable isn't it (none / 0) (#155)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:26:21 PM EST
    I have thought that if that doesn't get them to the polls I honestly can't imagine anything that will

    Well (none / 0) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:25:39 PM EST
    all I can say is those people being denied the Medicaid expansion have not been able really vote on that issue until this year it would seem. I'm guessing that until Obamacare went into effect they weren't going to get insurance so maybe it didnt matter. But now they know they can get insurance if it wasn't for their idiotic governor. From what I understand the Dem running for governor is not campainging on the Medicaid expansion but Michelle Nunn is. Hmm, what if Michelle wins and Jason Carter loses? Which is really kind of crazy because Michelle Nunn is not going to be able to deliver Medicaid and Carter actually could.

    And I have to tell you that at least some of the people don't think they are going to get insurance anyway. I think Howdy would be a better person to ask about this because AR actually took the Medicaid expansion.


    Ga, that's what (none / 0) (#163)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:48:06 PM EST
    polls are for.

    I'm fairly certain that if there was some sort of upheaval in public opinion on an issue as important as their family's health care, we would've heard it by now.


    As a resident of the demilitarized zone (none / 0) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:34:57 PM EST
    I must sadly agree with that

    Shooter, I know you have lived in Nashville long (none / 0) (#169)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:21:42 PM EST
    enough to know what "sides" are in a restaurant, but that is the extent of your knowledge about modern southern culture.

    To be fair (none / 0) (#103)
    by Slado on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:43:27 PM EST
    The OWS protestors broke several laws.

    It is not the same as this guy and I think a bad comparison.

    Apples and Oranges.  

    However lets not pretend the OWS movement holds some sort of moral authority.

    That was a misguided protest against the rich when he real cause of their problems is the ever expanding government and its mismanagement of money policy followed by a bailout with their taxpayer dollars of Wall street.

    Wall street is not clean by any means but they had to get their new money from somewhere (because they had gone broke) and the feds were all to happy to give it to them.


    Disagree.. OWS was a protest (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 03:46:32 PM EST
    on behalf of the middle class much more so than a protest against the rich.  While snuffed out, in its short life it brought to the fore the missing side of the then one-sided debate, income inequality and the need for jobs.  The prevalent, if not exclusive, "debate" was the extent of deficit reduction (in the midst of a great recession) deploying expansionary austerity.  

    Moreover, OWS influence helped unmask the clownish Paul Ryan's fiscal plan as well as assist in the burial of  the Simpson/Bowles insouciant cat-food for the elderly program.  Indeed, the issue highlighted was not the bad monetary policy, but the irresponsible fiscal policy.

    OWS was a mostly, young-peopled non-violent demonstration that had violence inflicted upon them--from sadistic treatment of NY policeman, Tony Baloney, to the horrifying pepper spraying of students seated on the pathway of UC Davis campus.   Yes,  I feel that OWS brought much needed moral authority to a misguided economic direction underway. Pretending otherwise is pretentious.


    And, didn't we get (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 03:58:02 PM EST
    the now famous (or, infamous) descriptive noun, "The 1%" from them?

    I'll give you the 1% (none / 0) (#134)
    by Slado on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:44:59 PM EST
    but their protest against the 1% was misguided.

    The movement was spawned by the crash and the resulting rise of the 1% because of really bad federal (and bipartisan) policies.

    The 1% is in it's current form because of crony capitalism, poorly regulated markets and the expansion of goverment.

    How does the 1% stay on top?  How does it protects it's wealth?   Why is it seeing an increase in wealth while the rest of ust are not?

    Is it the fault of Capitalism?  No.

    It is the collusion between the elites in government and their preferred elites in big business and finance.

    Yes the OWS movement had a point.   The 1% is getting richer and the rest of us are not.

    The why is what they completely missed.  

    They should have pitched their tents on the front door of the White House and Congress.

    That is where the problems come from.


    Businesses--even large corporations--must operate on the basic formula of customer satisfaction. If people are not happy with a product, its price, or how a company is being run, they will go elsewhere and the company will collapse. Corruption and bad business can sometimes go under the radar for a time, but it always backfires. Despite its tainted reputation, the business community is directly beholden to consumers; or "the people."

    In politics, however, only the will of the majority prevails, and accountability is loose at best. And in a nation that has gradually pushed more power to the federal level, and especially to the executive branch, decision-makers are more separated from the people than ever.

    Jeff Sparrow (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:55:17 PM EST
     Everything we feared about communism - that we would lose our houses and savings and be forced to labor eternally for meager wages with no voice in the system - has come true under capitalism.

    And, who would thought (none / 0) (#147)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 06:56:19 PM EST
    that the richest man in the world would be a perfect example of the Proletariat ....Vladimir Putin.

    I wish (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 07:21:33 PM EST
    businesses were beholden to consumers. They unfortunately largely are not. In a perfect world they would be and then if they treated their customers badly they would go out of business. Wal-Mart is an example of this. Wal-Mart's business model is all about the stockholders not the customers. If you ever go there, they never have enough registers open because they are trying to keep their profit margin. In some places it's almost the only place for most people shop. In these small towns a lot of them have nowhere else to really shop. They have ZERO customer service. I go to Target. They open a register if the lines get too long. A manager will run a register if need be. I go to Costco. Everybody smiles at me and asks me if I'm having a nice day. Yet, for all this Wal-mart is the biggest retailer in America. If it were only customers then Wal-Mart would be out of business. It's competition and a whole host of other facts that come into play.

    If I can believe you then you are making (none / 0) (#174)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:28:35 PM EST
    the point that competition works. Poor service at Walmart, you go to Target (don't use your credit card - lol) or Costco.

    You know GA, I grew up in one of those small towns. The selection was poor, the prices were high and the quality was low.

    Walmart brought better everything. That's why it succeeded.


    I helped those Occupy kids, Jim (5.00 / 5) (#125)
    by Dadler on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:00:32 PM EST
    Several of them had welts on them from police batons. Police who were in flak jackets, helmets, armed to the gills. Please, this is a false equivalency of the worst sort. Occupy took to the streets, protested almost entirely peacefully, had no guns, and they were beaten like animals by police. And in NYC those police had been enriched by a multi-million dollar "gift" from Chase.

    I repeat, Jim, I worked with those kids. They were committed, peaceful, full of more democratic and egalitarian spirit than any folks I'd been around in eons. And they got the sh*t beaten out of them. Period.

    Adult children. Good lord, what a condescending comment. People engaged in the ONLY thing freedom means. Unarmed. Beaten down by armed  police. That's just not an honest take on the situation. This rancher has armed thugs behind him. And, obviously, the government cares a lot more about not beating them down than it did beating down those "adult children" peacefully engaged, again, in the only thing freedom means.

    If anything, this entire situation demonstrates how if you're white and right-wing and armed, you largely get a pass. If you're a rainbow of people, camped in a park, protesting a system that is screwing normal people day and night, PEACEFULLY, then you get your head bashed in.



    Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh me.... (1.50 / 2) (#175)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:33:11 PM EST
    You get involved with the police and you get your head, or worse, thumped.

    Wow. Didn't these adult children learn anything by watching the civil rights struggle?? And those adult children were mostly white and upper middle class.... If you are poor you can't fly to NYC and demonstrate.

    And you have no reason to call the people supporting the rancher thugs besides a flash of the bigot in your soul.


    As far as I know it is not plural (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:34:44 AM EST
    It's one guy.  Practically every rancher in NV  pays to graze their cows.  There is one problem.  Cliven Bundy.  He owes millions in grazing fees since the 90s.  
    The really funny part is how the right wingers never shut up about the "takers" stealing form the govt buy purchasing crab legs and lap dances with their EBT cards.  Apparently the problem they have is that their scam lacks scope and if they steal millions from the govt that's worth fighting for.

    That's pretty (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:46:24 AM EST
    much it in a nutshell. The truth is conservatives have no problems with "takers" as long as they deem them "worthy".

    Another example of how right wingers believe they are above the "law" and these militias are full of right wing terrorists.


    If you have not (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:53:42 AM EST
    You really should follow the bindc link upthread.  It is a very interesting wrinkle I was not aware of.

    Howdy, you should watch (1.60 / 5) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:56:09 AM EST
    FNC... it wasn't and isn't just one.

    BTW, one of the other ranchers have won two huge settlements from the BLM. Of course the BLM didn't pay, just appealed to the 9th which they called "their court." The settlements were for continued illegal actions and harm to the rancher in question.

    Also the rancher in question has offered to pay the fees to the state of Nevada. So much for your lap dancing and crab legs...which, BTW, is a terrible analogy.....unless you want to say two wrongs make a right.

    It is also noted that land managed by the BLM had its designation changed so that a buddy of Harry Reid could use it for a business.... So much for protecting the land turtles, eh??

    People are tired and afraid. Every bureau of government has its own armed police force. Enough is enough and before you say it, yes much of the growth came during a Repub admin but all three of the armed actions, Ruby Ridge, Waco and Nevada, have came while a Democratic administration was in charge.

    I was watching Megan Kelly last night as she interviewed an independent film maker. He made a great point.

    The ONLY news group there was Fox.

    Where was NBC? CBS? ABC?


    Jim (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:07:00 AM EST
    Who cares if he "agreed to pay the State of Nevada"?  This isn't Nevada's land - it belongs to the US Government.

    From my link:

    Well, you know, my cattle is only one issue--that the United States courts has ordered that the government can seize my cattle. But what they have done is seized Nevada statehood, Nevada law, Clark County public land, access to the land, and have seized access to all of the other rights of Clark County people that like to go hunting and fishing. They've closed all those things down, and we're here to protest that action. And we are after freedom. We're after liberty. That's what we want.

    But his argument is bogus:

    Ironically, this position directly contradicts Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:

    All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

    Nope, no way, not at all....am I (1.25 / 4) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:22:40 AM EST
    claiming that his claims are any more legal than the civil rights demonstrators of the 60's.

    They weren't and his aren't.

    The issue is  much larger than grazing fees, although that is what the media apparently wants to push as a talking point.


    A neoconfederate (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:34:44 AM EST
    now using the civil right argument. Oh, boy, that's rich.

    Anyway he's not peacefully protesting. If he was, people would be more sympathetic to his cause. When you have right wing militia nuts showing up with guns ready to kill everybody and anybody you're a public relations nightmare.

    And plenty of Republicans have told this nut that he needs to pay. Apparently you guys believe this guy is "special" and should not have to do what the other 99% of ranchers do.

    I see this same mentality in the north GA mountains. Someone i worked with bought 50 acres but yet couldn't keep the locals off the land because they believed that it was theirs even though she had legal title to it. Their answer was "my grandfather owned this land" therefore they believed that they had every right to do whatever they wanted on the land. It was a nightmare for her.


    GA, you just can't resist (1.33 / 3) (#180)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:46:48 PM EST
    playing the race card.



    How so? (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:35:25 AM EST
    This whole thing started because he unilaterally decided he was not going to follow the law and pay grazing fees, even afer being ordered to by courts.  He is trespassing on MY land (and yours, and every American).

    The government (in my name) should remove the trespassing property off MY property and sell it to put into the care of MY land.  Or else, he can pay the grazing fees for his personal use of MY land.

    I want my d@mn money.


    You ain't seeing a dime jb... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:42:56 AM EST
    it's technically our money, but not really...for it to really be our money we'd need a government by, of, and for the people first.  What we have is a government by, of, and for the government, banks, corporations, and the powerful.  I have no desire to see that outfit get paid...not gonna do us any good, and it may be used to do us harm.

    BLM fees (5.00 / 6) (#99)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:27:44 PM EST
    Everyone apparently except this rich rancher pays them.

    You are taking a Libertarian argument to the extreme of anarchy.....for a rich guy....who is a deadbeat relying on the largesse of the BLM to prop up a business that would otherwise fail without massive government assistance.

    The rancher is an example of welfare for the rich.



    Analogy? (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:40:08 AM EST
    Black People = Cows?

    Getting free food and rent for Black People was not what the Civil Rights movement was about.


    Nonsense. Clive Bundy is a freeloader. (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 03:04:02 PM EST
    Correction: He's YOUR freeloader, who thinks he has a constitutional right to steal from the public trust.

    And make no mistake, those lands are held by the federal government in trust for the people of the United States, and their title to the land where Mr. Bundy's cattle have been grazing long predates the 1850 founding of Utah Territory (of which Nevada was first part), Nevada's own 1863 founding as a state, and that crackpot's arrival on the scene in southern Clark County.



    The bull$hit is so deep in that comment (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:14:51 AM EST
    I was going to ignore it but I have to respond to just one particularly stupid part.

    EVER news organization has been there for days. Print and broadcast.

    Fox has been primarily covering the whack jobs, yes.  For your benefit apparently


    Fox was the only (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:18:37 AM EST
    one at the site of the standoff.

    "Standoff" (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:28:17 AM EST
    Yeah, they were there fanning the flames and hoping for a violent confrontation.  Pathetic.

    But one question, where did all the video of that on all the other stations come from.  Personally I am not prepared to believe something you heard on Fox News .


    Sean Hannity was (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:24:04 PM EST
    advocating an armed attack on Federal officers.....inciting armed rebellion...

    His show brought many more armed people to the site....He very nearly triggered a bloody conflict.


    Ohhhhhh .... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 07:42:01 PM EST
    ... "the only one at the standoff".

    Interesting.  Do you have a link to the video of the Fox News reporter at the standoff?  Because I've seen video from CBS, but not Fox News, other than their replay of the Youtube video that everyone is playing.


    Zero chance of clean news (2.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:17:22 PM EST
    on the topic. What I have read is the family have been raising cattle on the same land since the 1800's, BLM took over the land from the state about 30 years ago and tried to kick them off because of a tortoise. Its been in the courts since.

    The way the BLM acted should concern any sane person.


    Im as libertarian as they come (none / 0) (#81)
    by Slado on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 01:53:37 PM EST
    But this guy is blatantly violating the law.

    In my view he's an armed/red neck Wesley Snipes.

    That said I do enjoy seeing an individual stick it to the overreaching bloated arm of government.

    He will loose this fight and I hope he does so in court vs. on the range in an old fashioned gun fight.  

    The right should not make this guy a hero.

    Government is too large and too intrusive but we must fight that battle in the world of ideas and with our votes rather then with guns in armed protest.


    He has already lost in court (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by sj on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 01:58:51 PM EST
    in 1998 no less.
    The Bureau of Land Management disagreed and took him to federal court, which first ruled in favor of the BLM in 1998. After years of attempts at a negotiated settlement over the $1.2 million Bundy owes in fees failed, federal land agents began seizing hundreds of his cattle illegally grazing on public land last week.
    From jb's link.

    Here is a good breakdown on the law (none / 0) (#83)
    by Slado on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 01:57:15 PM EST
    And what's really going on.



    Oy (none / 0) (#86)
    by sj on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:02:13 PM EST
    Yeah... that's a good breakdown of the law.

    Harry Reid!!!!

    Okay, never mind. It's not. It's not only an egregiously resource intensive website, it's primary purpose is spin.


    Wow (none / 0) (#105)
    by Slado on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:46:24 PM EST
    Did you even read it?

    It clearly lists all the reason this guy is wrong and why.

    One mention of Harry Reid nd you get your panties in a wad.

    All media is biased.   Learn how to read and absorb information from multiple sites and points of view.


    Yes, I read it (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by sj on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:02:35 PM EST
    because.... Harry Reid!!!

    Don't understand (none / 0) (#135)
    by Slado on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:48:55 PM EST
    What is untrue in the link?

    The link basically agrees with you and you hide behind Snark.

    Have hard time understanding what your point is.


    That's the Chinese solar farm right (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:21:28 PM EST
    That is bunk.  The area that was actually discussed for that is hundreds of miles away from Bundy

    Did you read the link? (none / 0) (#107)
    by Slado on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:49:37 PM EST
    If not save your comments.

    The link clearly shows your point and goes on to say that the supposed deal with a Chinese company is over.

    It's very informative on the law ans why this guy is wrong.

    If you're not going to read it save your comments.

    This right wing site is telling right wingers this guy is crazy.


    I sincerely apologize (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:53:32 PM EST
    I only looked long enough to see it was a right wing site posting about the solar farm.

    I grovel in mortification.   Really, I do.

    To quick on the trigger.   Just like Bundy.


    No sweat (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Slado on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:50:33 PM EST
    I have done the same myself.

    I posted it to show that even right wingers think this guy is a bit of a loon.


    Would add (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:57:26 PM EST
    That site doesn't seem to like the iPad or the pop up blockers or something.  One of the reasons for the original brief stay.  I am unable to read it.  The iPad goes nuts.

    But I will take your word for it


    iPad goes nuts (none / 0) (#131)
    by sj on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:12:12 PM EST
    Windows machines slow to a crawl. I should apologize in a way to Slado because I didn't read the entire article -- just most it. After activating about the 4th ad, I got tired of trying a simple scroll and, recognizing the nonsense, closed the tab.

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Slado on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:51:51 PM EST
    I read on Firefox on a PC and had no issues.

    But looking at it again I do see it is add rich.

    Peace - ignore other post admonishing you :)


    KCET (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:23:30 PM EST
    The weirdest of the allegations involve a proposal that's been dead for some months in a spot almost 200 miles away from Bundy's ranch, a project ReWire last covered in a story from almost a year ago. The fact that the project's in the wrong place and time hasn't kept the rumor-mongers from spinning tall tales about it, so it's time to put on our debunking hat.

    There's another rumor waiting in the wings... (none / 0) (#157)
    by unitron on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:50:56 PM EST
    ...about how the area this is actually about is going to be drilled and "fracked" for dinosaur juice, and that's why the gummint has to get the ranchers out of the way.

    Makes sense (none / 0) (#173)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:25:51 PM EST
    The BLM land in WY is now covered in natural gas fracking wells.

    Using Firefox with Flashblock... (none / 0) (#156)
    by unitron on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:47:59 PM EST
    ...reveals a surprisingly impartial, informative, and well-written article.

    Is Beck tied up and gagged and stuck in the basement?


    Took advantage of the cold snap (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:34:07 AM EST
    To make some excellent creamy corn chowder with potatoes kale and ham.

    To quote my favorite line from Idiocracy "f@&k you, I'm eating"

    A cool rainy day here. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by vml68 on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 12:43:49 PM EST
    So, I just had a bowl of creamy potato, sausage and kale soup for lunch.

    Oh, that sounds amazing! (none / 0) (#76)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 12:51:34 PM EST
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 335 (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Dadler on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 03:33:07 PM EST
    For some reason (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:03:16 PM EST
    Amen (none / 0) (#144)
    by Dadler on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 05:53:06 PM EST
    Honored to be in the same thought. ;-)

    I was late to last Sunday's open thread (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by ZtoA on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:01:40 PM EST
    but have to say I agree with Squeaky about art. MO, when I taught the figure painting class the reason for the projection exercise was to let people get a hand feel for a correct 2D read. The next exercise was to intentionally distort. Maybe not the whole figure but noticeable distortions and in order to convey a feeling or meaning. I'd show them many examples of contemporary figurative artists. Working from a model, this was very difficult for some who were too attached to rendering properly. I did not want them to go for a 'good product', but rather a feeling of doing something that feels risky and to dive into their work in a more psychological way.

    Art is not "in" anything in particular (line, value, color, size, whatever). Sometimes art is that which a person passionately puts out there and believes is art. In that case one can always take away something of value.

    A few questions (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:47:14 PM EST
    In my original comment I was discussing the level of difficulty between drawing an image free hand and tracing it from a projected image. As an art teacher, is it technically more difficult for the average beginner to draw a portrait of a person free hand or to trace the image from a photograph?

    In your opinion were the distortions in Bush's paintings intentional and did they add to the quality of the paintings? Did Bush take numerous risks with his portraits?

    Art critic Alastair Sooke is of the opinion that he did not.

    Although the exhibition, The Art of Leadership, is subtitled "A President's Personal Diplomacy", the pictures themselves generally present only the head, neck and shoulders of each leader, in the manner of an official portrait photograph. They thus appear copied rather than produced either from life or from a recollection of a private meeting. Any air of intimacy, informality or insight is markedly absent: most of the leaders wear a suit and tie, or similarly formal clothes typical of the culture they represent, alongside the fixed smile of the politician's public persona. Bush tries to brighten things up by presenting several of the leaders against backgrounds of flat colour ranging from green and yellow to turquoise, in a way that is reminiscent of paintings by the American Pop artist Alex Katz. (Now there's a sentence I never thought I'd write.) But this can't hide the fact that these dreary and compositionally identical likenesses couldn't feel more impersonal if they tried. Nothing here has the surprising interest or sense of uneasy psychological penetration of Bush's bathroom self-portraits.

    Another critic:

    Although Solomon clarifies this technique is a "completely legitimate method" for postmodern contemporary artists, she notes that Bush doesn't transform his imagery in any way beyond simply copying it. (It's also unlikely that Bush is partaking in a postmodern exploration of the proliferation of images.)

    And another:

    "Diplomatic" is actually not a bad word to describe the orientation of these paintings. They are not bad so much as cautious, vacant, even servile - paintings by an artist anxious, or perhaps incapable, of doing anything that might leave a mark.

    One of the other points that squeaky made is that a person can be technically perfect and still not produce great art. I happen to agree with that statement. I just do not agree with his assessment of Bush's paintings.

    BTW, this is a nice sentiment and I can see why you think Bush's portraits or any enthusiast painter would fit that criteria.

    Sometimes art is that which a person passionately puts out there and believes is art

    I work mainly as an artist (none / 0) (#193)
    by ZtoA on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 12:43:31 AM EST
    and rarely teach. When I do it is either advanced painting or post grad. Drawing ability is nice to have, but really not necessary for painters as paintings are not merely filled in drawings. When I give exercises it is to get my students out of their usual thinking and flex their perceptions. Advanced students usually don't think they need that (at least some of them), but we all do. And artists need to make mistakes and really bad art sometimes in order to be able to take risks. I dumpster many works every year.

    But any art can have a psychological read. And Bush's series is a body of work that can be read.

    "Diplomatic" is actually not a bad word to describe the orientation of these paintings. They are not bad so much as cautious, vacant, even servile - paintings by an artist anxious, or perhaps incapable, of doing anything that might leave a mark.

    Any air of intimacy, informality or insight is markedly absent

    Yes, I think this says so much about Bush as a man and as a leader. He might not have wanted to reveal so much of his inner self, but he did. He may not have consciously intended to distort but they are distorted and that is a window into his mind.  

    So I don't know if his paintings are "bad" or "good" paintings. They are art tho.


    Great dialogue (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by lentinel on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:45:35 PM EST
    from "Scandal". A real dreck tv show that I am watching episode after episode...

    The President of the United States calls his chief of staff and confesses that he personally choked a former justice on the Supreme Court to death in her hospital bed to keep her from testifying about his having been elected thanks to rigged voting machines.

    The chief of staff, seeking to comfort Mr. President, says, "It doesn't mean that you don't deserve to be happy".

    A genuinely touching moment accompanied by a soft plink plink of a piano.

    Census Bureau and Health Insurance (5.00 / 3) (#201)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 07:17:08 AM EST
    Since we have reached 200 comments, I can't reply to MC and Capt, but for those who don't want to read the link, here are some highlights:

    WASHINGTON -- The Census Bureau, the authoritative source of health insurance data for more than three decades, is changing its annual survey so thoroughly that it will be difficult to measure the effects of President Obama's health care law in the next report, due this fall, census officials said.

    The changes are intended to improve the accuracy of the survey, being conducted this month in interviews with tens of thousands of households around the country. But the new questions are so different that the findings will not be comparable, the officials said.

    An internal Census Bureau document said that the new questionnaire included a "total revision to health insurance questions" and, in a test last year, produced lower estimates of the uninsured. Thus, officials said, it will be difficult to say how much of any change is attributable to the Affordable Care Act and how much to the use of a new survey instrument


    The questionnaire traditionally used by the Census Bureau provides an "inflated estimate of the uninsured" and is prone to "measurement errors," said a working paper by statisticians and demographers at the agency.

    In the test last year, the percentage of people without health insurance was 10.6 percent when interviewers used the new questionnaire, compared with 12.5 percent using the old version. Researchers said that they had found a similar pattern in the data for different age, race and ethnic groups.


    The old questionnaire asked consumers if they had various types of coverage at any time in the prior year. The new survey asks if they have insurance at the time of the interview -- in February, March or April -- then uses follow-up questions to find out when that coverage began and what months it was in effect. Using this technique, census officials believe they will be able to reconstruct the history of coverage month by month over a period of about 15 months.

    So, I don't see where Obama "incensed some" as MC put it.  Basically, this new format will better allow us to see if the average person had coverage all year, part of the year, or none of the year. There is nothing to be outraged about when it means getting more accurate data, is there?

    Cliven Bundy (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 08:37:28 AM EST
    Seems that most Republicans and even Tea Partiers aren't ready to jump in and defend him.

    So far, all signs suggest that national Republicans and tea party officials aren't about to jump on the Bundy bandwagon. After all, if they want to rally voters against big government, they already have Obamacare for that.

    Compare and contrast: With Obamacare, Republicans and tea party groups can talk about people being forced out of health coverage that they liked, higher premiums to meet the law's new coverage standards, constant changes in the rules by the Obama administration -- and, of course, the hated individual mandate.

    With the ranch standoff, they can talk about how a powerful federal agency took a guy's cows -- in an operation they blandly called a "cattle gather" -- instead of solving the problem, say, any other way.

    But they also have to talk about a guy who didn't pay his grazing fees for more than 20 years, in a state where the federal government owns 86 percent of the land, and where other ranchers just go ahead and pay the fees.

    At that point, it's not such a powerful rallying cry anymore.

    "It's like, really, Glenn Beck? This is the issue you want to get behind?" said one Nevada conservative activist who has followed the story for years. "People who aren't in tune with the story just jumped all over it. And then you go back and read the facts of the story, and then you go, `Uh oh.'"


    Top Republican operatives said they haven't really followed the Bundy story that much. Officials at the top Republican campaign organizations, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee, didn't respond to requests for comment. Top lawmakers were silent.

    And a spokesman for the Tea Party Patriots said there was no one available to talk about the rancher issue on Tuesday. They had other battles on their hands -- including suing the IRS for documents on the scrutiny of nonprofit groups -- but when the group is outraged enough to get involved in a big-government fight, you usually know it.

    Not even Harry Reid -- who insisted that the ranch standoff is "not over" and that a guy who breaks the law can't just get away with it -- could bring the national Republicans and tea party officials out to fight.

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 331 (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 11:06:54 AM EST
    He believes in freedom, but mostly for himself. (link)

    v. 330
    v. 329

    Happy day-o-the-hump, good peeps. Peace.

    I have a question (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:21:39 AM EST
    for the legal eagles that hang out here. Some friends of mine, a gay couple, got married in NY. Since it's April 15th they are filing as a married couple with federal taxes. No problem there with the feds. The problem comes with GA who does not recognize their marriage. One of the couple is stating that GA says to file single even though they are legally married according to the feds. Considering the disclaimer on perjury you have sign along with their taxes are they committing perjury here in GA by filing their taxes as single? One of them is stating basically that Georgia is asking him to lie.

    Not giving a legal opinion here, but (none / 0) (#30)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:32:17 AM EST
    One of them is stating basically that Georgia is asking him to lie.

    Is it really a "lie"?  According to GA, they are not married, right?


    I was going to say (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:33:35 AM EST
    The same thing but not a lawyer either

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:55:51 AM EST
    I guess it's really kind of tricky because if a heterosexual couple was married in NY GA would recognize their marriage would they not?

    I guess he's looking at it from that point.


    Certainly (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 12:02:28 PM EST
    Not arguing the logic.  Also the point you make will undoubtly be made in future court cases

    Yes, GA would (none / 0) (#71)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 12:34:36 PM EST
    recognize heterosexual marriages performed elsewhere under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution.

    But as to the application to gay marriages (because so many states have state laws or provisions in their constitutions prohibiting gay marriage), the answer is still murky.  Until the Supreme Court says once and for all that gay marriage is legal and shall be recognized, it will continue to be this way.


    I'm sure (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 12:37:33 PM EST
    it's probably going to create a nightmare for the GA department of revenue. One year we got out GA tax form kicked back because the feds kicked it back even though there was nothing wrong with the GA tax form.

    One could only hope (none / 0) (#115)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 03:06:40 PM EST
    That it would, indeed, create a nightmare for the Georgia department of revenue.  If it creates enough of a nightmare, and costs Georgia enough, maybe, just maybe, they may begin to rethink their stance.
    Okay, okay, I know.  I'm probably being way too unreal about this.    :-(

    A Georgia couple, legally married (none / 0) (#67)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 12:14:22 PM EST
    in another state ( e.g., NY) , is required to file as married for purposes of federal taxes.  Since Georgia does not recognize their marriage as celebrated in NY, the couple would continue to file their state income tax as singles. It would not seem that complying with the Georgia requirement would place the couple at risk of perjury.

     As we have discussed in another thread, a potentially promising tact, even for Georgia, would be to seek recognition of legal marriages performed in other states (cf. Federal Judge Timothy Black on discrimination by not recognizing legal marriages in Ohio).

    This seems, to me, to be a more readily understood issue and permits the individual state to disallow  and ban same sex marriage to their hearts content.  Not ideal, of course, but a way to scale the fence until it comes down (hopefully, that, too, will soon occur.)  

    I wonder what would occur if the Georgia couple were to file state returns in both ways, single and married--and pay the tax owed on the basis of married, if it was higher than the combined filing of the two singles.   A more instructive and illustrative protest, not to mention non-violent, than armed militias fighting for the right to graze cattle as they please.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 12:33:59 PM EST
    for answering. I have to wonder though if the file married on federal and single on state taxes if it would get kicked out of the Georgia system since federal and state taxes seem to be tied together here in GA. I mean I have to put my federal tax forms in with my GA state forms when I file. Sounds like CF of epic proportions for the department of revenue here in GA.

    Beats me... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 12:38:47 PM EST
    the law is so twisted (by design)...but it sounds like grounds to pull a rancher Bundy and refuse to pay their state taxes.  

    Outrageous that your friends are not recognized as married in GA, yet GA wants to wet their beak from the fruit of the marriage's labor.  

    Do they own weapons? j/k;)


    They (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 12:42:00 PM EST
    would not get the special treatment Bundy is getting. The same militias who are going to bat for them would be the first ones to line up for a firing squad for this couple.

    Too true... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    Gay Americans need a militia.

    Um, no (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 01:33:02 PM EST
    No we don't need a militia

    Having said that (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:12:21 PM EST
    If we had one the uniforms would be Fabulous

    Ha! (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:13:21 PM EST
    I was going to say that, but then thought that might be taken the wrong way.  :)

    You sure? (none / 0) (#79)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 01:45:49 PM EST
    The Stonewall Rebellion was an unarmed militia of sorts.

    Maybe we should start by defining our terms (none / 0) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 01:53:58 PM EST
    mi·li·tia noun mə-ˈli-shə\
    : a group of people who are not part of the armed forces of a country but are trained like soldiers
    a :  a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
    b :  a body of citizens organized for military service

    The stone wall riot was not the work of a militia


    Key word "of sorts"... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:17:27 PM EST
    Stonewall was a body of citizens organized for a common goal...gay rights, basic human dignity, and to be left the hell alone to socialize publicly.  It was "service", if not of a traditional military variety.  The crackers in the desert now are also organized for a common goal (grazing rights for Mr. Bundy/getting federal law enforcement outta Nevada). Stonewall heroes and heroines stood up to the local government officers(NYPD)and refused lawful orders. Bundy Brigade is doing the same with the BLM.  

    Granted, our opinion is the Stonewall rebels were right and heroes, while the Bundy brigade look like poser pikers starting trouble...but that's just our opinion of the two, others may view the Bundy beef as legitimate and just and the Stonewall rebels as common criminals who thought the laws againt homosexual behavior at the time didn't apply to them.


    successful protests (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by ZtoA on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 03:23:44 PM EST
    aim to change laws for the benefit of many. What is Bundy protesting? He just wants to graze his cattle for free? He wants to become even wealthier? He wants Fox News let everyone he hates Obama? The other ranchers pay their dues.

    A 'sort of' militia is a gang. We have lots of armed gangs, with vigilante desires, for protection, for gain, for friends. Maybe the feds could bus a whole bunch of LA gang members out to meet the Bundys. That eliminates the fed law enforcers. Who to root for then?


    Honest to god (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:27:26 PM EST
    There is so,much uninformed nonsense in that comment.  You don't know what you are talking about.  On multiple levels.
    I am officially exiting this conversation before I say something i will regret.

    To quote the don



    They may file their federal return (none / 0) (#166)
    by coast on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:11:27 PM EST
    using a status of married filing jointly.  However, they are supposed to then prepare a pro forma federal return using the filing status of single to arrive at the adjusted gross income figure that is used as a starting point for their state return, which will need to be filed as single status.  GA income tax laws do not require that the same filing status be used for Federal and state purposes, so it should not get kicked out.

    Tom of Finland Stamp (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:30:29 AM EST
    Finland's postal service this week unveiled a new set of commemorative stamps featuring homoerotic artwork from Touko Laaksonen, or "Tom of Finland" -- a late Finnish artist who remains an iconic figure of contemporary gay culture. His illustrations are part of a collection of 33 new designs that the postal service, Itella Posti, will release later this year.....

    ...This week's announcement comes after the US Postal Service said that it will release a new stamp to honor Harvey Milk, the gay rights activist who was assassinated in San Francisco in 1978. The stamp has yet to be revealed [deep throat leak?] and will be dedicated at the White House next month, making Milk the first openly gay figure to be featured on an American stamp.

    The US stamp likely won't be as explicit as the designs announced in Finland this week, though Finland isn't entirely LGBT-friendly. Gay couples there have limited adoption rights, and same-sex marriage has yet to be legalized. The Finnish parliament opened debate on a bill that would allow for same-sex marriages earlier this year, after rejecting a similar proposal in 2013.


    That is awsum (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:44:55 AM EST
    Looks like I will be ordering some Finnish stamps.  I have a rather extensive TOF collection.  Complete with the 20 lb coffee table book.

    Yes (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:49:25 AM EST
    I remember you mentioning it once way back.. (I think).

    Never collected his work, but I have seen tons of it, I really loved his NY gallery, Feature Gallery. Hudson was a great gallerist.. may he rest in peace.


    Don't forget Fargo tonight FX (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:06:31 PM EST
    9 central

    And as if our DVRs didn't have enough to do LEFTOVERS looks great

    if the trailers

    are any indication

    Damon Lindelof is not going to do some lame "Left Behind" ripoff

    What a surprise (none / 0) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:45:01 PM EST
    I screwed that up

    here is the other one


    Can't wait (none / 0) (#108)
    by Slado on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:51:42 PM EST
    Going to DVR it because I'm backed up on GOT.

    Not coming until I think (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 02:58:45 PM EST

    June 15 (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 03:01:20 PM EST
    But I just realized you were probably talking about Fargo

    I am (none / 0) (#138)
    by Slado on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:53:39 PM EST
    and am very excited.

    I have an unhealthy man love for Billy bob Thorton.

    I can't think of anything he's been in that I haven't liked in some way just because he was in it.

    Even...dare I say...Love Actually (great mix of GW and Clinton as US president)


    I agree (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 05:01:14 PM EST
    He is very under rated by some.  Sling blade was oscar material.  I always thought it was ignored because Hollywood types are uncomfortable with hicks.  Even spectacularly talented one.  Maybe especially spectacularly talented ones.

    Looks like (none / 0) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 06:17:11 PM EST
    The premier is 95 minutes.  Awsum.

    Fargo is amazing (none / 0) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:38:03 PM EST
    AMAZING.  The acting is perfect.  The tone is perfect.  It hits the ground running.  It is horrifying and hilarious.

    I promise you will laugh out loud and then feel guilty about it more than once.


    ... escape from Cuba and subsequent arrival last season at my not-so-poor-anymore Dodgers' training camp are apparently true, according to this fascinating, well-researched but frankly harrowing article by Jesse Katz, which currently appears in the May 2014 edition of Los Angeles magazine.

    No wonder Puig has been reluctant to talk about his past and the murky circumstances surrounding his entry into the United States! This story should be cause for grave concern to the Dodger front office and Dodger fans in general, given the inherently violent nature of the company that the team's talented but mercurial star was compelled to keep in order to get out of Cuba.


    This is indeed, fascinating (none / 0) (#128)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:05:27 PM EST
    If I were the Dodgers management, or in fact, MLB as a whole, I would be wondering about who, exactly, Puig owed what, and how that would effect his playing.

    Did I miss it? (none / 0) (#130)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:11:07 PM EST
    or, did the case where the KKK anti-Semitic Killer (who killed 2 Methodists and a Catholic instead) go undiscussed here at TL?

    You missed it (none / 0) (#133)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:41:56 PM EST
    I posted about it in the Sunday thread ( I think )

    This is very cool (none / 0) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 06:42:38 PM EST
    Jackson Brown
    Many more

    Love it. (none / 0) (#158)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:57:35 PM EST
    One of those 'why didn't I think of that?' ideas.

    Late for the Sky is my favorite Jackson Browne album. Glad to see it honored with a street view.


    Another FBI Proxy Clown Act Bites the Dust (none / 0) (#160)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:11:46 PM EST
    NEW YORK -- A special New York Police Department unit that sparked controversy by tracking the daily lives of Muslims in an effort to detect terror threats has been disbanded, police officials said Tuesday.

    Passover (none / 0) (#164)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:53:17 PM EST
    It was the subject of Jeralyn's post.

    Passover is my favorite religious holiday and I am not Jewish.  It is a fun holiday, with joy and laughter....I love gefilte fish as superficial as that may sound.   The whole tenor is one of celebration.....

    The Christian holidays--especially Good Friday and even Easter are so intensely serious.....  

    Have you ever been to a full on Easter Vigil? (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:24:25 PM EST
    Yes Joyous (none / 0) (#167)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:11:32 PM EST
    The Christian holidays--especially Good Friday and even Easter are so intensely serious.....  

    But what about the easter bunny and all those colored eggs? Chocolate.. ok usually bad chocolate, but still fun, no?


    Actually the rabbits and eggs are more about the (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:02:07 PM EST
    Fertility goddess Ishtar.

    I always liked Passover for some reason.  No idea why.  I never met a Jewish person until college.


    Oh, sure you did (5.00 / 4) (#189)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:42:49 PM EST
    just more proof our disguises work.

    Ha, no. Trust me (none / 0) (#190)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:52:59 PM EST
    When I was in K thru 12 there were no Jewish people in my school district or general geographical area.  No African Americans, no Asians, no Hispanics .  A photo of my high school graduating class looks like a photo of some house republican committee.   Except there are some girls.

    That has changed a bit.  But it's still mostly whiter than the North Pole around here.  And that bothers me more than I thought it would when I came back here to retire.  Having lived in major cities my whole adult life.


    Would add (none / 0) (#191)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:54:45 PM EST
    That's certainly not true of the state.  Just this north central area.

    I was (none / 0) (#195)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 12:59:24 AM EST
    a kid in El Paso and always was a little envious of people who lived in communities with minorities.  I never knew any in El Paso.....

    I did know a couple of Mexicans but not many.  "Mexicans," mind you, were people who lived in Mexico and could not speak a lick of English.   My buddy Jimmy Ortiz was not "Mexican."  Nor was Tony Saucedo....Nor Hector...

    If you look at the stats, El Paso is well over 75% Latino...and maybe had more anglos when I was a kid....but it never occurred to me my friends and neighbors were different in any way....They were American to me...."regular" as they might say in Spanish....

    I did have a "Mexican" friend named Eddie Borenstein.  He lived in Juarez but somehow was able to pay tuition and go to school in El Paso.  He was Jewish, going back to the original theme of this thread.  My Mom thought that was just great, a Mexican Jew.   His grandparents were Polish and the U.S. would not take them.....

    Lack of familiarity breeds the fear that leads to racist views....


    I went to a Catholic high school. (none / 0) (#197)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 01:36:13 AM EST
    One isn't going to find very many Jews there. But greater L.A. has a pretty large Jewish population that's actually the second largest outside Israel (New York City is No. 1), and while growing up, I had several Jewish playmates in the neighborhood.

    I was raised in a segregated wasp suburb (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by ZtoA on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 02:27:59 AM EST
    All the suburbs in Chicago were segregated.There were Catholics allowed in the suburb, but they seemed just the same to me except they had to wear uniforms. If you wanted Greek food you know where you had to go etc. My earlier life was in Hyde Park and all of our family friends were Jewish. I didn't see any difference. My dad spoke yiddish since he was raised in a Jewish neighborhood and all his friends were jewish. My parents were also very progressive, in the sense that we had "exchange" students live with us from the black areas, tho I never went to live there. I did, however, volunteer to teach kids to read on the south side at 15-16. They put me, and another 15-16 year old white girl in a room with ~15 6-7 year old boys and then they actually locked us in. It turned out to be a lot of fun and I made friends with a couple of the kids.

    One was named Wendell. We loved each other. He invited me to his home which was in some high-rise with a broken elevator. Turned out it was in Cabrini Greens. I met his family, who ignored me, or were not interested. But I got to see his room which he was proud of. I wish I knew where he was today. I don't know his last name.


    Um (none / 0) (#192)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 12:03:06 AM EST
    96.9 % white.  My county.  Just checked.  That's actually embarrassing

    Maybe they (none / 0) (#170)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:23:34 PM EST
    can add chocolate to the Passover Foods.....

    We Have Chocolate Covered Matzoh (none / 0) (#183)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:58:16 PM EST
    And chocolate macaroons.

    Good Friday is a serious religious (none / 0) (#172)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:25:05 PM EST
    day, because crucifixion is a pretty serious thing.

    Easter, on the other hand, is a celebration - the resurrection miracle, with the promise of everlasting life.  My favorite hymn is an Easter hymn: "Jesus Christ is Risen Today."

    In terms of serious religious holidays, Yom Kippur is pretty high up there, don't you think?


    Or Ishtar (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:47:20 PM EST
    As it was once known

    Ishtar was the goddess of love, war, fertility, and sexuality.

    Ishtar was the daughter of Ninurta.[2] She was particularly worshipped in northern Mesopotamia, at the Assyrian cities of Nineveh, Ashur and Arbela (Erbil).[2
    The lion was her symbol (detail of the Ishtar Gate)
    In the Babylonian pantheon, she "was the divine personification of the planet Venus".[2]
    Ishtar had many lovers; however, as Guirand notes,

    "Woe to him whom Ishtar had honoured! The fickle goddess treated her passing lovers cruelly, and the unhappy wretches usually paid dearly for the favours heaped on them. Animals, enslaved by love, lost their native vigour: they fell into traps laid by men or were domesticated by them. 'Thou has loved the lion, mighty in strength', says the hero Gilgamesh to Ishtar, 'and thou hast dug for him seven and seven pits! Thou hast loved the steed, proud in battle, and destined him for the halter, the goad and the whip.'

    Even for the gods Ishtar's love was fatal. In her youth the goddess had loved Tammuz, god of the harvest, and--if one is to believe Gilgamesh --this love caused the death of Tammuz.[2]

    Her cult may have involved sacred prostitution,[4] though this is debatable. Guirand referred to her holy city Uruk as the "town of the sacred courtesans" and to her as the "courtesan of the gods".[2]


    Friday Vigil (none / 0) (#198)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 01:48:02 AM EST
    Yes, I know, it is a serious thing....

    And I do know what Easter is....that is when Osiris came back from the Underworld with the Easter Bunny, right?

    I would like to think I am a reasonable student of religion.....I like Passover as my favorite holiday....and in terms of ceremony, the Tibetan Buddhists have such a peaceful harmonious feeling to them....Religion, as many would say, and the Buddhists in particular, is to be felt and experienced, not rationalized....I think religion is better that way.  So one does not confuse religion with rational thought or factual reality.

    I have spent a fair amount of time studying Christianity....and am, I would like to think, a reasonably good student.....

    Yom Kippur...always tried to skip that....

    Anne, it all depends on your view.  In mine, if it does not bring joy and celebration of the dignity of the individual, I am not interested.  And Christianity often has its issues, especially the organized variety....needs therapy imo.  


    Frozen Chosen (none / 0) (#199)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 01:57:30 AM EST
    I did click on the link....Inspirational to many--good for them.  

    If one wants to go that route, the Hallelujah Chorus from Handel's Messiah can really knock your socks off.


    Obama incensed some with census cooking (none / 0) (#187)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:29:07 PM EST
    2009 Obama put the census under direct white house control, now for 2014 the questions related to health insurance have been changed to report fewer uninsured. NYT

    Hope people follow e link and (none / 0) (#188)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:37:25 PM EST
    Actually read the article.  

    SITE VIOLATOR - EasterQuotes (none / 0) (#202)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 07:21:28 AM EST
    all over very old threads.