I'm sure what you mean by this, Tiff.

I'm no expert on the history of Oregon, but know it to be relatively new as a state. Before becoming a state it was a federal territory, of course, but as such was formed by my understanding from land possessed by Native Americans who were breezily disregarded by the U.S. and Great Britain as they alternately disputed and resolved their claims over the land. The federal government, I believe, legally owned what is now Oregon until it began giving and selling its property to white settlers. It didn't sell all its land in Oregon, however. It retained land, including that which is now this wildlife refuge. Under a law which in 1908 authorized the president to designate federal lands as such a refuge, Teddy Roosevelt created Mulhear Wildlife Refuge by Executive Order, that year.

So, my understanding (which may be incorrect) is that no rancher ever owned this property. Whether they were "there" before the BLM I don't know; it's a fairly new federal agency. I don't know whether they were there before Oregon became a territory either, though I doubt it. If they were, however, their presence would make no difference as far as legal ownership of the property is concerned, no more than the presence of the Native Americans long before any white person settled on the land made any difference. It belongs to the federal government; only the federal government can lease the land, and it has every right to do so. What the ranchers may think about title to the land is not relevant. The federal government has no reason to recognize any ownership claim of the ranchers.

This dispute is about money, which is being manipulated for their benefit by people who want more money. — Ciceronianus the White

Yep. I was actually involved in some of the litigation with the BLM for leasing public land to ranchers purposely below fair market value (by manipulating auctions for the ranchers' benefit). And then allowing the ranchers to degrade public land by overgrazing.

So Tiff is just making stuff up. Or rather following the militia narrative. Pitiful counterfactual stuff.

If the general point is that blacks have it tougher than whites in the US, where if you could pick your skin color, you'd be prudent to choose white, I suppose I could agree. Of course, that revelation is hardly provocative and exciting. If you're asking, though, whether this Oregon situation is proof of anything important, it's really not, other than showing that folks are at the ready to race bait at the drop of a hat. — Hanover

Calling the recognition that black protesters are treated more harshly than white protesters (to the point of being shot) "race baiting" is just the kind of thing I expect from conservatives and its utterly bad faith arguments about race in America.

Playing the "playing the race card" card, as usual.

I'm so surprised why people go with these media frenzies.

In contrast, conservatives defend the goons in the Bundy Militia and think their ideas are just peachy. The GOP presidential candidates have all lauded Cliven Bundy for his standoff with the BLM last year or so where he refused to pay his lease fees for use of federal land. Bundy threatened to shoot federal agents. Rand Paul visited him and heaped praise on him. So there's a vast difference. The loony ideas of the gun nuts basically afflict a third of our population that considers itself conservative. That's a threat to democracy ISIS isn't. — Landru Guide Us

So according to Landru a third of the US population is a threat to democracy. :D

I think the FBI and the police have a rational approach to this. They surely know the Bundy folk by now. And some those real lunatics you are so afraid of (for a reason) were last time kindly asked to leave the Bundy ranch when the last "media event" was done with the Bundy's. So I think the government understands to watch these guys, but don't make them martyrs for some lunatics, the next Timothy McVeighs out there. So I guess very many of those now at the building are undercover agents and many others informants and any new guy is thoroughly checked. The amount of money poured into fighting terrorism makes that an easy thing to do.

I still think the likely outcome is that after the Bundy's have had their time in the media limelight and when it seems that the country is moving to another subject, they'll return to their ranch "victorious".

And people will debate gun ownership, right-wingers & leftists, Obama, Donald Trump, whatever in a different context.

Hanover,

Far away from being ‘le snob” I am definitely ‘le slob’ when it comes to my wardrobe. Daily wear is low fashion Lee denim jeans, sweatshirts, and underwear from Marshalls discount store. (Hey Hanover, you can get high end underwear from Marshalls at steeply discounted prices. Such a deal! When you get strip searched at the court house, Security will be mighty impressed that your dierriere is clothed in Tommy Hilfiger undies and not mere Hanes.)

What do I think about Wages, Price, and Value?

In the long run, it is a race to the bottom to keep prices low (by shipping jobs overseas to countries with abysmal wages) so that the American unemployed, underemployed, non-employed, and working poor can afford at least shoddy goods.

The motivation behind job exports and low domestic wages is not abundant cheap goods, it’s high profitability for the business owners. The Chinese, Nicaraguan, or Turkish business owners are doing well; their workers are not. Service industry and low value manufacturing firms in the US are doing well, their workers are not. Domestic high end manufacturers are doing well, and so are their workers. High-end service companies and their workers are doing well.

Around 250 million Americans (give or take 10 million) can not afford high-end goods or services. They are forced by low income to shop at Walmart for cheap goods.

By tax-draining a substantial portion of the wealth out of the richest 5% of Americans, by a smarter domestic manufacturing policy, the kinds of subsidies that it takes to enable people to rise socioeconomically (provide more housing in better socio-economic areas, better health care—including mental health — and better education — through trade or collegiate schooling) can be made. Wages and prices will rise. Higher prices and higher wages are as mutually supportive as low prices and lower wages. The difference — with subsidies - is that 250 million Americans can actually live a better life.

What will happen to the richest 5%? They stay the richest 5%. The richest 5% can lose a lot of their wealth and remain plutocrats. They are that wealthy. They will just be less plutocratic than they were. This will allow some room for the country to be a bit more democratic. If the process continues, it is possible that the plutocrats would have to be downgraded to merely very wealthy. Very wealthy people are likely to spend less than plutocrats. The fourth and fifth home may have to go—maybe the ones in Belize and Singapore. The fleet of cars might need to be reduced. The and and foot service staff is still quite affordable. The swimming pool and pool house can still be enlarged for fancier parties. The rare art budget will probably have to be trimmed up a bit. Fortunately, high end fashion (very high end, actually) is using faux fur so a new wardrobe will still be possible — only ever 10 months instead of every 7 months. Maybe fox hunting can be cut out — it’s becoming de trop, so it’s probably time for it to go anyway. Private schools for the children — day care through post doctoral studies) is still essential — no corners will be cut there. After all, they need to hold down at least several elite positions to keep the family status high.

One thing is for sure: The rich won’t be reduced to canned beans or stopping at White Castle for a snack.

And, yeah, I could care less that they occupied a park with weapons — Moliere

Don't you mean "Couldn't care less"?

Yeah.

Far away from being ‘le snob” I am definitely ‘le slob’ when it comes to my wardrobe. Daily wear is low fashion Lee denim jeans, sweatshirts, and underwear from Marshalls discount store. — Bitter Crank

Cripes, what kind of gay man are you? I suppose I shouldn't stereotype, but I always thought you folks were supposed to be snappy dressers. I know you live in the Midwest, so perhaps you still set the bar rather high compared to some of your neighbors...

Unless you care a little bit.

True. :D

But having occupied public space before, and having no real qualms with firearms, it's not the tactic that bothers me. Just the end-goal. It does pretty much strike me as a rich man's quest to have more control over their land. Not sure if the couple should really spend more time in jail -- I'm not a big fan of jail or mandatory sentences -- but I also don't know my ass from a hole in the ground about the case, and it strikes me that the demand isn't commensurate with that story really.

but I also don't know my ass from a hole in the ground about the case — Moliere

Didn't you mean " my asshole from a hole in the ground"? >:).

Sorry, gross and uncalled for I know, but in the context it just kind of jumped out at me. O:) .

Cripes, what kind of gay man are you? I suppose I shouldn't stereotype, but I always thought you folks were supposed to be snappy dressers. I know you live in the Midwest, so perhaps you still set the bar rather high compared to some of your neighbors... — Arkady

It usually comes as a harsh and dreadful shock to many heterosexuals, but not all gay men are clothes horses, accomplished interior decorators, neatniks, crafty mixologists, Broadway Musical fans who know all the lyrics, and Episcopalians. Some are -- that is true. Quite a few are. But many of us found our metier in the 1970s butch clone look: blue jeans, plaid shirts, leather vests, chaps (maybe), mustaches or beards. The look owed something to hippies. Why did we like that look so much? It hearkened back to our oppressed pre-sixites youth when we got to enjoy the stiff masculine rasp of new (unwashed) Levis blue jeans from Sears which, in rural schools of the 1950s and early 60s, was kind of a uniform.

Plus, they could be shrunk to fit, and if they were nice and tight they showed off such assets as one had. Polyester pants from Montgomery Wards (or anywhere else) wouldn't do that. In fact, if one showed up in plaid polyester pants at a gay bar one might not get past the persnickety bouncers. If one did get past the bouncers, one might be dragged out the back door by bikers and be forced to provide blow jobs for the entire biker gang. Quelle Horreurs! (How many in your party?)

Later on, I found that the blue jeans costume fit well in working class anarchist / socialist circles too -- well, maybe not the chaps without blue jeans underneath. There are limits. Then I aged into the gay bear phase -- gray hair, white beard, balding, various degrees of over weight, blue jeans, plaid shirts, leather jackets, the whole deja vu thing all over again.

So here we are. Plain blue jeans are cheaper than fancy ones, hold up well, and if gay boys are anything, we are smart shoppers (much of the time).

If you need more detailed information, please call your local Gay / Lesbian / Bisexual / Transgender / Fag / Queer / Lesbian Separatist / Log Cabin Republican and Just-Plain-Stupid Community Center hot line and ask them.

Didn't you mean " my asshole from a hole in the ground"? — John

The idiom calls for "ass" not asshole. Two holes in one sentence is ineffective. You might like "don't know my ass from my elbow" better.

I'm no expert on the history of Oregon, but know it to be relatively new as a state. — Ciceronianus the White

February 14th, 1859 is relatively new? They were #33.

I can see a relation to be confused about between an ass (we spell it 'arse') and an elbow, given they are both body parts, but none at all between an ass and a hole in the ground, except for the 'hole' part.

I prefer to use "asses and elbows" to mean a hustle and bustle which is disorganized due to a mixture of incompetence and a lack of resources. Often understood to mean that you have to fight for yourself. i.e., "There is 15 minutes for shower time, there's 50 of you and 5 showers, so it's going to be nothing but asses and elbows"

I concur w. @Bitter Crank --

I mean, uhhhh. . . think very literally. A hole needs ground around it to be a hole.

A hole needs ground around it to be a hole. — Moliere

I guess a realist might argue you could have a hole in a hole. Just because we cant tell where the bigger hole stops and the smaller hole starts, it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Someone said something about holes and ground.

Despite your abandonment of your people by not being a snazzy dresser, I have remained true to my roots by being frugal at every turn, despite my occasional ability to be otherwise. You will often find me at my local Wal-Mart, shopping among my fellow bargain hunters, with various $15 shirts in my basket along with perhaps an under $20 mix and match lamp base and shade and other discounted odds and ends. I recently bought a $35 vacuum cleaner, which, although fairly limited, cleans my mismatched area rugs fairly well. I also must say that I do enjoy me a steamed White Castle (called Krystals out here) from time to time. A word to the wise: if you're going to buy 5 Krystals with cheese and fries, you'd be better off getting the combo that includes 5 burgers with cheese fries and asking for no cheese on the fries (too rich for my blood). It's actually cheaper to buy it that way.

Yeehawist National Forest. I say that because I wish to remain on topic.

Later on, I found that the blue jeans costume fit well in working class anarchist / socialist circles too -- well, maybe not the chaps without blue jeans underneath. — Bitter Crank

If you are the sort who spends considerable time creating the perfect "I don't care" look, then you fall squarely in the gay camp (but could also be metro). If you truly don't care but wear what you must in order to avoid harassment, then you're hetero. If you are just now finding out that you are in fact hetero and have been going about things the wrong way all these years, I expect you'll be feeling a certain amount of embarrassment, but who among us hasn't committed some sort of faux pas?.

Just a little background on these rightwing welfare queens and how they leech off taxpayers

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-armed-oregon-ranchers-who-want-free-land-are-already-getting-a-93-percent-discount/

Any state west of the Mississippi is relatively new. Louisiana, of course, isn't really a state at all.

At least we know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall.

I mean, uhhhh. . . think very literally. A hole needs ground around it to be a hole. — Moliere

I mean...it's not as though I actually have a significantly intelligent point to defend here!

Any state west of the Mississippi is relatively new. Louisiana, of course, isn't really a state at all. — ciceronianus

Just a little background on these rightwing welfare queens and how they leech off taxpayers — Landru Guide Us

Is your objective simply to point out the hypocrisy of those who claim to be conservatives by showing that they receive the same sort of government subsidies they condemn when received by those on the left? While I get that you wish to present your position in the most mocking and inflammatory way possible, when logically considered, all that you're really doing is demanding consistency. That would mean that you would be perfectly satisfied if the government ceased providing any subsides to anyone.

That being the case, I'll just assume you're a rightwing conservative, but just a bit disillusioned by those who claim to be in your camp because they too accept government handouts when it's to their benefit. The solution (and I think this would work for both of us) is that these nut jobs should not be considered rightwing, but should instead better be understood to be what they really are: liberal wolves in conservative lamb clothing.

Is your objective simply to point out the hypocrisy of those who claim to be conservatives by showing that they receive the same sort of government subsidies they condemn when received by those on the left? — Hanover

No my purpose is to show that those who support these thugs by claiming "they have a point" are using counterfactual memes, which is basically all conservatives ever do.

Bundy's militia of goons and conservative "intellectuals" think exactly alike.

Well,

Continue to argue about this incident in the typical discourse, over the usual things such as the gun laws, right-wing and left-wing memes, right wing militias, land ownership, the security state, Trump & GOP candidates, Obama and whatever, but here's a telling story about the actual reality of this unimportant and mindless media-frenzy:

(Rawstory) Tearful militant discovers friend drank away donation money: ‘It’s like finding out there is no such thing as Santa’

A heartbroken militiaman announced that one of his buddies had walked off the Oregon nature preserve they had overtaken and had holed up in a local motel to drink away donation money.

Joe Oshaugnessy, an Arizona militiaman, has been actively seeking volunteers through social media to join the occupation of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

But his friends tearfully announced that Oshaugnessy, who is known as “Capt. O,” had left the refuge Wednesday and was instead staying at a motel nearby — as some others associated with the militants have apparently been doing, according to sources.

Some of the militants have reportedly been spotted eating at area restaurants during the standoff, as well.

The militants have been allowed to come and go freely from the nature preserve in the absence of a law enforcement presence, but at least one of them, Brian “Booda” Cavalier, failed to return after a newspaper report revealed he had lied about serving in the U.S. Marines.

Oshaugnessy had apparently argued with some of the participants about the presence of women and children at the wildlife refuge, where militants apparently hoped to draw federal agents into a gun battle.

(See Rawstory article here)

One thing that I think hasn't come up in the discussion is connection to the Sagebrush rebellion of the 70's and 80's. There too it came political, with Ronald Reagan declaring himself a "rebel". The opposition to the "Federals" might not be as extreme views as the Bundy's and the right-wingers have, but there definately is this schism that many rural people have against federal authorities over the local and state authorities. I think in many rural regions far away from the capital there is a resentment to the "Federals", the State and the officials in the Capital and they would prefer the local (municipal, regional, provincional) authorities. I assume that Bundy isn't wanting local authorities and state to take over federal lands), but the reference broadens well the picture.

The Sagebrush Rebellion has roots that go back to the early 1900s, when the federal government first started reserving public lands and developing water for early settlements. It took off starting in the 1970s, when the environmental movement pushed Congress to pass The Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air and Water acts, and others. It appeared again during the Clinton Administration, as it took on public land grazing, mining, and logging, while creating new controversial monuments under The Antiquities Act. Finally, the election of President Barack Obama brought on the latest iteration, with renewed calls for public land transfers to the states and rising anti-federal sentiment, such as that exhibited by the Malheur occupation.

What's also interesting to note is how Russia Today, the Russian proganda machine, reports about the current events:

(RT) Feds vs. Ranchers

Much of the United States west of the Mississippi river is outright owned by the federal government, and administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Until the 1970s, the land was often open to farmers and especially ranchers, who counted on grazing rights to maintain large herds of cattle. Laws adopted in 1976 led to the government closing off much of the land, prompting a backlash in the states dubbed the “Sagebrush rebellion.” It fizzled after the election of President Ronald Reagan, however, as the new administration failed to revoke the laws but promised the BLM would be more sensitive to local concerns.

Since then, Washington has steadily cracked down on private use of public lands, with environmentalist groups pushing for designating much of the government-owned property as protected wilderness. This has led to many ranchers abandoning their family business. About half the workforce of Harney County, where Burns is located, is now employed with the government in some capacity. One of the few ranching families that have held on are the Hammonds, whose conflict with the BLM helped spark the latest conflagration.

Sorry, but this is my take:

ISIS: Idealists
Gun Lobby: Idealists
Christian Right: Idealists
Skin Heads: Idealists
GOP: Idealists

I'm sorry, but the greatest threat to democracy is idealism... as that always... ALWAYS leads to a totalitarianism via a surrender of the mind to a 'great ideal'.

best song to address this issue:



Meow!

GREG

The "militiamen", ranchers, rural hicks, private-property fetishists, whatever the hell they are, represent a strong strand of American ideology that has been present North America from 1600 foreword. That strand is strongly individualistic, has a streak of anti-social thinking, tends to view the world as "The Individual vs. The State", has a limited view of community, and so on. This strand of thinking has always been strongest in the south and later the western parts of the territories. It's opposite, represented by the Puritans, was much more collective/community oriented. The Puritans viewed the government as part of the City on the Hill, which they intended to build. This strand of thinking has been strongest in the northeast, New England, and upper-midwest.

Over the years these two strands have been further colored and changed. In general, though, one could say that the Puritan strand represents the strongly liberal, social interventionist, local-federal partnership approach. The other approach is strongly conservative, anti-federal-local partnership, and takes a non-interventionist approach.

These is a crude summary, and of course there are contradictions. Conservatives don't mind federal subsidies for business and agriculture, or having the state build roads which improve commerce. But in general, there is a bi-pole relationship to the government. Liberals seem to be attracted to central government; conservatives are repulsed. And for good reason. Liberals prefer active regulation of commerce, conservatives generally prefer a more unregulated marketplace.