Author Topic: Some thoughts on the Bundy controversy  (Read 715 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dexter

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,242
Some thoughts on the Bundy controversy
« on: May 01, 2014, 01:23:09 PM »
This all started out as a land dispute between a family and the government. The government claimed that the land Bundy's family had been living on for generations was actually theirs, and that he needed to be paying grazing fees for his cattle to graze on land that the government would otherwise be doing nothing with most likely. Bundy refused, and eventually the government mobilized to take action. Eventually the government backs off when they realize what would need to happen in order to enforce what they are saying. Why has it now blown up into this huge controversy over whether or not he is racist? Why was he being asked loaded questions that could tie him to racism in the first place? Why was the media so concerned with making all of this about race, and trying to make it about more than what it really was? I don't understand why there were cameras in his face asking him racially charged questions. It sounds more to me like they asked him loaded question after loaded question until somebody finally caught something on camera that they could cling on to and use to drag him through the mud publicly.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2014, 01:33:09 PM by Dex4974 »
"I know one thing, that I know nothing."
-Socrates

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,523
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Some thoughts on the Bundy controversy
« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2014, 01:49:57 PM »
This all started out as a land dispute between a family and the government. The government claimed that the land Bundy's family had been living on for generations was actually theirs, and that he needed to be paying grazing fees for his cattle to graze on land that the government would otherwise be doing nothing with most likely. Bundy refused, and eventually the government mobilized to take action. Eventually the government backs off when they realize what would need to happen in order to enforce what they are saying. Why has it now blown up into this huge controversy over whether or not he is racist? Why was he being asked loaded questions that could tie him to racism in the first place? Why was the media so concerned with making all of this about race, and trying to make it about more than what it really was? It sounds more to me like they asked him loaded question after loaded question until somebody finally caught something on camera that they could cling on to and use to drag him through the mud publicly.

Absolutely incorrect.

The land they live on, their homestead, has NEVER been in question here.

The 750,000 acres that they have been using to to graze their herd on has ALWAYS belonged to the United States.
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Dexter

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,242
Re: Some thoughts on the Bundy controversy
« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2014, 01:53:31 PM »
Absolutely incorrect.

The land they live on, their homestead, has NEVER been in question here.

The 750,000 acres that they have been using to to graze their herd on has ALWAYS belonged to the United States.

Well, sorry for any misinformation in my original post. His cattle had been grazing that land for generations, though. Anyway, my main point was that race never needed to be involved at all. Regardless of who was in the wrong, why did it need to be about racism?
"I know one thing, that I know nothing."
-Socrates

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,523
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Some thoughts on the Bundy controversy
« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2014, 02:10:25 PM »
Well, sorry for any misinformation in my original post. His cattle had been grazing that land for generations, though. Anyway, my main point was that race never needed to be involved at all. Regardless of who was in the wrong, why did it need to be about racism?

Race wasn't involved in the issue until Bundy introduced race to the issue.

Then, there were two issues instead of one:

1. His cattle
2. His racist statement

As one story died, the other one came to life.

“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Dexter

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,242
Re: Some thoughts on the Bundy controversy
« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2014, 02:17:13 PM »
Race wasn't involved in the issue until Bundy introduced race to the issue.

Then, there were two issues instead of one:

1. His cattle
2. His racist statement

As one story died, the other one came to life.

He introduced race to the issue completely unprovoked?
"I know one thing, that I know nothing."
-Socrates

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,523
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Some thoughts on the Bundy controversy
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2014, 02:20:37 PM »
He introduced race to the issue completely unprovoked?

Yes.

Did you watch the full video of his daily press conference?
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,523
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Some thoughts on the Bundy controversy
« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2014, 02:32:33 PM »
Admittedly I have only seen bits and pieces of the controversy. Maybe he is a racist, but I just felt it was irrelevant to the issue at hand. Whether or not he was in the wrong about a land dispute shouldn't have blown up into whether or not he is a racist. I feel like we should be concerned about real issues, but instead everybody always gets pumped about the next pointless controversy the media creates.

I don't so much think that it turned the land controversy into a race controversy at all.

I was just a convenient follow up for the media.

Is he racist?

Perhaps... people are within their right to be racists.

I think that he's isolated, out of touch and ignorant to one degree or another which is why he can't explain himself coherently.
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Dexter

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,242
Re: Some thoughts on the Bundy controversy
« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2014, 02:35:10 PM »
I don't so much think that it turned the land controversy into a race controversy at all.

I was just a convenient follow up for the media.

Is he racist?

Perhaps... people are within their right to be racists.

I think that he's isolated, out of touch and ignorant to one degree or another which is why he can't explain himself coherently.

I deleted that post to reword it but it looks like you got a hold of it too quick. Why does everybody care so much whether or not he is racist? Racists exist, and that fact has nothing to do with the land dispute. I feel this is as pointless as the Duck Dynasty controversy.
"I know one thing, that I know nothing."
-Socrates

Offline katzenjammer

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,513
Re: Some thoughts on the Bundy controversy
« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2014, 03:25:31 PM »
I deleted that post to reword it but it looks like you got a hold of it too quick. Why does everybody care so much whether or not he is racist? Racists exist, and that fact has nothing to do with the land dispute. I feel this is as pointless as the Duck Dynasty controversy.

IMO, Dex, all of this focus on "racism" (whether real, perceived, or plain just ginned up) is all part of the strategy to DIVIDE the people of this nation.  Same as the so called "war on women," and other identity politics issues.  I certainly don't know the specifics of where they ultimately want to take this, but an immediate term effect of constantly splitting apart the citizenry and pitting them against one another, tends to dissolve any potential for the citizenry as a whole to join together in opposition to gubmint.  We see the results of this already, I can't even think of an issue in which a broad segment of the population is joining forces to oppose gubmint.  I know that a lot of people would like to see a unified front of citizens from all across various segments of our society band together to oppose 4th Amendment infringements by fedgov, but so far I really haven't seen much come of it beyond the "wouldn't it be nice" talking stages.  For example, Rand Paul has talked quite a bit about this, but I'm not sure what, if anything, has been accomplished yet.

Oh, and the other thing that "racism" is useful for, is to distract away from the core or central issue(s) at hand.  The Bundy story is a perfect example!!

Offline Dexter

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,242
Re: Some thoughts on the Bundy controversy
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2014, 03:31:23 PM »
IMO, Dex, all of this focus on "racism" (whether real, perceived, or plain just ginned up) is all part of the strategy to DIVIDE the people of this nation.  Same as the so called "war on women," and other identity politics issues.  I certainly don't know the specifics of where they ultimately want to take this, but an immediate term effect of constantly splitting apart the citizenry and pitting them against one another, tends to dissolve any potential for the citizenry as a whole to join together in opposition to gubmint.  We see the results of this already, I can't even think of an issue in which a broad segment of the population is joining forces to oppose gubmint.  I know that a lot of people would like to see a unified front of citizens from all across various segments of our society band together to oppose 4th Amendment infringements by fedgov, but so far I really haven't seen much come of it beyond the "wouldn't it be nice" talking stages.  For example, Rand Paul has talked quite a bit about this, but I'm not sure what, if anything, has been accomplished yet.

Oh, and the other thing that "racism" is useful for, is to distract away from the core or central issue(s) at hand.  The Bundy story is a perfect example!!

That's kind of where I was trying to go with this thread. The media focuses on irrelevant issues to keep us from focusing on things that actually matter.
"I know one thing, that I know nothing."
-Socrates

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,523
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Some thoughts on the Bundy controversy
« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2014, 03:35:15 PM »
I deleted that post to reword it but it looks like you got a hold of it too quick. Why does everybody care so much whether or not he is racist? Racists exist, and that fact has nothing to do with the land dispute. I feel this is as pointless as the Duck Dynasty controversy.

I don't see anyone trying to conflate the two issues, other than the people who are making the argument that the two issues shouldn't conflated.

I really have not seen any story out there saying that the land issue is impacted by the "racist remarks" story.

No one is arguing that Bundy is MORE guilty of not paying the fees for the land usage because he made what is generally considered to be a racist statement.
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,523
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Some thoughts on the Bundy controversy
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2014, 03:37:10 PM »
That's kind of where I was trying to go with this thread. The media focuses on irrelevant issues to keep us from focusing on things that actually matter.

The land story stopped being a story wham the Feds left.

Bundy came back into the news as a result of his statement after the Feds left, and a new story was reported.

What "really matter(s)" is a very subjective topic.
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline katzenjammer

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,513
Re: Some thoughts on the Bundy controversy
« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2014, 03:39:50 PM »
That's kind of where I was trying to go with this thread. The media focuses on irrelevant issues to keep us from focusing on things that actually matter.

Yes, yes, yes!!  The media as a whole (or should that be "hole") of late has been absolutely embarrassing (to be kind) in how they have jumped all over these asinine stories (e.g., the Clippers story).  (And FNC has also sunk right down with the rest of them in this regard.)  In some ways the hyper focus on these kinds of stories are really part of the overall Bread & Circuses that are used to full effect in distracting the population away from thinking about or exploring the real issues and circumstances.

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,172
Re: Some thoughts on the Bundy controversy
« Reply #13 on: May 01, 2014, 09:10:59 PM »
Excellent piece about the Bundy ranch by Jeff Head, posted here:
http://www.jeffhead.com/Bundy-Ranch.htm

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 21,933
  • French entertainment is a waste of mime.
Re: Some thoughts on the Bundy controversy
« Reply #14 on: May 01, 2014, 10:29:43 PM »
Excellent piece about the Bundy ranch by Jeff Head, posted here:
http://www.jeffhead.com/Bundy-Ranch.htm


Always like Jeff's writing. Guy is sharp as a tack.
Anyone who tells you you can't buy happiness has never been in a book store or an animal shelter.

You are the result of 3 billion years of evolutionary success. Act like it.

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,392
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Some thoughts on the Bundy controversy
« Reply #15 on: May 01, 2014, 10:34:48 PM »
Excellent piece about the Bundy ranch by Jeff Head, posted here:
http://www.jeffhead.com/Bundy-Ranch.htm


Jeff has his head screwed on straight!

I think the world of the guy!

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,523
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Some thoughts on the Bundy controversy
« Reply #16 on: May 01, 2014, 11:01:17 PM »
Excellent piece about the Bundy ranch by Jeff Head, posted here:
http://www.jeffhead.com/Bundy-Ranch.htm


I've known Jeff for years. He is a good guy.

He has several serious errors in his piece.

I'll just point out a couple:

Quote
The fact is, there is nothing in the constitution that allows for this. Outside of military bases or preserves, the Federal government has no power to own and control state lands once they become a part of a state. otherwise, they would remain territorial.


That's not correct.

(I copied and pasted this into my notes on this issue and forgot who the original author was... whoever you were, thanks)

Article IV, section 3, cl. 2 of the Constitution provides:

Quote
"The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.


That provision establishes that the United States government as such can indeed own property, including territory, in its own right. It also necessarily covers more ground than Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 17. This has to be the case because otherwise Art. IV, sec. 3, cl. 2 would be meaningless because it wouldn't do anything that wasn't already done by Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 17.

In addition (this is my own work now), one has to believe that the people who had the best working knowledge of the original intent of the Constitution, must have been the people who drafted, debated and ratified the document. Those very same people turned over ownership of more than 236,000,000 acres of land to the United States. If the United States Constitution did not allow the United States to own land beyond that needed for military bases and preserves, why would the Founders give ownership of such a vast area to the United States to dispose of as t saw fit?

Jeff's premise is absolutely wrong.

One more thing...

The State of Nevada wrote the Disclaimer Clause into their Constitution. As a Federalist and strict believer in the power of each States to craft its own Constitution, I must respect the fact that the drafters of the Nevada Constitution opted to write that clause in.

Quote
Just the same, beginning in 1933-1934, during the Roosevelt administration, the Federal government (who at the time, like the rest of the country, was in need of operating funds), decided to cause ranchers in these western states to pay a lease to the Federal government for the use of that land as an avenue to increase revenues.


The Taylor Grazing Act was drafted in order to make sense of the chaos in the Western open ranges between sheepmen and cattlemen, and to ensure that they who arrived first didn't have a better chance of finding suitable grazing land than those who came later. It wasn't about raising revenues. Had that been tha case, the United States could have easily sold lands to private firms and investors (the Bundy clan included) and charged property taxes at a much higher rate than the fees paid for grazing.

“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline katzenjammer

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,513
Re: Some thoughts on the Bundy controversy
« Reply #17 on: May 01, 2014, 11:09:20 PM »
Jeff has his head screwed on straight!

I think the world of the guy!

Yes, I've got open in a tab for later, I always enjoy Jeff's take on the issues!!

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 21,933
  • French entertainment is a waste of mime.
Re: Some thoughts on the Bundy controversy
« Reply #18 on: May 01, 2014, 11:21:23 PM »
Yes, I've got open in a tab for later, I always enjoy Jeff's take on the issues!!

Should see him on movies. Scathing but honest in his opinions every time. If you aren't a member of the movie group Dolly runs, drop me a line and 'll send you a FB invite.
Anyone who tells you you can't buy happiness has never been in a book store or an animal shelter.

You are the result of 3 billion years of evolutionary success. Act like it.

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf