However, the response by the feds to a problem that has gone on for decades is straight from the Twilight Zone. What changed? The guy hasn't paid his fees for years; why the armed invasion to kill his cows? It's downright weird. Obviously, there is more going on. The demented nincompoop Harry Reid appears to be chin-deep in cowshit when it comes to this land. It's obvious that something about this episode gave him a super-sized wedgie. But what, at this point, does it matter? (*channeling Shillery*) It's not news that Reid is a corrupt little man. It's not news that our politicians use federal assets for their own benefit, whether monetary or political.
Now Bundy has stumbled into the gooey, stinking tar pit of Political Correctness. Everyone has jumped on the band wagon. It's positively stunning. Perhaps he could have phrased his off-the-cuff comments a bit differently, but were his comments racist? I've made similar observations in the past; the black family has been utterly decimated in our inner cities. Lifelong welfare and handouts, penalties for daring to have an intact family with a working father, the wholesale slaughter of black children by Planned Parenthood and other baby-slaying entities, have left a path of destruction across several generations. These people have indeed traded one brand of slavery for another, and it's not just black families. Rural Appalachia has seen similar devastation. Is it particularly courageous of me to make these observations? Will Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rand Paul and other shrieking apologists point a shaky, rage-filled finger in my general direction? Bah. What a bunch of cowardly jackwagons. We'll never be a true melting pot until we actually have an honest discussion about failed liberal policies, and until we quit heeding and feeding the race hustlers.
So, it's under the bus for dear old Cliven Bundy. The politicians and the "conservative" lip flappers have grabbed his legs and arms and joyfully tossed him between the oversized Bluebird tires. Thump. Thump thump.
For many of the rest of us, we'll simply turn the radio dial from talk to an oldies station, and reexamine who shall receive our political donations in the future.
A Marine agrees with me. I'm not the least bit surprised.
ReplyDeleteAh, but Bundy disagrees with the Anointed One. So he IS racist!
ReplyDeleteIs it my imagination or is the left really overplaying its hand this year? It seems that they listen to their cheering section so much that they mistake what they say as the true mood of the country. Hopefully they are in for a rude awakening.
Matt, I think you're right. They are overplaying their hand to a spectacular and jaw-dropping degree, but what really stuns me is how many on the right are buying in to the non-stop, frantic hyperbole. It's crazy! Why do they do that? Haven't they figured out that millions and millions of us are disgusted by their empty posturing?
ReplyDeleteTrying to diffuse a volatile situation by falsely painting Bundy supporters as racists and terrorists may be throwing gasoline on the fire. We'll see.
HuffPo headline: MOOCHER RANCHER: 'Martin Luther King Hasn't Got His Job Done Yet' If People Offended By Racist Remarks... Hannity Bails: 'Racist, Beyond Repugnant'... 'How Does It Feel To Be Abandoned By Your Friends At Fox?'... 'The Only Difference Between Bundy And A Host Of Conservatives Is That He Isn't Sophisticated Enough To Couch His Nonsense In Soundbites And Euphemism'...
ReplyDeleteAnother HuffPo headline today: Lessons Learned From A Year Without Showering :))
DeleteI found this post on Drudge which puts Bundy's comments in context.
ReplyDelete[Also find it amusing that Bundy appears to be on board with Boehner and Rubio about amnesty for illegals - yeah, don't expect to read that in the New York Times.]
Given what I read there - no, I don't think Bundy is a racist.
His comment about slavery is a genuine problem:
And I’ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things?
The peculiar institution of slavery - the institution as practiced in the South - was not nurturing to family life. It was systematically and brutally destructive to it.
Yes, not every single family was destroyed. Yes, there were heartwarming tales of black families existing in the upper strata of slave society, in the service of relatively enlightened masters.
But ironically the most systematic destruction of black families happened in the deep south where the cotton picking was going on.
I hope I've developed a solid enough reputation here among folks so they know I don't reach for these words often, or reflexively. But I have to say I found those comments by Bundy deeply offensive, and "ignorant" is not too strong a word. I don't find any context to excuse them.
Agreed. The thought that slavery is preferable to freedom in ANY context is very offensive to my sensibilities as well. I think I get what he was trying to say...he should have thought it out first. He misspoke. As I pointed out in my post: he should have rephrased his comments.
DeleteBut I don't think he fits the bill as a "racist". And I don't think he should have been thrown to the wolves by the right. They overreacted, IMHO. If this lunacy keeps up, no one will be able to offer an opinion on anything, ignorant or wise.
Your reputation here is sterling, dear lewy. I value your insights very much!
DeleteThank you, lr.
DeleteThe bad news is that I have to concede that Bundy makes a poor poster child.
The good news - which is also bad news - is that I'm guessing there will be a lot more poster children to choose from.
Bundy is only the most recent and most notable individual the government tried to shut down with questionable judgement and, ah, disproportionate armed force.
There will be others.
IMHO - while Bundy's treatment is arguably unfair, defending him may also be something of a tactical waste. The game is larger than him.
DeleteTime is perhaps better spent calling out Harry Reid for his lies. This is likely the calculation of the commentariat. It's what Glenn Reynolds seems to be doing.
Somehow I doubt that Bundy volunteered to be a poster child. Leave it to the Anointed One to go after someone who is not perfect (i.e., any of us) just so that person would look to be deserving of government oppression and persecution. After all, who is more deserving to make millions of dollars, some red neck racist rancher or a Democratic Senator?
ReplyDeleteTo invite armed supporters from neighboring states to stand with you in defiance of the Federal Government is to invite a certain level of scrutiny.
DeleteBundy's legal theories never did have support in the right-blogosphere. I mean he has a point. But so do the people who say income tax is unconstitutional. Good luck with that, guys. Whatever the soundness of the rational, or unsoundness, he chose to take a stand.
The one canny and politically deft maneuver he made was to take the bet that the government would be unwilling to fight an open battle in Nevada. The images would have been ugly and the US would not be seen in a very good light.
But the other side gets a shot too. And sadly Mr. Bundy has left some inviting targets.
And so, rather than defend Bundy, I think effort is better spent elsewhere, eg. questioning the origin of Reid's money.
I'm not defending the guy, but I find the double standard applied to Bundy to be appalling. The garbage spewing from the mouths of some black preachers and politicians, and the attacks on Christians and Jews by atheists and muslims far exceed the ignorance/hate level of what this old man said. I don't hear Hannity or O'Reilley making a huge stink about them. O'Reilley's holier-than-thou "analysis" last night was so repugnant it made my skin crawl.
DeleteAnd yes. Reid. Money. Land. China. Unfortunately, what passes for journalism (let alone what passes for a "justice" department) these days will not do much investigating. That drooling, corrupt, mean, nasty shell of a man will probably die in office, clutching his moneybags.
Also, why isn't anyone investigating why it took the feds decades to respond? What's up with that? If I owed the feds money, they'd be relentlessly grabbing my bank accounts and making life impossible. Why did Bundy get a pass from paying his fees in a timely manner? And why did the feds respond with a full militarized assault team? And why would they KILL his cattle, rather than round them up and sell them to settle Bundy's debt? This story has many facets. They all reek to high heaven.
The militias that journeyed to Nevada to defend Bundy and his property scared the bejeebus out of me. Frankly, I think they picked the wrong battle, and nearly lit the fuse for a national maelstrom. I hope that they have had a chance to cool down, and that the feds who responded to Bundy's ranch have had a chance to think about whether they will indeed fire upon civilians. Every man and woman who carries a badge and a gun needs to think this through, and decide for themselves who they serve, which orders they will follow, and which orders they will refuse.
Remember when Reid said of Obama "“a light-skinned African-American with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”
DeleteNow THAT'S offensive. He got a pass because he's a democrat. It's ridiculous.
Matt, lewy, and everyone, check this out: From the link:
Delete– “It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you’re associating with black people. Do you have to?” (3:30)
– “You can sleep with [black people]. You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want. The little I ask you is not to promote it on that … and not to bring them to my games.” (5:15)
– “I’m just saying, in your lousy f******* Instagrams, you don’t have to have yourself with, walking with black people.” (7:45)
– “…Don’t put him [Magic] on an Instagram for the world to have to see so they have to call me. And don’t bring him to my games.” (9:13)
Sterling is the owner of the Clippers, and uses his money to support democrats. He gets a pass.
We'll see - that story is still young...
Deletelr, about the militia - I think their primary motivation was to avoid a massacre. They feared another Waco or Ruby Ridge and didn't want to stand passively.
DeleteRather than see the Bundy family slaughtered, they figured they'd force the government to fight a battle. Even at the cost of their own lives.
Were their concerns overwrought? Somewhat, I think - but after Waco, it's difficult to call them paranoid, and the fault lies entirely at the feet of the government.
David Koresh, pace Matt, did in fact claim to be Jesus's little brother (or some such). ;) He was certainly not a poster child either, but I think a lot of folks were kicking themselves for not doing more.
If the militia had wanted a fight, they could easily have gotten one. What they were out to demonstrate was actually pretty important:
- that they weren't willing to start a war
- and that push comes to shove, that the government wasn't, either.
This is very good. If they'd been wrong, well, I suppose they figured that it was time to find out about that.
So I hope the matter will be settled, and I doubt very much it will be settled in Bundy's favor, the law being what it is. But I think it is somewhat less likely now that it will end in Bundy and his family being burned alive or the like, and that's a good thing.
Anything the right does will always be subject to intense scrutiny while the left can carry weapons outside poling places to intimidate voters and get a free pass from the government and the media. The government could threaten to take conservatives out and shoot them and it will still be the fault of the right.
ReplyDeleteThere was a story this week of how some people were squatting in the home of a soldier serving in Afghanistan. The soldier cannot just throw the people out, he has to go through "due process." Bundy's family has been using the land for 130 years, but the government can just come in like conquerers and everything is fine? The government can set up "First Amendment Areas?" Yes there is a First Amendment area: it stretches from the Pacific to the Atlantic and from Canada to Mexico.
The NOAA -- you know, the weather bureau -- is armed now. There are representatives in government who say that the IRS should be used to silence political opposition. And you are concerned that Clive Bundy is not Jesus Christ's younger brother? If the government wanted to they could find some reason to come crack down on ANY of us.
The reason it took the government so long to crack down on Bundy is because Harry Reid or his friends were not set to make millions of dollars before.
What is the right battle? There is a move in Congress to make it illegal to say on the internet that you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Muslims are posting eviction notices on the dorm rooms of Jewish students. If we let this stand then the threshold for what is an acceptable reason for a government crackdown becomes more and more nebulous.
You're correct Matt. There are two sets of rules; one for the left, one for the evil domestic terrorists of the right.
DeleteIt alarms me greatly that entities like the IRS and NOAA are packing heat and stockpiling ammo. I've read multiple reports that the gov't has hoarded ammunition in vast quantities, driving up the price and creating shortages for ordinary Americans.
Here is some interesting perspective from the guys at TAH.
ReplyDeleteThis guy "Hondo" at TAH is rather poorly informed about BLM methods and tactics, in conjunction with EPA and Fish & Wildlife. They are the ones who take the law in to their own hands without actual legislation, and squeeze farmers and ranchers by decreasing allotments that have otherwise stood for decades. The do this with zero evidence, just theory. We will either fight them now or fight them later...it is only a matter of how much more they can get away with unresisted.
DeleteI've read the crap about statehood acceptance for Nevada and the presumption that that act gave the federal government title to all otherwise un-deeded or granted land ,,,allegedly just like "the original 13 states." I've read the acceptance act for Nevada and Bundy isn't far off, it does not cede land in the same manner as say New Hampshire or Virgina. That may be accepted common law with precedent...but it is not stipulated. Bundy is not far off in his assertion that BLM has been squeezing his allotments for years for sundry environmental excuses...and that is about the time he ceased paying.
Had there not been a formal armed resistance at Bundy Ranch and the surrounding area the Bundy Cattle would all be dead and buried (they have found several already) or dead and slaughtered. Let's say that such a sale would pay off 50% of the debt the government alleges he owes (vastly inflated by penalties and interest accrued long before an litigation and judgment)...do youy think Bundy would be given credit for that against his debt?
I will tell you from my own personal experience that he would still be on the hook for the full amount until the last penny was paid. That's how it works, Cliven Bundy personally is the fiduciary for Bundy Ranch, and even if the ranch pays off 98%, Bundy the fiduciary is still liable for 100% plus more interest and penalty. I have been in that fiduciary shoe for middle 6 figures not so very long ago.
See the way is works is the agency du hoc decides you are not being a good fiduciary, and they assess fees, penalties and interest form the day of their decision, long before any litigation or evidential demonstration in court...e.g., you are guilty until you prove your innocence and you are sentenced prior to your day in court. We are less and less a nation of laws, and moore and more one of arbitrary "rules" written by senior appointed bureaucrats for their own self interested purposes.
Long story short...we either fight them now or fight them later. It is not far off before that is literally the case. Stop and think about it...BLM spent well over a couple million dollars on their militaristic adventure to collect fees that originate at $1.35 (CY2013 and 2014 prices) per animal unit month (AUM) for maybe 900 cattle total. Run that number and see what the real principle is in reality.
No worries, it was your money and mine BLM and Fish and Wildlife spent. If you don't like it, shut up (because racist!) ...or you may meet an MRAP and a platoon of Ninjas in the dark in your driveway.
My new approach is to listen carefully and take precautions. I've said all I will say on the subject here, now. I've dealth with these people before. They never quit. Bundy isn't the first, just the first who resisted. He won't be the last until the entire nation if cordoned off as the people's collective.
Ari - as I've said before, if you want to know what the inside of a FEMA camp looks like, just step outside, and look around...
DeleteLewy...don't even get me started on FEMA. I have long and direct personal experience working with and for them in disaster relief. Under Obama and DHS (thank you GW Bush & R Cheney, you idiots) FEMA has grown like "Topsy" so to speak (yeah I know, Raciiiist!) into a giant armed policing agency, yet with full contracting powers that were totally unnecessary given GSA and DLA and USACE already had that covered, but might not cooperate with crazy stuff...sooooo. FEMA buys its own stuff and ignores 48 CFR (the FAR) in its entirety. Obama's "civilian" (actually government) militia is growing as we speak. If I really say every thing I know I will have gray suits at my door in the morning. I have already tweaked the nose of government enough to draw attention to myself vis a vis my old office. We tried hard to be loyal and to do the right thing, at our own expense at times, and were soundly criticized for it. I cannot say more because it will jeopardize others still in the system, and I owe them for their loyalty to me when I was...you must defend those around you or you are a punk bitch ass coward.
DeleteI think you get how it angers me....and I know I've already said to much. F' em....I no longer care.
Regarding that Clippers story -- I think it is hitting the fan for him. I would grant that what he said was out of line. What scares me more is that people now have to be afraid of what they said lest someone record them. The NBA is investigating. It is against NBA rules to be an asshole? I have a great fear when people are persecuted for what they say. It reminds me too much of certain governments throughout history.
ReplyDeleteMatt, it's a business. What he said is bad for business. It's a business decision. FWIW I don't think that business decision would have gone the other way any time in the last, say, thirty years. I think the NBA would have investigated someone making those remarks even when Reagan was president. And Reagan would have looked askance on such an individual.
DeleteAnd yeah, recording tech is a b*tch, but at least we can use it too. It cuts both ways.
What I got from ESPN is wild. Sterling looks old enough to be my father. His "girlfriend" Stiviano looks young enough to be my daughter. He's recorded as saying it's not OK to bring blacks to "his" games, but it's OK to you know, bang 'em, if that's what she's into. Dude has some strange priorities.
Also learned that the woman who produced the tape is being sued by Sterling, and that Sterling's wife is suing Stiviano. Apparently in CA if you're married and are playing sugar daddy to some hot thing, all the bling you fling at her feet can get clawed back by your wife. "Community property" don'tcha know. Wild.
File under #problemsidonthave
What is wrong with saying "What he said is disgusting, we disavow it, and it in no way reflect the views of the NBA?" What is there to "investigate?
DeleteI think they're probably "investigating" whether he really said what he is purportedly recorded as saying. (Given the completely weaselly non-denial denial he issued, I'd say it's probably him.)
DeleteThen they'll be investigating the impact to their revenues if they don't act.
The first amendment doesn't apply to the NBA.
OK I listened to the whole tape. Dude is completely nuts.
DeleteOK people I've got your poster grrl right here.
ReplyDeleteShe's Canadian, too.
I just have this strong feeling we are frogs being put into cold water and having the burner turned on. What I hear is not "We are investigating whether he said that or not," but rather, "We are investigating him for saying such awful, racist things." There is a difference. Used to be a time when people where able to demonstrate that they were morons and suffer the consequences. Now you are subject to public tribunals. I agree that the NBA does not have to abide by the First Amendment. That does not mean they have to start an Inquisition. As I said, there is a move in Congress to sic some federal agency on people for saying they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. What next> -- that muslims are being hind just about all of the terror attacks in the world? That Obama is an incompetent idiot? SAWT teams are being used to bust penny-ante poker games.
ReplyDeleteOr to put it another way: http://moonbattery.com/?p=45204
ReplyDeleteMatt, I think Karim Abdul Jabbar touches on some similar points.
DeleteNot exactly the same view of course but I think it's encouraging that he finds it creepy and disturbing that a secret recording is basically resulting in a public lynching.
Thanks Lewy. Rush made similar points about past transgressions. Being the external optimist, I hope that the left has gone so far overboard that people are really starting to fear what has become of society -- not that racism exists, but rather that people have to fear saying anything for fear they will be lynched..
DeleteDoubt it. This is that moment in Killing Fields where the older cadre tries to rein in the young hotheads who have gone completely nuts, and the young hotheads simply put a bullet in the older cadre and keep going.
DeleteThat's why I posted the link above - a Vox columnist calling out Avril Levine as a racist. Because cultural appropriation. Because white girls can't reference Hello Kitty. Or something. Problematic!
And recall Vox is Ezra Klein's startup media project. He who was until recently part of the Washington Post politburo.
The far Left - no, scratch that, heck, I'm not even sure what to call it anymore, because it's not leftism, exactly... I've got to hand it to them, the ideological cocktail they've mixed is rather novel... how about Neo Statism - yeah, the Neo Statists have become completely mainstream.
Robespierre is the new Jefferson.
Neo Stalinists. Good phrase.
ReplyDeleteMatt, don't mean to nitpic but the phrase I used was neo-statist.
DeleteWhy neo-statist?
Because these people believe that the state comes first: that rights derive not inherently, or from God, but are privileges granted by the State, and what the State can grant, it can rescind. Property, for instance, isn't governed by natural law, but by statute, and regulation, and these cannot and should not be constrained even by "Constitutions".
Property for instance is a creature of the State - no State, no property. So "redistribution" is a canard - since all property depends upon the State, its disposition is a matter to be decided by the State. It was never "yours" to begin with.
This is sounds utterly radical, and it is. It's also what Matt Yglesias believes (followed a twitter exchange one day; he put it all out there.) Matt is Ezra's partner at Vox. (Ezra has famously derided the Constitution as old and irrelevant.)
What is hard to do is pin the label "socialist" on these folks, because they espouse and defend a market economy and a private sector (of sorts). They are not classical socialists; calling them "Marxist" won't work because the charge is easily refuted.
By the way, I don't want to be obsessive about Yglesias, because I don't think he's particularly influential - I like to hear what he has to say, because I think he has the tendency, and courage, to say exactly what his peers and elders and betters are really thinking. It's precisely because he's not more visible that he has the license to say these outrageous things.
"Fascist" pretty much fits, but if you use it, then the conversation is over. Which is occasionally useful. "Neo-Stalinist" btw certainly captures the flavor but isn't actually accurate with respect to economic policy. Neo-Dengism is probably better but is just way too obscure.
But if you want to start the conversation, "neo-statist" fits because its a hard label for them to live down:
- they heap derision on "neo-liberal" policies...
- they heap derision on libertarians
- their position on every controversy and genuinely pressing issue is the position which invariably arrogates more power and authority to the state.
(The neo-statists turn this into a feature; because they aren't pure with respect to any ideology, they claim to be "pragmatic" and "moderate".)
Calling them "neo-statists" is eminently fair and accurate; no baggage, no emotionally fraught terminology - no more so than the terminology they ascribe to others. Make them own it.
Ah, sorry. I misread it. I have a new pair of reading glasses and I am not quit used to them. I still like neo-Stalinist, too, but you are right: neo-statist is better.
ReplyDeleteEverybody ran from Bundy like he had the plague. I understand there are some generational differences but I was flabbergasted by what he said and - although I still think the BLM were totally out of order - he's an old racist. Like Sterling. And they just keep talking!
ReplyDelete*cringe*