Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Weekend Contributor
Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher and scofflaw, was hailed by some people as a folk hero and patriot recently when he—and his followers–engaged in a standoff with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Caty Enders (Esquire) described the scene in Bunkerville, Nevada, as pundits and politicians descended on the Bundy camp last week “to throw in their American flag hats with the BLM protestors.” She said that a FOX News van had been parked by the side of the road for days—and that “militia snipers kept a trained watch” up on a ridge “as Bundy held court.” She added that disciples of Bundy came from far and wide “to share their personal theories as to why the government was enforcing a court order.”
Bundy has had a number of advocates who have spoken in support of his militant stance against the BLM. Those advocates included some prominent politicians and members of the media. Sean Hannity was one of Bundy’s biggest boosters and helped to make him into a folk hero. Hannity talked with Bundy on a number of occasions on his Fox News show. Joan Walsh (Salon) asked a pertinent question about Bundy on Friday: “How does a guy who declared early on ‘I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing’ become a folk hero in the first place?” She said that both Hannity and Fox News should have realized that the Nevada rancher was “too toxic” prior to his “ongoing self-exposure as a racist.” She added that the extremism of Bundy’s statement about the US government “should have been warning enough that Bundy was not only crazy but dangerous…”
Enders posed a question that was in the same vein as Walsh’s: “Exactly how difficult was it, though, to determine pretty early on that Bundy and his followers were using the threat of force to back up some terrifyingly misguided beliefs?” Enders provided some insight into the thinking and beliefs of Bundy and disciples of his with whom she talked.
Members of the Bundy Brigade Speak Out
Enders spoke to a militia member named Mark who was affiliated with the Oath Keepers group. Mark explained to her “the truth behind public land management.” He said, “The assumption is that the BLM is part of the federal government. But we need to check the facts on that one. The BLM doesn’t work for the government: they work for the United Nations. They might as well be wearing blue helmets. If we find out there’s money being exchanged between Harry Reid and the Chinese government, no one should be surprised.”
Another Bundy disciple told Enders that “Bar-certified lawyers, like the ones who prosecuted Bundy, have sworn loyalty to the British government, whose statutes encourage sex with clients. ‘That’s what they do with all their clients.’”
Enders spent time talking to a former cop who chuckled as he related a story about one of his buddies who once worked as a sheriff in New Mexico. He said his buddy got into some trouble after he pulled over a group of illegals one night. He said his pal “didn’t have room to haul ‘em all, so he put a chain around their neck and put a padlock through it, went to the next one, then he chained ‘em to a tree!” Enders said that the former cop then buckled with laughter as he told her how his friend “left ‘em and went to town to get his pickup to haul ‘em all back in. So, you might imagine, that didn’t play well — ha! You’re a young’un, but everything wasn’t against the law, way back when.” The former cop also told Enders that it was now being proved that the Bureau of Land management was acting on orders “from Troy and Harry Reid, who want to build a solar farm on the land — or a wind farm.”
One of Bundy’s disciples drove a beige sedan covered with the following message:
IF YOU WERE BORN IN 1980 AND AFTER. YOU MAY BE IMPLANTED WITH A GOVERNMENT MICROCHIP WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE: GOOGLE DOCTORS THAT REMOVE MICROCHIPS.
Cliven Bundy, God’s Messenger
During the time that Enders spent at the Bundy camp, she witnessed one of the public addresses the Nevada rancher made to his followers. She said that as Bundy—who had just been given a standing ovation—took the stage, he didn’t seem pleased. She said that Bundy reproached the crowd “for failing to follow the word of God – to the letter …”— which he claimed was being “delivered through him.” He wasn’t happy that his supporters failed “to follow his instructions to tear down the toll booths at Lake Mead and disarm the Park Service.” Bundy added, “The message I gave to you all was a revelation that I received. And yet not one of you can seem to even quote it.” He continued, “The records of our bible — how long have they been kept? Thousands of years. They’ve been turned over generation after generation, buried, and all kinds of things happen to ‘em. And yet, here, something I felt was inspired [by God] and yet we haven’t even carried it forth for even a couple of days. Shame on us.”
Bundy expressed frustration because his followers hadn’t been able to deter the BLM “within an hour”—“as the revelation had prophesied.” When an hour had passed, Bundy reportedly got into his bulldozer and decided to march on the BLM himself. His dozer got stuck in the mud—and that led to Bundy’s receiving yet another revelation: “It come to my mind real plain — the good Lord said, ‘Bundy, it’s not your job, it’s THEIR job.’” Bundy reiterated that revelation a little differently in an effort to ensure that his followers understood what he had just told them, “This is not my job, it’s YOUR job.”
Bundy said that he received a message that morning after he prayed. He claimed that he heard a voice say, “Sheriff Gillespie, your work is not done. Every sheriff across the United States, take the guns away from the United States bureaucrats.”
Uncivil Disobedience
Even The Weekly Standard–as well as Glenn Beck–has been critical of Cliven Bundy. The magazine’s Scrapbook explained the whole Bundy situation with regard to grazing fees and court rulings. The Scrapbook said that what had transpired over the years didn’t sound “like the dread hand of tyranny, in Nevada or Washington, oppressing an innocent farmer, or pushing some law-abiding citizen around.” It said it sounded, instead, “like a rancher gaming the system to his own financial advantage, and disguising his scheme in populist rhetoric: refusing to pay a tax which others must pay, and ‘tying up the courts’—for two decades!—as he continues to ignore the law.”
The Weekly Standard:
Far from acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner, the federal government has shown patience and forbearance in the face of lawlessness that customarily lands people in jail. It is worth noting that Bundy’s rancher-neighbors and the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, who contend with the same federal policies, offer him little support.
Apocalypse Cow – Welfare Rancher, Part 1 (The Daily Show)
Apocalypse Cow – Welfare Rancher, Part 2 (The Daily Show)
SOURCES
Fox News’ new laughingstock: Cliven Bundy — and Stephen Colbert — will destroy Sean Hannity (Salon)
Uncivil Disobedience (The Weekly Standard)
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
I’ve chewed on what just happened. In the scheme of things, the deletion of my note is not terribly important. However, the fallout is quite appalling.
But now that we know that I am involved in the most upsetting action, I hope there is no objection to addressing some portion of this more directly…
______ mistakes my persistence in asking for support for his arguments (isn’t that basic protocol?) for harassment and bullying. How about just a fair exchange in those topics that have verifiable data and available sources?
And I sure would like to be able to see my deleted note. Without having access to it, it is like turning in a paper and after grading the professor posts the grade without returning the paper.
feynman, love the idea of creating or adopting enhanced blogging rules. Doesn’t the owner of the blog, however, have that authority as you would have that authority if you had your own popular blog. As a libertarian, ownership (property rights) dictates the control over the governing laws/rules. Many people are mistaken into believing that we are not in favor of rules and laws but we just want them to be voluntary associations with the ability to both join and quit if desired rather than forced participation. The number of voluntary associations currently in existence is almost unknown, if you include the secret societies. lol
As an example, we as libertarians would have thus apposed the Northern States opposition to teh Southern States secession. A contract should not be valid if it can not be terminated under previously agreed upon conditions, generally called a termination clause. Three States I’m told, had the right to secede in their original Constitutions and that some northern States had threatened secession during the Jefferson Administration.
That does not stop us however from attempted to providing acceptable rules to Jonathan. Here’s the problem with that. Majority rule. Do “we” submit a set of rules to Jonathan that is agreed upon by two-thirds of the GBs, do “they” just do 50%+1 or should it be unanimous by anyone wanting to be involved. As a libertarian and generally in the minority on many issues, I would of course like to see a higher plurality or unanimous if possible. With this group unanimous might be quite difficult.
What plurality do we use to determine this very essential elementary rule and who would get to vote?
A good friend of mine, Robert Podolski, the son of the famous physicist Boris Podolski, did some studies with his mentor John David Garcia that concluded that small groups of approximately 8 people, both men and women in equal numbers, working unanimously, provided the greatest creativity and results. If there is 1 incorrigible member in the group, they can be voted off and replaced with unanimous consent. If you have more than one, the group usually fails and those members are thus able to start a new group.
One can conclude from this, if true, that therefore the worst form of democratic decision making is thus the simple 50%+1 plurality, which just so happens to be the most dominant practice in the major institutions of our world.
Just a food for thought. I will provide my recommendations if anyone wants to pursue feynman’s idea.
rafflaw:
🙂 I believe the depths of Mr. Bundy’s mind were thoroughly plumbed within the first 10 to 15 comments.
Mike Appleton 4/30@0112
Starting from above 0028, the comments have had to do with the Host’s decision to delete a post by Feynman.
Wow. I was too busy working earlier and then watching the Bulls and Sox lose kept me away and I obviously missed a lot! After rereading the thread, it seems that everyone’s points have been made. Can we return to discussing the intelligent mind of one Cliven Bundy?
Rafflaw: “Wow. I was too busy working earlier and then watching the Bulls and Sox lose kept me away and I obviously missed a lot! After rereading the thread, it seems that everyone’s points have been made. Can we return to discussing the intelligent mind of one Cliven Bundy”?
You took the words from my mouth. I also want to talk about this Welfare Cowboy- a moocher who does not like people of colour, wants slavery to come back which means he has the same view point that of his darling Libertarian Senator Rand Paul who said on TV interview that if he were old enough to be an elected officer during the passing of the civil rights act, he would have changed many things in it. One of the things he would have done is that no blacks and/or people of colour should be allowed at the food counters of the White only Woolworths of the US.
Cliven Bundy has been mooching our Communist Liberal govt for years in an obese manner just like many of his ilk here have been chest beating and shouting loudly about the mals of this Communist, Socialist govt of being too obese.
Cliven Bundy is a typical Libertarian as many others who claim here to be and would point their AR15’s at our “obese ” govt which is due to the absence of their any thought process whatsoever. In other words, this ilk is made of parrots who love to parrot about their typical nonsensical unreasonable viewpoints that they have been fed by the similar people who make Foie Gras.. Well, at least they have the right to be stupid parrots under our constitution..
Let’s get back to this topic of the 21st century.
Have we come a long way yet?
Hmmm.. do not think so. Congressman Paul Ryan claims he has been “inarticulate” whenever he wanted to talk about the inequality and his numbers in his budget plans back him up for his sentiment..
Teji Malik, You appear to be quite knowledgably on this subject so could you please provide us with all the known facts on this issue so that we can have a more coherent discussion given those facts. Or at least provide us with someone who is given both sides of the story in a truthful and unbiased manner.
No Joke 0430@0109
If memory serves me there were 6 or 7 examples. The first were legitimate examples the last three were snide and demeaning (unless someone can resurrect the posts were they were the serious basis for substantiating an argument). Mixing real and analogy examples without distinguishing between them in a critical assessment is unfair and sarcastic i.e., uncivil.
Why is it that most of the comments are devoid of a topic and make no sense?
Argument by analogy and argument by example are valid methodologies.
is=was
Can someone please point me to where “Because my mother said so” was used as a serious basis for substantiating an argument? If post can’t be resurrected then its inclusion is demeaning and snide ie., uncivil.
Nope.
It was criticism of a rule being wrongly enforced on a post by feynman that wasn’t an ad hominem attack at all but was attacking someone’s evidence practice as being ipse dixit, anecdotal and generally substandard in backing up their assertions.
It was criticizing the site for hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy further deepened by banning said person and then lying about the content in context. One cannot contest a deleted comment without discussing its content. That is like talking about ornithology by looking a kid’s drawing of a bird.
No Joke 04/30@0028
No, I don’t think he was banned for being critical of the site. He was banned because he couldn’t agree an established rule and chose to challenge the host’s authority over this site.
You didn’t like that it was pointed out you deleted a comment critical of evidentiary standards of someone and not an ad hominem attack.
mhj,
No joke. A blog allegedly devoted to free speech banned someone for being critical of the site.
Jolly Green Giant 04/30@0008
??? I’m new here. Are you the moderator? If this is a joke it’s vile
I have suspended postings by that individual after he repeatedly tried to re-post comments that were deleted under our civility rule. We have seen the appearance of a number of new posters who have largely focused on an effort to ban one individual. I have deleted comments that target that individual or comments that continue to recite what these posters dislike in the poster. While it is clearly possible to circumvent a block and resume such postings, we cannot sit at the computer and continually delete re-postings of deleted postings. Some may disagree with civility rule or how it is enforced, but that is no excuse to actively circumvent the rule and re-post deleted comments. If you look at the comments, you will see that I have no problem with criticism of the blog or myself. However, re-posting deleted material cannot be tolerated if the civility rule is to have any enforcement.
mhj,
I’ve been asked to tell you that the poster you are addressing has apparently been banned.
Signed,
BIL
mhj: There’s two standards at play here. It could be the ol’ perfessor has a soft spot for certain folks. Maybe he’s just responsive to whining.
Make no mistake, the continued participation of one individual will denigrate the reputation of what had been a livelier, faster-paced forum where real, genuine dialogue was allowed to happen.
Civil, truthful comments are now banishable.
oops Mutually Assured Destruction. I mayke misteaks sumtimes.
The video action post of Darren Smith on April 29, 2014, at 8:36 pm is a nifty illustration, for me if for no one else, of the way reciprocal retaliation takes on the form of a defeating process, rather as in the manner described by psychotherapist Martin Cooper quite a few years ago.
For me, escalating reciprocal retaliation tends to drift toward some form of annihilating process, somewhat in the manner of Mutually Assured Descruction (M.A.D.).
Might there be a neurological process of some sort that associates M.A.D. with madness with retaliation with defeating of self and others?
What enduring merit hath a Pyrrhic victory of mutual self-defeat?
RTC 4/29 @2227
Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that, given the reputation of the blog host, there is a deliberate bias for or against any particular commentator. It may appear to be so in the heat of the moment. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe errors in interpretation and intention can’t occur. I believe in the civility rule. And I agree it’s arbitrary. In a fast moving discussion how else could it be?
mhj, agreed between the arrogance, intellectual differences i.e. left brain right brain, malice, retaliation, knowledge base, sarcasm, satire, etc. it is difficult to monitor a blog and I thank all those who do it like Jonathan for doing so.
Just reading all the posts is sometimes excruciating to me. What I say is important, not so much for the rest of you all. lol
I got a concrete problem here.
I was bumped and I have no idea of the content. Do all the other bumpees know exactly which of their comments were bumped?
I think Prof Turley said I made a personal attack. He’s the boss. I accept his assessment. I will apologize. But I gotta know what I said that does not meet the standard. So I can avoid the problem in the future.
Prof., would you consider posting it so I understand your objection?