The interesting thing about street-level politics -- from the most civil of electoral contests to scuffles on the asphalt, from sign-waving to brick-throwing, is that it's not a ball game or a Western: you are not obliged to pick sides, and even if one side is less worse than the other, that doesn't mean they can't both be in the wrong.
Which brings us to lovely Portland, Oregon. All I know is what I read in the papers -- and half of that is wrong. For sure they have civil unrest, violence, rioting. It looks like the rioters are the usual mix of sincere activists, would-be Marxists, and people who just showed up to set fires and break things. For sure there is a Federal response, using officers who appear to have missing or obscured nametags. The Mayor doesn't want them there and neither does the state's Governor; DHS showed up, and refused to speak to local reporters.
Even well-connected local media can't come up with answers.
Many of my Facebook acquaintances are cheering on the Federal actions in Portland, despite the Constitutional reservation of general police powers to the States. How is it jackbooted thuggery when the Feds take on a bunch of well-armed, frustrated ranchers and yet not jackbooted thuggery when the targets are Left-of-center and dreadlocked instead of Stetsoned?
I don't know. I'm not at all in favor of violent protest or setting fire to Federal offices, but I'm not real keen on the kind of arrest-tag-charge or release of persons not on Federal property we're seeing from the Feds, either.
BUILDING A 1:1 BALUN
4 years ago
6 comments:
40 USC 1315
Looking at the law as written, it seems vague and overly broad, and due to be tested in the courts.
All I know is what I read in the papers -- and half of that is wrong.
Optimist ;-)
Even assuming it's only 50%, the hard part is determining which half.
People tend to mistake sincerity and passion for credibility, which makes info from both sides suspect.
A problem going back to forever.
As an intel type back in the dark ages sometimes a source was too good, because they believed and acted as if something was true, even when it wasn't, and caused analysts to overlook contrary intel pointing to reality. (CF CIA surprised when the USSR broke up).
Remember when Conservatives and Libertarians opposed the creeping federalization of law enforcement and used to yell about states' rights and made nasty cartoons about the creation of the "Department of Homeland Security" (how's that translate back into the original German, again)?
Good times!
Anyway, turns out that jackboots are pretty cool if they're on the Right foot.
The ranchers were contesting the range fees the BLM charged them for the use of federal land for grassing .
So the feds were policing activity on federal land .
The DHS is going where they are not wanted or invited .
The question is why the feds were willing to wait out the ranchers but there is no patience for the protesters in the cities .
If you own a Gadsden flag and you're cheering on the Feds, it's time to fold it up and give it away, because you are not a patriot, not anymore.
Post a Comment