Search This Blog

Sunday, April 27, 2014

Snap Systems

Snap Systems.... what we actually use to think with; not belief systems.
If someone says they have a belief system, it is usually a Snap System.
An example follows of snaps and foolishness:

The Daily Yonder

Speak Your Piece: Double-Standard Standoff


When Cliven Bundy stood up to the Bureau of Land Management, the media circus -- and armed militia -- came to town, resulting in a peace gesture from the federal government. So what’s different in the case of two Shoshone sisters who had an even better claim?
By Tarence Ray

A curious story has been playing out in Nevada for over 30 years. The Bureau of Land Management has been rounding up cattle grazing on public lands, selling them at auction and punishing the owners with millions of dollars in fees and trespassing fines.

This is not the story of recent frontier hero Cliven Bundy. It is the story of Carrie and Mary Dann, two members of the Shoshone Indian tribe. The Dann sisters have violated the same laws as Bundy, and the Bureau of Land Management has reacted with unsettling aggression, at one point arriving “heavily armed and fortified with helicopters.” And even though their battle with BLM stretches further back than Bundy’s, it has received little national press coverage. They have received approximately zero support from armed militia groups.

This is a shame, because their legal claim to the public land on which their cattle graze is far more legitimate than Bundy’s. The land in question is traditional Western Shoshone land, and their supporters argue that the Shoshone tribe never legally ceded these rangelands to the federal government.

This raises the question: Why, in all of the posturing and equivocating induced by the stand at Bundy Ranch, has there been no mention of the Dann sisters?

The answer might rest in an article by the National Review’s Kevin Williamson. Aside from comparing the freedom-fighting Bundy to nonviolent civil rights activist Mohandas Gandhi, Williamson locates Bundy’s motive along a spectrum of classic American dichotomies: libertarianism vs. collectivism, East Coast intellectualism vs. West Coast individualism. He writes: “Mr. Bundy is tapping into a longstanding tendency in the American West to view the federal government as a creature of the Eastern establishment, with political and economic interests that are inimical to those of the West and its people.”

This simplified branding of the West is expedient for Williamson, because it allows him to erase Native Americans from the equation. What is left is a convenient justification to take up arms against a foreign government’s illegitimate encroachment. But Bundy’s opponents do not have much of a rebuttal that does not champion the authority of the Bureau of Land Management. They could say that, from a legal standpoint, the BLM’s armed response to Cliven Bundy’s stubbornness was appropriate. After all, the agency never hesitated to punish the Dann sisters with armed force. But they still must explain why the BLM backed down from a conflict with armed white ranchers, but not with unarmed Shoshone Indians....

After Mr. Bundy's fireside chats 'bout slavery and colored folks, Mr. Williamson cannot let go, because his self worth is too much tied up in his snaps about historical parallels:
Cliven Bundy’s racial rhetoric is indefensible, and it has inspired a lot of half-bright commentary from the left today directed at your favorite correspondent, mostly variations on this theme: Don’t you feel stupid for having compared him to Mohandas Gandhi?

Short version: No. There is a time to break the law, and the fact that the law is against you does not mean that justice is against you...

He even compares Senator Harry Reid to General Dyer, the butcher of Jallianwalla Bagh.

Give me a break!


Mary And Carrie Dann; 1992


No comments: