Is this a Chamberlain Moment or Zen at the Oregon Standoff?

Just musing, but what can one forecast about the Bundy militia standoff in Oregon? Well the weather forecast for the next four days calls for a good chance of snow with low temperatures in the low 20s. That won’t do it. If the weather is to play a factor in ending the standoff, we need lows around and below zero and highs below freezing. We need them to burn up their fuel and get miserably cold.

Forecasting other things? Chancy, but don’t we all have our thoughts? I think the power company should rewire the junction that is shared with ranchers. Isolate the wildlife refuge’s power and shut ‘er down. Surely the government has not been allowing truck loads of wood to the militia. Or, God forbid, a propane truck. 

But who knows? The feds are not leaking to the press or announcing to the public and I won’t complain about that. They obviously want a peaceful solution, but in the long run is that possible? As I said in my previous blog some future militia (or armed group of whatever name) could have the county sheriff’s office siding physically with them. Everybody wants to be a hero. Is this a Chamberlain Moment?

So I forecast this: The government will cut the electricity. Disallow anything or anyone coming in unless it is a driver with food and medicine. No arctic clothes; no coats. The counties allied together will block the road; federal officers, SWAT, etc will stage from wherever the strategists think best (not to would be insanity). An Arctic coldfront will hit. As freezing people approach the staging areas bullhorns will blast out the conditions: Keep your guns out of your hands. You will keep your guns. You will be served with charges and escorted out of state. You may go home.

That’s what I predict. It’s hard to imagine my government just let them walk, but… as long as I’m musing I’ll predict what the militia will do. The Bundy group will come out peaceably; outside militias are another story. In my scenario of how cops and feds, etc. (National Guard?) are deployed, the rear could become a new front. Roads come in and roads go out. Outside armed people are coming to “help.” It’s already happened. Won’t they be stopped? If all of them are allowed in to talk to Ammon Bundy then I can’t fathom the minds of the feds, but that could happen because of reluctance on the part of our government to use armed force? Or else the plan is pure Zen – let them all cage themselves in and fester? The more the merrier? Forever? 

No, no, then send in the whiskey.

Can another Bundy break the law and walk away from it?

Political tactical perspectives I would expect in the Oregon standoff:

1. The Federal government can’t let another Bundy break a law and just walk away.

Because No Justice; No Peace

2. If the Bundy Brothers refuse to surrender to any writ or warrant or anything there will be escalation.

Because what can the Fed do? Build a wall around it and let it fester? Hmmm.

3. Escalation will create martyrs and fuel other militias.

Because militias demand utter capitulation from government or, in their minds, they must fight on. Also, because (see number one).

Musing, what if the Bundy Brothers are taken into custody or die in the Oregon standoff? Daddy Bundy has motivation to plan a new battle. It’s not that they could ever win in a battle with a truly motivated Federal government. It’s how big a ruckus they can stir up. If they ask for death forcefully enough the militias might get some.

Chilling thought: What if the Bundy Brothers expect to die and Daddy’s in on it? Revolution seems to be their business. 

There is no tactical depth in the Bundy Brothers takeover of a federal building

It may well be that the best federal response to the federal building takeover in Oregon is to be low-key and slow to act. This is not acceptable to anyone who supports Black Lives Matter or to anyone who has ever been harassed while protesting. At least the differences must be duly noted, the most cogent being that the Bundy militia is white.

My main interest in the event is in the on-going anti-government movement and, especially, it’s strange ties to government itself. Right now in the United States there is a movement among some law enforcement personnel in the Oathkeeper’s association. Most Oathkeepers, who swear to not uphold federal gun laws should they become more restrictive, are in the employ of county sheriffs. It just so happens that the sheriff of Harney County is not an Oathkeeper. I base this on the quote from the Guardian today (link to story here):  “These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers when in reality these men had alternative motives, to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States,” said Harney County Sheriff David Ward.

With no apologies to the Bundy brothers, I predict that the big battle will occur when a militia stands up in such an illegal manner in an Oathkeeper county. Then the feds will be up against a fully armed sheriff’s department, possibly armed with military grade equipment from “Homeland Security.” Then they will be in a county populated by enough right-wingers to keep that OathKeeper county sheriff in office. From what I have read the majority of the populace are not supporting the Bundy militia.

Methinks the Bundys wanted action and didn’t think the whole thing through tactically. Or, the chilling possibility exists that they expected to be dead by now.

The truth probably lies in between, but the Feds have created a tactical situation by allowing the standoff to begin, by not acting immediately.

The onus is on the militia to finance and staff a standoff, to not fire a weapon, start a fire, or misbehave at the grocery store.

Drill it, mine it, melt it

The ongoing drama in the Arctic presages much in the battle to fight global warming. It includes, but goes beyond, the contradiction of President Obama using Alaska as an example of the horrors of climate change while at the same time calling for offshore oil drilling. Every country that has any history of Arctic exploration and usage is involved in a fight for access to Arctic resources. They want to drill and mine; they don't talk much about saving the wildlife. The United States will have its share of the pie regardless of consequences.
Someday, after the Arctic is ravaged, the battle will shift to Antarctica where that pristine landscape will truly show the devastation of resource gathering without proper clean-up and prudence. The Arctic has not been pure for over a century. Mining and oil detritus is common there. When we humans attack the Antarctic the contrast of before and after mining and drilling will be crystal clear to anyone who looks. Will enough people care?
Few of us go to the polar regions and out of sight is out of mind. When it comes to saving the earth versus government-fueled capitalism the die is cast. Big corporations can only be stopped by big government. In the words of that country song, "The race is on and here comes pride up the backstretch. Heartache is gaining on the inside."

The "Christians" who will devil us to Armageddon

            I grew up as a Southern Baptist and fell out as a teenager over the same issue that I see as the primary failure of most Christians – they do not follow the most simple advice of Jesus as found in the Sermon on the Mount. To me then and now, Jesus was advocating a humble, loving, merciful message. Jesus was a Pacifist. Jesus said to “resist not evil.” I can’t accept the current messengers who overlook the simple message of Jesus and replace it with complexity. I am still enough of a Christian to believe that the New Testament replaced the Old in matters of behavior. You can’t take and “eye for an eye” and claim to follow Jesus.

            This essay assumes some familiarity with the Bible. I won’t quote chapter and verse as if I were preaching. I want to share with you, or those of you not familiar with the subject, an introduction to Dominion Theology or Christian Reconstructionism. I’ll even point you right now to a Youtube video that can save you the reading of this blog. Here it is. This is only one of many videos on the subject on good old Youtube.

            If you don’t mind reading a highly intellectual article on the subject go here toSalon.com’s article on the subject. I had to take notes from that article to prepare myself to write this essay. Unfortunately, the Salon article as it exists this moment is poorly edited, but you can still get the facts from it. The article is based upon an interview with Julie Ingersoll and her book Building God’s Kingdom: Inside the World of Christian Reconstructionism.

            Essentially, Christian Reconstructionism seeks to establish a society based upon Biblical Law with a huge emphasis upon the Old Testament dictates - even the most outrageous dictates such as stoning to death homosexuals and adulterers. They seek dominion over all of society, exactly as a fundamentalist Muslim would. Different Bible, same radical control. Rational Age-of-Enlightenment thinking, upon which US founding documents are based, is to be superseded by God’s Law as revealed in the Bible. Not however, the teachings of Jesus which touch upon mercy and empathy. I don’t know how these people dance around that, but believe me even Baptists do that kind of dance! The job of humans is to enact God’s will through the family, the church, and the government in order to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth. The husband rules the family, the church rules all humans, and the government should do not much more than maintain a powerful military.

            These people believe that all knowledge arises from presuppositions. There is no such thing as fair, reasoned, scientific, humanistic thought. Reason is the enemy. The will of God as revealed in an inerrantly true Bible is the only true starting point for truth. You can’t arrive at truth any other way. Once again, I cannot tell how they dance around the Sermon on the Mount. I imagine they simply ignore it. Oklahoma’s famous Ten Commandment statue is right up the Dominion Theologian’s alley. Who needs all these laws based upon the Constitution and Democracy? We have God’s laws and lots of stones!

            The famous Left Behind series of books is right up the Christian Reconstructionist alley, too. They are post-millennialists – they believe that there will be an end of history, that the book of Revelations is among the biblical predictors of how it will end, and that it will end with the dominion of Jesus Christ and his believers over all else. It is the job of these believers to build that Kingdom of God. They can’t wait for God Himself to do the job. The Christian’s job is to bring about the prophesies of the Bible – including Armageddon. Speaking of Armageddon, the above Youtube link will explain to you how George W. Bush is linked to these people. In recent years there has been an interesting link between Christians and Jews. Why? Because Reconstructionist Christians believe Israel will play a major role in bringing about the End Times.

            These people are against the Constitutional precept of separation of church and state. They believe everything is religious – and not just to them. Non-believers must submit to their view of right and wrong. They are against birth control so you can’t have it.

            Understanding this stuff at it’s philosophical level is tedious, but essential because it seeps into our culture in dribbles and drabs. The recent reworking of the Advanced Placement History exam is an example of society caving in to these people. The idea of “a thousand points of light” replacing the social safety net is an example of their influence. Christian home schooling is a tool, but they want to destroy public education.

            Ultimately, I see no difference between ISIS or the Taliban and Christian Reconstructionists. They both favor barbaric punishments, the rule of preachers (Imams), male dominance, and the use of violence to achieve their ends. They are the greatest danger in the world today. They will devil us to Armageddon.

            

Demand public toilets or live in squalor

Buenos Aires and other thoughtful cities have sidewalk toilets. Mexico has many public toilets that cost about a dime to use. The United States has newspapers and TV stations that publicize and shame homeless people caught peeing in public.  In the US, one must go into a place of business and ask to use a toilet. I duck into fast food joints, but when I encounter the need to ask an employee for the key I'm usually ok even if the sign says "For customers only." I guess I get by because I am well dressed. And white. Homeless people are in a bind and what are they going to do? Not go?
As a society, Americans are edging toward trouble. Sooner or later I think we will begin to jail more and more homeless people for unavoidable crimes. The cost of toilets is much cheaper than jailing, but since there are privatized jails and prisons, the pressure on lawmakers will be to jail ever more people. Common sense is a tough sell.
If cities would provide many more public toilets and pay to clean them daily you would see that everybody would use them -  the middle class and the rich get "caught" in need, too. It would cost some money and we have an entire class of citizens who can afford to pay more taxes. No one gets rich without society because "No man is an island." The rich cannot always avoid the messy realities of life. What kind of a society do we want and how can we possibly have a decent society without facilities for the poorest of the poor?

Sandra Bland and the curse of standing up for your rights.

It took seeing the first few minutes of the Sandra Bland ticket video for me to understand. The cop initiated a discussion about how she felt instead of simply issuing the traffic citation. Then he upped the ante by asking her to put her cigarette out. Then he simply bullied her. I don't think anything except complete humility on Ms. Bland's part could have protected her from this man. This kind of behavior can be expected more and more from the people in society who are elevated to "hero" status simply because they wear a uniform. In their minds they deserve not just obedience but also respect, not just respect but jovial politeness. Sandra Bland might have gotten away from her traffic stop if she had "yes sir" and "no-sired" the hell out of the man. Might. But her tone of voice could have become an issue, too. His attitude and her anger put them on a collision course right on the cutting edge of American racial politics.
I am reminded of a statement I read in an Eli Lilly worksheet on mental illness. According to the drug maker Lilly, "I know my rights and I will stand up for them" is a statement that indicates possible mental illness. I have already blogged about what a disgusting belief that is. It's anti-freedom; it's totalitarian, but, if you want to live on to fight another day it is an attitude you should control. Take your ticket, then go to court to fight it and make your statement there. Going one-on-one with cops is not the answer. Be polite. Then, if you must, be jovial and self-deprecating. It's wrong; it goes against your beliefs, yes. But that's how you get away to fight another day.
I've walked or driven away from police encounters with this jovial technique where I was detained and bullied for over 30 minutes, but then I'm white. The odds are with me from the start. I'm sorry to say it, but Sandra Bland would be alive today if she had "eaten crow." But then, Jim Crow is a bitter dish and poor Sandra Bland had had enough.