Quote:
Originally Posted by SirOsis
Oregon occupation nonsense is a fantastic example of how it's like two different states between here and out east.
EDIT: Reading more about it, it sounds like something I'd see on South Park.
Yeah, it's pretty ****ed up. There's two completely separate parts:
1. The Hammonds and their dealings with the BLM and FWS, over multiple decades.
2. The actual occupation (which the Hammonds have no actual part in and have in fact publicly rejected their support).
The first thing, based on my admittedly cursory reading of it, is pretty ****ed, and the feds are def doing the Hammonds dirty. Decent summary
here (def a biased source). It reads like plenty of modern imminent domain fiascos, where people who resist are ultimately F'd in the A. Feds want land, people won't sell, grudge is held, power is abused.
And from
Reason:
Quote:
The two started a series of range fires on their private property which eventually spread onto federal land. The federal government prosecuted them in 2012 on an array of charges, from conspiracy to attempting to damage property through fire. They were found guilty on only two arson counts, which covered activities (setting fires) the Hammonds admitted to. As part of their plea deal, they agreed not to appeal their sentences. 73-year-old Dwight Hammond was sentenced to three years in prison and his 46-year-old son Steven to 11 months, below the mandatory minimum of five years, which the judge, Michael Hogan, called "grossly disproportionate" and said would "shock his conscience."
As per the deal, the Hammonds didn't appeal the sentence. But the Department of Justice (DOJ) did, getting the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Judge Hogan's decision and order the Hammonds to return to jail. They are supposed to do so on Monday.
This is insane, and I have no idea how this doesn't violate double jeopardy laws.
Now the actual occupation is pretty absurd, and again, the Hammonds have spoken out against it. While their gripe is very legit imo, even if on the behalf of someone else, I have to imagine their are better ways to tackle this, perhaps soliciting pro-bono law work from the likes of the Institute of Justice or something.
HOWEVER, the actual particulars aren't the major interest to me. It's the coverage. Which I'll touch on by addressing clark's 'rhea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClarkNasty
KC,
No. There is a crowd that is:
1. Against excessive state violence, which is objectively disproportionately used against blacks
Fair, agreed.
Quote:
2. Against the extreme double standard of the application of "laws" and "the process" against blacks vs whites as well as for civilians vs police.
fair, agreed.
Quote:
3. Upset about absurd police state puppet media coverage biased against black and brown folks, especially protestors or Muslims, while covering white-perpetrated terrorism (PP massacres, Black Church killings, school shootings, takeover and occupation of federal buildings and land(!)) completely differently, resulting in hugely regressive impact in shaping public opinion. All while being extraordinarily tone def and full of whitesplainin'.
THOSE people (me) think the whole Oregon situation couldn't possibly be more of an in your face example of all the above. And find it amazing that people don't see that.
this you'll have to elaborate on, because it isn't really coherent or possibly I'm dumb. So the media has been cheering on Fergusson and the Tamir Rice situation all the sudden? The Charleston shootings were ignored? Then what have I been reading? I won't say ALL media is on the same page here, as Fox is certainly cop friendly, but CNN, NBC, etc are all police state puppets? Granted, some are state puppets imo, in the proggy sense, but not generally guilty of looking the other way on these racial issues. Nor is the Atlantic, Slate, NYT, etc etc.
And regarding Oregon, much of what I'm reading from liberal media and liberal twitter is not so much "oh wouldn't it be nice if black neighborhoods were granted this kind of fair process", but rather "oh wtf they should get shot too." Which is crazy.
Then there's the also comical #OregonUnderAttack hashtag. When it's people you hate just by looking at them, it's #Attack (despite, you know, any actual physical confrontation).. when it's something you agree with, I guess that's when #Occupy gets love.
Anyway, that's my real point, is that how this is being processed and dissected (on both sides) is more about who the story is about and who is doing the processing than it is based on any set sort of principals. Because just looking at this from a mile away, if anything, #BlackLivesMatters and #FreeHammond might serve two completely populations, but they share a common enemy, and might learn something from one another, even if there's disagreement in execution.
That's what I find fascinating.
Last edited by kidcolin; 01-03-2016 at 08:23 PM.