Thursday, January 14, 2016

Of Sandboxes and Cemeteries


“Philosophers are people who know less and less about more and more, until they know nothing about everything. Scientists are people who know more and more about less and less, until they know everything about nothing.” (Konrad Lorenz)
Keeping the quote above in mind, I offer the following:

Given what is going on right now near Burns, OR, might it also be said at least the second part of this quote applies to those from "outside" that specific area regarding what is actually going on? I mean, there are all KINDS of people weighing in with their perspectives on what's going on, what precipitated it, and what needs to be done.

By the same token, perhaps it should also apply to most of those "inside" the area, as well, especially those holding the Wildlife Refuge in their "standoff" with the government even as we speak? After all, those folks have their own "unique" perspectives on what's going on, what precipitated it, and what needs to be done.

But I digress.....already? Really? Damn! Get yourself back on track!

There's a map going around on Social Media Networks that shows the amount of Federally owned land in the U.S.


Very interesting map, to be sure. 

Taken at face value, it would appear there is a disproportionate level of Federally owned lands in every single state in the West. The quote that accompanied this map:
Percent of land owned by the federal government. No wonder Westerners think this is a big issue and Easterners can’t understand why this is a problem.
The implied message, from what I could gather, is that Easterners don't understand the problem because they aren't as "affected" by Federal land ownership as Westerners are, thereby also implying that these lands are "closed off" to the affected states and their citizens. Even more insidious is an underlying current of resentment based in a conspiracy mentality held by more than a few people that the government is trying to expand its land ownership by taking away land from private owners. This one kind of gets my shorts in a knot! Really? Seriously? Can anyone, anyone at all, realistically believe this? I mean, c'mon. The Federal government has a hard enough time managing the public lands they ALREADY have oversight over with the budgets they get that keep getting SMALLER almost every year! Taking over MORE land? Give me a break!

But, once again, I digress....Gotta stop doing that.

From what I've been reading, and based in large part on that conspiracy mentality, Federal landownership is at the crux of the Bundy Bunch's takeover of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, the sentencing controversy over the Hammond family convictions notwithstanding. The more I research the issue of Federal landownership, the more a conclusion must be drawn that the Bundy Bunch cannot withstand the litmus test of accuracy and veracity in how they're approaching this issue. In fact, they fail it miserably!

It's easy to blame an entity, in this case the Federal government represented by that villainous Bureau of Land Management, for perceived wrongdoings, especially if we don't understand, much less have only a rudimentary knowledge of, how and why public lands came to be in the first place.

It's much LESS easy to actually learn something about the history and development of how something comes to be the way it does because that, necessarily, requires work. Not physical labor, but, rather, mental labor, critical thinking, and (probably most important of all) assessment of circumstances the evaluation of which is devoid of personal bias. That's not an easy thing to do.

For example, we all engage in comparisons, equivalencies of a sort, to try and help illustrate points we are trying to make. Some are pretty good. Others, not so much. Some are even ferreted out as being "false equivalencies".

My point being we ALL do this at certain times in our lives. Yeah, even me.....

I don't know how good a comparison either of my equivalencies that follow might actually be, whether they are "false" or not, but here's my first comparative example: "Sandboxes".

Many of us had sandboxes as we were growing up. We played in them. We invited our friends to play in them. We also denied others from playing in them, especially if we didn't like those "others". In other words, there were boundaries. We established them. We enforced them to the "best" of our individual abilities.

Taking it a step further, there were also parks in a lot of towns, both large and small. Those parks were open to the public. They were owned, operated, and maintained by the towns, themselves. They had boundaries, too. However, those boundaries were there not to keep people in or out, but to denote where the park was and to let people know how big it was.

Some parks were larger than others. Some had playgrounds with all kinds of structures intended for children to have fun and play. Many of them had sandboxes in which children could play. 

The boundaries of these sandboxes were to keep the sand in, to kind of "protect" it in a way, not to keep kids out. No one child was excluded, at least they weren't supposed to be.

The park provided for multiple uses, including the sandbox. The sandbox was more narrowly focused on providing a place for children to play in the sand within a smaller boundary......together. 

The sandboxes were geographical areas within those parks. Neither the park boundaries nor the sandbox boundaries were mutually exclusive of each other. They both served a purpose. Think about that. Entities within entities, both there for public use albeit one more focused use than the other.

Yeah, I know....now I'm waxing philosophic. Nope. I don't claim to be a philosopher, but I'm kind of thinking this may reflect the first part of the quote at the beginning of this essay. Does that mean I know "nothing about everything"? I hope not, but I digress....again.

Focus Dude....Focus! Narrowing the scope a little: 

Sand, ownership, and operational maintenance..... 

The sand in all of those sandboxes, whether those sandboxes were private or public, was there to be used, in this case by children. 

Kids will be kids, will they not? They don't really understand the limitations of the boundaries of the sandbox. If they want to throw a handful of sand at someone else, they'll do it. Unless, of course, their parents are watching. Then they might have second thoughts about that kind of behavior....or not.

Let's say, though, some children engage in a sand fight. Sand is flying everywhere especially outside the boundaries of the box.

Questions ensue. Many questions ensue.

Who's going to put all that sand back in when the fight is over, and the kids get taken home to get cleaned up by their parents?

How much sand is left within the boundaries of the box?

How's it going to get replaced?

How much of the sand got "contaminated" by dirt the sand got mixed in with outside the sandbox?

How much will it cost to replace the sand that was lost?

Is there enough sand left in the box to keep it functional for other kids coming to play tomorrow?

How much sand will need to be added to make it functional again?

And, probably most important, who is responsible? No, really....who is responsible for all of this? Every item? Every aspect of damages caused by one person, or group of people? Who...is...responsible?

If the sandbox is privately owned, the parents have a few options at their disposal. Replace the sand at their own expense. Replace the sand and make their kids pay for it out of their allowances. Don't replace the sand and teach those kids a lesson they'll never forget! There are more, but you get the picture.

If the sandbox is publicly owned, it's a whole different ballgame. The town is made up of its residents, all of them. Some might be willing to overlook the "crime" that was committed and just make the repairs necessary and take those costs out of the budget...somehow. Others may decide that signs should be posted saying "NO SAND FIGHTS ALLOWED - VIOLATORS WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIRS", or some such. There are more, but, again, you get the picture.

Do you see where I'm going with this yet? I hope so.

The comparison to public lands should be obvious to even the most ardent opponent of Federal ownership of public lands for multiple uses including, you guessed it, ranching. One of the primary reasons, and there are many more than just this one, for setting aside "public lands" is because ranchers overgrazed and abused the very arid lands they turned their livestock loose in. These are lands whose ecosystems really aren't well suited to ranching operations for the most part. Add to that the fact there are competing species vying for the little forage there is, and, well.....

Truth is, all those sandbox considerations for operations and maintenance factor into the public lands scenario. ALL of them!

There's a widespread movement in western states to wrest control and management of Federally owned public lands from the Federal government and cede it over to the individual states to do with as they see fit. Once the land is ceded over, it's gone, irrevocably lost to the rest of us. And, to be clear, no it isn't going to be sold to those states if those states have their way. It'll be ceded over.

Once it's gone, it's gone. There's no going back. There's no "putting the sand back in the sandbox", metaphorically speaking.

Those lands will be re-purposed. No, you say? Think about it. States are, like most government entities, "cash strapped". They think they can manage things better than the Federal government, and perhaps they can. That does not, however, belie the fact their funding sources are more "limited", shall we say, than are Federal coffers simply by virtue of the fact their constituent base, also known as their tax base, is much smaller.

Unless Federal grants are available to "help" those states manage what are now considered to be "state lands", those states will seek ways to lessen the financial burden imposed by virtue of the fact they, and they alone, are now responsible to operate and maintain those new state lands, to put the "sand back in the sandbox", so to speak. This nation has a hard enough time agreeing with "block grant" programs to states for welfare programs without adding this into the mix. 

So, what's the alternative? 

They'll do so by, dare I say it, raising taxes on state residents......oh, NO!

Or they'll do it by opening those lands up to....you guessed it....ranching, logging, and mining.

Anyone see even a modicum of irony here?

If states open their own public lands up for ranching, logging, and mining does anyone think for one second they aren't going to charge fees for these uses?

If fees don't work, if fees don't raise enough revenue to do required operations and maintenance, would selling off those state lands to those private entities be an option? That goes for state parks, too. There are costs associated with operations and maintenance. Those costs must be offset somehow. On Federal public lands, those costs have been documented to be far greater already than revenue being realized from all sources of land use.

What's lost in all of this kind of rhetoric is the fact, and yes it is a fact, that you and I will have lost any and all access to those lands if this specific scenario plays out unless, of course, we get permission from the private owners....a hit or miss proposition, at best.


Cemeteries:


Now I bet you're wondering how "cemeteries" fit into all of this, right? Sit back and hold tight because here we go! My second comparative example for purposes of this essay: "Cemeteries".

Most municipalities have cemeteries. We honor those interred in all of them. We tend the grounds in which our loved ones are interred. We keep them neat. We keep the grass trimmed, and we make damned sure no weeds are allowed to grow. 

Some cemeteries are out in rural areas. Most of them do not get the same care those in towns get. Some of the more rural cemeteries do, in fact, sometimes get overgrown and neglected.

But here's the thing....how many cemeteries, urban or rural, have no fences? There are some, to be sure. I'd wager there are far more that do have fences than do not. Even with that being said, the boundaries of a cemetery are distinct; marked either with gated entrances or by some kind of marker(s) somewhere to let people know this is a place for solemnity, honor, and respect.

Now, imagine, if you will, people riding ATVs through that cemetery, tearing down the fences, riding over the grave sites, doing donuts and wheelies, ripping up the landscape, making all kinds of noise. 

That happened. Only it wasn't in a municipal cemetery. It wasn't in a rural cemetery. No sirree. It happened in a remote area of public lands in Utah. Yep. It happened. It happened in direct defiance of rules, regulations, and prohibitions on recreational use for that specific area. Those rules, regulations, and prohibitions on recreational use for that area were put in place because that area was sacred ground....for Native Americans. It happened to Native American sacred ground. Sacred ground. Remember the Bundy standoff in Nevada? Remember Recapture Canyon in Utah? 

I guess the question we should be asking ourselves is along the lines of why should municipal and rural cemeteries, those we consider to be sacred grounds receive any more special treatment than those of Native Americans, the Indigenous Peoples of America? In remote areas of public lands? Public lands that are designated off-limits to recreational use? Public lands that are sacred grounds? Solemnity? Honor? Respect? Where were any of these in Recapture Canyon? Seriously, where...were...they? Anyone? 





Finally, there's a movie documentary called "Unbranded" ya'll might just want to watch. It's available for free on Netflix. I haven't seen it anywhere else unless a fee is paid.....go figure! There's also a Facebook page of the same name, "Unbranded". No spoiler here. All I'll say is this movie addresses multiple land uses as they relate specifically to the wild mustang population on public lands. The rating system on Netflix went to 5. If I could, I'd rate it at 10! It's that good! So, just do it!

Finally, there's a very good publication titled America's Public Lands: origin, history, future. This publication was put together mostly by U.S. Bureau of Land Management retirees. Yep, those folks. Who better, really, to talk about management of Federally owned public lands than those tasked with doing so. Sorry, rhetorical question. Doesn't even merit a question mark in the overall scheme of things. And, therefore, I did not give it one. This publication goes into detail on operational costs and maintenance of Federal public lands versus revenue brought in from multiple uses intended to offset at least some of those costs. If that doesn't help increase awareness of what it would require of anyone else to do the same thing the Federal government does in managing our public lands, I don't know what will.

And that, folks, brings me right back around to the original quote I shared in the hope that we, you and I, are never at that point where we, any of us, basically get to a point in any of this where we learn more and more about less and less until we know everything about nothing.

Truly....the more we know......

Until next time......


* Comments on this blog are moderated.

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

When All Is Said And Done...More Will Be Said Than Done

Are things really as bad in this country as the Bundy Bunch out in Oregon is making them out to be? Think about it. Government BAD! Bundy Bunch GOOD! That's what we're hearing, at least from them. There's even a County Sheriff, the 'People's Sheriff' no less, who appeared on a radio show on The Blaze Network (Glenn Beck sound familiar?) advocating his insanity. Don't believe me? Here it is:

The Siege in Burns, Oregon - The People's Sheriff 01/09/16

This guy is from Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, to be exact. That, in and of itself, should pretty much disqualify him from having any say whatsoever in how this incident is being handled in Oregon. But there's more. Oh, yes, there is much more. His 'opinion' (anecdotal evidence - more on that later) in this ongoing debacle disparages his professional colleague on-scene for his handling of this incident. You heard that right. He disses his own colleague....one of his own. Add to that his views are arguably and virulently anti-Federal government, and, well, you get the picture...at least I hope you do. Enough of that, though. Well, perhaps not.

What do these people want? No......really, what do these people want? Do they want the Federal government to be overthrown? No?

Ahhhh, now I get it. They want the Federal government to be reined in. Yup. That's it. Rein it in and make it function under a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.....a document many of them profess to have intimate knowledge of because, don'tcha know, they carry a pocket version in their shirt pocket so they can be the actual Patriots they claim to be.

So, folks like these basically want to start over, to essentially go back to a time....how long ago was the Constitution signed? Well, I know it was over 200 years ago. Let's do the math. Ok, this year is 2016. Well, then, when was the Constitution signed? Bet you thought it was signed July 4, 1776 didn't you? Gotcha if you did.

The Constitution was signed September 17, 1787. Big gap there between July 4, 1776 and September 17, 1787, eh? But wait! It gets better.

The gap we're talking about saw a Revolutionary War for Independence and the establishment of a government that, by virtually all historical accounts, failed to work....the Articles of Confederation ring a bell? What happened in the interim? What went wrong, you ask?

Well, those Articles of Confederation vested almost ALL of the power with the states, not the central Federal government. Why is that important, you ask? Because nothing, nada, zip, zilch could really get accomplished because those states...the original 13 states, really couldn't agree on anything.

And some folks arguably want us to go back to a very similar time? A time when the central Federal government was severely limited in what it could do? By a strictly interpreted U.S. Constitution that was written a very long time ago? A time where most of the power in this country is vested with the states? What's that you say? The Constitution doesn't do that? Read the damn document, then. You're the folks that want the power of the Federal government to be limited to rein it in! But I digress....

Back on topic. How many times do I have to tell myself that in this essay?

The Constitution did not become the Law of the Land until it was ratified by nine of the original 13 states (Article VII of the Constitution, itself). So, it became the Supreme Law of the Land March 4, 1789 when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify it.

Ever hear of the Declaration of Independence? Now THAT document was actually signed July 4, 1776. That was the document I was playing gotcha with earlier when I asked about July 4, 1776. Yeah, that document....the one that was actually signed July 4, 1776! Yes, THAT document!

That's the document, the Declaration of Independence, the idiot 'People's Sheriff' above cited in his idiotic diatribe to justify his rant against the way the takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is being handled by his colleague, one of his own. an elected official just like him, a County Sheriff just like him, someone with law enforcement authority WITHIN HIS OWN JURISDICTION TO DO WHAT HE DEEMS NECESSARY AND RIGHT to fulfill his duties and enforce the LAW!

Sorry, got a little carried away with the caps lock there.

Back on topic!

That's also the document, the Declaration of Independence, the idiot 'People's Sheriff' cites right around the 4 minute mark in the audio as giving the people the authority to overthrow the Federal government even though the Declaration of Independence is a formal list of grievances directed at the ENGLISH CROWN! Don't believe me? Listen to the DAMN AUDIO! And that 4 minute mark is when I STOPPED LISTENING TO THIS IDIOT!

So, in reality, those people really DO essentially want to overthrow the Federal government after all? Wait a minute! Hold that thought, DAMMIT!

The Declaration of Independence does not, I repeat, does NOT give anyone the authority to overthrow the Federal government! It's not even a 'legal' document giving anyone any authority to do anything. It's a LIST OF GRIEVANCES, nothing more....a list of grievances directed at the English Crown, not the Federal government of the United States of America! Sheesh!

Likewise, the U.S. Constitution does not, I repeat, does NOT give anyone anywhere at any time the authority to overthrow the Federal government of these United States of America, misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment notwithstanding! It's a legal document spelling out authorities of the Federal and state governments, but authority to overthrow those governments? Not so much.

Look it up in the Constitution, itself, if you don't believe me. Seditious Conspiracy? Yup. It's in there. Treason? Yup. It's in there. Overthrow? I dare anyone to find that authority. I DOUBLE DOG DARE ANYONE TO FIND THAT AUTHORITY ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION!

Sorry, caps lock got away from me once again. I'll try and refrain in the future. Blood pressure is slowly returning to a semblance of normal now. Deep breaths. Phew...sigh of relief.

Back on topic again.

Anyway, how many years does that add up to (or, more appropriately, subtract from)? Let's see.....2016 minus 1779....mumble, mumble....take from the 1, add to the 6, subtract the 9, that's 7. Oh, what the Hell....that's about 237 years ago that the Constitution took effect.

Has anything changed in this country in the interim? Anything at all? Seriously. I'm being very serious here. What has changed? Any changes in technology, perhaps? What about size? Does size matter? Oh, yeah....size matters, alright! Let's talk about size for a sec.

Being the ardent, passionate, and sometimes wannabe student of American History that I am, I sat down and asked myself some questions:

How many original states made up the U.S., and how far west in the North American landmass did they extend? Curious? Here they are:


But, wait! They're a lot bigger than they are today. Well, kind of. Some of those areas were actually claimed by those states as part of the Northwest Territory and other areas.

Next question:

What were the Northwest Ordinances United States [1784, 1785, 1787]? Well, this is where it gets a little more complicated. Some states ceded their claims to the central Federal government. Others, like Connecticut, held onto their claims for quite awhile before finally ceding their claims over.

Bottom line, this is westward expansion. Yes, indeedy, it is. It's been going on for a very long time.

What happened in 1803? Anyone? Louisiana Purchase ring a bell? More Westward expansion. Did the states buy all that land? Nope. Feds did it.

Alaska? Seward's 'Folly'? Who made that purchase? I don't think those states did, now did they?

Quite a few more 'acquisitions' in our history of Westward expansion beyond those listed here. How about the Gadsden Purchase (Tea Party Flag, anyone)? Maybe the Pacific Northwest (kinda where the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is located, methinks)? And then there's all that land ceded to the U.S. by Mexico (actually kinda, sorta forced to cede it, but hey....just a case of semantics, right?).

My point being the Federal government 'acquired', by hook or by crook, all that land. The individual states did not. Hell, they didn't even exist when those lands were incorporated into the nation as territories.

So, when someone advocates 'giving' these lands back to the states, the only thing I can say is what the HELL are you thinking? I mean, what the HELL are you THINKING?

There I go with the caps lock again. Sorry. Well, maybe not.

Back to the issue at hand: Either overthrowing the existing Federal government and starting over, or just throwing out everything, and I do mean everything including all the territories 'acquired' by the Federal government over the years of existence of this great nation and just 'giving' it to the states so they can sell it off to the highest bidder? To me, that's....well, that's insanity!

Advocating throwing the baby out with the bath water (the government being the baby, figuratively speaking, of course) kind of goes counter-intuitively, does it not? Hold that thought, will you.....

The people of this great nation enjoy some of the most envied freedoms of any nation in the world. Many of those freedoms are at the largess of the Federal government. And, yet, the so-called Patriot Militia groups, and many on the more 'conservative' side of the aisle rail against all things Federal government all the while accusing those of a more middle of the road persuasion of wanting more government intrusion in our lives. America: Love it or LEAVE it! I thought that one left the train station back in the 60's during the Vietnam War. Apparently not. Now it seems that phrase applies to anyone who dares to speak up for policies and programs of the Federal government that actually work for ALL of us.

Where does this animosity toward government come from? What's the genesis? And, even more to the point, what did the Federal 'government' do to those who rail against it specifically to cause this animosity?

We hear nebulous and vague accusations and allegations all the freaking time.

Them: Unconstitutional!
Me: What, specifically is unconstitutional?
Them: What's being said is unconstitutional.
Me: How so?
Them: It just is.
Me: How so? Is someone breaking the law?
Them: IMPEACH!
Me: On what grounds?
Them: Obama's a criminal!
Me: Has he been charged with a crime? Is the House of Representatives considering Articles of Impeachment?
Them: Get him out of office!
Me: On what grounds?
Them: Silence

Them: Our rights are being taken away!
Me: Which ones?
Them: Our guns!
Me: Have your guns been taken away?
Them: No, but Obama's coming for them any day now!
Me: He's had 7 years to do that. Don't you think it would have actually happened by now if he was serious about it?
Them: Silence.

Them: We gotta take our country back because we love it so much!
Me: Back from what? Back TO what?
Them: What it was under the Constitution.
Me: You mean the U.S. Constitution that's still in effect today?
Them: That Constitution has been bastardized over the years and doesn't mean anything anymore. The Federal government has nullified it over the years.
Me: You mean the Federal government that still has three branches of government, and a time tested and proven system of checks and balances?
Them: Obama is a dictator!
Me: How so?
Them: He bypasses Congress all the time, and he's coming for our guns!
Me: You mean he bypasses Congress via Executive Orders? And the gun thingy? I think we've already discussed that one.
Them: Yes, Executive Orders. That's it. They're unconstitutional.
Me: Like those Executive Orders issued by every single President preceding Obama all the way back to George Washington?
Them: Prove it!
Me: Ok, here's a link: Presidential Executive Orders
Them: Well....well....bluster, bluster.

Are we starting to get a picture here, to be able to detect a pattern?

I've had these conversations.....many times.....over and over. I think I'm getting tired, maybe even exhausted.

You know, ignorance isn't a derogatory term. No, it isn't. It's a descriptive term to describe a situation where there's a lack of knowledge on a particular subject. It doesn't make one stupid. If someone is ignorant, it means they just don't know about something. That's not a bad thing, necessarily. What IS a bad thing, though, is something called 'willful' ignorance. That...that right there...can be, and often times is, dangerous, the Bundy Bunch takeover in Oregon notwithstanding.

The issue at hand is that, even when presented with factual data and evidence based on factual data, some absolutely refuse to accept it. Instead, they feel compelled to rely on anecdotal evidence presented by those 'in the know' somehow.....the talking heads, the pundits, the 24-hour news (or should I say 'entertainment') outlets. Radio talk show hosts. Their 'contributors'. Am I leaving anyone out? I'm sure I am. But, the thing is, nobody seems willing to go directly to the source for their info. They'd rather rely on someone not directly involved, those talking heads in the media, to get their information from. Or they cite things coming straight from the horse's mouth, or ass depending on which side of the fence that horse might be on, for their 'factual' data. That's anecdotal, folks. Anecdotal is NOT factual. QED. Have you ever wondered why the media seek out those on-scene for their sound bites? It's because those sound bites are sensational. They're the news that makes the headlines, the news that keeps those media talking heads in the business of selling their stories. The more sensational the sound bites, the more people have a tendency to get sucked in, one side or the other.

Ever wonder why those media folks seek out the emotionally traumatized victims following a mass shooting? I'll give you three guesses and the first ten don't count.

On the ground reporting, and on the ground participants in whatever is going on do not, I repeat, do NOT an accurate picture portray!

My point on this being far too many folks have a rudimentary, basic knowledge of what goes on, but when presented with factual evidence, they choose to continue their diatribes against the Federal government wherever and whenever they can. Does that make them a 'Patriot'? Is their 'Patriotism' more 'Patriotic' than my 'Patriotism'? These are legitimate questions, folks.

Do those who post this kind of animosity toward the Federal government truly love our country? Our Constitution? Our way of life?

It's been said (earliest quote on this has been attributed to Sinclair Lewis):
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
Think about that. No, really.....think about that and how it might just apply to the good old U.S. of A. right here, right now.

Folks, the Internet is our friend....until it's not. 'Google that shit', or GTS for short, may necessarily become our means to an end. It's been said the world is our oyster. Maybe that should be changed to the Internet is our oyster. Search and learn. Learn and then search some more. That's the only way to gain a better understanding in all of this. Remember, the Internet is our friend.

When I back out of a discussion because it's getting too hard to remain civil to the author (just happened recently), does it mean I've thrown out the baby with the bath water? Or did I just throw in the towel? It all just seems so.....well, so counter-intuitive sometimes.

A wise person.....well, it was really a whole bunch of wise people, a class of students, actually, a roster of students from an adult education class I was teaching in, a lot of students in possession of a lot more experience in the field than I had, the one I was an instructor in and was teaching them (oh, the irony).... once told me:
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
I don't want to believe that is true, but when it comes to what's going on in this country, I sometimes gotta wonder. Truth is, I think those students were trying to tell me something, something that might help me better understand how the world related specifically to my profession works in the real world. I'd just started my new job with the agency I worked for after my promotion, and I was idealistic to a fault. That book learnin' I'd gone through myself didn't exactly make me a practitioner of what I was trying to teach....not at that time anyway. Later on in my life? Oh, yeah! So when those students presented me with a sign with the above quote written on it at the end of the class, it left me wondering if I'd done my job, if what I tried to impart meant anything to them....anything at all. It wasn't until everyone was saying goodbye and parting ways to go home that one of the class participants came up to me and told me he would take as many classes that I was willing to be an instructor in. Turns out, the participants in that class gave me that sign to try and let me know I'd hit the nail on the head for them; that, finally, they'd participated in a course where more was done than was said....a difference had been made. I'll never forget that moment, that class.

Thus far, the takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge has pretty much been bluster from the Bundy Bunch....provocative bluster, to be sure. But bluster nonetheless. I'm hoping it stays that way. Not sure that it will, but there's always hope, eh? More will be said than done? Somehow, I don't believe this is the last we'll be hearing from the Bundy Bunch, or groups and individuals like them.


* Comments on this blog are moderated.