Cliven Bundy, father of Ammon Bundy, the head of the gang of thugs who occupied the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, has just been arrested in Oregon, while the four remaining occupants of Malheur say they’ll surrender today (Thursday).
You may remember that Cliven has been involved in a 23-year-long fight with the U.S. government about his refusal to pay fees for grazing his cattle on federal land. His sons Ammon and Ryan and other members of the gang remain in jail, all facing charges of conspiracy to obstruct a federal officer, a felony. One member of the gang, LaVoy Finicum, was killed in a shootout with police.
About two years ago, the government began the process of rounding up Cliven Bundy’s cattle as the payment he refused to make for grazing. Bundy then gathered a bunch of armed libertarian thugs to oppose the government, which then caved, stopped rounding up his cattle, and left. It was a victory for Bundy and all the right-wing ranchers and farmers who say they’re entitled to use government land—our land—without fee. It’s been a sore point with me that the U.S. government can’t force a few rebellious cranks to follow the law (the confiscation of cattle was ordered by the court).
That has now ended: the Washington Post (and other venues) report that Cliven was arrested while trying to visit the remaining four protestors at Malheur, and those four have said they’ll leave the refuge today. They’ll surely be arrested as well. From the Post:
The FBI in Portland would not confirm the circumstances of elder Bundy’s arrest. But the Oregonian reported that he was apprehended at Portland International Airport after disembarking from his flight from Las Vegas late Wednesday night. The newspaper said that Bundy, 74, faces the same charge as his son in relation to his standoff with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in 2014. He also faces weapons charges, it said.
Cliven Bundy’s arrest came just hours after the FBI moved to surround the spot where the lingering occupiers were camped Wednesday evening.
According to a statement issued by the FBI in Oregon, authorities made their move after one of the occupiers rode an ATV at 4:30 p.m. local time outside the enclosure where the handful of occupiers have been barricaded.
“FBI Agents attempted to approach the driver and he returned to the encampment at a high rate of speed,” the statement said.
The FBI moved to “contain” the remaining four occupiers by posting agents at the barricades in front of and behind the spot where the occupiers are camping, the statement continued.
Michele Fiore, the gun-toting member of the Nevada state legislature (remember her? see here and here) has been an advocate for the Malheur thugs, and wants to travel to the refuge to ensure their safety. But the occupiers seem to be losing it, doing pranks like making “doughnuts” in a Federal vehicle and acting erratically, and it’s doubtful that the feds will let Fiore onto the property.
“I think I want to take it on a little joy ride. You know?” [occupier David] Fry said. “Let’s start this baby up. Now you’ve got another charge on me, FBI. I am driving your vehicle.”
But in the phone conversation broadcast over YouTube, Fiore — speaking to the occupiers from Portland International Airport — repeatedly had to call for calm, as Fry yelled incoherently and other occupiers broke into shouts or tears.
“People are watching,” she assured them, asking them to recite prayers.
But the occupiers insisted that they could not trust the FBI’s promise of a peaceful resolution, and seemed certain that the standoff would end in violence.
If they really wanted it to end peacefully, they’d simply drop their weapons and exit the refuge with their hands in the air, or, better yet, come out with their hands in the air and then lie down flat with their arms forward. Remember that LaVoy Finicum was killed by Federal agents while reaching for the belt that held his gun. I’m convinced that the government doesn’t want any violence in this issue, if for no other reason than it would make martyrs of the thugs, inspiring other right-wingers to follow their actions. But the thugs don’t help matters by the way they’re talking:
“They killed LaVoy,” one man yelled. LaVoy Finicum, a spokesperson for the occupation, was fatally shot by Oregon state troopers during a highway confrontation in January when Bundy and four others were arrested.
“We’re not giving them any reason [to fire],” another person said. “But my weapon is within reach.”
The people still at the refuge have said they will not leave as long as they face charges and a possible prison term.
“I can’t even describe to you how wrong it is i feel to be giving myself into the hands of the enemy,” Sandy Anderson said. “We’re going to lose our rights.”
. . . “You’re going to hell. Kill me. Get it over with,” yelled David Fry, sounding overwrought. “We’re innocent people camping at a public facility, and you’re going to murder us.”
Well if they’re not giving them any reason to fire, then surrender is dead easy. It doesn’t help to add that “my weapon is within reach.” That guarantees that the authorities will be wary and on edge.
My prediction is that the surrender will ultimately be peaceful, for these men don’t want to die—unless, like Finicum, they prefer death to incarceration. That fate would be easy, too: all they have to do is come out with guns drawn, like Butch and Sundance. But one thing is for sure: they’re not going to get off scot-free, as Cliven Bundy did for so long. I’m glad the government has decided not to tolerate arrant lawbreaking, and is trying to resolve this situation peacefully.
h/t: gravelinspector
Stupid and dangerous. If they don’t surrender peacefully, then the authorities are justified in eliminating them, since they are domestic terrorists.
I just thought this bloodthirsty comment worthy of highlighting. I’m with Coyne: this can be resolved peacefully unless they get violent, and should be.
Want to help Donald Trump get elected? Push the idea that “authorities are justified in eliminating” citizens they don’t much like.
I didn’t take that as a bloodthirsty comment. If they engage in violence, that is, if they start shooting or threaten to do so, then the only response that law enforcement has is to shoot them. They have been given every opportunity to surrender peacefully. Their supporters will see any federal response short of letting them go and handing over the land as tyranny. They’re going to vote for Trump anyway.
Perhaps I am wrong, but as stated this comment implies that if they simply refuse to surrender, just continue their occupation, then “authorities are justified in eliminating them, since they are domestic terrorists.” That seems pretty extreme to me, since theses alleged “terrorists” present no threat to anyone just sitting there with their heads up their asses.
According to you, if they don’t come out by themselves then just let them continue to control the situation?
They do pose a threat to anyone who would go there, including the federal employees who work there.
Your solution is wimpy.
I hope all lawbreakers surrender peacefully in all situations, but even if they don’t I don’t want men with guns feeling that it’s okay to “eliminate” them. I recall lots of protesters for better causes over the years not surrendering peacefully, but being subdued with the minimum force.
“Wimpy” is a tell. A real man goes in guns blazing perhaps? How very Rambo. Tell me how wrong I am about finding your comments bloodthirsty.
Once again, I didn’t say go in with guns blazing. You twist everything I say and it is manipulative of you. Yes, if those people have guns and are threatening to use them as they were and are terrorists as they are, then It is more than OK for the authorities to use deadly force when confronting deadly force.
You are wrong about my comment.
What part of “If they don’t surrender peacefully…” do you not understand?
At the very least they are “armed militants.” The media has been overly kind in calling the armed takeover a mere “occupation” or a “protest”. This isn’t “Occupy Wall Street” where unarmed hipsters camped out in tent cities. This is an armed takeover of a Federal facility, by people armed with military caliber long guns, promising to shoot at law enforcement.
Agreed. And authorities are justified in taking prudent steps and using the minimum force necessary. That’s not remotely the same as “authorities are justified in eliminating them.”
you can listen to the whole thing as it transpires on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=616S8t9tek4
If you can stand all the gh-dbotting and conspiracy theorizing. But it’s just a theory.
Oh my. Two have surrendered. One is panicking. His “supporters” on the line with him spent the last half hour or so winding him up with talk of how we are all slaves of the federal government and now seem surprised that he’s changed his mind about surrendering. ‘doh.
Yeah, that’s a very weird way of arguing. “You’re totally right about your attitude to taxes and the federal government, now would you please come out?” Worst. Negotiator. Ever.
I do hope it works though.
Cause and effect is apparently deep black magic to these folks.
also note that Michelle Fiore (remember her solstice card with all of her family armed) persuaded CLiven Bundy that it was a good idea to fly to portland. according to oregon public broadcasting, he was initially not allowed to get on the plane because hes’ on a federal no-fly list. i guess he didnt’ get suspicious when he was soon allowed to board. The FBI awaited him at pdx. This is too much like a poorly plotted movie.
The best part is that he was arrested at an airport, where they knew he wasn’t armed. An arrest anywhere else could have resulted in a gun battle.
Its just like Die Hard. The part where Hans Gruber’s henchman is playing cards with the police, then signals him on the radio “you can come out now, they’ll let you keep the money,” he comes out, then gets arrested.
Wait, that didn’t happen?
maybe there really is a god…naaaaaaah
“the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.”
– Thomas Jefferson.
The life-long aspiration of these guys is to be manure. From the footage I’ve seen, they are almost there.
“The tree is best planted in direct sunlight. Water it every day, but don’t overdo it.”
The real problem comes when idiots read that “must” as a direct order…
sub
i’m a different neil, by the way. lower case ‘n’
I heard a report on the radio that three have surrendered and were taken into custody without incident. The fourth is refusing to come out, claiming he wants his grievances heard, among them being tax money paying for abortions (which it isn’t?), and was contemplating suicide. The FBI was trying to convince him that’s a bad idea.
They are all out now.
Good. Hopefully with no craziness. Well, minimal craziness.
Imagine going back to work at the refuge now, though. There are still plenty of crazies all over who have had their attention drawn your way and they’ve decided that you, lowly government employee, are the enemy.
On top of having to comb through and document the mess they left, then getting it all fixed.
I think they ought to post a Oregon State Patrol officer there for a while …
Craziness of little consequence apart from some gun nut getting a taste of his own prescription.
Final Oregon occupiers surrender to authorities, ending the refuge siege
“I’m convinced that the government doesn’t want any violence in this issue, if for no other reason than it would make martyrs of the thugs”
Yeah, because Waco. And Ruby Ridge.
This was handled intelligently, although it was unsatisfying.
And OK City bombing, which was timed to happen on the anniversary of Waco.
They may be absurd, even comical, nuts, but it is serious stuff and I’m glad to see that it’s handled intelligently.
I’m not unsatisfied with the pace of the Malheur events but two years later for Cliven is a bit long.
More dissatisfying is the thought that the FBI’s approach to Cliven cannot be a workable future strategy, so it doesn’t really provide any long-term solution to right wing violent opposition. Like the Trojan horse, getting your enemy to board a plane and then arresting him while he’s unarmed is only going to work one or two times. Then they will simply stop flying.
“More dissatisfying is the thought that the FBI’s approach to Cliven cannot be a workable future strategy”
True. To put it in IT terms, this solution doesn’t scale well.
I rather disagree. Just like the fugitives every year who respond to the letter telling them have won Super Bowl tickets, show up to pick them up and find police waiting instead, they do it every time. They aren’t criminals because they are smart you know.
The analogy doesn’t hold. The public awareness of those tactics is fairly low and moreover, the targets aren’t sharing information in a network. In contrast this tactic is a front page news story and the people they would use it on in the future are very well networked together.
I’m not saying it will never work again, but I am saying that you might here some “oh no, you’re not Bundying *me*!” cries the next time one of these rightwingers gets an invitation to leave their compound.
To me, FBI must confront such thugs of course but the long-term future strategy must be cultural. I would get mean and say that guys who are so obsessed with guns must have some issues with their penises, and do you know who produces double-digit numbers of children in this century? – Yes, the wretched illiterate inhabitants of Third World s*itholes. Some other comparisons outside the primate order also come to mind.
I hate Islamists because they:
– are truly loyal only to their religion, which they push down other people’s throats;
– are always ready to use intimidation and violence to achieve their goals;
– think they have a God-given right to disobey laws;
– treat their wives as broodmares and produce soccer teams of mistreated children;
– love infiltrating and grabbing other people’s land, maybe seeking Lebensraum for their tons of children.
Is any of these not valid also for Bundy, Bundy & Co.? (To be fair, I’m not sure whether they force their religion on people outside their families.)
Whether they force their religion on people outside their families, or not (I say they do
in Utah and surrounding states wherever they have a substantial population), they are top
of the heap as evangelists and proselytizers.
Remember that they send their 18 year old young men (and, now, women) out all over the world for two years as missionaries. I don’t understand how they can tithe 10% to the mormon church (accumulating a huge amount of money) and follow all the church dictates without question. But, consider the laws of the land excessively restrictive. Reminds one of the period in the early days of mormons in Utah when they almost went to war with the U.S.
military. Some people don’t learn.
I find this missionary thing rather weird. Most cults will do anything to protect their young people from exposure to the outside world.
I know they always go round in pairs for mutual reinforcement and protection, and they’re supposed to stay celibate, but still…
3 decades ago, I was on a boat to Pukapuka, in the northern Cook Islands; for some reason the Mormons had decided to send a couple of ‘missionaries’ there. They carved out a space for themselves and their baggage ‘on deck’ (the hatch covers) and pretty well kept to themselves, constantly reading and praying. What I guess was nervousness and bashfulness seemed a lot like arrogance.
Anyway, I didn’t fancy their chances in Pukapuka, which is 2/3 LMS and 1/3 Catholic and quite happy to stay that way, thank you. I fancied their chances of staying devout even less, as the youth of Pukapuka regards celibacy as something quite incomprehensible and possibly slightly insulting – but easily remedied. When I enquired later I heard that one of them had become a father and both had been excommunicated. Score ‘rabbits’ 2, Mormons nil.
Seriously, expecting 18-year-olds to stay celibate for months in a place where temptation not only exists but goes a-hunting… what *were* the Mormons thinking of?
cr
I like that place Pukapuka!
I wonder why nobody points out that Randy Weaver was a miserable damn coward. He thought that authorities were unscrupulous and heavy-handed and nevertheless he refused to surrender to protect his family. Instead, he hid behind the backs of his family members, which ultimately caused the deaths of his wife and son. I wonder how he could find a woman to remarry. Apparently some women wish to marry so much that they are ready to marry absolutely anything.
He may or may not have been a coward, but I’m not aware of any evidence that he “hid behind the backs of his family members,” leading to their deaths. His son was killed in a shootout with US marshals he they went outside to investigate the dogs’ barking. Randy was inside the house at the time. That was the beginning of the standoff. Later, a sniper shot Randy in the back when we went outside, and then shot his wife while an injured Randy and his son were running back towards the house. In neither case was he hiding behind their backs.
I was using a metaphor.
He knew that the authorities were after him, and feared that it would end badly. However, instead of surrendering, he holed himself in the family cabin with his wife and children. That is, he either hoped that authorities would leave him alone because of his wife and children, i.e. metaphorically hid behind their backs, or he didn’t mind them being shot.
He and his supporters made much of the fact that the FBI people did not identify themselves. However, in reality, he knew very well who would come to his cabin and why. He also knew (presumably) what happens when you confront FBI by firearms, but let his young son and that suspicious family friend carry guns around and use them.
After his wife was shot dead, the damn coward still didn’t consider a surrender. He left her body to rot for 9 or 10 days and risked the lives of the rest of his children.
I am old-fashioned in my judgement of such situations. I think that it is a duty of a man to protect his family, and I despise male cowards.
I now realize that the Oregon “heroes” and the Weavers share a predatory attitude to wildlife. The former encroached on a bird sanctuary, and the latter allegedly had collected their firearms arsenal to hunt. In my country, hunting without another hunter observing you is considered poaching, even if it conforms to the law in other respects.
Solo hunting is permitted (and common) in the US.
Possibly because of the vast spaces. If we allow it, there will soon be nothing to hunt!
“I went and shot the maximum the game laws would allow,
Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a cow.”
– Tom Lehrer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQyoSLOlglw
The Special Snowflakes of the Gun Nut fringe didn’t get their satisfaction of martyrdom? Well boohoo for them and their thwarted aspiration to 72 virgins.
Let them try to complain of their lack of satisfaction to Bubba in the showers for the next several years. I’m sure Bubba will be concerned over their constitutional concerns. Or their poor tongue technique.
Yes.
I always thought it was weird that the George Washington chapel in Valley Forge, PA had stained-glass windows of the life of Washington in it.
I now discover that Cliven Bundy regards one of exploits in 2014 as a “miracle” assisted by “Jesus and the Founding Fathers”
The magical thinking is strong in all of these guys. They seem to think the Founding Fathers are some kind of gods, that the Constitution was handed down by God, that law in the abstract has magical powers to make things happen in the world, and on and on.
The ones who are Mormon (I think that includes the Bundy clan) do actually think the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were handed down by god. As I recall from way back when I was an active member (before I grew up), the official church position was that those documents were divinely inspired, right up there with the bible and book of mormon. The Founding Fathers are held in very high regard. It would be interesting to find out if that high regard came before or after polygamy was discarded by the mainstream LDS religion, when they were moving to integrate themselves into the rest of the country.
I think the reverence for our founding political documents, along with a very strong tradition (used to be a formal doctrine, maybe not so emphasized now) of individual guidance/messages from god, combines to generate some of the nonsense that comes out of these guys. It’s easy to impose your own interpretation on them when your church talks constantly about listening to ‘that small, still voice’ – you know, the one you hear from god. Or the Holy Ghost. Or whoever.
Overall, I’m not that impressed with the US Constitution. While it holds a few good ideas, there are a lot of dumb ones, too, and a whole host of compromises.
God told me that we should have a parliamentary system.
Seriously? But, there are like, contemporaneously recorded documents of the decision process, draft versions, records of meetings written by both supporters and opponents of the final form …
Do they never think to compare the evidence for this holy document with the evidence for their Book of Mormon, or the rest of their Buy bull catalogues.
Hey, Ben – did you ship any Bull Product to these people. Labelled as “coffee creamer,” perhaps?
“But, there are like, contemporaneously recorded documents of the decision process”
I can’t help thinking this is motivated reasoning. The overall concern that the founding fathers were addressing in the Constitution was the federal government infringement on the rights of the state governments. Thus the Federal powers were sharply limited.
Federal power today is far larger than the Founding Fathers envisioned because some of the authority granted by the Constitution have been stretched by the Supreme Court beyond all recognition.
Personally, I think this is a good thing, because I don’t think that states’ rights is a worthy thing to protect. Most often the Federal government steps on the rights of the states in the name of a goal that makes the world a better place, e.g., civil rights, separation of church and state.
People who want the freedom to be racists or theocrats really hate the federal government and bitch incessantly about its overreach.
But that’s not really an inherently states rights thing. Things could have turned out in reverse, where the federal government forced racist policies on objecting states.
The relative power between the Federal and State levels is one I don’t have much stake in. Both are capable of causing trouble. I think the Founding Fathers wanted more states rights as a sort of governmental freedom, allowing each state to be free of the oppressive rule of a federal ‘king’.
Now in practice, those who most trumpeted states rights were the slave-owners, and so the idea of “States Rights” became heavily poisoned, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with the idea that I can see. Greater states rights could allow people to own slaves, but it could also keep decent folk free of a tyrannical president. Tell me you wouldn’t want a President Donald Trump to have less power, for example.
“not really an inherently states rights thing”
I think it is, because I think the larger the political unit, the more likely it is to consider the rights of a broader range of citizens. “Lord of the Flies” sort of thing.
“…armed libertarian thugs…”
Said it last time, guess I have to say it again. As (apparently) the sole resident libertarian, to call these idiots “libertarians” is simply a slander on libertarians. Most of them are Republicans (those who aren’t members of Cliven Bundy’s Independent American Party, and as ploubere called it, I think accurately, probably likely Trump voters. You know any libertarians campaigning for Trump? Yeah, me neither.
If we’re just going to use “libertarian” as an all-purpose epithet, then fine. I suppose that it can be a modern equivalent of “commie,” or the n-word.
But if we’re going to use it to describe everyone who criticizes real OR IMAGINED heavy-handedness by any government anywhere, then I suppose that the ACLU will be surprised to find out that they’re all libertarians too.
Could you name a few “libertarians” who are not a slander on libertarians? There seem to be precious few.
Start with Gary Johnson. Tonie Nathan. Nancy Lord. Or James P. Gray. Alex Kozinski.
Or for a more whimsical take, try Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Or Penn & Teller. Even Dave Barry.
Since the definition of “libertarian” appears to be at issue now, here are a few of my definitions:
Liberals believe that one of the most important functions of government is to protect the powerless from the powerful. Libertarians don’t care about that, and they claim that that very lack of caring represents a noble seizure and defense of the moral high ground. Conservatives care very much about that, but with a goal opposite to that of Liberals. I can say that because the word “Conservative” means something entirely different in the US than it does anywhere else in the “developed” world, except perhaps in the UK, as Maggie Thatcher’s heirs have shown us in trying to sell off their national parks to the highest bidders (they were thwarted in that — for now) and to destroy their National Health Service (which only Americans hate — rather like the Canadian health service). A clear demonstration of that is the answer by a self-identified Conservative German MP to an American reporter’s question, “As a Conservative, what do you think of Obamacare?” The MP answered, “Health care is not a Liberal or Conservative issue — it’s just humane.” Yes, people, we’re on a different planet altogether here.
Jeremy Cantor said:
“Libertarians don’t care about that, and they claim that that very lack of caring represents a noble seizure and defense of the moral high ground.”
Well, you did say “my” definitions, so I guess that you can spell your name “Bob” and insist that it be pronounced “Dave.”
But here on Planet Earth, I would have to paraphrase Garrett Morris’s famous query to Mick Jagger:
“Uh…Mr. Cantor…where do you FIND these libertarians?”
Your statement flies in the face of the most basic libertarian doctrine. Don’t take my word for it; check the LP’s platform, or pretty much ANY libertarian writing. Even at the most anarchistic end of the libertarian spectrum, it’s considered gospel (sorry…) that one of the few legitimate government functions is to protect citizens “from force and fraud.” If that isn’t a decent paraphrase of “protect the powerless from the powerful,” then…well, as you said, your definitions. You can just make stuff up all day long to suit your arguments.
I think the disconnect here, which you are probably well aware of but instead of acknowledging it you respond as if the libertarian critics are simply wrong, is that there are significant numbers of people who self identify as libertarian and who are rather accurately described by the critics you are responding to. And those self identified libertarians are significantly more visible to the average person than those libertarians, such as you appear to be, who hold to the older, respectable, meaning of the word, for example the LP.
“. . . , or pretty much ANY libertarian writing,” is a highly inaccurate statement unless you assume that writings from people that don’t fit your definition of what a libertarian is, even though the person may self identify as libertarian, don’t qualify. Or that writings, or other correspondences, below a certain level of pedigree don’t qualify. There are plenty of writings and other correspondences by self identified libertarians that, going by what I have read from you, I am pretty sure you would take nearly as much issue with as the libertarian critics that you are responding to here. And that kind of crap is highly visible, just like crap of all types usually is more highly visible.
Your position is rather similar to a member of a moderate Islamic sect claiming that members of ISIS are not true Muslims. There is truth to that at one level, Islam as practiced by ISIS does have differences compared to Islam as practiced by a moderate sect, but it is inaccurate at others. Substitute any other ideological group. Arguing as if only the former is the case is inaccurate and, even when only used as a tactic, just isn’t helpful.
Sounds good on paper, darrelle, but this would be the point where you identify some of these “significant numbers of people who self identify as libertarian.”
Yes, I agree that “pretty much any libertarian writing” is painting with too broad a brush. Chalk it up to my frustration at the continual unevidenced slurs. Let’s recall that this column, and my comment, concerned BUNDY and his cohorts at Malheur. They sure as hell aren’t self identifying as libertarians. And you could always google “libertarians bundy malheur” to see if there was some basis for referring to these idiots as libertarians. What you’ll come up with is…bupkis. A psmag article, “Libertarian Fairy Tales: The Bundy Militia’s Revisionist History…,” which does nothing to explain the alleged connection between the occupiers and any libertarians. A New Yorker article, “The Bundy Brigade’s Economic Delusions,” similarly silent on the subject.
While it can’t be cited as authoritative (considering libertarians’ usual views on authority), it’s never a bad idea, before calling people libertarians, to check in with Reason Magazine. They’ve had not much good to say about Bundy and the loon patrol, and referred to them in a recent editorial as “goofballs.” The Libertarian Party of Oregon has not taken up their cause. A recent editorial at alibertarianfuture(dot)com argued that they don’t meet the definition of “terrorists,” but the comments section overwhelmingly ridiculed them.
I understand that there are a lot of people who support Bundy and crew. It’s worth remarking how FEW of them are libertarians.
I misspoke, to this extent: the reference to “armed libertarian thugs” wasn’t to Ammon and the Malheur ocupation; it was to Cliven’s prior actions. It doesn’t change my thesis.
“and to destroy their National Health Service (which only Americans hate — rather like the Canadian health service…”
I also hate it. All my friends who have spent time in the UK tell horror stories about it. Worse, there are reports that its priotity is to save money by providing lousy midwife-based “care” to mothers and babies and even encouraging homebirth. Check what happened to Joshua Titcombe. BTW, I’ve touched the subject with some young Britons, and I am sorry to say that they were absolutely brainwashed. I said that it is unreasonable to plan a birth to start at home and to hope to transfer in time if things go awry, and do you know what they replied? That UK ambulance drivers are great and will take you anywhere in no time! I guess they can also fly over traffic jams.
In the UK, doctors are also ordered not to perform “too many” Caesareans. With such insane orders and doctors ready to follow them, a hospital birth presided by a doctor may end the same way as a homebirth presided by a midwife, with a completely preventable death or disability of the baby. However, my British opponents valued their health care for being “free”. In most cultures, people are ready to pay for their health, particularly to take home a living, healthy baby.
And yet infant mortality rates in the UK are comparable to those of other industrialized countries. Do you have any data to support the notion that UK health care is bad for births, or just anecdotes?
“A total of £22.7 billion – nearly one fifth of the health service’s annual budget – has had to be set aside to pay compensation to thousands of people harmed by poor care.”
“The highest individual pay outs are connected to NHS errors which have led to babies becoming brain damaged, with around 100 such cases occurring each year.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10189204/Jaw-dropping-rise-in-NHS-claims-after-scandals.html
In this post:
http://www.10centimeters.com/friday-fallacies/friday-fallacy-the-us-infant-mortality-rate-is-worse-than-that-of-the-third-world/
you will find a chart comparing perinatal and neonatal mortality of different countries, based on WHO data. You can see that a number of European countries, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA are better than the UK. Denmark, Greece, Israel, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal are in a similar position. For the Netherlands, we do expect a bad position because of the midwife-homebirth based model there. Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Ireland and Latvia are worse than the UK. However, I don’t think that the leader of the Industrial Revolution should be happy with just being better (or not worse) than some post-communist countries.
The graph provided there is from 2006, and doesn’t link to its source – more modern numbers place the UK’s (and the Netherlands’) numbers at better than France, Canada or the US.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.IN
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
If you wish to know about childbirth care, do not seek statistics about infant mortality.
It includes deaths up to 1 year of age and is dependent on many factors, notably poverty.
The statistics you need is about perinatal mortality or neonatal mortality.
The original source is here:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/43444/1/9241563206_eng.pdf
The relevant table begins at page 29.
A British expert commenting the statistics for 2013:
“This report [on stillbirth and neonatal death rates in the UK] confirms that the UK performs poorly compared to other European countries of similar economic status particularly Sweden and Norway. We recommend that NHS organisations across the UK and the relevant Royal Colleges establish national aspirational targets for stillbirth, neonatal deaths and extended perinatal deaths. This will enable all services to be assessed against this benchmark in the future in order to work towards achieving similar rates to those of the current best performing countries in Europe.”
http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2015/june/report-on-stillbirth-and-neonatal-death-rates-in-the-uk-identifies-areas-for-improvement-for-nhs-service-providers
Unless I’m reading it wrong, the table there seems to show the UK as being comparable to most of Europe, though slightly worse than the Scandanavian region – and still outperforming the USA. The Leinster report does include that quote, but the comparative numbers such a quote would be based on are not there.
“In most cultures, people are ready to pay for their health,”
And people who can’t afford to pay?
The gripes about the NHS mostly arise because it’s underfunded, hence there is often a wait for treatment. The gripes are *not* because people don’t want it, it’s because there isn’t enough of it, so to speak. But far better to have it than not.
This is the opposite of the US where the good ol’ boys regard ‘welfare’ as a Communist plot (unless of course it’s farm subsidies, or small-business incentives, or whatever-their-special-pork-barrel-interest is).
cr
When we are talking about ordinary health care, i.e. not leukemia treatment and not organ transplantation, most people can pay. How many times in her life does a Western woman expect to give birth? Well, some people are really too poor to pay even on such important occasions. My opinion: poor health care for them is bad, but still the lesser evil, compared to poor health care for everybody. In fact, poor people often benefit from a health care system kept in a good shape by people with higher incomes.
I know what means to be in a difficulty to pay. When my children were young, every banal infection requiring an antibiotic treatment ruined our budget for the month. We had to postpone speech therapy for one of my sons for months, because the choice was between it and normal nutrition. When my father heard about this, he gave us the money.
In better times, I’ve donated to friends and strangers for their health. I’d recommend SJWs to put their money where their mouth is and donate for poor people’s health care, instead of trying to ruin the health care for everybody.
When I was giving birth, there was no anesthesia for vaginal birth. Things may have changed now, I don’t know. However, nobody has considered to let midwives preside over births without OBs, let alone out of hospital. You can compromise with comfort, you cannot compromise with safety.
In a First World country like the UK, however, no such compromise is needed, and I am outraged that women are deprived of safe and pain-managed birth. And if any male commenter tries to mansplain that there is nothing wrong with midwife-led birth without epidural as recommended by NHS, I’ll resort to taboo words :-).
“When my children were young, every banal infection requiring an antibiotic treatment ruined our budget for the month. We had to postpone speech therapy for one of my sons for months, because the choice was between it and normal nutrition.”
And this, in your opinion, is better than a government-funded national health service?
Also: The National Health Service is about more than having babies.
cr
Not all horror stories I’ve heard are about births. One was about a child with otitis media who was given no antibiotic. The child suffered until the eardrum ruptured and the pus flew out. As if he was living in rural Afghanistan. I shiver just to think about it, for I’ve had otitis and my children also. Another child waited more than a year to have his tonsils removed.
Maybe my friends are discriminated against because they are immigrants, but if a system designed to be good for the poor lets down legal immigrants, I see little sense in it.
I’m against a completely government-funded national health service, the sort we had until 1989. It was managed to stay cheap, by withdrawing high-quality care. Because the entire flow of information was censored, most patients never knew that they were left to suffer of completely treatable diseases. The doctors knew better, but they were powerless to change anything. My mother once heard a doctor describing to interns a 14-yr-old girl as a textbook case of neurological impairment due to non-administration of needed drugs. Meanwhile, the elite received high-quality medical care abroad.
Our current system still receives much government funding (I guess, the same is true for all Europe and America). Another source is health insurance, and a 3rd source is private payment, not all of which is legal. Far from optimal, but still better than the one we had. Been there, done this.
In the UK, the buraucrats of course cannot censor, but it seems that they have successfully manipulated the culture. In “Good Omens”, T. Pratchett ridicules the Americans for their widespread use of caesareans, a life- and health-saving procedure. Most Britons by now seem to regard their free medical care and NHS as a cause celebre and don’t care how many patients will become collateral damage. So there is little inside criticism, and it is dismissed as unscrupulous rich people pleading for selfish interests. Outside criticism is dismissed as arrogant delusions of backward foreigners.
“I’m against a completely government-funded national health service, the sort we had until 1989.”
‘We’ being – ??Bulgaria??
Do not judge the rest of the world by those standards!
cr
In the US system we pay more than 2X what Britain does and we have worse health outcomes. And we fail to cover some people (still). Medical costs are the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy in the US. Fear of losing medical insurance significantly inhibits Americans’ ability to change jobs, etc. Many people have to work many more years than really necessary — just to retain medical insurance until they are eligible for Medicare.
Tell me again what’s so great about our (US) system? (Remember the part about worse health outcomes.)
People complain about Medicare costs. Well, think really hard and see if you can come up with any other way to cover health care for people over the age of 65 who almost all have “pre-existing conditions” (like that pre-existing condition of approaching death). Private insurance wouldn’t touch these people with a 10-foot pole. Well, maybe for $250,000/year in premiums.
I do not say that the US system is great, just that (as shown by the WHO-based chart) it is better than UK concerning this particular parameter. I also applaud the US measles eradication campaign. At the same time, I know that the US system has its own problems, and they are serious.
The difference is that the Americans know they have problems, admit them and discuss what to do about them. In contrast, the average UK attitude is stubborn denial of any problem in NHS and an exaggerated, fact-resistant approval of the institution and its policies.
“…People over the age of 65… Private insurance wouldn’t touch these people with a 10-foot pole.”
“Love” this! Reminds me of an occasion when I was buying a travel insurance for someone in his 90s. The lady of the travel agency said, “Our insurance company partner has one premium for travelers under 70, a higher one for 70-80-yr olds, and does not insure those over 80.” I was indignant: “They are not expected to travel or what?” She found another company.
” One member of the gang, LaVoy Finicum, was killed in a shootout with police.” — Well, LaVoy didn’t get a shot off. Too slow on the draw. He was heard shouting “Just shoot me!” though.
He did come pretty close to using his vehicle as a deadly weapon though.
The FBI has an Art Crime Team. I guess you do learn something new every day.
From the FBI statement.
…..At the same time, the FBI is deploying experts with its Art Crime Team to work on the refuge. These agents are specially-trained in cultural property investigations. They will be responsible for working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Burns Paiute Tribe to identify and document damage to the tribe’s artifacts and sacred burial grounds.
They will start with an archeological field assessment to determine any potential violations of the Native American Graves and Repatriation Protection Act (NAGPRA) and the Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA). This work will likely take a number of weeks to complete.
Just as a guess, would these be the people who also deal with art stolen by the Nazis, passed through three good-faith dealers, and only recently identified, as well as illegally mined pre-Columbian stuff?
The idea may sound ludicrous, but I can see the need for the specialism.
Absolutely, it’s big (illegal) business.
“These agents are specially-trained in cultural property investigations.”
I suspect the “Art Crime” name is a purposefully vague term for a department that deals with a lot of Native American artifact crimes. (Naturally such a force would be able to deal with non-Indian matters as well.) There are tribes all over the US that the FBI are charged to protect, regarding not only cultural matters but regular crime itself, and its history with the tribes has had some checkered moments. It’s nice to learn how seriously they take their charge to protect and respect the Indians’ legacies.
My favorite thing about the conclusion of this is that the lot of them have been charged with felonies. If convicted, possessing a gun becomes a felony punishable by more time in prison. So much for their right to bear arms.
… and I was going to comment, “Leave them long enough and they’ll shoot each other”.
But the FBI persuaded them to come out first. Awww.
cr
[SOUND EFFECT : Industrial size bag of popcorn hitting the trash can]
cliven bundy
deadbeat on monday
rebel on tuesday
fox hero on wednesday
racist on thursday
doubled-down on friday
cast out on saturday
forgotten on sunday
cocky next monday
arrested next tuesday
indicted next wednesday
convicted next thursday
sentenced next friday
imprisoned next saturday
forgotten (for realsies!) next sunday
On a Monday, I was arrested
On a Tuesday, they locked me in the jail
On a Wednesday, my trial was attested
On a Thursday, they said guilty and the Judge’s gavel fell
I got stripes, stripes around my shoulders
I got chains, chains around my feet
I got stripes, stripes around my shoulders
And them chains, them chains,
They’re about to drag me down
On a Monday, my momma come to see me
On a Tuesday, they caught me with a file
On a Wednesday, I’m down in solitary
On a Thursday, I start on bread and water for a while
I got stripes, stripes around my shoulders
I got chains, chains around my feet
I got stripes, stripes around my shoulders
And them chains, them chains,
They’re about to drag me down
— Johnny Cash – I Got Stripes
On a Monday, I was arrested
On a Tuesday, I was locked up in jail
On a Wednesday, my trial was attested
On a Thursday, nobody would go my bail
Almost done, I’m almost done, almost done
And I ain’t gonna bring them yellow women no pail
Take these stripes, stripes from around my shoulder
Take these chains, these chains from around my legs
Lord, these stripes, it sure don’t worry me
But these chains, these chain’s gonna kill me dead
Yes, I’m almost done, almost done, almost done
And I ain’t gonna bring them yellow women no pail
On Friday, my baby went a-walking
On a Saturday, she locked me outa the door
On a Sunday, we were sitting down a-talking
On a Monday, she pawned all of my clothes
— Lead Belly, On a Monday (January 1941)
Very nice!
FWIW, in addiction to being a gun nut, Michele Fiore believes that cancer is a fungus that can be cured with baking soda.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/02/26/the-people-who-believe-salt-water-and-baking-soda-can-cure-cancer/