The Absurdity Of Reducing The Income Gap

We must not rest until this map is one solid color

Jim Fedako (who wrote this piece; send him email) is a business analyst and homeschooling father of seven who lives in Lewis Center, OH.

Mr. George (rising): Madam Speaker, pardon my interruption, but I must speak.

Madam Speaker: Highly unusual, Mr. George. Mr. Thompson has just begun his report. You will have time for comments at the end of his presentation. Mr. Thompson, please continue.

Mr. Thompson, committee member representing the Health Subcommittee, continues with his report, detailing a significant decrease in the numbers of cancer deaths. His report is met with smiles of elation from all on the committee, except for
Mr. George, of course.

Madam Speaker: What a wonderful report, Mr. Thompson. It is so great to hear that our investments have led to such a reduction in cancer deaths. I think I speak for the committee when I say, “Thank you.”

Mr. George (rising again): Madam Speaker, I must—

Madam Speaker (annoyed): Five minutes, Mr. George. But, please, remain seated.

Mr. George: Mr. Thompson says he brings great news. But it is horrible, simply horrible.

Madam Speaker: Mr. George!

Mr. George: Please, let me explain. Every tally Mr. Thompson erases from his cancer column ends up somewhere else. Do those people live forever? No, they die of some other disease.

Mr. Thompson, you are sentencing many of those very same folks you call survivors to years of heart disease and subsequent death. It’s a vile business you do. Truly, what have you gained by harming the hearts of our fellow citizens, other than to reap the praise of those on this committee?

Mr. Thompson: Absurd!

Madam Speaker: Please, Mr. George, some decorum. Why on earth have you cast such a pall over this meeting?

Mr. George: Madam Speaker, but it is true. Mr. Thompson has achieved nothing, other than to increase the number of suffers of heart disease. And I find that appalling.

Mr. Brown: Mr. George, you are speaking nonsense.

Madam Speaker (interrupting): Mr. Brown, you are out of order.

Mr. George: Oh, no, Mr. Brown, I am speaking truth. Did you not report just this evening that the disparity between the wages of the first and fourth quartiles rose last month?

Mr. Brown: I most certainly did.

Mr. George: And did you not make that statement to the detriment of the report read by Mrs. White—the report on the general increase in productivity levels and real salaries realized in each quartile?

Mr. Brown: I did. But we must reduce the wage gap so that—

Madam Speaker (interrupting): Messrs. Brown and George, this is not how this committee functions. You are both out of order. Mr. George, you have four minutes remaining. Use them wisely, and appropriately.

Mr. George: Madam Speaker, earlier this evening, we heard the tale of the tallies. Mrs. White noted that, in general, life for everyone in the country is improving. Good news, or so I thought. But then Mr. Brown noted that, while improvements may be seen in general, gaps in disparity still exist. He further noted that such a condition overshadows any general improvement. Nothing is worse than disparity. Nothing.

Mrs. White took exception, noting there is great movement between the quartiles—young workers tend to start in the bottom, move upward, and then back down after they retire and no longer receive an income. Further, she noted we will always find incomes conforming to quartile rankings, with necessary gaps between quartiles. And, by definition, each individual that we advance out of the bottom quartile sentences another to that very same quartile. Quartiles are a zero-sum game.

Mr. Brown fell into fit of apoplexy. He shouted that this is not a world of his making, and that it is our responsibility to rid of quartiles and gaps.

You all agreed, though I believe Mrs. White still held reservation but remained quiet.

The rich are getting richer, was the cry from Mr. Brown. That the poor are also getting richer was left aside, a bothersome statistic not conforming to his narrative. This committee then adopted the impassioned plea of Mr. Brown.

Madam Speaker, you even instructed the Finance Subcommittee to begin formulating a position paper to address the gap.

As for me, I kept my peace. I saw Mr. Brown’s comments as pure nonsense. But I felt any objection at the time would have been discounted. The consensus had moved, almost as if a spiritual conviction—a Fourier complex, of sorts—had overwhelmed the committee.

When Mr. Thompson spoke, my peace broke. If disparities are the issue, and not general improvements, why limit the logic to economics? Isn’t health as important?

Isn’t it true that we all die—that our days are numbered? And that our deaths are tallied in one of the columns reported by the Health Subcommittee? Reduced cancer deaths means increased deaths due to heart disease. This is something we cannot escape. So any improvement in cancer treatment looks like a decline in our ability to treat heart disease—another zero-sum game.

That people, in general, are living longer becomes the bothersome statistic not fitting this narrative.

Mr. Thompson, you said I was being absurd. But you had no trouble reaching a similar conclusion earlier in the evening. If I am absurd, the embrace of Mr. Brown is absurd. Don’t we all agree?


Madam Speaker: Mr. George, I assume you have finished your address.

Your analogy certainly shocked this committee. But shock is not substance. And as with each of your previous free market outbursts, you missed the point.

With regard to the economy, we really have no concern for general improvements that contribute to income gaps—whether gaps by quartile in real terms, or gaps by quartile between periods in percentage terms or in nominal dollars. In essence, any gap that can be imagined is an issue for us.

Maybe I am speaking more for myself than the committee at this time, but I would not be surprised to hear the Finance Subcommittee recommend a much steeper progressive tax. Nor will I be surprised to hear you stand in defiance of that proposal, claiming such a tax would harm us all.

You just do not seem to understand that the playing field must be leveled. And if the leveling harms each and every one of us as you claim…well such is the price we must all pay.

And that is the point you continually miss.

Mr. Secretary, what’s next on the agenda?

Categories: Culture

48 replies »

  1. Who tries to introduce logic into politics? Never mind I spent much of the week chastizing people who back Lawbreaker Clive Bundy and demonize Lawbreaker Obama. I guess some things must be addressed even if you know you will lose.

    Interesting point: Income inquality only means poorer people, not richer. What we take from the rich goes to the government. The poor stay poor. Same for women’s wages–we do not pay women more, we decrease men’s wages. Yet everyone is for this. I was thinking about drug lawsuits this AM, where the lawyer gets half, the IRS a quarter and the measley quarter left goes to the person “hurt” by the drug. Oh, sure, a few hit it big. But to drag people into the most insane of lawsuits that scream out I know nothing and take anything my doctor hands me, all it takes is a very small piece of free pie. No matter who gets the rest of the pie ro where the pie came from–you simply cannot be labelled a one-percenter if you hand out bites of free pie. (Unless you’re the Koch brothers, and so far as I know, the hospital did keep the money.)

  2. Years ago I was handed a failing project with the instruction “fix it but don’t change anything.” Most legislation seems designed to do exactly that.

  3. I think companies like the minimum wage because then they do not have to barter with emplyees. The business owneres can rely on the government to set the standard and reduce competition for new beginners.
    But if there were no standard they would have to negotiate with ALL hires on a level field.All levels will have to adjust and the same disparity will exist.

  4. Jim,

    Me And millions of people are rejoicing that you are not responsible of setting economic policy that would undoubtedly bring us back to the dark ages.

  5. Sylvain.

    Do all of you still do that annual pilgrimage thingy to Lenin’s tomb? It’s really creepy.

  6. Jim,

    I wouldn’t since I’m not a communist and that I held no respect for Lenin or any of is Komrade the least of them Putin who is quite admired on fox news lately.

  7. Sylvain: Maybe you should read that little red book again and be sure that is not what you are supporting. (No one ever signs up for communism. They sign up for “fairness”, “equality”, “security”. What they end up with is North Korea.)

  8. The real issue, DAV, is the man did not pay for grazing rights and is now herolded as some kind of hero. What if the person who owned your land in 1850’s relatives decided the owners thereafter were not entitled to sell it and they took it back? You’d be okay with that? Since when can people merely ignore laws they don’t like–oh, wait, that was my point. They are all doing it.

    As for intimidation, no, what they did was prudent. This guy is lawless and armed. He is breaking numerous laws. I would have taken a bunch of snipers and additional backup. Mr. Bundy wants a fight. Only a fool would go out there unarmed and try to talk Mr. Bundy into backing down.

    If Obama’s lawless is a problem, then Bundy’s should be too. Breaking the law is breaking the law. The guy is getting free grazing and has feral cattle which could be carrying diseases. He can actually harm a lot of area ranchers. Making him a hero says it’s okay to break the law if the person is on your side. In other words, hypocritical.

  9. DAV: The response was not “over-the-top” and I cannot believe that said response is more important than actually doing as one says and opposing lawless on everyone’s side. So it’s okay to be hypocritical in cases where you can get extra mileage out of a side issue?

  10. Sheri,

    Apply your logic to Hobby Lobby and see if you like the outcome. Do you hold HL to the same ethic as Bundy? Do you champion HB and their violation of what is defined as law? Also, know that deontology is not a sound basis for morality. Never was. Never will be.

    Keep in mind that North Korea has its own set of laws that (inter alia) define the Bible as illegal. So you either accept those laws within the NK borders or you appeal to a higher set of eternal laws. But appealing to laws as law is a weak argument.

    You have to ask yourself, if the law changes (which they do — think the ever-changing marriage laws which have trapped a number of businesses), did the underlying morals also change?

  11. Sheri,

    Surely there were more civil options. Just as surely there were more civil options to what was done at the guitar manufacturing facility. Why didn’t they arrest Clive? It’s a white collar crime (assuming the government’s case is correct) that didn’t need an armed assault. All they needed to do was assess a lien then wait. We now have armed EPA agents for Pete’s sake.

  12. DAV: I’m unconvinced there were more civil options, considering Mr. Bundy ignored the government for 18 years and illegally grazed cattle. They may arrest Clive, now that rounding up his cattle is apparently not possible. It’s would be much wiser to do so, though my belief is they wanted to see just how crazy Clive really was. Now they know–and will pursue other options. It’s not the crime that required the “armed assault”, it’s the criminal. As for assessing a lien, that does not get the cattle off the property. That was the original goal in all of this–removing the cattle. (You know, like towing an illegally parked car–you must physically remove the car.)

    Jim: I am not saying the problem is adherence to law–I’m saying that criticizing Obama for breaking the law and then making a hero out a lawbreaker that happens to be on your side is hypocritical.. Obama is certainly following his own version of morality, just as Clive is. Why is Clive a hero and Obama a creep? Both are breaking laws. Or is the problem with Obama not that he breaks the laws, but rather he does not break laws that the right wants him to?
    No, the underlying morals do not change. I am not arguing that the laws are or are not moral. I am arguing that cheering a lawbreaker on your side with criticizing one not on your side is hypocritical. As for Hobby Lobby, I would shut down the business if forced to do something I found immoral. That does not break the law and it keeps you from having to violate your morals. Same for all the other punitive laws about homosexuals, etc. Shut down the businesses. And no, the government did not force you to close if you do this. You responded to an action in a way that was appropriate for you.
    I am all for changing the laws when we can. Not for breaking them, except in the case of civil disobedience. However, civil disobedience is supposed to include the willingness to go to jail for your cause and deal with the consequences. There’s little evidence here that Clive is interested in anything other than lawbreaking. If “Bob” was out there screaming the land was his grandfather’s and the government took it and he wants it back to make into a nature preserve, would all the people backing Clive be out there. Doubt it.

  13. Sheri,

    Of course there were options. I named one. Time is on the side of the government. They waited 18 years so what’s a few more? Someday Clive will die or try to sell and the government will be there to cash in.

    Want another? If they wanted to confiscate the cattle they could have waited until they went to market. They didn’t have to pick the way that would lead to a confrontation. Or, if they had no idea one would happen (no one is accusing them of thinking), they should have backed off immediately and bided their time until one wouldn’t be a problem

    If they wanted to arrest Clive, they could have just shown up on his doorstep — in the middle of the night if necessary. That they waited this long is an indication they may have a weak case.

    So, we have the BLM flexing its muscles. I see it as just another case of “contempt of cop” which, of course, could carry a swift death sentence. And it was a real threat over the last few days.

    What happened was totally disproportionate to said crime and the action should not be rewarded with a complacent shrug from us.

  14. DAV: Okay, let’s try a different example. I claim that my family had rights to part of Central Park and I want to graze goats there. I haul out the goats and start grazing. Do you wait until I decide to take the goats to market, as I gaurd my herd with rifle in hand? Can I raise them free of cost while saying I don’t recognize the authority of the government to remove them? How about if it’s your backyard and I claim you stole the land from one of my relatives in the early 1900’s? Leave the goats there until market time?

    Or what if there’s a marijuana operation in the national forest and it’s way back out in the middle of nowhere in the Colorado mountains, should we just leave it? If everyone guarding the place has automatic weapons, maybe we just do nothing until they decide to send someone into sell the stuff? That way, no one’s feeling threatened. Of course, we can only snag one lawbreaker at a time, but who cares? No one is using the land for anything other than the marijuana and no one’s been shot by the growers, so no big deal. Is the new method of law enforcement–to wait and see? What if we suspect you are harboring stolen property? Wait and see if you fence it? You stole food from your local supermarket, so we wait until you come back for more food?

    The action was 100% justified. Clive Bundy is a lawbreaker. What people seem to see as “over-reacting” is actually just prudent when dealing with someone like Clive Bundy. He refuses to remove the cattle–this has been going on 18 years. You see an “poor, elderly rancher victim”–where there stands an armed theif who never paid for the land he used. He is not a victim, just a very clever manipulator who conned a bunch of “law and order” conservatives into supporting a theif and lawbreaker. He is definately an extraordinary con man. Or conservatives really don’t care at all about lawbreaking unless it’s outside their approved zones. Which was my original contention. It’s okay to break the law On My Side.

  15. The action was 100% justified.

    Obviously not if they could wrangle with him for 18 years over it.

    So when is armed confrontation NOT justifiable? Who knows, maybe someday the cops will show up to collect overdue library books — oh, wait!. That’ll show them scofflaws. At least they didn’t come in waiving assault rifles with snipers at the ready (I hope).

  16. Sheri,

    “I’m saying that criticizing Obama for breaking the law and then making a hero out a lawbreaker that happens to be on your side is hypocritical.”

    That is a statement I never made.

    Why is Hobby Lobby’s unwillingness to pay the tax not immoral under your viewpoint?

    “I am not arguing that the laws are or are not moral. I am arguing that cheering a lawbreaker on your side with criticizing one not on your side is hypocritical.”

    No it is not. You are missing the point about morals and law. Abortion is not moral, ethical, or otherwise simply because the Republican justices on the US Supreme Court twice rules that it is legal. It is wrong under all circumstances. Yet, and get this, the defense of property is legal. So it would appear that I am hypocritical in my what-is-legal beliefs as well — under you system.

  17. Okay, let’s try a different example. I claim that my family had rights to part of Central Park and I want to graze goats there. I haul out the goats and start grazing.

    As I understand it, his supposed crime is not paying the tax (toll) for the grazing. Apparently, letting the cattle graze wasn’t the problem.

  18. Okay, DAV, then if I use a parking space that requires rent and don’t pay the rent, that’s okay? How about if I just camp out in an empty house “that no one else is using”? Are all things free until armed confrontation and continue free if enough people show up with the news media? I’ve been overpaying for all of my life–if I had only called my theft “Standing up to the Government” it would have made everything okay.
    The armed confrontation occurred after a judge ordered the cattle removed and Bundy not to interfere. So your idea is to just keep doing what? Nothing. Again, I am very depressed that I actually paid my taxes and stuff. I could have just ignored the law for years and then cried “Bad government is out to get me”. Who knew?
    (Nice strawman there with the library.)

    Jim: I did not say you made that statement. In my original statement, I said “Never mind I spent much of the week chastizing people who back Lawbreaker Clive Bundy and demonize Lawbreaker Obama”. I used no names nor did I identify any person whom I had chastised. If you believe I meant you, unless you rail against Obama’s lawlessness and then back Clive, your were not included.
    Hobby Lobby, so far as I know, has not refused to pay the tax. They are appealing the ruling. If they refuse to pay the tax but willingly go to jail or pay the fines, they would be acknowledging their lawbreaking and paid the price. They are choosing to openly break the law. Clive, on the other hand, seems to consider himself exempt from the law. If Hobby Lobby barricades their doors and has an armed standoff, then my opinion of them matches that of Clive.
    What part of “I did not say legal makes it ethical?” do you not understand. I am not discussing the validity of the law, but whether or not citizens can simply ignore those laws they don’t like. That is the case being made both by Bundy and Obama. (Are you saying fetus’s are property? Otherwise, I don’t have any idea what your “defense of property” statement means.)

  19. Sheri

    They sign up for “fairness”, “equality”, “security”. What they end up with is North Korea.)

    I’m for fairness. I don’t care much about equality other than equality of opportunity and of treatment (i.e someone should not be discriminated (receive a different treatment) because of old age, race, gender. religion and sexual orientation.

    What you want to avoid is communism. To avoid it, there is a middle ground that protect individual freedom and favor incentive to better yourself. Although there is no limit at the top their should be limit at the bottom and people should be protected against some consequences that are not their fault.

  20. Dav glad you brought the subject up.

    If you own a house or a field, as the owner of that House/field you have the right to charge people to use your property.

    Ranchers pay up to 20$/head/month to have their cattle graze on private land. Nevada charges 12$/head/month. The federal government charges about $1.50/head/month.

    Now if someone uses your property, you have the right to bring him to court. If you win your case that someone will owe you an amount of money. If he refuses to pay then you can get a court order to cease that someone property to repay yourself.

    The over the top action in the case of Cliven Bundy is the people that were ready to open fire to protect someone that refuses to pay the fee of to a owner of land.

    Where is Fox outrage when the victim is poor:

  21. (Nice strawman there with the library.)

    Wasn’t a strawman. It’s a logical outcome of what you are saying is justifiable action. Should library late fees be ultimately collected by SWAT teams? It’s money owed just like in the Bundy case. Where’s the threshold if there is one?

    Maybe some force is needed to eject a squatter when there is no other recourse but in the Bundy case the government has powerful monetary options of recourse and time is on their side to implement them. They botched it rather badly. I find it disconcerting this was the method of choice.

    Again, if Bundy is such a scofflaw why did they go after the cattle instead of arresting and prosecuting Bundy? Is it possible the federal land issue is really in his favor and the charges might not stick?


    Really? You don’t know how to use Google?
    It’ not like it wasn’t covered and they certainly didn’t condone it.

    If you’re interested in the commentary, go look it up yourself.The same for similar issues.

  22. Yes, it was a strawman. And now it seems you’ve met the slippery slope.

    Bundy is an armed rancher who does not recognize the authority of the US government, not a 5 year old with a library book. A judge ordered the cattle removed because Bundy did not pay to use the land. He also ordered Bundy not to interfer. They did not come after Bundy–they came after the cattle the judge ordered removed because Bundy does not own the land nor is he paying rent. What part of “does not own” is not clear to you? It is not his land and the cattle cannot stay. Now, Bundy has interferred in a legal removal of cattle from his land. They may arrest him now and add a charge of interferring with a lawful order to the list of charges. This is exactly like having your house repossessed–you don’t pay for it, the bank goes through legal channels and the sheriff, an armed one, shows up to remove you. You can’t be arrested before you refuse to vacate the premises.

    Answer my question: If there were people growing marijuana in the national forest of Colorado on public land, do we leave there and let them do this? It’s the same thing.

  23. Answer my question: If there were people growing marijuana in the national forest of Colorado on public land, do we leave there and let them do this? It’s the same thing.

    Well speaking of straw men: no it’s not the same thing.
    1) Bundy is not claiming he owns the land.
    2) He is claiming the Federal Government doesn’t either therefore the taxes don’t apply
    3) Obviously it’s not about the cattle; it’s about him owing taxes on their grazing.
    4) The government chose to use force when they could certainly wait to collect the money by other means.
    5) There is some evidence they killed some of the cattle so it seems they weren’t trying to get any money out this. In fact, it seems they really didn’t care about the money at all and were just incensed that Bundy was using the land for free. Why?

    What they did was highhanded. His cattle were not a public safety issue. There was no urgency. They waited 18 years they could have waited some more. There are similar cases of taxes not being paid. The government practice is to wait until it can collect or prosecute the nonpayers. Why the sudden need to instigate a confrontation they must have surely realize would come? Bundy doesn’t have bank accounts? Why didn’t they seize them if it’s all about the money? How does what they did help anybody? What they did in the Southwest was uncalled for, stupid and extremely upsetting.

    A long time ago I read that you can’t fight an entity like the IRS which can spend $100K to collect a dime. What happened in Nevada would seem to falsify that. Good for them.

  24. Yes, Jim, it is the same thing with growing the marijuana. It’s public land and a private individual is exploiting that fact without paying for the usage of the public land. Mr. Bundy has his cattle grazing on public land and is not paying for the privilege. It’s grazing fees, not taxes. It’s also not about the money only. The cattle do not belong there. Just as in my example of a person refusing to vacate a foreclosed home. Or more exactly, a person rents a home, does not pay rent and is then evicted. What you are claiming is the person in the home has right to keep his stuff in the house so long as it is not being used by anyone else. That does not work when you’re evicted from a house and it doesn’t when you’re evicted from public land that you did not pay the “rent” for. If it’s highhanded for the government to evict a thief using land he did not pay for, then it’s wrong to evict anyone who fails to pay their rent. That is exactly what is happening in this case–exactly.
    They did not “wait 18 years”. It’s been in court. It’s NOT taxes, it’s grazing fees. Grazing fees. Not taxes. Grazing fees. He cannot pay taxes because this is public land that he does not own. I am repeating myself because there is a distinct lack of understanding here. Grazing fees are “rent” for the use of public land. You don’t pay the fees, you’re evicted–as in your cattle are impounded. Exactly like you see here. You’re arguing that a man who failed to pay his “rent” is entitled to keep using the “house” as long as he pleases and we should just ignore the fact that he’s a lawbreaker.
    This NOT about taxes. People argue on things that are not in fact accurate. He’s a man stealing the use of public land and you’re just fine with that. So back to growing marijuana in the national forest. A-okay with you. Use the public land however you want and ignore the laws. Or maybe try understanding the laws in the first place and what is actually going on here instead of cheering a thief. (Do you teach your kids to steal? I wonder?)

  25. Sheri,

    Then a strange use of “your” in your statement. We’ll leave it at that.

    You certainly argue from legal is moral, which is why you claimed that I was being hypocritical.

    That may seem the case from your perspective, since you are arguing from that notion. However, if you viewed the argument from my position, where I state there exists laws higher than man’s laws, you would note that I could only be hypocritical if I argued both sides of higher law.

    BTW: HL refused to pay their tax. Refused.

  26. Also, Thoreau was close to being an America version of a sort-of-communist (read Gary North’s article that appears today over on So his civil disobedience may need additional scrutiny.

  27. Grazing fees — taxes: really the same thing. It’s money to the government. Why mince words?

    That does not work when you’re evicted from a house and it doesn’t when you’re evicted from public land that you did not pay the “rent” for.

    Apparently the amount is unimportant; it’s just that a private citizen should pay something because of principle?

    When someone is evicted from a house the idea is to recover the unpaid fees or taxes. The government looks like it was just after the eviction and not the money if the reports of cattle slaughter are true and also they didn’t try to get the money by other means.

    Particularly if the reports of slaughter are true, what they did was the equivalent of a bank evicting you for unpaid mortgage then burning down the house. It’s just the principle.

    How did they come up with the dollar value of the fees in the first place? They don’t seem to care about the money so why didn’t they just ask for a dollar? Then everybody wins.

    No. I’m afraid it’s more a contest of wills that was being played out. Sad really. Scary, even.

    FWIW: I’m not Jim but it is one of my names.

  28. Also FWIW, the removal of the cattle was to protect a turtle. And apparently only CLive’s cattle were threatening it. What a coincidence.

    As I said: highhanded.

  29. I guess not. Kinda like the difference between a hurricane and a typhoon. Depends on where you find it.

    On the bright side, Harry’s career in the Senate may have reached its final chapter. People in the state of Nevada seem to be generally supporting Cliven. Certainly those in his neck of the woods are.

  30. Dav,

    What do you think happens when a bank receives a seizing order from the court?

    Do you think that the police show a lot of understanding toward the person that is evicted or do they evict them by force even if the previous owner barricade himself inside the inside. Do they say sorry you can keep your house because you outgun us.

    Fo you see a lot of outrage in O’reilly’s cover of the Albuquerque homeless shooting

  31. What do you think happens when a bank receives a seizing order from the court?

    The bank complies and also charges the account for the “service” — often $100 or more.

    Do they say sorry you can keep your house because you outgun us.

    I doubt it.

    [D]o you see a lot of outrage in O’reilly’s cover of the Albuquerque homeless shooting

    I don’t normally watch O’reilly. He comes across to me as a calmer Rush Limbaugh. Don’t see why my opinion of his opinion should be of any interest.

  32. Dav,

    Sorry I meant what happens when a bank obtains an order of seizure from the court. If the owner doesn’t comply they ask the police to enforce the court order. This happened to millions of Americans in the last few years. Foxnews Channel never showed any outrage to the people who lost their houses. They even now call many of these people “takers”.

    Yet for Bundy, a millionaire, who refuse to pay the rent that other rancher pay to either the Neveda or federal government, or private owner to have their cattle grazing, Hannity, Bolling and other were so outraged that they created a crisis wishing for bloodshed.

    My comment about O’reilly is to demonstrate the bias of Foxnews who only defend the rich.

  33. I got a visit today from our very own State Land Management Administration. Maybe it’s just a coincidence to the conversation here. Really scary if it isn’t.

    Seems the deck on the side of the house has some peeling paint and it is assumed that all houses built before 1958 (this house was built in 1950) have lead paint and peeling paint is considered proof of lead content. That’s what he said. And based on this, he wants to mount a full inspection. He better come with a search warrant.

    I wonder if the media would be interested in the story: “Door kicked in on suspect allegedly harboring lead paint?”

  34. Sylvain,

    I checked with some Quebec newspapers and can’t help but notice they expressed little outrage over the Albuquerque police shooting. Using your logic, I can only conclude from this they don’t give a rat’s behind about the poor. Maybe you should take care of your home front first?

  35. DAV,

    Quebec’s media rarely carry US local news. So they didn’t give voice to Bundy or to the situation in Albuquerque.

    Fox chose to elevate Bundy situation on the air with almost a full hour of airtime in a week barely discussing the shooting in Albuquerque. They have taken the side of the criminal in Bundy’s case and the police side in Albuquerque. The guy in Albuquerque was of no danger to the policeman, while Bundy’s gang were placing woman and children at the front line to get shot first in a gun standoff.

    Moral of the story the heroes are the ones that are the most ready to use their gun.

  36. Sylvain,

    I figured that’s where you were going. You’re so predictable. When you have nothing of substance you resort to ad hominem posts. Shame on you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *