Been trying for the last several days to make heads or tails of the Oregon civil disobedience case where two ranchers did their best to set controlled fires but were pinched by the government, served a little time, had their case revisisted by a pretty questionable federal prosecutor, and were sent back to jail. And then some social justice activists — and that is what the Bundys are — got involved and took over a federal building while bearing arms and disgruntled (self?) righteousness.
There are all kinds of opinions, some, like HotAir.com, saying there’s a justifiable reason the ranchers occupied the federal building, others, like The Cato Institute, pointing out the bad actors on all sides.
But I, personally, finally got a handle on what I think about after seeing this piece from Patterico’s Pontifications, sepcifically this passage, and the graphic at the top of the page (see above):
Everything takes place in the context of the Fish and Wildlife Service buying up all the land around the Hammond ranch for a wildlife refuge. Apparently owning half the land in the West was not good enough for the feds; they had to have more and more and more and more. Then, the feds allegedly took many seemingly retaliatory actions against the Hammonds after they refused to sell. Then, we come to the arson fires, which as presented on the Internet is a hodgepodge of one-sided accounts.