VIEWPOINTS
Saturday, November 5, 2016
Quick takes
CTUIR members travel
to Standing Rock
— Lacy Folden
Maybe it is just me, but it seems a little
ironic to drive 1,100 miles (using petroleum
products) to protest developing a pipeline to
move petroleum products.
— Mike Navratil
To be a hypocrite is to be human. How
about we just abandon all these places
people protest and let these corporations do
whatever they want to do with the land?
— Ty LaMere
Marijuana smell causes
dispute between neighbors
I think Mr. Bradbury should be removed
from being president (of the Downtown
Association.)
— Papabard
Shows how screwed up U.S. society
must be if the [pleasant] smell of a harmless
medicinal herb can be considered offensive,
while selling weaponry designed to kill
isn’t.
— Bee Warren
New creamery in Hermiston
I love this! I will for sure be looking
forward to some homemade cheeses.
— Erica Hale Haak
One of the great lessons of the Twitter age is
that much can be summed up in just a few words.
Here are some of this week’s takes. Tweet yours
@Tim_Trainor or email editor@eastoregonian.
com, and keep them to 140 characters.
I
magine running a business — say a bank
or gas station — and every now and then
a band of disgruntled customers barges
in with guns, takes over your office and
spouts nonsense about how you have no
right to exist in the first place. How could
you continue to conduct your business?
How could you recruit new employees?
How could you ensure the safety of your
customers?
That is exactly the kinds of questions
that leaders of our land management
agencies — the folks who take care of our
national parks, forests and wildlife refuges
— now must face.
Because that is exactly what six men
and one woman got away with at the
Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in
rural Oregon. Under the guidance of the
Bundy family of Nevada, they took over
the refuge headquarters last January,
claiming that it was illegitimate, and
causing havoc for employees and the local
residents for 41 days. One militant was
killed in a confrontation with police. After
a tense, negotiated end to the standoff,
seven militants were charged with federal
conspiracy and weapons charges. Now, 10
months later, an Oregon jury has acquitted
them. By choosing the more difficult
path of proving conspiracy rather than
criminal trespass or some lesser charge, the
government lawyers aimed too high and
lost it all. The verdicts stunned even the
defense attorneys who have no option of
appealing.
Without second-guessing the jury, it’s
clear that the repercussions of this case
will play out for years to come. But I fear
that the greatest and most lasting damage
caused by the thugs who took over Malheur
will prove to be the way they vandalized
something essential to every functioning
society: Trust. If America doesn’t get its act
Police must enforce
laws amid protests
The Bismarck Tribune
L
aw enforcement did the
right thing last week
when they removed
protesters from private land.
They couldn’t allow the
protesters to establish a camp
on private property and block a
highway. There were obvious
violations of the law.
Officials gave the protesters
ample warning that they
were coming and they had
an opportunity to withdraw,
but many didn’t do so. To
the outside world it may
have appeared like a military
operation, but law enforcement
needed to protect themselves.
Overall, the operation went
smoothly with no serious
injuries. It’s unfortunate the
situation came to this, but some
of the protesters refused to
back off.
There seems to be some
discontent in the camps with
dissatisfaction growing over
the more militant factions.
Some would like to see them
evicted. Part of the problem is
the reluctance of the protesters
to admit to any wrong. They
don’t want to concede that
law enforcement encountered
resistance, not just verbal but
physical. During Thursday’s
removal of protesters, Tribune
video captured protesters
arguing over tactics. One was
trying to put out a fire while
encouraging others to retreat.
Another urged protesters to
stand their ground and force
the issue. He wasn’t seeking a
prayerful response.
As the camps begin to
settle in for the winter it’s
important they decide on their
objectives. Are they fighting
the Dakota Access Pipeline
because they see it as a threat
to their water supply or do they
want to stop oil development?
Has the protest morphed into
battle for indigenous rights?
Page 5A
The Malheur invasion and its unfortunate legacy
By BEN LONG
Writers on the Range
I’m waiting for my fellow citizens to
see that this fight is everyone’s fight, every
American’s fight for clean water. For land to
not be seized or sold for greedy profit.
East Oregonian
The claim of eminent domain
over the Dakota Access land
based on the 1851 treaty was a
stretch. It’s an issue that needs
to be resolved in court, not
by occupying land. Standing
Rock Sioux Tribal Chairman
Dave Archambault II seemed
to shift the issue back to water
on Saturday during a press
conference. He asked that the
pipeline be rerouted, though
he didn’t suggest a new route.
At the same time, the chairman
said he’s considering a class
action lawsuit against the state
and law enforcement over the
use of force.
The chance of an agreement
between the different sides
appears unlikely. As the
Tribune noted before, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers
needs to decide on the
easement for Dakota Access to
go under the river. Until that
decision, everything remains in
limbo. Don’t expect a decision
from the corps until after next
week’s election. That means
we can expect action of some
kind by the protesters. Whether
it’s just the continued use
of social media to paint law
enforcement and the state as
heavy-handed aggressors using
police state tactics on those
arrested or the occupation of
more land remains to be seen.
The state, rightfully, has
made it clear that the law will
be enforced. Civil disobedience
comes with consequences. If
you are arrested you can expect
to spend time in a holding cell,
especially if a large number
of arrests have been made. It
takes time to deal with dozens
of people. Strip searches, while
not pleasant, are part of the
process to ensure the safety
of everyone involved. Going
to jail isn’t something anyone
should want to experience.
However, if protesters continue
to defy the law that’s what they
can expect.
together, this verdict may prove to be the
... be a big influence on the people down
beginning of the end of one of our greatest
here.”
experiments in democracy: our public lands.
The bullies who want to rule the
Make no mistake.
playground just got a
There are plenty of people
pat on the head by the
who would like to shoot
“I think it will be principal and were sent
Smokey Bear, stuff him
back outside to play
very empowering. the same old game.
and relegate him to some
mothballed museum.
public lands
It indicates that Managing
The Bundy brothers who
is a messy, difficult and
spearheaded the Oregon
American citizens often thankless job.
standoff insist that the
But in no way do these
are waking up public servants deserve
federal government is not
allowed to control any
kind of verbal abuse
and we don’t the
land beyond Washington,
and physical intimidation
D.C., and military bases.
at Malheur. I
want to be reflected
They simply hate the idea
am thankful for these
of Yellowstone National
kept under the hard-working people, and I
Park and consider any
marvel at how they remain
thumb of federal true to their mission
other national nature
reserve unconstitutional.
taking constant
government.” despite
The Bundys’ Oregon
verbal jabs from all sides.
acquittal doesn’t make
They deserve better.
— Theresa Manzella,
their absurd reading of
Republican state representative This issue reflects some
the Constitution any
from Montana larger illness in the
more viable. But it does
American psyche. We have
embolden those who
replaced civil discourse
share their misguided fervor in the political
with kneejerk tribalism.
sphere. Don’t take my word for it; consider
It’s much harder to restore trust than
the words of elation uttered by those who
to lose it. But all of us who appreciate
supported the Bundys. Montana state Rep.
public lands — whether we want to log
Theresa Manzella, R-Darby, responded to
a particular place or preserve it, whether
the news with a Facebook post that read:
we want to hunt or watch birds, whether
“BEST NEWS IN A LONG TIME!!! Doin’ we enjoy riding motorcycles or horses or
a happy dance! Didn’t expect the verdict
just walking around — need to be together
today!!! Hurray!”
on one thing. We can disagree on how we
She elaborated to a newspaper reporter:
manage our lands, but we need to do so
“I think it will be very empowering. It
with respect. We all deserve to be heard,
indicates that American citizens are waking but we also need to listen. What happened
up and we don’t want to be kept under the
at the Malheur National Wildlife Preserve
thumb of the federal government.”
wasn’t a revolution, it was mob rule, and
The mood at the Bundy family ranch in
it’s unfortunate for all of us that a jury failed
Nevada was also jubilant: “We are partying
to understand that.
it up,” Arden Bundy told another reporter.
■
“This is a big step, not just up there, but for
Ben Long is a contributor to Writers
the people down here in Nevada. Knowing
on the Range, the opinion service of High
that they let them go scot-free, it’s going to
Country News. He writes in Montana.
America and Americans must come together
The (Bryan-College Station, Tex.) Eagle
W
e all need to step back and
take a breath.
We are nearing the end
of a long, ugly presidential campaign
that has spawned great passions for
one candidate or another. That is
good: People should be involved in
selecting their leaders.
Every citizen 18 or older should
register to vote and then go to the
polls, not just in presidential election
years, but every time an election is
held. It’s the American way — or at
least it should be.
Four years ago, when President
Barack Obama and Mitt Romney
faced each other, only 58.2 percent
of registered voters went to the polls.
With this year’s presidential race
drawing to a close in little more than
a week, those percentages could be
even lower. We hope not, but are not
optimistic.
The two major party nominees
— Republican Donald Trump and
Democrat Hillary Clinton — are
the most unpopular candidates in
memory. Trump has no government
experience and, while Clinton has
spent years working for government,
she has dark clouds of scandal
surrounding her — including
revelations last week that the FBI
has discovered more emails that
could raise new questions about her
conduct as Secretary of State.
Both candidates have their own
core group of supporters. Each must
convince uncommitted voters in
sufficient numbers if he or she hopes
to win on Nov. 8.
And that may be a problem.
Many Democrats — especially
young voters who supported
Sen. Bernie Sanders during the
primaries — may decide they
simply don’t want either candidate
and so will stay home on Election
Day. For Trump, he has problems
with the leadership of his party.
Many of them have said they
cannot vote for Trump, even though
he heads their ticket. Some even
have announced they will cross
party lines to vote for Clinton. The
question now is how many other
Republicans will vote for her and
how many will stay home or just
skip voting for president.
We hope voters on either side
don’t decide to skip voting. Every
vote does matter.
Author David Foster Wallace
said, “In reality, there is no such
thing as not voting: you either vote
by voting, or you vote by staying
home and tacitly doubling the value
of some Diehard’s vote.”
However you vote, we all need
to accept that either Donald Trump
or Hillary Clinton will be president
come Jan. 20. Third party candidates
have no realistic chance of winning;
all they do is pull votes away from
the major candidates.
In past years, while the candidate
may grumble about the outcome of
the election, acknowledge the victor
and get on with their lives. This
year is different, though. Whoever
is elected in nine days will enter the
White House terribly wounded.
Trump’s repeated epithet of
Crooked Hillary and Clinton’s
proclamations that Trump is
unqualified and even dangerous
will leave whoever wins severely
weakened as president. Whoever
wins will have to work with
Congress — something President
Barack Obama and congressional
leaders never seemed to grasp. And,
a weakened president will have a
much harder time dealing with our
international friends and enemies.
There are further concerns, too,
concerns that deal with the future of
our republic. In the third and final
presidential debate, Trump refused
to say whether he would accept the
outcome of the election. The next
day, amid criticism from Democrats
and Republicans, he said he reserved
the right to challenge the results if he
suspected fraud or other miscounts.
That’s not what he meant at the
debate, though.
On Thursday, Sen. Ted Cruz,
our very own junior senator, said
that if Clinton wins, he and other
Republicans just might refuse
to consider any nominees she
would make to the Supreme Court
— as they have done with Merrick
Garland, who was nominated by
President Obama on March 16 to
replace the late Justice Antonin
Scalia.
“There is no such
thing as not voting:
you either vote by
voting, or you vote
by staying home and
tacitly doubling the
value of some
Diehard’s vote.”
— David Foster Wallace
Author
Arizona Sen. John McCain, who
tried unsuccessfully to become
president, said something similar
earlier this month.
Such comments go against what
Americans believe and accept.
According to our Constitution, the
president — every president —
appoints nominees to fill vacancies
on the High Court. And then,
Congress is supposed to consider
the qualifications of a nominee and
decides whether to approve him or
her or not.
The Constitution does not say
that only Republican presidents
can name a nominee or that only
conservative nominees will be
considered. Whether we vote for
Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton,
we understand that whoever is
president will nominate candidates
to the court who reflect his or her
philosophy. That’s simply the way it
works, although it concerns us when
we have “Republican” justices and
“Democratic” justices.
Finally, we are concerned with
the aftermath of the election. We
understand that supporters of the
winner will be elated and supporters
of the other candidate will be
dejected. But we always — always
— have accepted the election results
and moved forward, Republicans
and Democrats, working together to
make our country even stronger.
Talk of “taking her out” if Clinton
is elected has no place in America.
We all lose when we have a
president who cannot get anything
done.