“I really enjoyed the chronology that the ‘authors’ (creators?) created to paint the picture to the listeners. Their approach has some nuance but ultimately took a pretty basic approach of looking at the behavior of half of the actors (Bundy et al) and labeling everything they did as illegal or immoral when, generally, it is not that simple. There were far too many times where non sequitur, straw men or ad hominem fallacies were created by the ‘author’. The most frustrating was the insinuation that if it wasn’t federally owned (BLM) land that the only other possibility was private land. They never explored whether the federal Govt should cede the land to the states. Had they gone that direction they could have had a more educational program that explored federalism and the roots of America’s Republic. They could have then explored the pros and cons of scenarios where land belongs to the states, not the BLM.
I would be interested to listen to a similar account whereby the misdeeds of the federal Govt were chronicled and challenged from every angle the way the Bundy’s actions (rightfully) were in this podcast. It is pretty clear from this podcast that the author has a firmly entrenched belief in the good of Govt despite a long history of misdeeds not only in the West, but all over the world.
In the end, they paint the Govt as a bashful incompetent group. But the truth is that one group showed up with guns first and one group fired the first shot. The Bundy’s are a different breed of cat, but this fight came to them as much as the other way around.
My point is that both groups are wrong and I don’t think the podcast fully acknowledged that.”
zkimball1245 via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
05/16/18