"But he does believe in defending freedom and he knew the risks involved," said Arianna Finicum Brown, 26, one of the 11 children of Robert "LaVoy" Finicum, who was killed as the FBI and state police stopped brought an end to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation.
He believed in defending freedom and taking risks when he had 11 children.
11 children.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१३२ टिप्पण्या:
Occutards! Oh wait...
Is there something wrong with having 11 children?
"Is there something wrong with having 11 children?"
Not at all. It just makes what he did that much stupider, that much more ridiculous, that much sadder.
Clearly he and his family have a very different outlook. I don't find that sad. Obviously it's sad that he was killed by his own government and that his grandchildren won't know him.
This is not the way to resolve thee matters. The Ruby Ridge and Waco lessons have been forgotten.
The FBI conducting traffic stops ?
I know nothing about the cause the man was pursuing. But I don't see that his family should have influenced his decision. If no one ever risked his life in defense of his beliefs except people without family or dependents, than any beliefs whatever could be crushed with virtual impunity. Certainly in any substantial war, many of the combatants have been men with families.
Even getting 11 children in the habit of brushing their teeth every day must be a real trial. Let alone reading to them and spending a little time each day talking about whatever matters to each child in their life at that time, and giving a little counseling when needed.
"Is there something wrong with having 11 children?"
They're a valuable resource especially given that couples are not producing enough children to replace themselves. Who is going to pay for the entitlements for an aging developed world? Immigrants who are intent on destroying us.
"A 2010 tax filing showed that Catholic Charities paid the Finicums $115,343 to foster children in 2009, OPB reported... That was my main source of income,' Finicum said. 'My ranch, well, the cows just cover the costs of the ranch. If this means rice and beans for the next few years, so be it. We’re going to stay the course.'"
https://www.rt.com/usa/329381-militiaman-loses-foster-kids/
With eleven children, one would think that maybe he's more genuinely concerned for the future?
Or is it only liberals who are allowed to be revered for fighting when they've actually got something worth losing?
I think the "taking risks" while having 11 children might be what the Professor was pointing out. Who will now help care for those 11 children?
Although I suspect they may have a family that will do so and are, even if younger, perhaps fairly self-sufficient and capable. Look at what dad believed. Big families don't necessarily rely and depend on government to support and take care of them. I know. My husband is one of 18. They all still rally round when there is a crisis and help and support each other however necessary; and now their kids and kids kids, etc are part of that family dynamic and they do the same.
"Even getting 11 children in the habit of brushing their teeth every day must be a real trial." For most people, they arrive sequentially. And you get the older ones to help with the younger ones. I know a number of such families, and (many of them) do just fine.
Did anyone else immediately think: Cheaper By The Dozen?
-XC
@Althouse, as a feminist which offends you most? That he risked his life while having eleven children at home? Or that he had eleven children in the first place. Please clarify.
Eleven plaintiffs.
I have a little personal knowledge of the subject myself. Asking children to step into the role of parents is a big ask. My only point is that if you are going to have 11 children, it should be the primary focus of your life and the point of your work, or you better have a *lot* of support in the form of money and help.
First raise a babysitter.
Don't annoy the government.
The Bundy group had all sorts of time to get out of there, and the same can be said of the idiots who still are there. Sorry, I don't like to see anyone get killed, and like anyone sane, I'd much rather they found a way to bring these guys to justice without a drop of bloodshed. But it's not like this dude is a victim.
My uncle had 11 kids. He was widowed when the youngest was maybe 3-4 years old. The man was a saint and I miss him greatly.
The whole thing in Oregon is a tragedy.
I take it that The Oregonian is a Democrat paper.
Should have brought snacks.
He and his wife seem to have reared an independent and, I suspect,tough thinking family.
Patrick Henry had 12 children.
I've been blogging this story since yesterday around 5:30pm, with the exception of about 2 and 1/2 hours of sleep this morning. So many questions left unanswered. See, "Report: Militia Spokesman LaVoy Finicum 'was shot three times while he had his hands up in the air'..."
I'll have more throughout the day. Finicum was the sweetest man out there. It makes me sad, and blogging it just about more than anyone this last few weeks, it feels personal.
How is it no one has pointed out that the quoted "child", who was not named as the oldest, was 26 years old.
How many of his "11 children" were fully grown adults who supported his decision and the risks involved?
Man died doing what he believed was right. Few fathers get to impart such conviction upon their children. It's up to them to decide if they agree with what his position was, but at least they will have a role model who stood up for something.
"My only point is that if you are going to have 11 children, it should be the primary focus of your life and the point of your work, or you better have a *lot* of support in the form of money and help."
No more so than with 1 child. And "primary" shouldn't be "only."
Time for a real "Hands Up, don't shoot" movement.
White flyover state lives matter.
They're a valuable resource especially given that couples are not producing enough children to replace themselves. Who is going to pay for the entitlements for an aging developed world
The solution is to abandon entitlement programs with pyramid scheme attributes and develop sustainable investment programs that will protect people in old age.
I never heard on this blog the condemning of some of the founding fathers for signing the constitution because they had children.
I'm with Karen of Texas - I think Althouse' point was about taking such risk when you have 11 children. (I'd make the same point about the luckless Antartic trekker who tragically died from his attempt.)
When you're a parent, there are some risks you don't take. Armed occupation of Federal property is one of them.
#Rancherlivesmatter
I believe he fully understood he had 11 children (unlike some who don't know how many children they've strewn about). At some point, you may have to rely on your adult children to take care of your minor children in the event you are not around. At some point in time, you have to have the courage of your convictions, though not all those people are correct in their judgement about those convictions or the point in time.
TreeJoe said...How is it no one has pointed out that the quoted "child", who was not named as the oldest, was 26 years old.
I was wondering that myself as I read through the comments, how long would it take for someone to point out that at least one of the "children" is 26?
I have some big question marks about the cause for which he died, but one thing I don't quesiton is that if he were a college student taking over the dean's office to have the sheaf of wheat removed from the school's coat of arms because that sheaf of wheat was harvested by a slave, then the coverage would be totally different.
But because he was fighting for some concept of liberty, he had it coming.
If this shooting was on the level, I would think more details would be immediately available.
No more so than with 1 child. And "primary" shouldn't be "only.
A) Quantity is a quality of itself after some point.
B) I never said "only" but it should make one more circumspect, as responsibility for 11 children is not something that can be handed off like care of a puppy.
A very long article that says one paragraph's worth.
Would it be anti feminist to point out the fact that his wife probably played a significant role in the bearing of those 11 children?
Aren't we perhaps giving him too much credit? I mean after all there's that guy over in England that's way up into the hundreds.
I have some big question marks about the cause for which he died, but one thing I don't quesiton is that if he were a college student taking over the dean's office to have the sheaf of wheat removed from the school's coat of arms because that sheaf of wheat was harvested by a slave, then the coverage would be totally different.
No shit, on account of those kinds of "occupations" are noble, and we would have songs written about him, like Ohio, for example, which would be played over and over and over.
"Gotta get down to it!
Soldiers are cutting us down!
Should have been done, long ago!"
Since he was shot by police, the Obama administration will be sending a representative to his funeral. Hands Up Don't Shoot
He certainly wasn't "independent".
He was getting shit loads of money from Catholic Charities-which was his only real income.
"Yours, Mine, and Ours" - the real-life Beardsleys has 18 children (8 his, 10 hers).
Though I suppose there is a certain novelty to that many siblings sharing both the same mother and father.
Was this loser and his family on welfare?
one thing I don't quesiton is that if he were a college student taking over the dean's office to have the sheaf of wheat removed from the school's coat of arms because that sheaf of wheat was harvested by a slave, then the coverage would be totally different.
If you take over the Dean's Office heavily armed and with an explicit or implied threat of violence towards those you were protesting, wouldn't coverage be the same?
It appears there is going to be a he said/she said regarding this incident.
Did the FBI and Oregon State Police have body cameras to capture the incident? Both organizations are under control of people who have been demanding that local police have these devices.
" as responsibility for 11 children is not something that can be handed off like care of a puppy."
And neither should responsibility for 1 child. It seems pretty obvious that he has a solid support system, much more so than a lot of people who only have one child.
I could understand the shock if he had 1-2 kids. but his tribe will survive without him now
He's thinking altruistically. His gene-line is secure with 11 children. Much harder to wipe his Mormon geneseed from the earth now. So the next priority is his hierarchy of needs is ensuring the 11 don't just survive, but have freedom. His oldest is 26.
Maybe this guy was all sorts of crazy, but the sneer of some here regarding foster parenting is pretty disturbing. Since we don't have orphanages anymore, people get paid to take care of foster children. It happens in minority communities all the time, but usually with extended family members -- why don't you go sneer at them while you are at it. Also, I would trust Catholic Charities to monitor these children's well-being in the hands of foster parent over some burnt out and overwhelmed CPS worker.
Another battle in the War of Federal Aggression.
rehajm said...If you take over the Dean's Office heavily armed and with an explicit or implied threat of violence towards those you were protesting, wouldn't coverage be the same?
It wasn't any of the times that that actually happened, so no, I'm thinking it wouldn't.
When you have one kid or eleven, you should not take unnecessary risks. I have not followed the Oregon imbroglio and therefore do not know the merits of Mr. Finicum's issue. It seems clear though, that he thought that he was taking a stand for Justice. It is therefore an essential risk that free men do not shy away from.
He believed in defending freedom and taking risks when he had 11 children.
One of those sentences just dumped out there awaiting a response, I see.
The death of a father of 11 does make it more tragic, but it is irrelevant to the events here. Any cause worth dying for is worth dying for; otherwise, it is not. The number of his children does not give him the right to threaten federal agents with impunity, nor does it give the federal agents the right to shoot him without cause.
I suppose this is the sort of hook that the news would use, back when they were interested in reporting the news instead of political cheerleading.
No, Ann, it didn't say he believed in taking risks. She said he believed in defending freedom and knew there were risks. Should he not be able to defend freedom as he sees it because he has 11 children?
That twisting-words lie of yours is worthy of a MSM journalist.
Implied violence or inferred violence?
I will stop commenting because I have deliberately avoided getting up to speed on this whole thing. But just because somebody carries a gun does not mean that that person is implying violence. Asserting one's right to self defense only implies violence to those who would do one harm.
Did you criticize Eric Garner for having six children when he was killed by police? How old is the youngest of the eleven children here?
Questions worth asking. Questions.
Yes, if several ARMED students took over the Dean's office and announced they were willing to die there for their cause the coverage would be different.
Agreed.
"If you take over the Dean's Office heavily armed and with an explicit or implied threat of violence towards those you were protesting, wouldn't coverage be the same?
I dunno. Why don't you ask Eric Holder (get wasn't armed, but his companions were).
LOL, those occutards caught with a bomb never made it out of the right-wing press. Didn't fit the narrative.
harrogate said...
The Bundy group had all sorts of time to get out of there, and the same can be said of the idiots who still are there. Sorry, I don't like to see anyone get killed, and like anyone sane, I'd much rather they found a way to bring these guys to justice without a drop of bloodshed. But it's not like this dude is a victim.
I'm glad we now have this precedent set. It will make it much easier to take care of the ~12 million illegal immigrants currently occupying our country.
machine said...
Yes, if several ARMED students took over the Dean's office and announced they were willing to die there for their cause the coverage would be different.
Agreed
And one of them just might go on to be the most political attorney general in US history.
High on the list of Things I Wish I Wrote:
mccullough said...
Since he was shot by police, the Obama administration will be sending a representative to his funeral. Hands Up Don't Shoot.
He's the dead one.
I dunno. Why don't you ask Eric Holder (get wasn't armed, but his companions were).
Oh, that's different.
Why?
FYTW.
Is Lavoy Finicum the one with the saggy face, the dude that had a car parked on his head? They all look alike.
http://www.snopes.com/eric-holder-participated-in-armed-siege-of-rotc-office/
I dunno. Why don't you ask Eric Holder (get wasn't armed, but his companions were).
I'm not familiar with this incident- how was it resolved?
When an armed gang takes over a government building and announces that they are prepared to use deadly force if the authorities try to stop them, it is entirely prudent for law enforcement to take them at their word.
This is not the way to resolve thee matters. The Ruby Ridge and Waco lessons have been forgotten.
I seem to recall that after Waco, critics of the way it was handled claimed that it was unnecessary to have a standoff outside the compound and that the police could have snatched up David Korresh when he was jogging or went into town for supplies. Trying to get the ringleader and his accomplices during a traffic stop rather than laying siege to the building seems to me like they did learn their lesson from the earlier standoffs.
Stupid breeder
The feminist assumption is that women who bear 11 children are incapable of managing affairs after the death of a spouse, no matter the organizational, budgetary, or other skills they possess. Only women who outsource their children to low paid, women child care workers are employable.
harrogate said... [hush][hide comment]
The Bundy group had all sorts of time to get out of there, and the same can be said of the idiots who still are there. Sorry, I don't like to see anyone get killed, and like anyone sane, I'd much rather they found a way to bring these guys to justice without a drop of bloodshed. But it's not like this dude is a victim.
Yeah,
no kidding. Think of the poor FBI agent(s?) who murdered him. Probably have a bad dream about it for one or two nights.
Events seem to be escalating, outrage on outrage, bloody shirt after bloody shirt.
This is going to get a lot worse, I believe the predictions of a terrible year.
And it's not just because the Hanoi turtle died.
William Wallace's children were fatherless too when foolish Daddy fought the evil British Empire rule over the Scotland for them.
So let's blame the assassinated freedom fighter. Bad man. Bad man. Liking to fight is no excuse.
11 children.
Was he holding up a sign saying "Feds Don't Shoot - 11 children"?
Fernandinande said...
11 children.
Was he holding up a sign saying "Feds Don't Shoot - 11 children"?
Was David Koresh? I really don't think the feds give a shit.
tim in vermont said...
Implied violence or inferred violence?
I will stop commenting because I have deliberately avoided getting up to speed on this whole thing. But just because somebody carries a gun does not mean that that person is implying violence. Asserting one's right to self defense only implies violence to those who would do one harm.
The left says you don't have that right. You know. The police have that right all to themselves, but quis custodiet................you get the idea.
straw men are easy...
What a dumbass.
Alexander said...With eleven children, one would think that maybe he's more genuinely concerned for the future? Or is it only liberals who are allowed to be revered for fighting when they've actually got something worth losing? Thank you, well said. The man was in his mind, fighting for their future freedoms.
Karen of Texas said......My husband is one of 18. They all still rally round when there is a crisis and help and support each other however necessary; and now their kids and kids kids, etc are part of that family dynamic and they do the same.
Large families are a beautiful thing for this and many other reasons. It is too bad there are not more, and it is part of the reason we have such loneliness in our society now (not to mention 1-2 kids=helicopter parents turning their kids into neurotic young adults.) Large families generally are happier, the marriage stronger, and as you point out, after the parents are gone, there is still a large, life-long bonded, loving, support system.
Eyewitnesses knock down conspiracy theories about Finicum dying with his hands up.
"He charged at the police..."
Sound familiar?
@Amanda:Eyewitnesses knock down
You didn't read your link. Those "eyewitnesses" did not see the shooting, they are just reporting what they were told by others. Lee was a mile away in a different car. McConnell was told about it later.
The bodyguard said Cox and Payne each told him that Finicum charged toward officers before he was shot...
“Somehow they got Ryan Payne pulled out of the truck, apparently. LaVoy had took off — he ended up hitting a snowbank, I guess, trying to get around the blockade. After he hit that snowbank, he came out of that truck and he charged at the law enforcement (officers) — as I understand it.”
Neither of the men are relating what they witnessed.
He won't lack for an heir.
It's too early to know the details of what happened. You know the drill with these things. Rumors and hearsay fly all over the place. Sometimes it is ridiculously inaccurate.
At the moment I do not trust the veracity of either side. The fact that one side is the federal government makes it depressing.
While I'm not discounting that there's a very good chance that Finicum did something stupid at the time of his arrest that got him shot, after Ruby Ridge & the Branch Davidians (to give examples just from the "Armed Militia Men" side of things), I'm not just assuming that the FBI got things right.
Here's a quotation from a local newspaper:
The dramatic event came days after local and state officials had publicly complained about the apparent inaction by federal law enforcement. The governor had complained directly to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and FBI Director James Comey as well as the White House. On Monday, Harney County Judge Steve Grasty, who chairs the county commission, also publicly urged police to resolve the occupation.
I'm wondering if the state & local pressures on the FBI forced the FBI to act before they were prepared to act, and poor planning led to a situation that got out of hand. Or, then again, maybe Finicum panicked. Who knows?
But, something doesn't sound right about the "take down" of the militiamen. All these guys have guns & when faced with an FBI blockade, they don't fire a single round? I sure as hell hope the FBI was wearing body cameras when all of this went down.
Oh, & Amanda, let's make a deal: we won't link to Stormfront.com & you don't link to tendentious left-wing crap sites like Rawstory.com. Go read the link you posted & tell me how Mark McConnell is by any standards an "eyewitness". He's just passing along what others in the party told him happened. But, there's only one "eyewitness" in that story, & that's Melvin Lee. But, why bother picking this apart. Every Rawstory article is this shoddy.
Not even Melvin Lee seems to be an eye witness based on his statement quoted by Rawstory: “LaVoy had took off — he ended up hitting a snowbank, I guess, trying to get around the blockade. After he hit that snowbank, he came out of that truck and he charged at the law enforcement (officers) — as I understand it.”
Whatever our prejudices about militias or federal officers, we might want to withhold judgement until we have the facts.
Donald Douglas said..."Report: Militia Spokesman LaVoy Finicum 'was shot three times while he had his hands up in the air'..." Hands up, don't...?
Spiros Pappas said...
Was this loser and his family on welfare?
Ugly
garage mahal said...
Is Lavoy Finicum the one with the saggy face, the dude that had a car parked on his head? They all look alike.
Racist & Ugly.
Titus said...He was getting shit loads of money from Catholic Charities-which was his only real income.
Totally--the REAL crime is a private religiously-based charity apparently using private funds to help support foster children and a private individual using those funds to provide those kids a home. There oughtta be a law, I tell ya.
garage mahal said...
Should have brought snacks.
For some reason I'm reminded of Daily Kos founder Moulitas saying (of the Blackwater contractors who were murdered, mutilated, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah) "I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them."
Probably just that famous Leftists empathy.
Totally--the REAL crime is a private religiously-based charity apparently using private funds to help support foster children and a private individual using those funds to provide those kids a home.
Well, the accusation is that he was using the foster children as unpaid labor. As for Catholic Charities, it is likely that most if not all the support for the foster children came from the state. States often contract out fostering programs to not for profits.
Totally--the REAL crime is a private religiously-based charity apparently using private funds to help support foster children and a private individual using those funds to provide those kids a home. There oughtta be a law, I tell ya.
Actually over 60 percent of Catholic Charities’ funding comes from the government.
Unless those 11 children are mostly minors and are left uncared-for by his death, it's pointless to get on him for risking his life.
The quoted child is, after all, 26 years old, and doesn't actually need her daddy around to provide for her, one hopes.
We will have to wait and see, but already, this happened yesterday, and the Feds and the State have not got their stories together well enough to go on camera with it yet?
"Totally--the REAL crime is a private religiously-based charity apparently using private funds to help support foster children and a private individual using those funds to provide those kids a home. There oughtta be a law, I tell ya....fail"
Catholic Charities receive government handouts dude.
Face it he was a taker-but an independent one!
Is there something wrong with having 11 children?
I don’t think people should have more children than they can afford to raise and if you regularly need public assistance to pay your bills, then you’ve probably exceeded that threshold. If the only income you as an able-bodied adult have is public assistance (albeit distributed through an ostensibly “private” charity) for taking on foster children, then I think that deserves a healthy amount of skepticism on whether you’re doing it for the money since you’re obviously not earning any on your own.
@Thorley:If the only income you as an able-bodied adult have is public assistance (albeit distributed through an ostensibly “private” charity) for taking on foster children,
What if he'd incorporated and operated a business that provided a home for foster children, and that business was his sole income? Would he still be some to be skeptical of?
What if the foster children programs don;t allow you to do it that way, you can only take care of foster kids as an individual?
Anyway, the only reason anyone is going through this guy's life with a fine-toothed comb is to prove he was a bad person, and that the FBI was justified in shooting him.
If he indeed did something that the FBI agents reasonably thought would endanger them, that's one thing, but we don't know that.
The only reason his foster kids and foster kids are in the news is to absolve the FBI of wrongdoing. It's the opposite of what they did with Treyvon Martin and Michael Brown and Eric Garner, where they looked for dirt on the cops and it was like pulling teeth to give any context to the victims.
The 11 kids refers to biological plus foster kids, and it mixes up whether "kids" are adults or minors. He - and his wife - were foster parents to several kids, not sure how many.
Foster parents are the modern US version of an orphanage, which were and are honorable institutions.
He owns and operates a ranch from which some of his income derives but is insufficient to make a living. A ranch however is a nice place to raise orphans outdoors. And doing chores and farm work sounds like a very positive thing, on the face of it.
The spin attacks on this whole business are intense and very, very evil.
Even a neutral party who may have not been sympathetic to his political goals can be made to hate his enemies by such talk.
Wait for the facts and future testimony.
I think the sentence "He believed in defending freedom and taking risks when he had 11 children" makes it clear what I think.
I think the sentence "He believed in defending freedom and taking risks when he had 11 children" makes it clear what I think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Those mug shots are out of central casting, and all of the subjects knew just how to pose for a camera.
"If you don't like that people get money who take in foster children, do it yourself, and take no money. See how long you last. I recommend an egg timer."
A lot of relatively poor people here in South Carolina take in foster kids. They could not do it without the subsidy. I know several people who do this or have done it. They are good people and they have had a positive impact on the kids they foster. I'm sure there are abuses of the system but they are the exception not the rule. Who else is going to take these kids, if the families can't or won't take care of them?
Freder Frederson said... States often contract out fostering programs to not for profits.
Freder, Titus, Thorley, et al.: Thanks, I understand that. You have all convinced me--people and organizations that work to provide foster care for children are assholes and moochers. Instead of being something we should encourage, fostering children is a scam to rip off taxpayers (and blue state taxpayers especially, I think) and it's properly understood to be offensive. Being a foster parent to a large number of children (who, as far as I know, haven't expressed any objection to their having been raised that way) isn't in the "good" side of the ledger of this person's life, it's simply more evidence that he was a redneck scumbag who probably go what was coming to him. Also Catholic charities are government moochers too and should probably be shut down/defunded/investigated by the IRS (that $, after all, could better be spent by Planned Parenthood). I am convinced, thank you for the education.
@Ann:I think the sentence "He believed in defending freedom and taking risks when he had 11 children" makes it clear what I think.
At what number of children does the responsibility to defend freedom, even if it means taking risks, disappear?
Are only the bachelors and childless to be drafted? What about all those guys with families who are active military, are they wrong?
@Ann: What about cops and FBI with families, are they wrong to take a job that entails risks?
Are you quite sure you've thought this one out?
Thorley Winston said...I don’t think people should have more children than they can afford to raise and if you regularly need public assistance to pay your bills, then you’ve probably exceeded that threshold
That's racist, classist, and white supremacist, Thorley. (Whites are about 62% of the population and about 40% of food stamp beneficiaries; blacks are about 12% of the population and about 25% of the food stamp beneficiary population, as just one example).
Well, it would be if I said it, anyway.
Damn, of all the shit to attack this guy/look down on this guy for, the lead story is that he's a jerk because he indirectly received public funds as part of a program to take in and raise foster kids (which he did for a large # of kids)? I mean, that's the objectionable thing about this dude? I understand we're all much, much better than him, so of course we look down on him, sure, but is THAT the reason we're going with? Why not stick with redneck, gun crazy, paranoid, some of the old classics? No? The really salient failing we're going with for this guy is that he's a big ol' hypocrite 'cause he got some money (that may have originated from the State) to care for foster children?
Ok, I guess, let's run with that.
Ann Althouse said...
I think the sentence "He believed in defending freedom and taking risks when he had 11 children" makes it clear what I think.
I genuinely don't clearly know what you think. It's plausible to me that you mean to assert that he was wrong/doesn't deserve praise for taking a risk when the cost of that risk meant harm to a large number of (his) children. It's plausible to me that you mean to point out that we should temper any praise of his willingness to take such a risk with blame for his putting his personal beliefs over the good of those children. It's plausible to me that you're simply pointing out the nature of his devotion to his particular belief--highlighting the depth/power of that belief for him (by pointing out the cost, in risk terms, he must have known acting on those beliefs would have for his family). It's plausible to me that you're criticizing him for either having such beliefs, being willing to act on them, or both (given the risks involved).
For me, at least, it's not true that your sentence makes clear what you think (w/r/t which of the plausible interpretations I listed above is the correct one(s)). Probably that's a problem just with me due to my stupidity, but nevertheless your statement isn't accurate, for me. You don't seem to want to make it clear to someone like me, Professor, but possibly you're just not interested in helping out the feeble-minded, which is understandable.
Professor: If you'd said I think the sentence "He believed in defending freedom and taking risks when he had 11 children" should make it clear what I think then I'd have not choice but to take your word for it, and assume I'm just insufficiently bright (or socially skilled, etc) to understand your meaning. Perhaps it didn't occur to you that someone as unperceptive and uncomprehending as I clearly am might read your statement and be interested in finding out your opinion, but I did and I am.
Maybe she means all those things. Negative capability is an important trait in a writer.
My father and grandfather joined the military to serve their families and community. Their courage, conviction, loyalty, and service to secure the lives and welfare of these diverse individuals is highly admirable.
Foster parents of unwanted, inconvenient, or abandoned American children are performing a job similar to a teacher but with far more responsibilities and obligations. It would be hypocritical to not use taxpayer funds to compensate them for their service to their adopted children and society, and pay for their reasonable expenses. It may be justified under "promote the general Welfare" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ... our Posterity" clauses of The Constitution.
The government needs to walk back from their fiasco. These people did not Occupy private structures or land, thereby infringing upon other people's individual rights. They carried arms as a constitutional right guaranteed to all Americans. Their deaths and likely imprisonment will be on the heads of this administration and its subordinates.
Thorley,
"for taking on foster children, then I think that deserves a healthy amount of skepticism on whether you’re doing it for the money since you’re obviously not earning any on your own."
Foster parents are "earning money on their own" as much as public school teachers are.
@exhelodrvr1:Foster parents are "earning money on their own" as much as public school teachers are.
As much as cops are, as much as firemen are, as much as active military are, as much as the jerks down at the DMV are, as much as university professors are.
The class of people who get paid by the government to do stuff is huge and diverse and there are very, very few people willing to decree them all without exception to be parasites--and those people are pretty much already in support of the Malheur protesters.
@Altouse: You said that your "sentence 'He believed in defending freedom and taking risks when he had 11 children' makes it clear what I think." Yes, it is clear. It means that you don't agree with his beliefs about freedom. If someone with 11 children had risked death to support a cause in which you believe -- say Gay marriage or abortion -- you would not have said the same thing.
Would you?
I think what you have in mind is a different situation. If this had been someone who was simply indulging a dangerous hobby -- base jumping, or hiking across Antarctica -- then it would have been relevant that he had people dependent on him who would suffer as a result of his death. But we honor or don't honor a martyr to a cause depending on how we feel about the cause, not how many dependents he/she has.
Ann, I have to agree with HoodlumDoodlum's analysis. Your 11 children comment is ambiguous. When I first read it I did think I knew what you meant, but realized I was processing it through my own biases, and an objective reading reveals little.
It's possible to believe that something you do that might kill you will make the world a better place for your children. You may believe that's stupid, but that too is just a belief.
Those Intolerable Acts weren't that intolerable were they, Coupe? Our Founders should have never confronted representatives of the Goverment in an unacceptable aggression.
Here's the botched phrasing and it's not the one the commenters think it is:
who was killed as the FBI and state police stopped brought an end to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation.
First, either the word "stopped" or the words "brought an end to" do not belong.
Second, the occupation is not of the whole 187,757 acre refuge, but of a much smaller area around the refuge headquarters.
Third, it is just plain wrong, the occupation continues despite the death and arrests. Let's hope it can be resolved without further bloodshed.
The standoff has only now begun. People were free to come and go, as proved the undoing of the man who was killed, but now roadblocks have been set up.
"I'd much rather they found a way to bring these guys to justice without a drop of bloodshed. But it's not like this dude is a victim."
So, the government is always right ?
OK. Glad we got that settled.
I assume you also support the cop who shot Michael Brown. Right ?
Right ?
Ann Althouse said...
I think the sentence "He believed in defending freedom and taking risks when he had 11 children" makes it clear what I think.
Not at all.
Ann Althouse said...
I think the sentence "He believed in defending freedom and taking risks when he had 11 children" makes it clear what I think.
I tend to think that those who express themselves through art — including comics art — like ambiguity and layers of meaning and enjoy making everyone uncomfortable.
Ann Althouse, blog artist.
amielalune said... "No, Ann, it didn't say he believed in taking risks. She said he believed in defending freedom and knew there were risks. Should he not be able to defend freedom as he sees it because he has 11 children? That twisting-words lie of yours is worthy of a MSM journalist."
When you have 11 children you should take that into account as you assume known risks. I presume he considered all his values. Staying alive to be the father of 11 children (and however many grandchildren and great-grandchildren) or exposing himself to risk (not only of dying but of spending time in prison). He chose the risk. You want to make the point that it's inaccurate that in choosing the risk he "believed" in taking the risk. It's an obvious inference. What other option is there?
I did elide something: the daughter's beliefs about his beliefs and his actual beliefs. She could be wrong about what was in his mind. She's trying to comfort herself by connecting his death to a higher cause and overcoming the hopeless nasty feeling that he didn't care enough for her and her siblings.
"Ann Althouse said...I think the sentence "He believed in defending freedom and taking risks when he had 11 children" makes it clear what I think." I genuinely don't clearly know what you think. It's plausible to me that you mean to assert that he was wrong/doesn't deserve praise for taking a risk when the cost of that risk meant harm to a large number of (his) children. It's plausible to me that you mean to point out that we should temper any praise of his willingness to take such a risk with blame for his putting his personal beliefs over the good of those children. It's plausible to me that you're simply pointing out the nature of his devotion to his particular belief--highlighting the depth/power of that belief for him (by pointing out the cost, in risk terms, he must have known acting on those beliefs would have for his family). It's plausible to me that you're criticizing him for either having such beliefs, being willing to act on them, or both (given the risks involved). For me, at least, it's not true that your sentence makes clear what you think (w/r/t which of the plausible interpretations I listed above is the correct one(s)). Probably that's a problem just with me due to my stupidity, but nevertheless your statement isn't accurate, for me. You don't seem to want to make it clear to someone like me, Professor, but possibly you're just not interested in helping out the feeble-minded, which is understandable."
First, I was responding to commenters who seemed to think I was just criticizing him for having a large number of children. It's obvious that I am not.
Second, you're raising a more nuanced point that I wasn't saying anything about. But to answer you: Yes, I think a man with that much family responsibility is not weighing things properly, even if he really believes in this cause and this method of protest. But I don't believe in this method of protest at all. I put a negative weight on that value. He had his subjective ideas, and to some extent I can honor his commitment. But the 11 children is such a heavy weight on the other side of the balance.
Ann Althouse said...First, I was responding to commenters who seemed to think I was just criticizing him for having a large number of children. It's obvious that I am not.
Oh I see, that part wasn't clear to me (to whom you were responding, I mean), but I agree it's obvious you weren't criticizing him just for having lots of kids. Thanks, really, for clarifying.
But I don't believe in this method of protest at all. I put a negative weight on that value. He had his subjective ideas, and to some extent I can honor his commitment. But the 11 children is such a heavy weight on the other side of the balance.
It seems like there are two ideas that need to be disentangled here. The first is that his method isn't a good one/shouldn't be supported. I agree, but that doesn't in itself say much about how to weigh his other obligations/duties. What I mean is, it's easy to conclude he made the wrong choice (in a moral sense) if we start with the belief that his method is wrong (which, again, I agree w/you about). It's tougher, I think, to put that aside or pretend we agreed w/the method and then try and evaluate the decision (given his duties/position) for him to engage in principled (arguendo) but risky behavior.
I think concluding "people with lots of kids/family to support/on whom others depend greatly shouldn't engage in potentially risky principled behavior (political, ideological, patriotic, etc)" is somewhat dangerous in at least two ways. The first is that holding that belief means that we'll cede the battlespace (of ideas, etc) to those people on whom no one depdends--it would mean in a way that we'd be ok with young, single, unattached people engaging in protest-type behavior but that we wouldn't be ok with older family people doing the same. It's certainly true that in most cases it's the young who actually get out and protest, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to conclude that's how things OUGHT to be (in a moral sense). The second reason that conclusion is dangerous is that it would be equally applicable to other actions/behaviors/choices that are risky but we otherwise want to encourage. It would say, for example, that a mother of 3 who enlists in the military (or becomes a cop, a firefighter, a logger, etc) is in a moral sense making a bad choice, but a single guy (or gal I guess) who did the same isn't making a bad choice. That's fine if we're sticking with the idea that some people are more valuable to society than others (namely women, mothers, and people supporting families), but that cuts against the idea that we're supposed to both believe that all people are equally valuable and structure our society around that belief (in terms of laws, customs, etc).
If it's correct to say that a man with 11 kids is morally blameworthy when he takes a risk it's likewise correct to say that a single mother (for example) is morally blameworthy when she takes a risk. That's a pro-family stance, of course, but it's also a part of the "patriarchal belief system" that I understood mainstream feminism to oppose (the idea that it's just as good to be single as to be a parent, that a woman making the choice to have a career and no kids is just as morally good as a woman who chooses to have children, and so on).
Thank you, again, for your clarifying response.
Levoy said from the very beginning that he was willing to die over this issue. (There was an issue, wasn't there?)
With 11 kids, maybe death seemed like the easy way out.
It's not a risk if you think "not today" as you get into your car. Especially given all the recent press about law enforcement behavior, and other venues where the government has yielded to far more egregious demands. His error was not demanding more. And being better with the press with regard to all the regulatory defined as not-to-be-takings from the ranchers without just compensation for a religious purpose, worshiping momma earth. If there's no history of mental illness no one casually risks death. Even the Soviets would confine protesters to mental hospitals and drug them heavily rather than murder (most of the time).
If you can't believe the police will murder you, then he the didn't believe he was risking the welfare of his children. At worst he expected imprisonment and the opportunity to remain a symbol of their revolt against regulatory tyranny. Turned out to be a bad wager. He should have factored in that the left, not the right, doesn't hesitate to murder their opponents. Either by depriving them of life or their pursuit of happiness and satisfaction in their efforts, independent of government fiat (and "we'll show you who's boss around here".
You're not China or the old Soviet Union that believed their citizens are the property of the State. Another black day, a stain on your soul. Looking forward to how this is used against the left post Convention. Hillary gave up on Benghazi, North Korea, Iran and Russia. Why the abuse of a few protesters over a few Acres who stood up in defense of their their principles and livelihoods? Another 3 AM call botched. Can't wait for leak of the WH to justice or FBI memos. Or these folks being called to testify under oath. I forget. What was the actual political impact of Waco? Nobody cared, No one was not reelected? "what difference does it make?" This is so sad. will put away my popcorn for a week of rememberance. Who will join me in Kaddish for him and all those aborted after viability?
Ann Althouse said... Yes, I think a man with that much family responsibility is not weighing things properly, even if he really believes in this cause and this method of protest.
It seems fair to assume that you might think we as a society should discourage people with heavy family responsibilities from engaging in risky behavior. Fair enough. If someone said "single mothers should be discouraged from joining the military," though, and defended that statement using the same argument, I'm sure the speaker would be subjected to a firestorm of criticism (from a feminist angle). Would you defend such a statement and/or speaker?
I don't think a single parent, male or female, should volunteer for the military. Child rearing is a person's most important responsibility. You should preserve yourself and devote yourself to caring for those who are dependent on you. Don't have children if this duty doesn't fit your plan for how to live. There are some times when you are forced into having to take risks, including military service, but you shouldn't go looking for risky things to do when you have minor children.
Ann Althouse said...I don't think a single parent, male or female, should volunteer for the military. Child rearing is a person's most important responsibility.
As I said, fair enough, Professor--thank you for the thoughtful responses. I think you'd find that an awful lot of the feminist Left will strongly disagree with the assertion that child rearing is a person's most important responsibility (as applied to a woman, anyway)--at best they'd likely agree that if a woman THINKS child rearing is the most important thing then it is, but if she THINKS it isn't then it isn't.
Your position is entirely consistent with your stated values and it's likely that Finicum's values were simply different. By explicitly defining/explaining those values up front we're able to clearly understand your POV and address the actual issues (and not our misunderstandings of meaning, etc).
One area that could be delved into more deeply is to what degree you'd encourage or allow our institutions (the law, mostly) to treat parents (or single parents) differently--how much discrimination (for lack of a better term) would you find permissible in the name of furthering that stated value?
I do appreciate the dialog; thanks.
Had Ann's position been held by the Founding Fathers, we would be part of the Commonwealth. At best.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा