November 26, 2016


The Dakota Pipeline protests pit everyone who has read Ludwig von Mises against those who have seen "Dances with Wolves."

We are so completely, totally screwed.

UPDATE: A ray of hope! This post was shared from an unexpected source, tagging his son! Maybe the truth is pulling its pants up after all.

Before traveling, [St. Charles Parish Sheriff Greg] Champagne admitted he had the wrong impression about the pipeline based on what he called sensational news reports that the pipeline was to run directly through the Standing Rock Reservation and disturb ancient burial grounds.

"I quickly learned and saw for myself that this was untrue."

Oil and Energy Posted by John Kranz at November 26, 2016 8:03 PM

I think it's more a result of the fact that you can't believe anything anymore. So the papers aren't writing about the native side that signed papers saying it was ok. Those natives aren't speaking up. The police said they were dousing fires. I've read that the natives are getting "kicked off of their land", but I've read that it's private property. With an even recent history of government lies to natives in NM over the EPA famous orange river, I can imagine that folks are upset. Me, I'm siding with the pipeline, but it's pretty understandable why others wouldn't.

Posted by: Terri at November 28, 2016 11:49 AM

Yes, that is a problem. I feel that way about North Carolina's infamous transgender bathroom law. I've never felt I got a truly accurate appraisal of the law and ramifications. And I lack interest to take a week off work to clarify.

But, you almost have to hand it to the bad guys here. "Defiling Sacred Indian Burial Grounds!" "Poisoning the Water!" "Big Oil!" "Climate Change!" "The Infield Fly Rule!" They truly have all the emotional weapons on their side. Cue Eric Cartman: "You don't hate Native American Children, do you?"

Our side has property rights and rule of law. Yawn. But for those of us who prefer a heated condo with WiFi and hot showers to a buffalo skin by the fire -- and are willing to admit it, those are the difference. It is a difficult fight I have largely shrunken from.

Posted by: jk at November 28, 2016 1:43 PM

Not me! Emboldened by the election of Trump and the death of Political Correctness which that represents, I let my inner "Deplorable" show in comments to the same form-letter type FB post about "I know I've posted a lot about the Dakota Access Pipeline but..."

The lament was, "water cannons are being used against unarmed, peaceful protesters in winter! They are subject to death from hypothermia!" (No mention of death from hyperbole.)

I replied: "Maybe they should just go home."

Poster: "They are home."

I replied: "They are camping. They can be charged with trespassing if they don't leave. That's a strange definition of "home."

Then silence. Until last night, when another woman chimed in ... on MY side!

Posted by: johngalt at November 28, 2016 2:21 PM

I just went back with this, in as "undeplorable" a tone as I was able:

I agree with you Andrea that water should be protected from contamination, but I also believe we need to be reasonable. We can't eliminate all risk. And I disagree that a few get rich while the rest of us pay. All of civilization is richer, safer and more prosperous because of inexpensive, reliable energy and the many byproducts of oil and gas.

Some people and special interest groups want to reverse all of the gains from carbon-based energy. Even worse, they work to prevent...

Continue reading

third world countries and their people from ever having those gains. What about their children? I have compassion for them too.

Posted by: johngalt at November 28, 2016 2:39 PM


Typing this, I realized I was wrong to be pusillanimous. I have striven for a politics here, cute kittens on FB split. But I break it for "important" things where I feel I might offer perspective many of these people might not otherwise encounter.

This is the definition of that -- I just know that it will upset many.

Posted by: jk at November 28, 2016 2:46 PM

The post I mentioned in my update attracted one meticulously-researched response:

Sorry, Xxxxx. But this is wholly untrue. Sacred burial grounds have already been disturbed by bulldozers and the Sioux are most concerned about their water supply being affected. The natural gas pipeline that exists already does not threaten water supply.

But when I went back to share this with y'all, I find yet another person has shared a couple links. In addition to mine.

Pulling up pants. Perhaps there was some value in letting them "own the space" for a couple of weeks.

Posted by: jk at November 28, 2016 2:52 PM

Here is a summary of the treaty disputes with native tribes in the Dakotas, much of which took place before the territories became states, and which was finally resolved in 1980 with a billion dollar payment to the tribes by federal taxpayers. It appears to be objective and unbiased.

While none can suggest that all of the historical dealings were fair, although the contemporary murders of white settlers are rarely spoken of with as much sturm and drung, it does appear that the tribes have been fairly compensated and the matter is resolved at the highest possible levels of our federal government.

The tribes do not own the land being crossed by the pipeline. That they once did is immaterial. What would the environmentalists have instead - dynamite the dams on the Mississippi, drain the ancestral lands "once hunted and fished" by generations long since gone, and let the entire central United States suffer seasonal catastrophic flooding once again? Please.

Posted by: johngalt at November 29, 2016 3:21 PM | What do you think? [7]