Harry Reid tells BLM's Burning Man squad to suck it up


#1

[Read the post]


#2

Radical self-reliance? Burning Man is an expensive, plush get-away for rich people now. Hahaha, gimme a break.


#3

You must have never gotten out of Caravancicle - sorry to hear that.


#4

Rough it in the port-a-potties like the rest of us.


#5

Burning man is incredibly square, w/e.


#6

Just about the time when I considered going is when it started getting expensive, and they started having law enforcement presence. Kind of defeats the purpose of having an inclusive, anarchic event.


#7

Yeah, now I actually want to go more.


#8

Funny how the bureau of land management always wants to stay away from the land they manage.


#9

I’ve actually seriously been considering joining a volunteer clean-up crew that goes out there the week after Burning Man to help with clean up and remediation of the desert. I think that would be more my style. I love being out in the desert but I’m not so much into the wild spectacle or whatever Burning Man has become. Not that I have anything against it, to each, his own, eh?


#10

i’m guessing you’ve never actually BEEN to a burn.


#11

so, 1996, then? 1998?


#12

This type of passive-aggressive, self-dealing, foot-dragging behavior seems to be endemic within Federal agencies…we see the same thing, in the DEA, with respect to medical marijuana, and in the Silk Road case.


#13

Lets just pile on Fed workers. It just helps the cause of all those in power demonizing workers in general. If it’s part of the job description, so be it, but if not… Bunch of back biting assholes here.

No man, I’ve never been to a burn.


#14

The ones who want to protect an undeveloped area by developing it? Yes, let us do that.

I think you just have.


#15

At the risk of dragging a modicum of common sense into this discussion . . .

First, I think we’d have a better sense of the “outrageous-ness” of what they’re requesting if we knew what they HAVE had as far as facilities up until now. Have they had trailers with some kind of toilet? Have they had running water? A rudimentary shower? Air conditioning? I see a photo attached to the article, that shows some type of decent quarters, but I don’t know if that photo is actually from a Burning Man event or not.

Then, why should the people policing this event have to “live like the natives”? You can say what you want about the bureaucracy involved, but most of these BLM folk are assigned to this detail and are only doing their jobs. The nature of this event (or any event) shouldn’t dictate the behavior of those policing it. We’ve got a pretty bizarre mass encampment that takes place near here every year, where the participants run around naked and do the extreme “live of the land” process of digging for grubs, fishing with their bare hands, and not using ANY type of potty facility other than what Mother Nature provides. There is a BLM and LE presence there; should they be required to live just like the event attendees? In other words, if Harry Reid wants to bust the idea based on budgetary concerns, go ahead. If the BLM already has adequate facilities, then they should learn to live with them. But the idea that the BLM officers need to “suck it up and live like the natives” is whacked.


#16

If the accommodations are good enough for the many thousands of attendees, then why do these interlopers actually need special treatment? Furthermore, how is it fair to the attendees to pay a sizable chunk of money for use of the regular portable toilets, meanwhile their tickets fund a few people getting flush toilets and showers? I would not want to pay for their pampering. In fact, I think the government spooks have no business being there in the first place, which is why I don’t go as things are. It hardly meets their goal of being an “autonomous zone” if they are occupied by armed interlopers.


#17

there is existentially a difference between policing an undeveloped area, and policing a previously undeveloped area.

The nature of this event (or any event) shouldn’t dictate the behavior of those policing it.

The nature of the landscape is the reason for the policing. So…


#18

You missed the point completely. The nature of the event, and the expectations of the people coming to it, should have no bearing on how those who are observing and policing the event need to live. These “thousands of attendees” CHOOSE to come to the event, and they CHOOSE to live as they do when they are there. When they buy their tickets, they are well aware of what the living situations will be like. You toss around words like “spooks” and “interlopers”, when the officers who are actually there do NOT make the policy, do NOT issue the permits with conditions attached, and do NOT decide to be there of their own free will.

You might not like it, but the BM event is held on public land. The BLM is charged with the protection of that land, and with making sure activities on that land are kept within legal limits. The permit that is issued makes their policing a term of the contract. If you hold an event in a city park, you’re going to have local police there because they are charged with the safety of the public and the preservation of city property. Why does the fact that this event is held in a desert make it any different?


#19

Wow. Thanks. None of that made any sense whatsoever, but thanks.


#20

Let’s say I pretend your thanks are genuine and your confusion actual.

Let me try one more time.

If there is a building there, then the BLM has failed to keep their mandate for that area, and keep the land undeveloped.

Oh the irony.