To the editor: I'm not very religious, but thank god the federal government stepped up and enforced the laws of the land. ("After weeks-long Oregon standoff, Bundy brothers arrested, activist slain in clash with authorities," Jan. 27)
The family of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy — whose son Ammon was a leader of the militia that took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and was arrested Tuesday — and its followers are the kind of people who are shrill about their belief in self-reliance, yet think nothing of demanding handouts in the form of free use of public lands.
Their belief that local officials would do a better job of managing the land owned by the federal government does not reflect reality. Just ask the people of Flint, Mich., or the residents of Bell and Vernon about the competence and transparency of local government.
Nato Flores, Los Angeles
To the editor: Normally I look to The Times as a well-written, accurate alternative to the wild hysteria of much of journalism today, but now I see that very thing creeping onto the front page.
In this article, I wonder why the occupiers are called "activists," when in fact they are nothing more than white supremacist bullies using the banner of activism to justify their own selfishness and bigotry. The article describes the wildlife refuge as "the site of a daring protest," which leads me to wonder what is so daring about a bunch of big guys with guns hanging out unmolested in a bird sanctuary.
Then we're told that when the local sheriff "pleaded for the men to leave," they "called his bluff." Exactly what bluff did they call?
I expect better above the fold.
Rick Krizman, Santa Monica