[at-l] A Question Of Trail

[texas12step@hotmail.com (Texas Twelve-Step)]

Jim Owen wrote:

> [Weary's] problem may be exactly what was thrown on the 
> table the other day by that "private property nut case" - 
> that the goal, the dream, the Holy Grail, was to get that 
> land at a bargain basement price (as close to ZERO as 
> possible).

That's not what I meant. Once the state is footing the 
bill, the cost to those who wanted the mountain preserved
was effectively zero regardless of whether Breen got 
twenty dollars or twenty million.

> Well, make up your mind - either the land is "valuable" 
> and worth paying a fair price to get - or it's worthless
> and we shouldn't even be considering wasting money on it.
> What the hell are you complaining about?

You want the real reason? The one that he doesn't want
stated openly?

He is complaining about Breen's refusal to "go quietly."
The victim's willing cooperation is necessary to mask the
true nature of the action being taken against him, but 
Breen refused (at least initially) to grant them his 
sanction.

For the boosters of government taking, the worst possible 
outcome would've been for Breen to refuse to offer any
cooperation, publicly throw any compensation (you know,
those "greasy bucks" that RoksnRoots refers to) back in
their faces, and make the government remove him from his
land at the point of their agents' automatic rifles. That
would have exposed the "trade" for what it actually was. 

Weary should be thankful that Breen eventually chose to
play the game instead of forcing the government's hand,
even though he scored huge and made them look like fools.
I mean, really, it only cost a few million dollars of 
other people's money, and the payoff was substantial 
enough for Weary and others to portray *their* side as
the victims instead of Breen.

It's sad to say, but this portrayal is having the desired
effect. All the talk on this list over dollar amounts is
proof.

-TXIIS