So how far out in the sticks is Burns, Oregon?

A friend and colleague of mine at the Quad City Herald in Brewster once passed through my hometown, and remarked upon her return that Burns was in the middle of nowhere. She was from Pateros. If a Pateros resident says you’re out in the sticks, you’re out in the sticks.

One of its many attractions (Burns, that is) is that it never draws the attention of the New York Times. Alas, that’s no longer true.

You know how somebody says or does something completely out of place, and people explain it by saying, “He (or she) is not from here.” Well, the group that took over a few buildings at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge aren’t from here (here being Burns). Their action has generated a lot of heat, but not much light.

The refuge is even further out in the sticks than Burns itself. Every kid who grew up in Harney County is familiar with it, the refuge being the default field trip for generations of middle school students. (For the record, Malheur Cave is more interesting, unless one is a birdwatcher.)

National Review editor Rich Lowry caught the element of comic opera in the situation when he quipped he hopes the occupiers have Netflix and a good data plan. News outlets reported Monday night that schools and government offices “nearby” were closed, and “nearby” turned out to be Burns. The closest Grant County equivalent would be an occupation of an empty building in Wilson Creek that triggered the closure of Quincy City Hall.

My Burns-based source said it’s a circus, media all over – just going around town he turned down two requests for interviews from TV crews – the FBI on scene, a community meeting. There are hysterical Internet discussions about the occupiers being domestic terrorists, or alternatively Constitutional defenders standing up to the feds. There are condescending editorials from lady ornithologists/college professors, and accusations of government conspiracy to intimidate people into selling their land and water rights. All that’s missing is Guiseppe Verdi to set the whole thing to music.

The case that started it all has been buried under all the hysteria.

And in that regard there are a couple of questions. Two members of the Hammond family have just gone to jail for the second time on the same case. Why did it take nine years, in one incident, and four years in the other to bring charges? Why are people going back to jail when they’ve already served the sentence originally imposed? If it’s a clause in the terrorism statutes, maybe it’s time to ask how that can be compatible with the traditional understanding of the way the law is supposed to work.

There are actually serious issues in the underlying case, and an honest discussion of land use, especially in the West, is badly needed. This kind of sideshow doesn’t help.