Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

[Paperback Writer]

I get the point he is making but framing the disagreement between ranchers and the BLM being based on an idealistic throwback to a bygone era is ridiculous. Its a bit more complicated than he is letting on. I'm not sure what his exact definition of socialism is, but this reeks of sensationalism with his use of it. This article reminds me a bit of the "You didn't build that" speech by Obama. Also, the success of the Mormon setters is a glaring omission to his point.

I also enjoyed reading his American history lesson of stealing lands from Mexico and eradicating the native inhabitants, as if that was unique to the West. Lands were stolen and the natives eradicated in the East as well. Both the Cowboy and Pilgrim are inventions and icons. Using his logic, Pilgrims could also be painted as Socialists.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I get the point he is making but framing the disagreement between ranchers and the BLM being based on an idealistic throwback to a bygone era is ridiculous. Its a bit more complicated than he is letting on. I'm not sure what his exact definition of socialism is, but this reeks of sensationalism with his use of it. This article reminds me a bit of the "You didn't build that" speech by Obama. Also, the success of the Mormon setters is a glaring omission to his point.

I didn't get that as the central theme of the article.

I highly recommend the book he references (Cadillac Desert). It is dated and has some bias, but an excellent (and eye-opening) book. Ranchers and farmers in the west indeed enjoy benefits from massive government subsidies.

[USUC]

I didn't get that as the central theme of the article.

I highly recommend the book he references (Cadillac Desert). It is dated and has some bias, but an excellent (and eye-opening) book. Ranchers and farmers in the west indeed enjoy benefits from massive government subsidies.

I guess I missed what the author's central theme was then. Is it simply that government has had a hand in the development of the West's infrastructure from the beginning right up to the present day? Well, sure. You couldn't argue otherwise. I took the article as a polemic against self-reliant individualism (short form for free market capitalism/small government conservatism). His premise appears to be that a) because the federal government was involved in handing out land and providing infrastructure, that anything less than the current system would be unsustainable and b) a philosophy of self reliance among Westerners is based on the myth of the cowboy.

My dad's family has been farmers/ranchers for 150 years. I never once heard anyone say "I wish government would get out so it could be like it used to be," I always heard "get government out of here because it is wasteful, overbearing, and isolated to the facts on the ground."

[Northwestcoug]

I don't understand why people are fixated on the 'socialism' claim. I suppose it can be construed as sensationalist, but the author is debunking the the claim that the life and economic way of the modern rancher is the antithesis of socialism. It's an interesting article, and I learned more about the history of western land management. Hopefully I wasn't too brainwashed by modern journalism .

[Jeff Lebowski]

I guess I missed what the author's central theme was then. Is it simply that government has had a hand in the development of the West's infrastructure from the beginning right up to the present day? Well, sure. You couldn't argue otherwise. I took the article as a polemic against self-reliant individualism (short form for free market capitalism/small government conservatism). His premise appears to be that a) because the federal government was involved in handing out land and providing infrastructure, that anything less than the current system would be unsustainable and b) a philosophy of self reliance among Westerners is based on the myth of the cowboy.

My dad's family has been farmers/ranchers for 150 years. I never once heard anyone say "I wish government would get out so it could be like it used to be," I always heard "get government out of here because it is wasteful, overbearing, and isolated to the facts on the ground."

You should read Cadillac Desert. The premise is that western water infrastructure (the lifeblood of farming and ranching) goes well beyond "government has had a hand in the development". Rather, much of it was based on fudged data/economic analysis and political influence and was never even remotely justifiable in terms of return on investment. I.e., some of the biggest pork projects in history.

[USUC]

You should read Cadillac Desert. The premise is that western water infrastructure (the lifeblood of farming and ranching) goes well beyond "government has had a hand in the development". Rather, much of it was based on fudged data/economic analysis and political influence and was never even remotely justifiable in terms of return on investment. I.e., some of the biggest pork projects in history.

I haven't read the book but I had to watch a documentary based off of the book (I assume at least) in a History of the American West course I took as an undergrad. That's probably the closest to reading it as I get. Maybe I am just blinded by ideology, but I just don't see how the federal government's involvement in infrastructure, past and present, makes the arguments for less federal involvement illegitimate. I understand there is plenty of people in agriculture sucking from the feds teat. If subsidies dry up, adjustments will be needed but will probably be for the better in the long run. Does the federal government really need to own 70% of Utah?

As a side note, I would guess that programs under the federal government have had a much bigger hand in negatively affecting the environment than some rancher letting his livestock graze. Nothing like government subsidized roads and access to water to encourage urban sprawl.

[Commando]

You should read Cadillac Desert. The premise is that western water infrastructure (the lifeblood of farming and ranching) goes well beyond "government has had a hand in the development". Rather, much of it was based on fudged data/economic analysis and political influence and was never even remotely justifiable in terms of return on investment. I.e., some of the biggest pork projects in history.

Required reading in Water Law. Mulholland's unseemly wresting away of water from Owens Valley via aqueduct to create Southern California™. Actually, I'd give it the distinction as the most interesting book in law school.

[Donuthole]

Required reading in Water Law. Mulholland's unseemly wresting away of water from Owens Valley via aqueduct to create Southern California™. Actually, I'd give it the distinction as the most interesting book in law school.

I signed up for the course, bought the books, and then had to rework my sched. Still, the recommendations of the book were so resounding, I didn't take it back. I ended up reading it after I graduated. And I agree, definitely more interesting than pretty much anything I read during law school.

[falafel]

I signed up for the course, bought the books, and then had to rework my sched. Still, the recommendations of the book were so resounding, I didn't take it back. I ended up reading it after I graduated. And I agree, definitely more interesting than pretty much anything I read during law school.

You must not have read Problems and Materials on Secured Transactions by Whaley and McJohn.

[Commando]

I signed up for the course, bought the books, and then had to rework my sched.

Yeah I remember.

[Commando]

You must not have read Problems and Materials on Secured Transactions by Whaley and McJohn.

I'm waiting for someone to post some meme w Matt Damon "Then you'll be reading Gordon Wood..."

[Jeff Lebowski]

I haven't read the book but I had to watch a documentary based off of the book (I assume at least) in a History of the American West course I took as an undergrad. That's probably the closest to reading it as I get. Maybe I am just blinded by ideology, but I just don't see how the federal government's involvement in infrastructure, past and present, makes the arguments for less federal involvement illegitimate. I understand there is plenty of people in agriculture sucking from the feds teat. If subsidies dry up, adjustments will be needed but will probably be for the better in the long run.

Most of these are sunk costs, so that money is not coming back.

Does the federal government really need to own 70% of Utah?

As a side note, I would guess that programs under the federal government have had a much bigger hand in negatively affecting the environment than some rancher letting his livestock graze. Nothing like government subsidized roads and access to water to encourage urban sprawl.

There is some public land in Utah that would be best used in the private sector. There are also major sections of Utah that should always be federally managed. The notion that federal oversight is always bad (or mismanaged) doesn't hold water. I know people who would like to see the National Park system dismantled. Crazy talk.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Required reading in Water Law. Mulholland's unseemly wresting away of water from Owens Valley via aqueduct to create Southern California™. Actually, I'd give it the distinction as the most interesting book in law school.

Admittedly, not a high bar to clear.

(I would agree, the most interesting part of the book. )

[Donuthole]

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Mormons in the News

Speaking of funerals...

http://www.sltrib.com/news/3504199-1...-to-draw-large

Nice to see this being held at an LDS chapel. Firearms and all.