Water Dog wrote:Kish, you seem a bit worked up. Aside from issuing a proclamation over the pulpit to not vote for Trump, I'm not sure what more LDS church leaders could have done to make their opposition more clear. They made their feelings known every bit as strongly as they did against gay marriage re prop8.
Did the Church read letters in the quorum meetings instructing members not to support Trump? Did they raise money and thousands of man-hours from its volunteer labor force to oppose Donald Trump? I don't recall that happening at all.
Conversely, did members of the Church hierarchy come out in open support of gay marriage during Proposition 8? I don't think so.
As for the "stolen" land, it seems some clarity is needed. I haven't done much research into this, but, your understanding seems a bit backwards, at least compared to this piece.
The Daily Signal is blatantly partisan and not a credible news source, but in general I doubt you would dispute that the land in question did not belong to the United States before 1848. It was stolen from Mexico in a war of conquest, on the one hand, but then ultimately from the indigenous people, which is the real issue here. This is such an obvious point that I can't believe anyone needs to make it. I'm sure you're pretending to be ignorant, but I hope it's not to disguise the fact that you don't care.
Are you suggesting that state and private property rights are not in keeping with American values and constitutional history?
I didn't see Kish suggest that, but he'll have to answer for himself. It seems to me you are not aware that federal land is by definition public land, and therefore by definition neither private nor the belonging to the state of Utah. Therefore, how is that the rights of private entities or the state of Utah acting operating on behalf of private entities even relevant here? I invite the lawyers to chime in, but I don't think one needs to be a lawyer to determine that public is not private. As I understand it, Obama was well within his authority—do you have a court decision to show otherwise?—in defining the land in such a way that private enterprises, particularly those that are harmful to the natural environment of the place, could not use public lands for private gain. Trump reversed that, which is also within his legal power as President. That is my understanding. Whether one supports the one president or the other has to do with whether one is ok with exploiting public resources for private gain.
I for one am not ok with that. I also don't appreciate how this is sold as a jobs issue. My family comes from Carbon County. The towns where my mom and relatives and grandparents grew up don't even exist anymore because of the collapse of the coal industry, which was absolutely brutal and exploitative, but nevertheless sustained the communities. New energy industries have emerged, but do you think that has led to a jobs boom in anything like it was in the past? Not really, thanks to technology. I am sure that private contracts will bring in money to someone, but it's not going to be normal people.
Also, I don't get the hatred of the federal government in Utah, considering that without the federal government in the Utah economy, the place would be worse off than Alabama and Mississipi during a recession. You should read Patricia Limerick (
Legacy of Conquest), and Richard White's title of his history of the American west captures well the hypocritical attitude of the typical "individualist" ethos of people who support what Trump is doing but whose way of life absolutely depends on federal largess:
It's Your Misfortune and None of My Own.
You are absolutely right that the exploitation of public resources for the private benefit of small group is an American tradition, though I'm not sure "value" is the word I'd use for most people. It is certainly a value of the Republican party, however.
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."
—B. Redd McConkie