Reactionary
"Mind numbingly stupid" is the way one person I know characterized it.
Governor Questions Transparency of BLM Land Acquisition
CHEYENNE, Wyo. – Governor Mark Gordon has announced that Wyoming is appealing a massive acquisition of land by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Natrona and Carbon Counties. The State has concerns that BLM did not involve the public in the acquisition process and that the environmental assessment did not adequately consider impacts on tax revenues, school funding, grazing, mineral development and other natural resources.
The Governor emphasized that the challenge to the acquisition is focused on the adequacy and proper adherence to the process that occurred. He supports the expansion of public access for hunters and anglers, as well as opportunities for recreation. He also recognizes the rights of private landowners to sell their land as they see fit.
“This action is not about limiting access for sportspeople or challenging the rights of private property owners rights,” Governor Gordon said. “It is about whether the Federal government can increase its land holdings without public scrutiny, or should it adhere to the same transparent process that private landowners are subject to if they sought to purchase or exchange federal land.”
To buy or sell land the State must have a 60-day comment period and hold two public votes of the State Board of Land Commissioners.
Here's the actual complaint.[1]
- The Governor emphasized that the challenge to the acquisition is focused on the adequacy and proper adherence to the process that occurred. He supports the expansion of public access for hunters and anglers, as well as opportunities for recreation. He also recognizes the rights of private landowners to sell their land as they see fit.
- “This action is not about limiting access for sportspeople or challenging the rights of private property owners rights,
Well that's exactly what the action does.
- “It is about whether the Federal government can increase its land holdings without public scrutiny, or should it adhere to the same transparent process that private landowners are subject to if they sought to purchase or exchange federal land.”
M'eh. A land exchange isn't anything like a sale, and quite frankly it seems that in most land exchanges the Federal government ends up with less land than it started off with.
The state should dismiss this action.
There's no reason to believe that this land won't still be grazed. It probably just opens it up for that, on a very large scale, for neighboring ranchers. What it does beyond that is open up land that's been closed to ready access for years up to the residents of the state.
Footnotes:
1. A "complaint" is the initiating document in a lawsuit.
2. I know the answer to this question even as I pose it. As the national Democratic Party is for gun control in a big way, for abortion on demand, for much more government involvement in everything, and is on the far left of every social movement, it leaves conservative voters with nowhere else to go.
This is a tragedy, quite frankly, as it leads to the delusion in the GOP that Eathornism is the view of everyone in the GOP, and the State. And because a lot of people in any political party are followers, rather than thinkers, it means that people who support extreme positions in the GOP do so as they're just following along not thinking them out, which would lead them to some other conclusion on some issues.
I've long maintained here, for example, that there's no reason to believe that there aren't a considerable number of people who, for example, are opposed to abortion and the death penalty, but I'm certain if this came up to the GOP Central Committee right now we'd get full support for the death penalty in a major way. That's a minor example, however.
I'm also certain that there are those, for example, who are opposed to abortion, support the war in Ukraine, and are very concerned about climate change. Where do they go to vote? They can't vote Democratic, due to abortion, and the GOP here doesn't really reflect their views on anything else.
As a result of that, they vote Republican, as abortion is their big issue. Some people do the same with the Second Amendment, and otherwise hold very Democratic views.
And the Public Lands issue is a good example. People who vote only on this issue, and there are some, vote Democratic quite a bit, I suspect.
The problem is, however, is that on life and death issues, like abortion, that leaves those very serious on those issues with hardly any options left.
This year might prove to be different, however, as the Republican Party is setting up horrific moral choices for the voters. In numerous states, the GOP is running Secretary of State candidates who would have stolen the vote for Trump in 2020, had they been in power. As people go to the polls this upcoming election, it looks like in many races they'll have a Republican candidate who effectively is pushing for the end of democracy, or at least the installation of an illiberal democracy. As democracy is the first principal of democracy, many voters may now pause when they go to vote Republican and wonder if that principle requires them to vote for somebody else.
For those with less firm concerns, the switch to another party may even be easier. This fall, for example, you know for certain that voters who normally vote Republican will go into the voting booth, having never said a word to anyone, and vote for a Democratic candidate as they're sick of Trump, worried about Eathorne, tired of Republican land grabbing efforts, not really convinced that everyone needs to have StG42, and worried about what kind of environment the future holds in a year that's been weird. The GOP ought to consider that, as if they don't manage to install the illiberal democracy they seem to imagine, they may end up getting very much the opposite.
No comments:
Post a Comment