\n\n\n\nThis is a startlingly historical and philosophical backgrounder to the Malheur occupation and I approve.
That\u2019s surprisingly good for the LATimes \u2013 I\u2019m surprised anyone in their offices has ever heard of the Homestead Act.\u00a0
\nIt\u2019s kinda interesting to see where they make small mistakes despite that, though. \u00a0The modern descendents of the Sagebrush jackasses, Finicum\u2019s branch included, along with even the 1980s variants, \u00a0are at least self-aware enough to realize that they\u2019ll lose out from privatization, and thus primarily advocate for state possession where they\u2019ll have more \u2018pull\u2019 (and established philosophy). \u00a0There\u2019s no such thing as\u00a0\u201cOregon Public Radio\u201d, and the original quote from\u00a0\u201cOregon Public Broadcasting\u201d said only that fostering was his\u00a0\u2018primary\u2019 source of income and explicitly said he\u2019d make ends meet without, rather than the only way to keep the ranch afloat. \u00a0Ending the timeline in the 1970s with the FLPMA rather than the Endangered Species Act is\u2026 at best misleading.
\nWhich is kinda disappointing. \u00a0It\u2019s not exactly hard\u00a0to tear down these folk at the legal, philosophical, or historical levels. \u00a0But apparently it\u2019s too tempting to make them Cartoonishly Evil, rather than just wrong.
\n
Good points, also he could have stood to mention how often lands were opened under pressure from protests or unauthorized settlement, against the wishes of wise planners in Washington - the Preemption Act, the Boomers of Oklahoma, the settler militias that started Indian Removal on their own. (Or in London, with the American Revolution inland of the coasts experienced as a reaction to the Proclamation of 1763.)\n
\nAlso Bady\u2019s not on staff, he\u2019s a hotshot socialist editor of The New Inquiry. That such a traditionally provincial and rightist paper would run someone like him is pretty striking in its own right.
"}