Texas Ranch Has a New Owner

[Kenngo1969]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

😜😂😆

Definitely too bitter!

I'm sure that's not what your wife thinks!   (Happy Valentine's Day, by the way!)

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Do some research Robert, can't be that hard if you live in Utah. Ever been downtown to the Joseph Smith Memorial building or know about the Polynesian Cultural Center in Hawaii? 🐂

Well, you do have a point.  However, such restaurants (like the ones in our temples) are also found at the various BYU campuses (in Utah, Idaho, and Hawaii), and the places you mention.  All such commercial enterprises have to pay taxes.  Unlike other churches, the LDS Church pays regular taxes on such things.  Most other churches hide behind a questionable claim that they are part of their protected religious non-profit category.

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

We had two peach farms where we were, and I loved going and cleaning up, picking and helping out.  

Eating the fresh peaches.........👍

[Tacenda]

Here's the ranch's website, maybe this place will be a hunting retreat, and then people can fly in, it be a could a multi-million investment. But hopefully whomever works there won't be paying missionaries. 

http://www.icon.global/kb-carter-ranch

Edited February 15, 2020 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Don't be silly, The Nehor, you are very well aware the Church is not buying up these ranches to curb the production of meat, favoring latter-day scriptural teaching.  Or do you really think the Church is buying these up to slow down or stop meat production?  Do you really think they are sacrificing their money for a cause greater than making money?

Don't be silly, I was insulting you for trying to drag "we" in to suggest you are speaking for everyone else. We all know you use that tactic a lot and we all find it pathetic.

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Don't be silly, I was insulting you for trying to drag "we" in to suggest you are speaking for everyone else. We all know you use that tactic a lot and we all find it pathetic.

So you disagree?  The church will buy these ranches up to stop or significantly slow meat production?  Are you saying this isn't a money making/investing venture?  

I honestly think it'd be a really good thing if the church bought up ranches to curb meat production.   People may be healthier in the long run.   It'd be a good sacrifice on the part of the church.   

[Jeanne]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Here's the ranch's website, maybe this place will be a hunting retreat, and then people can fly in, it be a could a multi-million investment. But hopefully whomever works there won't be paying missionaries. 

http://www.icon.global/kb-carter-ranch

Classy...the humility of the servants of the Lord.  Money..money..money.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Classy...the humility of the servants of the Lord.  Money..money..money.

And what in that link leads to this accusation?

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

So you disagree?  The church will buy these ranches up to stop or significantly slow meat production?  Are you saying this isn't a money making/investing venture?  

I honestly think it'd be a really good thing if the church bought up ranches to curb meat production.   People may be healthier in the long run.   It'd be a good sacrifice on the part of the church.   

What we need is a national soft drink ban like one presidential candidate pushed through in his city.

<sarcasm>

[Kenngo1969]

On 2/14/2020 at 10:43 PM, Tacenda said:

Here's the ranch's website, maybe this place will be a hunting retreat, and then people can fly in, it be a could a multi-million investment. But hopefully whomever works there won't be paying missionaries. 

http://www.icon.global/kb-carter-ranch

 

20 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Classy...the humility of the servants of the Lord.  Money..money..money.

So ... let's review: One skeptic posts a link to a Web site describing the ranch, and the uses to which it is put currently, and another skeptic pounces immediately on the description of current uses and says, "Classy."

Welp, I guess it just goes to show: If all one wants to do is beat up on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders (I question how much attention the organization and its leaders should pay to such folks, anyway, since, whatever the organization and its leaders do, such folks are likely to do nothing but find fault regardless) any ol' cudgel'll do!

Is the Church of Jesus Christ, and are its leaders, immune from any sort of critique?  Perhaps not.  But even folks such as I, not necessarily one to criticize the Church, might be at least a wee bit more inclined to consider the criticism, if it didn't appear to be so unreasoned and reflexive.  As it is?  Looks like the same ol', same ol' to me.  Critics gonna  criticize.  In other news, ice is cold and water is wet! 

Edited February 16, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

What we need is a national soft drink ban like one presidential candidate pushed through in his city.

<sarcasm>

In response to that, I feel compelled to post this, which appeared in the March 26, 2013 edition of the semiweekly where I grew up.  I'm not responsible for the stilted headline.  The editor told me he was searching for something that fit at deadline, and ... that was it. .  For the record, though, we've had a good relationship going back nearly a quarter of a century, now, and if anyone's willing to publish my nonsense, well, I can't be too hard on him!

 

Quote

 

Government shouldn’t regulate my beloved soda

By Ken K. Gourdin

 

A certain amount of regulation is necessary to ensure the health and safety of those involved in regulated enterprises. For example, certainly, miners cheered the formation of the Mine Safety and Health Administration, and other workers cheered the formation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

There are other examples of agencies whose missions are necessary. The Food and Drug Administration, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, ensure the safety of the things we consume and the other products we use.

However, one wonders whether this necessary protection sometimes changes into something that exceeds the limits of reason and common sense. One wonders whether an agency’s regulatory efforts overstep its original mandate, such as arguably has happened in cases involving the Environmental Protection Agency.

The law of diminishing returns, as applied to regulation generally, holds that the more something is regulated, the less any given regulation contributes to the goal of providing the protection intended. And regulation, for all of the ways it protects us, doesn’t come without costs. Balancing such costs and benefits is challenging.
Former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall once wrote that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Perhaps the same can be said of the power to regulate. That power, when carried beyond the limits of reason and common sense, also becomes the power to destroy.

Try as it might, there is no way that the government can protect us from all the ways we might harm ourselves. If it were to try, not only would such efforts exceed reason and common sense, they would infringe the freedoms upon which the United States of America was created.

The separation of powers ensures that the powers of each government branch — executive, legislative, and judicial — are equal, and that one branch doesn’t try to do something that another branch is meant to do. It’s the legislature’s job to make laws, and the executive’s job to enforce them.

And a law cannot be arbitrary; there must be clear standards to determine how it will be applied. And it cannot be capricious; there must be some rational basis for it.

In striking down New York City’s ban on large sodas, New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling ruled that the ban, which applied only to establishments and vendors that sell prepared food (including, for example, restaurants) but did not apply to grocery or convenience stores, violated the separation of powers and that it was arbitrary and capricious.

Even if one thinks that the Coca-Cola Company’s campaign encouraging responsible use of its products is hypocritical, it is right about two things: one, all calories count, and two, if one consumes more calories than he expends, he’ll gain weight. A government regulation isn’t necessary to tell us something we can discover simply by looking in the mirror.

While there’s no denying that much of America is “calorically challenged,” large sodas aren’t inherently dangerous. There are still some areas into which government’s ever lengthening regulatory reach ought not be allowed to go.

Ken K. Gourdin, a Tooele resident and a soda drinker, is a certified paralegal. This column is not legal advice, and anyone needing such advice should contact a licensed attorney.

 

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

In response to that, I feel compelled to post this, which appeared in the March 26, 2013 edition of the semiweekly where I grew up.  I'm not responsible for the stilted headline.  The editor told me he was searching for something that fit at deadline, and ... that was it. .  For the record, though, we've had a good relationship going back nearly a quarter of a century, now, and if anyone's willing to publish my nonsense, well, I can't be too hard on him!

 

 

 

 

I think the difference between folks who want to see more government regulation and those who want less government regulation are those who have actually bumped into and been damaged by government regulation

It's a great idea to make a law to stop those bad guys from doing what they're doing, but when that same law turns around and bites you personally that experience could change your life.

That is what turned me from being a communist to being a libertarian, in about two minutes flat.

 

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

So ... let's review: One skeptic posts a link to a Web site describing the ranch, and the uses to which it is put currently, and another skeptic pounces immediately on the description of current uses and says, "Classy."

Welp, I guess it just goes to show: If all one wants to do is beat up on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders (I question how much attention the organization and its leaders should pay to such folks, anyway, since, whatever the organization and its leaders do, such folks are likely to do nothing but find fault regardless) any ol' cudgel'll do!

Is the Church of Jesus Christ, and are its leaders, immune from any sort of critique?  Perhaps not.  But even folks such as I, not necessarily one to criticize the Church, might be at least a wee bit more inclined to consider the criticism, if it didn't appear to be so unreasoned and reflexive.  As it is?  Looks like the same ol', same ol' to me.  Critics gonna  criticize.  In other news, ice is cold and water is wet! 

I admit guilt at jumping to a conclusion a bit. But maybe in a few years I could be right? 😌 And then I can say, see?

Glad to see you back Ken! I say that with all of my heart!

 

[2BizE]

Looks like members in Texas and surrounding areas now will have new volunteer assignments pulling weeds, mending fence, cleaning toilets, etc

[Kenngo1969]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think the difference between folks who want to see more government regulation and those who want less government regulation are those who have actually bumped into and been damaged by government regulation

It's a great idea to make a law to stop those bad guys from doing what they're doing, but when that same law turns around and bites you personally that experience could change your life.

That is what turned me from being a communist to being a libertarian, in about two minutes flat.

 

As I pointed out, I don't think there's anything wrong with a certain amount of government regulation.  I think it's probably necessary.  If all men were angels, no government would be necessary; if all men were devils, no government would be sufficient, and all that.  It's finding the happy medium between the extremes that's the rub. 

"Rule of law" as opposed to "rule of men" might be arbitrary and capricious, or it might not.  Such systems as communism, however, are, by their very nature arbitrary and capricious.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I admit guilt at jumping to a conclusion a bit. But maybe in a few years I could be right? 😌 And then I can say, see?

Glad to see you back Ken! I say that with all of my heart!

 

Apart from the limited number of inchoate offenses such as attempt, conspiracy,  solicitation to engage in criminal conduct, and so on, neither human beings nor the organizations to which they belong are punished for what they might do. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, 2BizE said:

Looks like members in Texas and surrounding areas now will have new volunteer assignments pulling weeds, mending fence, cleaning toilets, etc

If you're outside the area, you won't have to worry about it.  And that's the thing about volunteer service ... it's ... what's the word, again?  Oh, yeah: voluntary!  If you don't want to volunteer, you don't have to.  The worst someone can do is try to lay a guilt trip on you, and the nice thing about guilt trips is, if you don't want to go on one, you don't have to! When it comes to volunteering, I might like the work, I might not.  I can say, however, that, very nearly, I've always liked the people with [and for] whom I've worked.  And I cannot recall a volunteer opportunity of which, having completed my service, I've said, "Well, that was a perfect waste of [x] hours!"   To each, his or her own!

Edited February 16, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[MiserereNobis]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think the difference between folks who want to see more government regulation and those who want less government regulation are those who have actually bumped into and been damaged by government regulation

It's a great idea to make a law to stop those bad guys from doing what they're doing, but when that same law turns around and bites you personally that experience could change your life.

That is what turned me from being a communist to being a libertarian, in about two minutes flat.

 

We could reword this for the other side:

Quote

I think the difference between folks who want to see more government regulation and those who want less government regulation are those who have actually bumped into and been damaged by unregulated greed and corruption

It's a great idea to haver fewer laws and regulations in pursuit of nebulous liberty, but when the lack of a law or regulation turns around and bites you personally that experience could change your life.

A personal example. I had a very bad seizure (I have epilepsy) and was transported to the emergency room. I have great health insurance. However, the e.r. doctor who attended to me was not in-network with any insurance company nor was he required to be so. This means that he was able to charge whatever he wanted for his services and my insurance paid the out-of-network benefit. Turns out he charged me $5700 for the visit (way higher than the average), leaving me a bill of over $3000 after insurance. All of this is perfectly legal. In the e.r. I was postictal (post-seizure state) which means I had no idea what was going on and couldn't have made a choice on who was my doctor anyways.

After this I did a bunch of research and it is super common for e.r. doctors to not be in-network with any insurance. Why? Because they get so much more money this way. This dude got $5700 instead of the $800 or so he would have gotten if he had been in-network. I paid over 3 grand instead of the $150 I would have had to pay.

His personal liberty to charge whatever he wanted took advantage of me.

The next time I had a seizure I had to go to the e.r. because I dislocated my shoulder. I asked the doctor if he was in-network with my insurance. He said he didn't know. So there I am sitting in the e.r. making this decision: do I take a chance and I hope this doctor is actually in-network or do I go to the other hospital in town. I took the risk. When the bill came, it turns out he wasn't in-network but his company didn't charge me the balance. Some doctors do that because they can write it off on their taxes.

Last year my state of New Mexico passed a law requiring all doctors working in a hospital to be in-network with any insurance that the hospital takes. It took effect in January. This is a wonderful law aimed at curbing greedy doctors taking advantage of people in very vulnerable positions.

Yes, it takes away their personal liberty, but it protects me and others.

I suppose my long post in response to you is that maybe the issue of law/regulation vs. freedom is not quite as clear cut as your post makes it seem.

Edited February 16, 2020 by MiserereNobis

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

... Last year my state of New Mexico passed a law requiring all doctors working in a hospital to be in-network with any insurance that the hospital takes. It took effect in January. This is a wonderful law aimed at curbing greedy doctors taking advantage of people in very vulnerable positions.

Yes, it takes away their personal liberty, but it protects me and others.

I suppose my long post in response to you is that maybe the issue of law/regulation vs. freedom is not quite as clear cut as your post makes it seem.

Others' mileage may vary, but I think this is a perfect example of a worthwhile, necessary regulation.  The legislature should have had you testify in favor of the legislation. 

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Others' mileage may vary, but I think this is a perfect example of a worthwhile, necessary regulation.  The legislature should have had you testify in favor of the legislation. 

I wrote my state senator and representative about it  

[Kenngo1969]

58 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Others' mileage may vary, but I think this is a perfect example of a worthwhile, necessary regulation.  The legislature should have had you testify in favor of the legislation. 

 

52 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I wrote my state senator and representative about it  

Good on you, for making your voice heard.  I would be very surprised if your story and others like it did not influence the vote in the legislature.

[The Nehor]

On 2/15/2020 at 9:46 AM, stemelbow said:

So you disagree?  The church will buy these ranches up to stop or significantly slow meat production?  Are you saying this isn't a money making/investing venture?  

I honestly think it'd be a really good thing if the church bought up ranches to curb meat production.   People may be healthier in the long run.   It'd be a good sacrifice on the part of the church.   

It would be a stupid sacrifice.

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, 2BizE said:

Looks like members in Texas and surrounding areas now will have new volunteer assignments pulling weeds, mending fence, cleaning toilets, etc

The Church does not use volunteer labor on their for-profit enterprises. It would open a HUGE can of legal worms if they did in addition to being unethical.

[Tacenda]

33 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The Church does not use volunteer labor on their for-profit enterprises. It would open a HUGE can of legal worms if they did in addition to being unethical.

There were missionaries working on the hunting preserve. https://www.deseret.com/2000/7/10/19517193/tending-the-flock

 

[The Nehor]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think the difference between folks who want to see more government regulation and those who want less government regulation are those who have actually bumped into and been damaged by government regulation

It's a great idea to make a law to stop those bad guys from doing what they're doing, but when that same law turns around and bites you personally that experience could change your life.

That is what turned me from being a communist to being a libertarian, in about two minutes flat.

 

There is some truth to pointless regulation but I am wary of those who insist regulation is unnecessary by claiming they would do it anyway. Some regulation is inherently pointless. I work with getting approval for devices and they insist on a step in the procedure for using it. The step is pointless and is there as a legacy of an entirely different technology. So we are required by law to put in a step that means nothing and we cannot say we did it for fear that in court it would be asked how it worked or if we could prove it happened. So we invented something that does almost nothing and is pointless but it could be called that step with a bit of squinting. We gave it to the federal agency and explained all this. They felt it worked while covering the bases. When our competitors followed us into the market they did the same thing. Some things are even stupider. There was a bill in Ohio requiring doctors to, in certain circumstances, perform a certain medical procedure. The downside is that the procedure does not exist. I think it made it into law.

It is enough to make you think regulation is inherently bad. Then I look at cities drowning in smog from photos before the EPA and the decrease in a avoidable deaths when doctors are required to be educated and witch doctors are not allowed to pretend they are doctors. I see the strong in society bullying the weak and regulation is their only defense from being run over.

It is something we need but only works when done intelligently by the well-informed with discretion and wisdom. In other words humanity almost always gets it wrong.