RL Anger

[Auspice]

@Autumn said in RL Anger:

When I approach a traffic light and see that, on the far side of the intersection, traffic has ground to a halt so that I will be sticking out into traffic if I proceed through, I come to a halt at the traffic light even if it's still green.

Sometimes, once I've stopped, traffic on the far side lurches forward far enough to allow me to proceed through, and, if the light is still green, I will do just that.

And every time, without fail, every single one of the paste-eating morons behind me follows right on through and blocks the intersection anyway.

This is why I'll often stop, even if there's enough room for me and, say, one car behind me.

Because I hate being in the other lanes and unable to go because the intersection is blocked.

[mietze]

Health issues suck. I don't have time for this but who does, really?

[Tyche]

@Sunny said in RL Anger:

There is talk coming down from the Bureau of Indian Affairs that the current administration is looking at pursuing the removal of tribal sovereignty.

There are of course other views on this. Currently tribal lands are administrated by the Federal Bureau of Land Management and tribes have to get permission for developing their lands. That is they have less property rights than other Americans. While a change in this arrangement would require Congressional action, it is quite likely the Trump administration will almost always grant that permission to mine, or drill for oil, or nix EPA requirements. This would be good news to the Navaho coal plant which the Obama administration had ordered to shut down.

[Ganymede]

@Tyche said in RL Anger:

While a change in this arrangement would require Congressional action, it is quite likely the Trump administration will almost always grant that permission to mine, or drill for oil, or nix EPA requirements.

You do understand that agencies must still engage in due process prior to enacting regulations and, even when they do, still must work within the confines of existing federal law?

If so, then, no, the Trump Administration cannot nix EPA requirements or any other statutes requiring certain levels of review for every permit.

As for the Navajo Coal Plant, are you referring to the one that is still operational and is thinking of closing due to economic factors?

http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/energy/2017/01/04/navajo-generating-station-threatened-closure/96164528/

[Sunny]

@Ganymede

Man, this is a person that just said it wasn't bad that they are talking about removing tribal sovereignity. I don't think facts have anything to do with the views being expressed.

[Ganymede]

@Sunny said in RL Anger:

Man, this is a person that just said it wasn't bad that they are talking about removing tribal sovereignity. I don't think facts have anything to do with the views being expressed.

It is not an unreasonable position to take for the sake of argument.

I'm not well-versed in U.S. Tribal law. My understanding of tribal sovereignty is minimal. But from what I do know, tribal sovereignty is something which has, in some way, crippled the ability for aboriginal tribes to seek what other Americans may consider justice.

For example, in Duro v. Reina, the Supreme Court held that a tribal court does not have criminal jurisdiction over a non-member Indian. At that time, tribes could exclude people from their lands, but that's about it; jurisdiction to try and punish an offender rested in courts outside of the lands. Congress later passed a law that permitted tribes to exercise criminal jurisdiction within their reservations over all Indians, including non-members, but that law was only upheld by the Supreme Court in United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004). Still, under the Indian Civil Rights Act, punishments are limited to 1 year imprisonment and a $5,000 fine.

Tribal sovereignty is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it can protect against predation by private entities or state governments: states, for example, cannot pass laws regarding such lands because federal law recognizes the sole, exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government to negotiate treaties with native lands. On the other hand, it can also prevent tribes from negotiating in good faith with state governments towards beneficial arrangements; these can get blocked by the federal government under the same principle.

Unfortunately for Trump, he does not have the authority to remove tribal sovereignty. Unfortunately for aboriginal tribes, Congress is full of bucket-heads that don't give a shit about the conditions in native lands.

(Edited to add: thanks to @sunny's opposition, I have come upon and read a very interesting law review article, and have come to the opinion that, if asked about, I would oppose any action to deprive the tribes of their sovereignty. In fact, if anything, I think that expanding them would probably be the best thing since sliced bread.)

[Sunny]

@Ganymede

It is a HUGE deal at least here. The tribe isn't just against it, they are already lawyering up and getting ready to fight in a big way. This is not quite life and death, but it is not that far away from it, either.

[Ganymede]

@Sunny

It should be a huge deal. I can't blame them for wanting to fight the constant barrage against them.

After reviewing this law review article thoroughly, I could not help but think of the massive potential in letting tribes not only maintain sovereignty, but also expand it. For example, the U.S. could enter a treaty that would allow tribes to directly negotiate with states by consent. The U.S. could exempt tribal lands from all forms of federal taxation, making them, in essence, FTZs or SEZs that could increase growth.

But then you'd have to get over the crippling American cultural stereotypes, and that'd be Herculean.

[Sunny]

@Ganymede

I don't know a whole lot about the issues the tribes in other parts of the country are facing, but here we have a great working relationship with the local and state governments. I agree that the expansion of rights would be a very good thing for the Salish peoples at least.

[Ganymede]

@Sunny

Here's the article I read. It's worth the 51 pages.

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jsinger/files/myths_realities.pdf

[Sunny]

@Ganymede

Thank you!! Good stuff. I will read it rather than just glancing tonight. My office is super noisy today.

[Tyche]

@Sunny said in RL Anger:

@Ganymede

Man, this is a person that just said it wasn't bad that they are talking about removing tribal sovereignity. I don't think facts have anything to do with the views being expressed.

No. In your posts, you allege this is somehow a trick for a land grab. Allowing the tribes manage their own land instead of having to ask permission from the Federal government increases tribal sovereignty.

[Sunny]

@Tyche said in RL Anger:

@Sunny said in RL Anger:

@Ganymede

Man, this is a person that just said it wasn't bad that they are talking about removing tribal sovereignity. I don't think facts have anything to do with the views being expressed.

No. In your posts, you allege this is somehow a trick for a land grab. Allowing the tribes manage their own land instead of having to ask permission from the Federal government increases tribal sovereignty.

Except that the bit of what you said and responded to initially was SPECIFICALLY about the removal of tribal sovereignty. You brought the land grab up as some sort of rebuttal to why losing sovereignty wasn't so bad. This is the relevant bit you quoted and argued with.

There is talk coming down from the Bureau of Indian Affairs that the current administration is looking at pursuing the removal of tribal sovereignty.

My post a few posts back from it, since apparently you can't read:

Land being taken is up near the top, yeah.
Removing sovereignity is worse.

And going back even further:

Land privitzation is just part of it.

Any questions?

Edited to fix quotes.

[Catsmeow]

It's not anger really so much as frustration. This whole put out a ton of applications like you are bleeding paper and not getting a response. It's killing me. I know others have been out of work and unable to collect unemployment (thanks non-profit employment), but can I just say UGH?

I'm trying to focus on putting out good vibes and remind myself others are homeless and other countries are worse. I am having a pity party though. I hate that. LOL.

Anyways, thanks for letting me vent. Y'all rock.

[Bobotron]

@Catsmeow
I'll light a candle and send good vibes your way. Much luck!

[Deleted]

I had the same problem with finding work. You might just have to relocate. I got offered a job here immediately and have had a few others even. Plus my company is always hiring. It's just security but hey, tons of breaks almost no physical work at all and you don't deal with people at most sites. Check major cities and stuff, but make sure they will pay a damn living wage. None of that 10 dollar an hour crap.

[Catsmeow]

@Admiral

Great, what company? Do you need a roomie? Do they pay relocation?

I have considered looking other places as well as in different states. It's just hard to also have the $$ to fund the move and packing.. .ugh.

I wonder if I could just burn it down instead of packing. Thank you for the advice though!

[Tyche]

@Ganymede said in RL Anger:

@Tyche said in RL Anger:

While a change in this arrangement would require Congressional action, it is quite likely the Trump administration will almost always grant that permission to mine, or drill for oil, or nix EPA requirements.

You do understand that agencies must still engage in due process prior to enacting regulations and, even when they do, still must work within the confines of existing federal law?

Yes, however the way the Clean Air act is written, the EPA administrator is the final arbiter of whether a regulation or repeal of a regulation goes into effect. That will be Scott Pruit.

As for the Navajo Coal Plant, are you referring to the one that is still operational and is thinking of closing due to economic factors?

Yes, the economic factors are the result of EPA regulations that the Obama administration put into effect.

[Deleted]

@Catsmeow They don't pay to relocate, but they are hiring. And the pay is only $13 an hour. But I get to wear a suit and tie to work and have other cool perks so it's alright. But I can afford my own efficiency, and if I had a roommate a two-bedroom with a roomie (split bills) at this complex would actually be cheaper than what I'm in now.

I'm absolutely willing to pay the 300 fee required to transfer my lease to a bigger apartment if I find a roommate and am actively looking for one. I mean. Honestly. If you actually want to move to Austin I'd be glad to try to help you out. If nothing else you could sleep in my efficiency until you found a place of your own if it got weird.

[jibberthehut]

@Catsmeow Have a bachelor's degree? Look into your local school district and find out how to become a substitute teacher, the kind that doesn't have a teaching degree. Here they call it substitute authorization. You have to jump through a few hoops, like taking a week long class on how to manage the kids, discipline etc etc "A.K.A You are not babysitters, you WILL be teaching" and then background checks and fingerprint checks, make sure you have hard copies or e-copies of your transcripts from university/college. It's a flexible job, that depending on the district can be decent pay. Here, it's like 16 or 18 bucks an hour to substitute teach. hubby makes 100 bucks a day after taxes if he does a full day. Allows you the flexibility to job hunt as well.

Also, if you're former military, check out Lucas Groups and get on their list of "I want to attend your conferences for jobs" as they specialize in finding jobs for folks with a military background.