We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, July 8. 2014
Pig Sex Is Becoming a Thing of the Past
Is that the new normal? Women's Lib? Erica Jong?
The black slavery in Africa today
“This could be about information considered embarrassing to Saudi Arabia”
A case for getting rid of Indian reservations
Why do we have them? Indians are just people, just Americans. I am one myself, technically, and it worked out for my family that the squaw Jane left the Indian ghetto to marry my ancestor farmer in Norwalk, CT.
Here’s How We Feed the Future
What's the matter with this country?
Government: All your children belong to us
Real Change in Egypt?
School nutrition group turns on Michelle O, now fighting federal lunch regulations
Clive Crook: I've reluctantly concluded that the U.K. needs to consider its options for becoming a non-European Union country.
This guy thinks the Texas Republicans are insane
Excellent choices. Problem is, Cruz scares people. He doesn't seem warm and cheerful.
George Gilder: Do you pass the Israel test?
Volokh, via Protein's “If Only Thomas Jefferson Could Settle the Issue”
“If Only Thomas Jefferson Could Settle the Issue”
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I must be insane too because I couldn't find a single thing to disagree with Texas Republicans about.
Ted Cruz's cabinet gave me chills.
Are those good chills or bad chills?
Levin for AG, no UN Ambassador... How cool would that be?
Good. Mark Levin as AG? Rand Paul, Herman Cain, and Scott Walker literally ripping the guts out of the giant regulation state that's been built since Reagan left?
Wow! I want!
Ted Cruz's cabinet isn't diverse enough. No communist, socialists, radical muslims and worst of all no one who hates America. The exact opposite of Obama's cabinet.
1) in re Ted Cruz not giving you the warm and fuzzies, neither did Richard Nixon, to most folks, but for some reason he got elected twice. Perhaps enough people will remember how going for warm and fuzzy worked out in 2008 and 2012, and will look for somebody a bit different next time.
2) the quotation from "Volokh," which is excellent, would be more properly sourced as "Barnett" (via Volokh, if you must).
"Morning links" are always my second read of the morning, right after checking Insty. Thanks.
McCain and Romney were warn and fuzzy?
To me they were deeply flawed candidates. Both were far too invested in big government and state solutions for me. McCain absolutely failed to differentiate himself from Obama in the debates. He was just the Dem lite. Why have a lite instead of the real thing?
Cruz or Paul won't have that problem.
What do you mean black slavery in Africa. Progressives know that slavery was an American institution. It's right there in the Constitution.
Besides, we must honor other cultures and Arabs, or 'Berbers', owning black slaves is a century old tradition and in accordance with Sharia law. You don't see Muslim cultures declaring 'All Men are Create Equal' and then taking a good long while to come up to that standard. Nope, they don't bother with such aspirational concepts.
We have slavery right here in the U S of A. Millions of people live without working off the sweat of the work of others.
as a shareholder and employer of associate drones, I approve this message.
7 tips for having a great one-night stand
I thought that was going to be about woodworking, but they don't mention the supporting furniture at all.
But for a one-night stand, you would need a really good night stand. One that could hold all the condoms, sex toys and antibiotics. Perhaps with refrigeration?
That would be a one-night stand stand. Given today's moral climate they should sell like hotcakes (or perhaps hot buns). You might be able to license that concept to Sippican. He could design, make, and sell it, and send you the royalties.
Indians are just Americans. But with special rights, including land, conferred through peace negotiations and enshrined in treaties. It is unfortunate that the native Americans fell into dependency upon the US government and didn't use their allocated lands and privileges to build up a socialist utopia. To be fair, socialist utopias seem to be impossible to build up.
RE: A case for getting rid of Indian reservations
The federal government should initiate an immediate distribution of all reservation assets among all tribal residents and members. Members should get an equity interest in tribal ventures, an allocation of arable land, a homestead. The remaining tribal lands should remain in trust to be used to fund education and the reservations themselves disbanded to remain unincorporated or incorporated communities as the residents may decide. The socialist experiment we call the Native American tribal reservation system has been an utter failure. It’s time that we put an end to it.
more bullshit from another insane blogger.
this isn't going to happen, ever, not without the agreement of the indian nations themselves. hello -- these treaties are contracts with sovereign nations. unilaterally abrogating a treaty is not something the government can get away with anymore.
for a forum that typically goes to DEFCON 4 when the fed oversteps its grounds, you'd think this egregiously stupid proposal (based on gambling(!?) should get thoroughly trashed.
Native Americans are not going to apologize to anyone because their cultures are not sufficiently acquisitive in the way western European/American, however, they are not socialist in the same sense either.
The assumption of natural rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence can be summed up by the following proposition: “first comes rights, then comes government.” According to this view: (1) the rights of individuals do not originate with any government, but preexist its formation; (2) The protection of these rights is the first duty of government; and (3) Even after government is formed, these rights provide a standard by which its performance is measured and, in extreme cases, its systemic failure to protect rights — or its systematice violation of rights — can justify its alteration or abolition; (4) At least some of these rights are so fundamental that they are “inalienable,” meaning they are so intimately connected to one’s nature as a human being that they cannot be transferred to another even if one consents to do so.
This is powerful stuff.
useful as a rhetorical device if you're justifying a rebellion against autocratic, non-representational authority.
but ... when the founding fathers defined what rights were "natural" and who was entitled to them, they're not natural rights. "all men are created equal except those we say aren't equal. we'll protect the slave import trade for another ten years, and allow slavery into the territories, until a civil war kills 600,00 of us and natural law gets redefined by the survivors and jim crow, but who is perfect?"
I'm not so cynical. I choose to think the "natural rights" and proposition that all men were created equl were sincere beliefs and actually became the bomb that eventually blew up slavery. Unfortunately, there were enough abolitionists in the Constitutional Convention to end slavery so a compromised had to be reached in order to form a viable country (it was a deal with the devil, but the best one available at the time). But without the assertion of equality, I believe the abolition of slavery would have been much more difficult because there it would not have been supported by our founding documents.
while they may well have been sincere (I'll leave as an open question as to what mental gymnastics a slave owner would have to engage in to agree with the proposition that all men are created equal), their claim on natural rights is patently wrong in an objective sense (all men are created equal except ...).
there weren't enough abolitionists in the convention to end the import of slaves, much less slavery. they had ideas and an ideology that was mostly sound and has proved such since then, but they did dance with the devil ...
I'll leave as an open question as to what mental gymnastics a slave owner would have to engage in to agree with the proposition that all men are created equal), their claim on natural rights is patently wrong in an objective sense (all men are created equal except ...
Sadly, they were considered beasts of burden, not men. Now, those of the part that supported slavery and instituted Jim Crow consider blacks as political tools. I guess that's a step.
"I guess that's a step." = "I guess that's a step up."
They wanted 13 united states, and were willing to take it as a work in progress.
According to this, only Mass had no slaves in 1790, joined by New Hampshire by 1810, and leaving only the 6 states south of Pennsylvania by 1860.
Indian reservations is an idea right up there with slavery. Time to end it not mend it. Replace the existing system with privately held corporations where each legal resident of the reservation is given a piece of the land deeded and held in fee simple and the rest of the property and assets are held by the corporation. Allow them to tax and support their "cities" and negotiate and pay for their own health care. Property wholly are partially within the borders of the states would come under the legal jurisdiction of that state. Get the federal government out of it. Allow existing casinos and any other operations conter to local laws to sunset over a reasonable period of time, say five years. stop holding them under the thumb of the federal government and give them freedom.
Only a true liberal would demand this outrageous and unconstitutional overreach of federal authority and interference with the rights of a sovereign nation.
sovereign nation? Maybe in D.C. la la land. Name one sovereign nation that is controlled lock stock and barrel by a federal bureaucracy such as the BIA. It's time to call a spade a spade and rid ourselves of this fiction.
Office of the Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20530
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE POLICY ON INDIAN SOVEREIGNTY
AND GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT RELATIONS WITH INDIAN TRIBES
PURPOSE: To reaffirm the Department's recognition of the sovereign status of federally recognized Indian tribes as domestic dependent nations and to reaffirm adherence to the principles of government-to-government relations; to inform Department personnel, other federal agencies, federally recognized Indian tribes, and the public of the Department's working relationships with federally recognized Indian tribes; and to guide the Department in its work in the field of Indian affairs.
From its earliest days, the United States has recognized the sovereign status of Indian tribes as domestic dependent nations. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 17 (1831). Our Constitution recognizes Indian sovereignty by classing Indian treaties among the "supreme law of the land," and establishes Indian affairs as a unique area of federal concern. In early Indian treaties, the United States pledged to "protect" Indian tribes, thereby establishing one of the bases for the federal trust responsibility in our government-to-government relations with Indian tribes. These principles continue to guide our national policy towards Indian tribes....
as usual, you don't have to like the law, but only in a fantasy world can you deny it or artificially define so as to pretend it doesn't exist.
Weren't Indians declared US citizens by Coolidge? Unless they have dual citizenship, how do you have a "sovereign" nation without citizens?
Without endorsing a particular plan, the actual ownership of the reservations should be returned to the Indians (eg. loans can be secured by land).
NA sovereignty is a sui generis thing. you've got think of it as a bundle of specific rights and jurisdiction, not in the same way you'd think of France as a sovereign nation.
citizenship was an ongoing process from 1817 and full rights weren't granted until 1948.
as to remedies, whatever they may or may not be, the author of the cited article is an asshat for asserting that reservations can be abolished by the fed. more so because he's hung up on gambling.
Re: Indian Reservations
Ahhh . . . land--Land, LAND "underneath all is the land". I am not going to support the idea of freeing up more land for subdivision into housing developments.
We must get a good understanding that economic growth does not necessarily mandate physical expansion. It has in the past, but the past does not necessitate that the future be the same. Leave the lands on the Indian Res where they are---tell the Chicago mob and the boys on Wall Street to find another quick and dirty way to make a buck.
Texas: " This is what it believes, as summed up with realit-based parentheticals by Hendrik Hertzberg at The New Yorker:..." So, lies to follow. Esquire does not speak to or for me.
The notion that an Indian reservation is a sovereign nation is bizarre. But indeed some people believe this and even try to make it a reality. But it is really an example of how unequal application of law has created groups who are "more equal" then the rest of us. The congress has the ability to end this shameful travesty and should do it and free the Indians who live on reservations and allow them to enjoy the American dream.
look, Kemosabe, congress has the power to disestablish an indian reservation, but its not going to do that without the consent of the tribe. for reasons you'd have to guess at, not all of them want to live in your world.
Probably true just as people on welfare prefer their lifestyle over working for a living. But just as Donald Sterling wasn't given much choice and for similar reasons the tribes should be brought into the 21st century even if it means ending the gravy train. Common sense demands it, fairness to the many young people on reservations and those yet to be born demands it and the 49% who pay taxes deserve to stop being everyone's sugar daddy. Give them ownership of the lands they live on and shared ownership in everything else the tribes own and control.
In response to the photo of the young lady with the glass of Guiness:
'nuff said . . .