baldness abstractors:conducting Safeco Auto Insurance [url=http://www.aautoinsuranceclaim.com/#]Safeco Auto Insurance[/url] http://www.aautoinsuranceclaim.com/# …

It also reminds us why the Inuit like oil development [they see it as temporary, bizarrely so] while wildlife monitoring is forever. What they want is money for themselves and the foreigners out. Nothing new about that on this planet.

The “preference” really is a manifestation of the historical/political fact that Indian tribes are sovereign “nations” and your local Indian reservation “might as well be Albania,” as my friend Speedy Rice (who taught American Indian Law at Gonzaga Law School) once put it.

On the one hand, sovereign means sovereign. There is no apparent status such as “sovereign but…” So if the Indians want to swallow peyote and out-bingo the Catholics, no one (i.e. no local, state or federal law enforcement official) is going to stop them. However, the tribes and their members do not exist solely on tribal lands, and they mix with and among people and corporations over which those officials do have jurisdiction. And those people have rights that nontribal governments are bound to recognize.

So in a variety of areas–peyote rituals, application of criminal laws, taxation of individual Indians and tribal enterprises and, yes, operation of otherwise-unlawful casinos–the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court were required to come up with some sort of compromise in an environment where the rights and duties were irreconcilable.

They came up with this concept of the “compact” between each of the tribes and the states. These compacts “permit” the tribe to do what it arguably could do anyway, and the tribe “promises” to abide by certain principles that closely resemble state and federal laws. In the end, the concept is, effectively, that the tribes are governed by law-like principles as a matter of contract–”willingly”, in other words. And the tribes “agree” to “submit voluntarily” to the jurisdiction of the courts.

The point is, the preferences allotted to the tribes–which I think are unjust and among other things deny their employees the protection of anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws–are not a result of affirmative action. They result from an agreement by both sovereign entities to pull back from the brink of figurative and literal war.

“Thirty-two million dollar payoff is only about 10 percent of the 300 million dollars the Coushatta’s rake in…”

The truly frightening/depressing thing about the pay-for-influence scandals now breaking (including the one that did in the San Diego congressman) is the *phenomenally low* prices these politicians choose to sell out for. Paying off lawmakers or regulators has to be one of the highest-leverage transactions out there for a large business. (Hence the frightening aspect – where there’s money to be made, the money will flow, and most of us are the losers in this game.)

A corollary:
The fact that pols are willing to sell off so cheap must mean they are pretty confident, in general, that they won’t get caught.

This Abramoff character is a classic LA hustler who somehow successfully masqueraded for years as a Reaganite true believer.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/01/8tigua.html

However, in these days of modern times, where we have instant communication and what-not, it’s condescending to the tribes to characterize them as purely victims. Not that you’re doing that, I suppose, but the article evidently does.

They’re grown-ups. Call the other tribe up. Don’t let the fucker get away with it. Unless of course you do in fact want to screw the other tribe. Fine, but it’s their choice, not anyone else’s.

Crunchy – the Republicans will try to do that, and it will have almost no effect on anyone except their most loyal base. And since it’s not a lie, that’s okay, right?

If you’re looking for – as a result of this and other alleged right-leaning crimes – near-total conversion on the part of the American public to a left-leaning view of the right as the only non-dark outcome of this and the whole last five years or more, you will be disappointed.

The “preference” really is a manifestation of the historical/political fact that Indian tribes are sovereign “nations” and your local Indian reservation “might as well be Albania,” as my friend Speedy Rice (who taught American Indian Law at Gonzaga Law School) once put it.

On the one hand, sovereign means sovereign. There is no apparent status such as “sovereign but…” So if the Indians want to swallow peyote and out-bingo the Catholics, no one (i.e. no local, state or federal law enforcement official) is going to stop them. However, the tribes and their members do not exist solely on tribal lands, and they mix with and among people and corporations over which those officials do have jurisdiction. And those people have rights that nontribal governments are bound to recognize.

So in a variety of areas–peyote rituals, application of criminal laws, taxation of individual Indians and tribal enterprises and, yes, operation of otherwise-unlawful casinos–the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court were required to come up with some sort of compromise in an environment where the rights and duties were irreconcilable.

They came up with this concept of the “compact” between each of the tribes and the states. These compacts “permit” the tribe to do what it arguably could do anyway, and the tribe “promises” to abide by certain principles that closely resemble state and federal laws. In the end, the concept is, effectively, that the tribes are governed by law-like principles as a matter of contract–”willingly”, in other words. And the tribes “agree” to “submit voluntarily” to the jurisdiction of the courts.

The point is, the preferences allotted to the tribes–which I think are unjust and among other things deny their employees the protection of anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws–are not a result of affirmative action. They result from an agreement by both sovereign entities to pull back from the brink of figurative and literal war.