Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22273
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Jennifer » 05 Dec 2016, 16:15

Another social-media anecdote -- this time, something on Patton Oswalt's twitter feed:
Patton Oswalt wrote: GODDAMIT. Sickening.
@jcstearnswriter wrote:@pattonoswalt protesters on the ground say DAPL is continuing to dig--apparently they're just going to pay the fines.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Highway
Posts: 12829
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Highway » 05 Dec 2016, 16:17

Welcome to construction. The constructors are pretty confident that if there's a re-review, they'll get the permit. And also President Trump. That's what happens when you make specious political decisions trying to couch it in engineering terms.
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Sandy » 05 Dec 2016, 16:47

This is the only summary of the skeptical take I've found, but I can't completely vouch for everything:

Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 15749
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by lunchstealer » 05 Dec 2016, 17:24

Highway wrote:
Jasper wrote:Another link that came across my feed pointed out that projects like this take years of planning and meetings and hearings. Where were the protesters a decade ago when the plans were first laid?
Lying in an empty field doesn't do much to stop construction unless there are bulldozers there to be in front of.

I guarantee that a small amount of noisy people protested the alignment of the pipeline, no matter where it was, from NIMBYs trying to get it put somewhere else to BANANAs trying to stop it altogether. And I'm sure there were court cases against the decisions made to permit it.

The 'contaminated water' bit is a red herring, if you ask me. If you put a pipeline ANYWHERE, it's going to have the chance to contaminate water if it leaks. If that was a reason to not have a pipeline, then there wouldn't be any pipelines. So to me, the difference is "here the risk of contamination is the water supply of over 50,000 people, there the risk is the water supply of a couple thousand" and that's exactly why you do impact statements. It's not "Oh, it's not ok to poison their water, but it *is* ok to poison our water?" That's just dumb. It's more what is the risk.
There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now. ... What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven’s sake, mankind, it’s only four light years away, you know. I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that’s your own lookout. Energize the demolition beams.

I don't know, apathetic bloody planet, I've no sympathy at all.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 6072
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 21:52
Location: Vale of Eternal Fire

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Andrew » 05 Dec 2016, 17:32

According to the all-knowing wiki, the pipeline wouldn't pass on tribal lands. Within a few miles. The main complaint is about water sources.

And tribal claims on the land rest upon eminent domain and an 1851 treaty. I haven't read that claim in depth, but color me highly dubious.
We live in the fucked age. Get used to it. - dhex

holy shit there will never be an end until the sweet release of death (as dictated by the death panels, natch) - lunch

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22273
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Jennifer » 05 Dec 2016, 17:41

Andrew wrote:According to the all-knowing wiki, the pipeline wouldn't pass on tribal lands. Within a few miles. The main complaint is about water sources.

And tribal claims on the land rest upon eminent domain and an 1851 treaty. I haven't read that claim in depth, but color me highly dubious.
On the other hand, given what I do know about Indian and American government history, I'm not inclined to think the feds are the ones who deserve the benefit of the doubt, here.

Back in 2007 or 2008, when I was in Connecticut writing for a now-defunct alt-weekly, I remember doing a then-current story about yet ANOTHER Indian treaty being broken: specifically, certain New York tribes were selling cigarettes off their reservations, many Connecticut residents were buying cigarettes from that source in order to avoid high state taxes, and I don't remember specifics but it was something like "Originally, the tribes were allowed to sell and had zero obligation to hand over their customer lists to any state governments, but that changed within nanoseconds of the states realizing that they were actually losing money as a result; now the tribes have to turn over the lists and certain Nutmeg State customers should expect to receive major back-tax bills."
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 23986
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Warren » 05 Dec 2016, 20:57

Sandy wrote:This is the only summary of the skeptical take I've found, but I can't completely vouch for everything:

That guy's look, metal in face, shaggy facial hair, loose tie with unbuttoned collar, just screams "hipster asshole" and defies me to take him seriously.
Bitch about Brexit to your hearts content, but stay out of my historical movies. - Nick Hodges

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6832
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by fyodor » 05 Dec 2016, 21:35

Warren wrote:
Sandy wrote:This is the only summary of the skeptical take I've found, but I can't completely vouch for everything:

That guy's look, metal in face, shaggy facial hair, loose tie with unbuttoned collar, just screams "hipster asshole" and defies me to take him seriously.
Haha, book/cover some?

Actually his nose ring does bug me, but big whoop.

I'm listening to it now (maybe better without looking at him), and he seems to come across as sincerely trying to be factual. Doesn't mean he necessarily is, but he's at least coming across that way, as far as I can tell.
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
dhex
Posts: 15306
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by dhex » 05 Dec 2016, 21:48

"skeptical" is the fancy ketchup of self-descriptors. i noped at the intro graphic and skipped ahead. looks like he got dressed by a sentient mannequin at a haunted kohl's...which, ironically, was located above an indian burial ground.
"I do wear my New Balance tennis shoes when I'm wearing cargo shorts, though, because truth in advertising." - lunch

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17084
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Hugh Akston » 06 Dec 2016, 04:38

Image
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 6072
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 21:52
Location: Vale of Eternal Fire

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Andrew » 06 Dec 2016, 07:24

So, reading through the news stories linked on the wiki page, here's the one that's the "source" for the eminent domain claim:
Mekasi Camp-Horinek, an Oceti Sakowin camp coordinator states, “Today, the Oceti Sakowin has enacted eminent domain on DAPL lands, claiming 1851 treaty rights. This is unceded land. Highway 1806 as of this point is blockaded. We will be occupying this land and staying here until this pipeline is permanently stopped. We need bodies and we need people who are trained in non-violent direct action. We are still staying non-violent and we are still staying peaceful.”

Joye Braun, Indigenous Environmental Network organizer states, “We have never ceded this land. If DAPL can go through and claim eminent domain on landowners and Native peoples on their own land, then we as sovereign nations can then declare eminent domain on our own aboriginal homeland. We are here to protect the burial sites here. Highway 1806 has become the no surrender line.”
That's only slightly less nonsensical than the claims of my sovereign citizen clients.
We live in the fucked age. Get used to it. - dhex

holy shit there will never be an end until the sweet release of death (as dictated by the death panels, natch) - lunch

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8800
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by nicole » 06 Dec 2016, 09:28

Andrew wrote:So, reading through the news stories linked on the wiki page, here's the one that's the "source" for the eminent domain claim:
Mekasi Camp-Horinek, an Oceti Sakowin camp coordinator states, “Today, the Oceti Sakowin has enacted eminent domain on DAPL lands, claiming 1851 treaty rights. This is unceded land. Highway 1806 as of this point is blockaded. We will be occupying this land and staying here until this pipeline is permanently stopped. We need bodies and we need people who are trained in non-violent direct action. We are still staying non-violent and we are still staying peaceful.”

Joye Braun, Indigenous Environmental Network organizer states, “We have never ceded this land. If DAPL can go through and claim eminent domain on landowners and Native peoples on their own land, then we as sovereign nations can then declare eminent domain on our own aboriginal homeland. We are here to protect the burial sites here. Highway 1806 has become the no surrender line.”
That's only slightly less nonsensical than the claims of my sovereign citizen clients.
The eminent domain part doesn't make sense, but what they're actually saying is they never ceded the land, i.e., it's been theirs since 1851. Right?
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6832
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by fyodor » 06 Dec 2016, 10:50

nicole wrote:
Andrew wrote:So, reading through the news stories linked on the wiki page, here's the one that's the "source" for the eminent domain claim:
Mekasi Camp-Horinek, an Oceti Sakowin camp coordinator states, “Today, the Oceti Sakowin has enacted eminent domain on DAPL lands, claiming 1851 treaty rights. This is unceded land. Highway 1806 as of this point is blockaded. We will be occupying this land and staying here until this pipeline is permanently stopped. We need bodies and we need people who are trained in non-violent direct action. We are still staying non-violent and we are still staying peaceful.”

Joye Braun, Indigenous Environmental Network organizer states, “We have never ceded this land. If DAPL can go through and claim eminent domain on landowners and Native peoples on their own land, then we as sovereign nations can then declare eminent domain on our own aboriginal homeland. We are here to protect the burial sites here. Highway 1806 has become the no surrender line.”
That's only slightly less nonsensical than the claims of my sovereign citizen clients.
The eminent domain part doesn't make sense, but what they're actually saying is they never ceded the land, i.e., it's been theirs since 1851. Right?
The guy with the offensive wardrobe agrees that tribal members were displaced at some point in the past from land ceded to them by treaty for some white man economic issue, I forget what, but he also claims that no one really knows anymore where that land was, it could be the land in question and it could just as easily not be. He also claims that archeologists have looked for but found no evidence of burial grounds on the land in question. FWIW.

ETA: I watched about half of that clip. I finally lost patience with dude when he started invoking that new annoying meme going around of blaming "white people", which I find dumb and full of weird, insidious signaling. Also not sure if a majority of white people at the protest and a few natives sick of them means this was all about outsiders and zero about genuine tribal concerns (whether or not misplaced). Otherwise he made some interesting points, albeit hollow without fact checking, and who's got time for that....
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17854
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 06 Dec 2016, 11:22

Yeah, when they were looking up eminent domain I guess they didn't run across escheat or adverse possession, as well.

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 13319
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Kolohe » 06 Dec 2016, 11:35

D.A. Ridgely wrote:Yeah, when they were looking up eminent domain I guess they didn't run across escheat or adverse possession, as well.
The Native Americans were cheated pretty much A-Z, so I think it's certain they were escheated at some time.
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17854
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 06 Dec 2016, 11:51

Meh. Just about every nation on Earth gained whatever territory it did as a result of title by conquest. Not saying Europeans didn't fuck over Native Americans; of course they did. But they weren't even slightly unusual in that regard. At some point, the Angles and Saxons had to just get over it and stop bitching about 1066.

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 9539
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 06 Dec 2016, 11:55

D.A. Ridgely wrote:Meh. Just about every nation on Earth gained whatever territory it did as a result of title by conquest. Not saying Europeans didn't fuck over Native Americans; of course they did. But they weren't even slightly unusual in that regard. At some point, the Angles and Saxons had to just get over it and stop bitching about 1066.
This is a bad comparison. The Anglo-Saxons are the same as the English. The Indians were almost wiped out.

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 6072
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 21:52
Location: Vale of Eternal Fire

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Andrew » 06 Dec 2016, 11:56

nicole wrote:The eminent domain part doesn't make sense, but what they're actually saying is they never ceded the land, i.e., it's been theirs since 1851. Right?
They seem to be claiming the land was given to them in the 1851 treaty, and the 1868 treaty and all subsequent Congressional acts are illegal/immaterial/not binding on them. Interestingly, I've seen a claim that the 1868 treaty specifically requires utility easements, which would be a bit of a hurdle. If the 1851 treaty is valid, then the 1868 treaty would seem to be just as valid. The claims about the subsequent Congressional acts might have some merit, but it would depend heavily on the wording of each act.

I'll do some more digging when I get home and see what links I can provide.
We live in the fucked age. Get used to it. - dhex

holy shit there will never be an end until the sweet release of death (as dictated by the death panels, natch) - lunch

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 9539
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 06 Dec 2016, 11:58

Andrew wrote:
nicole wrote:The eminent domain part doesn't make sense, but what they're actually saying is they never ceded the land, i.e., it's been theirs since 1851. Right?
They seem to be claiming the land was given to them in the 1851 treaty, and the 1868 treaty and all subsequent Congressional acts are illegal/immaterial/not binding on them. Interestingly, I've seen a claim that the 1868 treaty specifically requires utility easements, which would be a bit of a hurdle. If the 1851 treaty is valid, then the 1868 treaty would seem to be just as valid. The claims about the subsequent Congressional acts might have some merit, but it would depend heavily on the wording of each act.

I'll do some more digging when I get home and see what links I can provide.
Is a pipeline a "utility?"

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17854
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 06 Dec 2016, 11:58

Fin Fang Foom wrote:
D.A. Ridgely wrote:Meh. Just about every nation on Earth gained whatever territory it did as a result of title by conquest. Not saying Europeans didn't fuck over Native Americans; of course they did. But they weren't even slightly unusual in that regard. At some point, the Angles and Saxons had to just get over it and stop bitching about 1066.
This is a bad comparison. The Anglo-Saxons are the same as the English. The Indians were almost wiped out.
The Anglo-Saxons that survived are the same as the English, albeit with healthy percentages of Norman blood in them by now.

It's true the Normans didn't slaughter them, but they sure as hell took their land and were indifferent to what happened to the ones they didn't use as serfs.

Doesn't matter, though. Go back far enough and they got there either by being pushed out of somewhere else or swooping in and taking over from someone else.

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 6072
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 21:52
Location: Vale of Eternal Fire

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Andrew » 06 Dec 2016, 12:04

Fin Fang Foom wrote:
Andrew wrote:
nicole wrote:The eminent domain part doesn't make sense, but what they're actually saying is they never ceded the land, i.e., it's been theirs since 1851. Right?
They seem to be claiming the land was given to them in the 1851 treaty, and the 1868 treaty and all subsequent Congressional acts are illegal/immaterial/not binding on them. Interestingly, I've seen a claim that the 1868 treaty specifically requires utility easements, which would be a bit of a hurdle. If the 1851 treaty is valid, then the 1868 treaty would seem to be just as valid. The claims about the subsequent Congressional acts might have some merit, but it would depend heavily on the wording of each act.

I'll do some more digging when I get home and see what links I can provide.
Is a pipeline a "utility?"
I dunno. We're both lawyers, so we could each argue it either way. I don't know the common meaning of utility in 1868. Reading the treaty now, and it precludes the tribes from objecting to "railroads, wagon roads, mail stations, or other works of utility or necessity."
We live in the fucked age. Get used to it. - dhex

holy shit there will never be an end until the sweet release of death (as dictated by the death panels, natch) - lunch

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17854
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 06 Dec 2016, 12:05

Andrew wrote:
Fin Fang Foom wrote:
Andrew wrote:
nicole wrote:The eminent domain part doesn't make sense, but what they're actually saying is they never ceded the land, i.e., it's been theirs since 1851. Right?
They seem to be claiming the land was given to them in the 1851 treaty, and the 1868 treaty and all subsequent Congressional acts are illegal/immaterial/not binding on them. Interestingly, I've seen a claim that the 1868 treaty specifically requires utility easements, which would be a bit of a hurdle. If the 1851 treaty is valid, then the 1868 treaty would seem to be just as valid. The claims about the subsequent Congressional acts might have some merit, but it would depend heavily on the wording of each act.

I'll do some more digging when I get home and see what links I can provide.
Is a pipeline a "utility?"
I dunno. We're both lawyers, so we could each argue it either way. I don't know the common meaning of utility in 1868. Reading the treaty now, and it precludes the tribes from objecting to "railroads, wagon roads, mail stations, or other works of utility or necessity."
So basically the only thing they could have objected to would be, say, an art gallery.

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 9539
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 06 Dec 2016, 12:05

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
Fin Fang Foom wrote:
D.A. Ridgely wrote:Meh. Just about every nation on Earth gained whatever territory it did as a result of title by conquest. Not saying Europeans didn't fuck over Native Americans; of course they did. But they weren't even slightly unusual in that regard. At some point, the Angles and Saxons had to just get over it and stop bitching about 1066.
This is a bad comparison. The Anglo-Saxons are the same as the English. The Indians were almost wiped out.
The Anglo-Saxons that survived are the same as the English, albeit with healthy percentages of Norman blood in them by now.

It's true the Normans didn't slaughter them, but they sure as hell took their land and were indifferent to what happened to the ones they didn't use as serfs.

Doesn't matter, though. Go back far enough and they got there either by being pushed out of somewhere else or swooping in and taking over from someone else.
Mexico is more comparable to what happened in England, i.e.Mexicans are largely Indian.

Near complete annihilation of an indigenous population, through disease or genocide, is historically very rare.

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6832
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by fyodor » 06 Dec 2016, 12:06

It's been my impression that the English still pretty much hate the French.

Seriousness aside (and I took Kolohe's post mostly as a pun), I'll be very curious to hear what Andrew comes up with. Sounds he already knows more about this treaty of 1868 than I'm aware of, sounds like he's saying that somehow negates the claims being made about the treaty of 1851?

ETA: Ah, just read an intervening post....
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17854
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 06 Dec 2016, 12:14

Fin Fang Foom wrote:
D.A. Ridgely wrote:
Fin Fang Foom wrote:
D.A. Ridgely wrote:Meh. Just about every nation on Earth gained whatever territory it did as a result of title by conquest. Not saying Europeans didn't fuck over Native Americans; of course they did. But they weren't even slightly unusual in that regard. At some point, the Angles and Saxons had to just get over it and stop bitching about 1066.
This is a bad comparison. The Anglo-Saxons are the same as the English. The Indians were almost wiped out.
The Anglo-Saxons that survived are the same as the English, albeit with healthy percentages of Norman blood in them by now.

It's true the Normans didn't slaughter them, but they sure as hell took their land and were indifferent to what happened to the ones they didn't use as serfs.

Doesn't matter, though. Go back far enough and they got there either by being pushed out of somewhere else or swooping in and taking over from someone else.
Mexico is more comparable to what happened in England, i.e.Mexicans are largely Indian.

Near complete annihilation of an indigenous population, through disease or genocide, is historically very rare.
Not worth arguing as far as I'm concerned. The key word is "historically." Not only do the winners write the history books, as the saying goes, but the bottom line as far as title to land goes remains the same. Some of that indigenous population did survive, but their rights to whatever gawdforsaken land we moved them to are still only as good as the European immigrant created nation that surrounds them says they are.

That's another rule of history. Treaties exist so long as they remain in the best interests of the parties and/or all the parties are relatively equal in strength. Neither of which is the case here.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dead_elvis and 7 guests