Ciao lovelies! In this Blogger Wednesday post I'll be talking about a tumblr blogger, SailorRoseQuartz , also known as Sam!
SailorRoseQuartz is a tumblr blogger who enjoys blogging about Sailor Moon and Steven Universe! She loves glitter, old movies and fandoms!
I love her tumblr blog! It's very aesthetic.
"Sailor Moon x Steven Universe, the two things I originally blogged about on this blog (and still do!)"
"When I was 12 or 13 my crush had a Tumblr so I made one and I started by posting my jokes to try and impress her, but after realizing it wouldn't work, I just posted whatever I like (now it's more personal/aesthetic)"
"It's fun and it's a great way to find people who have been through similar experiences."
"I learned my experiences aren't so different. That I'm not unlovable for being an abuse survivor. I learned coping mechanisms. I learned that you can be lesbian and have a loving, normal life. Also I learned to lighten up a bit. To laugh at myself sometimes."
"Other people's content I reblog: cutesy fanart and fun jokes. My original content: living as a lesbian and living as a trauma and abuse survivor. I usually go through and delete the more bitter posts, I try to keep my blog a positive and happy space."
"Knowing that there very well may be a trauma survivor, or someone who's just discovering their sexuality or gender who sees my posts and feels like less of a freak. I wanna help people know they're normal and valid and worthy of love."
"My girlfriend. Also Steven Universe."
"It doesn't matter if that other blogger lives in a high rise in New York City and lives luxuriously and has millions of followers and you only have 9. They aren't you. Keep blogging. Post what *you* like, your thoughts and feelings and interests. I guarantee, someone will like what you post. Someone will relate."
"Tumblr. I also like Instagram, but that's not so much blogging."
I hope you all liked learning about SailorRoseQuartz!


text:
Pradhuman Singh Tomar is an Indian politician. He is the member of Bharatiya Janata Party. He is currently Energy minister of Madhya Pradesh in Shivraj Singh Chouhan's 2020 Cabinet. He was a Member of Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Gwalior in Gwalior from December 2018 to March 2020. And he also served as Member of legislative assembly in 2008 from Gwalior. Shri Tomar comes from Scindia Circle and known as Scindia samarthak.

See also
 2020 Madhya Pradesh political crisis

References

Contact Dharmenda Mishra

Living people
Madhya Pradesh MLAs 2008–2013
1954 births
Indian National Congress politicians from Madhya Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh MLAs 2018–2023
People from Gwalior

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
package org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.platform.client.cache;

import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Collection;
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.HashSet;
import java.util.LinkedHashMap;
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.Set;
import org.apache.ignite.binary.BinaryRawReader;
import org.apache.ignite.cache.CacheAtomicityMode;
import org.apache.ignite.cache.CacheKeyConfiguration;
import org.apache.ignite.cache.CacheMode;
import org.apache.ignite.cache.CacheRebalanceMode;
import org.apache.ignite.cache.CacheWriteSynchronizationMode;
import org.apache.ignite.cache.PartitionLossPolicy;
import org.apache.ignite.cache.QueryEntity;
import org.apache.ignite.cache.QueryIndex;
import org.apache.ignite.configuration.CacheConfiguration;
import org.apache.ignite.internal.binary.BinaryRawWriterEx;
import org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.platform.client.ClientProtocolContext;
import org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.platform.client.ClientProtocolVersionFeature;
import org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.platform.utils.PlatformConfigurationUtils;

import static org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.platform.client.ClientProtocolVersionFeature.QUERY_ENTITY_PRECISION_AND_SCALE;

/**
 * Cache configuration serializer.
 */
public class ClientCacheConfigurationSerializer {
    /** Name. */
    private static final short NAME = 0;

    /** Common properties. */
    private static final short CACHE_MODE = 1;

    /** */
    private static final short ATOMICITY_MODE = 2;

    /** */
    private static final short BACKUPS = 3;

    /** */
    private static final short WRITE_SYNCHRONIZATION_MODE = 4;

    /** */
    private static final short COPY_ON_READ = 5;

    /** */
    private static final short READ_FROM_BACKUP = 6;

    /** Memory settings. */
    private static final short DATA_REGION_NAME = 100;

    /** */
    private static final short ONHEAP_CACHE_ENABLED = 101;

    /** SQL. */
    private static final short QUERY_ENTITIES = 200;

    /** */
    private static final short QUERY_PARALLELISM = 201;

    /** */
    private static final short QUERY_DETAIL_METRICS_SIZE = 202;

    /** */
    private static final short SQL_SCHEMA = 203;

    /** */
    private static final short SQL_INDEX_MAX_INLINE_SIZE = 204;

    /** */
    private static final short SQL_ESCAPE_ALL = 205;

    /** */
    private static final short MAX_QUERY_ITERATORS_COUNT = 206;

    /** Rebalance. */
    private static final short REBALANCE_MODE = 300;

    /** */
    private static final short REBALANCE_DELAY = 301;

    /** */
    private static final short REBALANCE_TIMEOUT = 302;

    /** */
    private static final short REBALANCE_BATCH_SIZE = 303;

    /** */
    private static final short REBALANCE_BATCHES_PREFETCH_COUNT = 304;

    /** */
    private static final short REBALANCE_ORDER = 305;

    /** */
    private static final short REBALANCE_THROTTLE = 306;

    /** Advanced. */
    private static final short GROUP_NAME = 400;

    /** */
    private static final short KEY_CONFIGURATION = 401;

    /** */
    private static final short DEFAULT_LOCK_TIMEOUT = 402;

    /** */
    private static final short MAX_CONCURRENT_ASYNC_OPERATIONS = 403;

    /** */
    private static final short PARTITION_LOSS_POLICY = 404;

    /** */
    private static final short EAGER_TTL = 405;

    /** */
    private static final short STATISTICS_ENABLED = 406;

    /** */
    private static final short EXPIRY_POLICY = 407;

    /**
     * Writes the cache configuration.
     * @param writer Writer.
     * @param cfg Configuration.
     * @param protocolCtx Client protocol context.
     */
    static void write(BinaryRawWriterEx writer, CacheConfiguration cfg, ClientProtocolContext protocolCtx) {
        assert writer != null;
        assert cfg != null;

        // Reserve for length.
        int pos = writer.reserveInt();

        PlatformConfigurationUtils.writeEnumInt(writer, cfg.getAtomicityMode(),
                CacheConfiguration.DFLT_CACHE_ATOMICITY_MODE);

        writer.writeInt(cfg.getBackups());
        PlatformConfigurationUtils.writeEnumInt(writer, cfg.getCacheMode(), CacheConfiguration.DFLT_CACHE_MODE);
        writer.writeBoolean(cfg.isCopyOnRead());
        writer.writeString(cfg.getDataRegionName());
        writer.writeBoolean(cfg.isEagerTtl());
        writer.writeBoolean(cfg.isStatisticsEnabled());
        writer.writeString(cfg.getGroupName());
        writer.writeLong(cfg.getDefaultLockTimeout());
        writer.writeInt(cfg.getMaxConcurrentAsyncOperations());
        writer.writeInt(cfg.getMaxQueryIteratorsCount());
        writer.writeString(cfg.getName());
        writer.writeBoolean(cfg.isOnheapCacheEnabled());
        writer.writeInt(cfg.getPartitionLossPolicy().ordinal());
        writer.writeInt(cfg.getQueryDetailMetricsSize());
        writer.writeInt(cfg.getQueryParallelism());
        writer.writeBoolean(cfg.isReadFromBackup());
        writer.writeInt(cfg.getRebalanceBatchSize());
        writer.writeLong(cfg.getRebalanceBatchesPrefetchCount());
        writer.writeLong(cfg.getRebalanceDelay());
        PlatformConfigurationUtils.writeEnumInt(writer, cfg.getRebalanceMode(), CacheConfiguration.DFLT_REBALANCE_MODE);
        writer.writeInt(cfg.getRebalanceOrder());
        writer.writeLong(cfg.getRebalanceThrottle());
        writer.writeLong(cfg.getRebalanceTimeout());
        writer.writeBoolean(cfg.isSqlEscapeAll());
        writer.writeInt(cfg.getSqlIndexMaxInlineSize());
        writer.writeString(cfg.getSqlSchema());
        PlatformConfigurationUtils.writeEnumInt(writer, cfg.getWriteSynchronizationMode());

        CacheKeyConfiguration[] keys = cfg.getKeyConfiguration();

        if (keys != null) {
            writer.writeInt(keys.length);

            for (CacheKeyConfiguration key : keys) {
                writer.writeString(key.getTypeName());
                writer.writeString(key.getAffinityKeyFieldName());
            }
        } else {
            writer.writeInt(0);
        }

        //noinspection unchecked
        Collection<QueryEntity> qryEntities = cfg.getQueryEntities();

        if (qryEntities != null) {
            writer.writeInt(qryEntities.size());

            for (QueryEntity e : qryEntities)
                writeQueryEntity(writer, e, protocolCtx);
        } else
            writer.writeInt(0);

        if (protocolCtx.isFeatureSupported(ClientProtocolVersionFeature.EXPIRY_POLICY))
            PlatformConfigurationUtils.writeExpiryPolicyFactory(writer, cfg.getExpiryPolicyFactory());

        // Write length (so that part of the config can be skipped).
        writer.writeInt(pos, writer.out().position() - pos - 4);
    }

    /**
     * Write query entity. Version for thin client.
     *
     * @param writer Writer.
     * @param qryEntity Query entity.
     * @param protocolCtx Protocol context.
     */
    private static void writeQueryEntity(BinaryRawWriterEx writer, QueryEntity qryEntity, ClientProtocolContext protocolCtx) {
        assert qryEntity != null;

        writer.writeString(qryEntity.getKeyType());
        writer.writeString(qryEntity.getValueType());
        writer.writeString(qryEntity.getTableName());
        writer.writeString(qryEntity.getKeyFieldName());
        writer.writeString(qryEntity.getValueFieldName());

        // Fields
        LinkedHashMap<String, String> fields = qryEntity.getFields();

        if (fields != null) {
            Set<String> keyFields = qryEntity.getKeyFields();
            Set<String> notNullFields = qryEntity.getNotNullFields();
            Map<String, Object> defVals = qryEntity.getDefaultFieldValues();
            Map<String, Integer> fieldsPrecision = qryEntity.getFieldsPrecision();
            Map<String, Integer> fieldsScale = qryEntity.getFieldsScale();

            writer.writeInt(fields.size());

            for (Map.Entry<String, String> field : fields.entrySet()) {
                writer.writeString(field.getKey());
                writer.writeString(field.getValue());
                writer.writeBoolean(keyFields != null && keyFields.contains(field.getKey()));
                writer.writeBoolean(notNullFields != null && notNullFields.contains(field.getKey()));
                writer.writeObject(defVals != null ? defVals.get(field.getKey()) : null);

                if (protocolCtx.isFeatureSupported(QUERY_ENTITY_PRECISION_AND_SCALE)) {
                    writer.writeInt(fieldsPrecision == null ? -1 : fieldsPrecision.getOrDefault(field.getKey(), -1));
                    writer.writeInt(fieldsScale == null ? -1 : fieldsScale.getOrDefault(field.getKey(), -1));
                }
            }
        }
        else
            writer.writeInt(0);

        // Aliases
        Map<String, String> aliases = qryEntity.getAliases();

        if (aliases != null) {
            writer.writeInt(aliases.size());

            for (Map.Entry<String, String> alias : aliases.entrySet()) {
                writer.writeString(alias.getKey());
                writer.writeString(alias.getValue());
            }
        }
        else
            writer.writeInt(0);

        // Indexes
        Collection<QueryIndex> indexes = qryEntity.getIndexes();

        if (indexes != null) {
            writer.writeInt(indexes.size());

            for (QueryIndex index : indexes)
                PlatformConfigurationUtils.writeQueryIndex(writer, index);
        }
        else
            writer.writeInt(0);
    }

    /**
     * Reads the cache configuration.
     *
     * @param reader Reader.
     * @param protocolCtx Client protocol context.
     * @return Configuration.
     */
    static CacheConfiguration read(BinaryRawReader reader, ClientProtocolContext protocolCtx) {
        reader.readInt();  // Skip length.

        short propCnt = reader.readShort();

        CacheConfiguration cfg = new CacheConfiguration();

        for (int i = 0; i < propCnt; i++) {
            short code = reader.readShort();

            switch (code) {
                case ATOMICITY_MODE:
                    cfg.setAtomicityMode(CacheAtomicityMode.fromOrdinal(reader.readInt()));
                    break;

                case BACKUPS:
                    cfg.setBackups(reader.readInt());
                    break;

                case CACHE_MODE:
                    cfg.setCacheMode(CacheMode.fromOrdinal(reader.readInt()));
                    break;

                case COPY_ON_READ:
                    cfg.setCopyOnRead(reader.readBoolean());
                    break;

                case DATA_REGION_NAME:
                    cfg.setDataRegionName(reader.readString());
                    break;

                case EAGER_TTL:
                    cfg.setEagerTtl(reader.readBoolean());
                    break;

                case EXPIRY_POLICY:
                    cfg.setExpiryPolicyFactory(PlatformConfigurationUtils.readExpiryPolicyFactory(reader));
                    break;

                case STATISTICS_ENABLED:
                    cfg.setStatisticsEnabled(reader.readBoolean());
                    break;

                case GROUP_NAME:
                    cfg.setGroupName(reader.readString());
                    break;

                case DEFAULT_LOCK_TIMEOUT:
                    cfg.setDefaultLockTimeout(reader.readLong());
                    break;

                case MAX_CONCURRENT_ASYNC_OPERATIONS:
                    cfg.setMaxConcurrentAsyncOperations(reader.readInt());
                    break;

                case MAX_QUERY_ITERATORS_COUNT:
                    cfg.setMaxQueryIteratorsCount(reader.readInt());
                    break;

                case NAME:
                    cfg.setName(reader.readString());
                    break;

                case ONHEAP_CACHE_ENABLED:
                    cfg.setOnheapCacheEnabled(reader.readBoolean());
                    break;

                case PARTITION_LOSS_POLICY:
                    cfg.setPartitionLossPolicy(PartitionLossPolicy.fromOrdinal((byte) reader.readInt()));
                    break;

                case QUERY_DETAIL_METRICS_SIZE:
                    cfg.setQueryDetailMetricsSize(reader.readInt());
                    break;

                case QUERY_PARALLELISM:
                    cfg.setQueryParallelism(reader.readInt());
                    break;

                case READ_FROM_BACKUP:
                    cfg.setReadFromBackup(reader.readBoolean());
                    break;

                case REBALANCE_BATCH_SIZE:
                    cfg.setRebalanceBatchSize(reader.readInt());
                    break;

                case REBALANCE_BATCHES_PREFETCH_COUNT:
                    cfg.setRebalanceBatchesPrefetchCount(reader.readLong());
                    break;

                case REBALANCE_DELAY:
                    cfg.setRebalanceDelay(reader.readLong());
                    break;

                case REBALANCE_MODE:
                    cfg.setRebalanceMode(CacheRebalanceMode.fromOrdinal(reader.readInt()));
                    break;

                case REBALANCE_ORDER:
                    cfg.setRebalanceOrder(reader.readInt());
                    break;

                case REBALANCE_THROTTLE:
                    cfg.setRebalanceThrottle(reader.readLong());
                    break;

                case REBALANCE_TIMEOUT:
                    cfg.setRebalanceTimeout(reader.readLong());
                    break;

                case SQL_ESCAPE_ALL:
                    cfg.setSqlEscapeAll(reader.readBoolean());
                    break;

                case SQL_INDEX_MAX_INLINE_SIZE:
                    cfg.setSqlIndexMaxInlineSize(reader.readInt());
                    break;

                case SQL_SCHEMA:
                    cfg.setSqlSchema(reader.readString());
                    break;

                case WRITE_SYNCHRONIZATION_MODE:
                    cfg.setWriteSynchronizationMode(CacheWriteSynchronizationMode.fromOrdinal(reader.readInt()));
                    break;

                case KEY_CONFIGURATION:
                    int keyCnt = reader.readInt();

                    if (keyCnt > 0) {
                        CacheKeyConfiguration[] keys = new CacheKeyConfiguration[keyCnt];

                        for (int j = 0; j < keyCnt; j++) {
                            keys[j] = new CacheKeyConfiguration(reader.readString(), reader.readString());
                        }

                        cfg.setKeyConfiguration(keys);
                    }
                    break;

                case QUERY_ENTITIES:
                    int qryEntCnt = reader.readInt();

                    if (qryEntCnt > 0) {
                        Collection<QueryEntity> entities = new ArrayList<>(qryEntCnt);

                        for (int j = 0; j < qryEntCnt; j++)
                            entities.add(readQueryEntity(reader, protocolCtx));

                        cfg.setQueryEntities(entities);
                    }
                    break;
            }
        }

        return cfg;
    }

    /**
     * Reads the query entity. Version of function to be used from thin client.
     *
     * @param in Stream.
     * @param protocolCtx Client protocol version.
     * @return QueryEntity.
     */
    public static QueryEntity readQueryEntity(BinaryRawReader in, ClientProtocolContext protocolCtx) {
        QueryEntity res = new QueryEntity();

        res.setKeyType(in.readString());
        res.setValueType(in.readString());
        res.setTableName(in.readString());
        res.setKeyFieldName(in.readString());
        res.setValueFieldName(in.readString());

        // Fields
        int cnt = in.readInt();
        Set<String> keyFields = new HashSet<>(cnt);
        Set<String> notNullFields = new HashSet<>(cnt);
        Map<String, Object> defVals = new HashMap<>(cnt);
        Map<String, Integer> fieldsPrecision = new HashMap<>(cnt);
        Map<String, Integer> fieldsScale = new HashMap<>(cnt);

        if (cnt > 0) {
            LinkedHashMap<String, String> fields = new LinkedHashMap<>(cnt);

            for (int i = 0; i < cnt; i++) {
                String fieldName = in.readString();
                String fieldType = in.readString();

                fields.put(fieldName, fieldType);

                if (in.readBoolean())
                    keyFields.add(fieldName);

                if (in.readBoolean())
                    notNullFields.add(fieldName);

                Object defVal = in.readObject();
                if (defVal != null)
                    defVals.put(fieldName, defVal);

                if (protocolCtx.isFeatureSupported(QUERY_ENTITY_PRECISION_AND_SCALE)) {
                    int precision = in.readInt();

                    if (precision != -1)
                        fieldsPrecision.put(fieldName, precision);

                    int scale = in.readInt();

                    if (scale != -1)
                        fieldsScale.put(fieldName, scale);
                }
            }

            res.setFields(fields);

            if (!keyFields.isEmpty())
                res.setKeyFields(keyFields);

            if (!notNullFields.isEmpty())
                res.setNotNullFields(notNullFields);

            if (!defVals.isEmpty())
                res.setDefaultFieldValues(defVals);

            if (!fieldsPrecision.isEmpty())
                res.setFieldsPrecision(fieldsPrecision);

            if (!fieldsScale.isEmpty())
                res.setFieldsScale(fieldsScale);
        }

        // Aliases
        cnt = in.readInt();

        if (cnt > 0) {
            Map<String, String> aliases = new HashMap<>(cnt);

            for (int i = 0; i < cnt; i++)
                aliases.put(in.readString(), in.readString());

            res.setAliases(aliases);
        }

        // Indexes
        cnt = in.readInt();

        if (cnt > 0) {
            Collection<QueryIndex> indexes = new ArrayList<>(cnt);

            for (int i = 0; i < cnt; i++)
                indexes.add(PlatformConfigurationUtils.readQueryIndex(in));

            res.setIndexes(indexes);
        }

        return res;
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
HMS Hecla (i) (F 20)
Destroyer Depot Ship of the Hecla class
Photo from Imperial War Museum (IWM), FL-22892
Type Destroyer Depot Ship
Class Hecla
Pennant F 20
Built by John Brown Shipbuilding & Engineering Company Ltd. (Clydebank, Scotland)
Laid down 23 Jan 1939
Launched 14 Mar 1940
Commissioned 6 Jan 1941
Lost 12 Nov 1942
Loss position 35° 43'N, 9° 54'W
In 1941 HMS Hecla was based at Hvalfjord, Iceland, she tended the captured German U-boat U-570 until the boat was towed to UK and renamed HMS Graph. On 16 April 1942 the German minelayer Doggerbank laid 80 EMC mines in 5 sections off Cape Agulhas. On May 15th whilst on passage eastward to join the Far Eastern Fleet she struck a mine in one of these sectors, Hecla was seriously damaged, but managed to reach Simonstown towed by the cruiser HMS Gambia, and the South African Naval Forces two minesweepers Southern Barrier and Terje who swept ahead of the escort. On immediate arrival she was placed in the Selborne dry dock. June was spent in the Selborne dry dock affecting repairs to the underwater damage. The explosion had occurred under her huge workshops and storerooms. Dozens of torpedoes and mines were scattered and destroyed, but fortunately none exploded. A total of 24 men lost their lives, and 112 were wounded. The dead were buried in False Bay Simonstown. July was spent conducting trials in False Bay. August - September, was again spent in the dry dock, later during September she was declared operational. On November 12th, during the Allied landings in North Africa, HMS Hecla (A/Capt. George Vivian Barnett Faulkner, RN) was torpedoed just after midnight by U-515 and sunk west of Gibraltar in position 35º43'N, 09º54'W. The escorting destroyer HMS Marne was also torpedoed whilst attempting to rescue the survivors, and the destroyer had to be towed to Gibraltar. The destroyer HMS Venomous succeeded in rescuing more survivors from Hecla and landed them at Casablanca. In all 279 off her crew went down with the ship and 568 men were rescued.
Hit by U-boat
Sunk on 12 Nov 1942 by U-515 (Henke).
U-boat Attack See our U-boat attack entry for the HMS Hecla (i)
Commands listed for HMS Hecla (i) (F 20)
1 Capt. Cyril George Bucknill Coltart, RN 30 Sep 1940 early 1942
2 Cdr. Percy James Oliver, RN early 1942 2 Apr 1942
3 A/Cdr. John Rochfort D'Oyly, RN 2 Apr 1942 6 Apr 1942
4 Capt. Edward Francis Bold Law, RN 6 Apr 1942 21 Aug 1942
5 A/Cdr. John Rochfort D'Oyly, RN 21 Aug 1942 2 Nov 1942
6 A/Capt. George Vivian Barnett Faulkner, RN 2 Nov 1942 12 Nov 1942
Notable events involving Hecla (i) include:
HMS Hecla (Capt. E.F.B. Law, RN) was mined off Cape town, South Africa. She was towed to Simonstown for 18 weeks of repairs.
At 00.15 hours on 12 November 1942 German U-boat U-515 fired a spread of four torpedoes at the British destroyer tender HMS Hecla which was misidentified as a Birmingham class light cruiser and hit her in the engine room. Two torpedoes were surface-runners and the last also malfunctioned and was a circle-runner. The U-boat then hit the ship with three coups de gr?ce at 01.28, 01.49 and 02.06 hours, sinking the vessel. At 02.11 hours, U-515 fired two torpedoes and badly damaged the escorting HMS Marne (Lt.Cdr. H.N.A. Richardson, DSO, DSC, RN)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Entries are open for the 3rd annual Fruit N Veg 4 Kids Drawing Competition!
Sponsored by The Embassy of The Netherlands in the UK on behalf of the Dutch Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Sector, The Fruit N Veg 4 Kids Drawing Competition will invite one school and two runners up to be VIP guests at The London Produce Show and Conference on Thursday June 6, 2019 at Grosvenor House on London's Park Lane.
The lucky winners will have the chance to walk around the exhibition at the show, meet leading international companies from the fresh fruits and vegetable sector and be presented with a fantastic prize, kindly sponsored by Rijk Zwaan.
Teachers need to ask pupils to draw a fantastic fruit or vegetable character, that captures our imaginations.
These should then be scanned or photographed and sent alongside the completed form below, including the age of each pupil.
Winning schools will be required to send their entries in by post to be displayed at The London Produce Show and Conference.
The deadline for entering this year's competition is midnight GMT on Wednesday May 3, 2019.


Topic: Good brainwave entrainment on YouTube?
Re: Good brainwave entrainment on YouTube?
This portal is going and growing very much with different niches.
Re: Just sharing some of the most vivid dreams i had.
This dream was really horrible and i am sure you will have great experience and learn few extra things.
This is the best place to share your experience about lucid dreams.
Topic: Creature standing next to my bed... What the heck??!!
Re: Creature standing next to my bed... What the heck??!!
Topic: is this a dreamsign?
Re: is this a dreamsign?


text:
Борис Ерофеев:

 Ерофеев, Борис Никонович (1907—1990) — советский геолог, доктор геолого-минералогических наук.


>exclusions, in which case it should be named differently.
>risk, somewhere) against a DoS attack.
execution path that was taken to lead to that particular line of code.
some degree of understanding of the nature of the vulnerability.
I agree that the statement is a little sweeping.  How about this one?
concretely described than other categories of vulnerabilities."
>the user.  What I mean is that what we sometimes call "software flaws"
>boundary between configuration problems and "software flaws".
>any better way of doing it at the moment.
The desire is to be as consistent and practical as possible.
>"rationale", but part of the description.
address all the intricacies of the problem.


KUALA LUMPUR: PKR whip Azmin Ali (PKR – Gombak) submitted a letter to Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia at 4pm Wednesday that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is chosen to be the new Opposition Leader.
The letter was signed by Azmin as PKR whip, Dr Tan Seng Giaw as DAP whip and Datuk Seri Hadi Awang, president of PAS.
This entry was posted in Pakatan Rakyat, Politics and tagged Anwar Ibrahim, Azmin Ali, Opposition leader, Pakatan Rakyat, Pandikar Amin Mulia. Bookmark the permalink.


Our November meeting is this Tuesday, 7PM at the United Way building, 380 9th Street E., in Owen Sound. Click for Google Map.
The theme for the night will be media players: mplayer, xine, vlc, etc. Also video editing, DVD creation, etc. Talk about your favourite video or multi-media project. And of course you can bring in any project, gadget or problem you've been working on.


Featured: Will Google And ASUS Launch A $99 Nexus 7?
The end of the year is getting closer and closer and with that comes new phone and tablet announcement, as well as the typical rumor. One rumor that's caught our eye here at Android Headlines is that Google and ASUS will be coming out with a lower-end Nexus 7 priced at the oh so awesome price point of $99. Yes, under 100 bones. The reasoning for this is quite simple.
Amazon recently announced their new line of Kindle Fire HD tablets and with that we saw the previous generation Kindle Fire drop down to $159. Even though the Nexus 7 is a far more superior tablet in many ways, there's likely plenty of consumers who will see the Kindle Fire as more than enough and opt with that instead. To shake things up a bit, Google and ASUS could come in with a similarly powered tablet, but with the stock Android 4.1 Jelly Bean experience and not Amazon's forked version of Android.
At $99, the tablet would easily fly off the shelves and allow both companies to end the year on an especially high note. With how great that sounds though, ASUS has already denied the claims that such a tablet exists or will come out. Whether we believe ASUS or Digitimes who broke the rumor is anyone's guess. It is interesting though how quickly they denounced the rumor.
Also, one has to take into consideration if a Nexus 7 tablet at $99 would even be worth it. At such a low price, it would be quite difficult to pack a decent dual-core processor, 1GB RAM, good display, and so on. However, who knows and maybe Google and ASUS actually have something up their sleeve. Just maybe.


text:
Q: Abstract class method with different return type in derived class I have this abstract class:
 abstract class Animal {

    public abstract List<??????> getAnimals();

 }

I want to change the return type to make this:
     Animal animal;

     if(/*Somthing*/){
          animal = new Cat();
          catList = animal.getAnimals();
     }else{
          animal = new Dog();
          dogList = animal.getAnimals();
     }

I want to return CatModelList and a DogModelList.
Is this possible if dog and cat would have Animals as base? And if not what I think is the answer, what would be the correct way of doing this?

A: Then you need generics to supply the type:
abstract class Animal<T> : Animal where T : Animal
{
    public abstract List<T> GetAnimals();
}

abstract class Animal
// base type to make things easier. Put in all the non-generic properties.
{ }

Where T could be Dog, Cat or any other type deriving from Animal:
class Dog : Animal<Dog>
{ }

Then you can use it using the derived class:
Dog d = new Dog();
animal = d;
dogList = d.GetAnimals();

It seems weird though. In an instance of Animal you get the animals? I don't get that logic.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Imagine a City
Unignorable Issues
Changemakers to Watch
Tag Archives: agency
A community response to COVID-19
Posted on March 27, 2020 by United Way Greater Toronto
United Way Greater Toronto President and CEO Daniele Zanotti shares his thoughts on why now, more than ever, it's important we come together as a community to support our most vulnerable friends and neighbours.
These are challenging and uncertain times. But the research is clear and consistent. Community matters. Especially in times of crisis, the stronger the sense of connection—local people working together—the more resilient the community.
And we are resilient. We are a community that cares about each other. We at United Way see it every year. Call it an uprising of care. People like you showing local love. Donating, volunteering, all so the place where you live and work is great—for all.
COVID-19 is putting our community's most vulnerable people in an extremely challenging situation. Those who already face significant barriers, including poverty, homelessness and social isolation, need even more of our help during this time. This crisis may last weeks or months. And we need our social infrastructure—that invisible network of agencies people visit, call and rely on every day in your neighbourhood—to be in place now and in the future.
As the largest investor in social services next to government, we're working closely with United Way's front-line agencies to identify the gaps, needs, trends and opportunities that may be emerging locally.
We're helping them navigate change, and offering them flexible funding so they can do what they do best: meet urgent needs for people. These front-line United Way community agencies are working in new ways to ensure that those who are most vulnerable in our communities have access to the critical supports they need, close to home.
Across the GTA, we're working with the City of Toronto, Peel Region and York Region to continue connecting our network of more than 270 agencies to deliver emergency response plans. These targeted steps will continue the important work United Way and our network of front-line community service agencies deliver every day to support people experiencing poverty in the GTA.
And beyond the GTA, across the province, local United Ways are working hard to support local needs. Helping that mom and dad, both working part time gigs, keep food on the table. Reaching out to that youth struggling with mental illness. Making sure the personal support worker can visit your frail 92-year-old neighbour. The need for support, close to home, has never been so vital. The need for community so clear.
And people have been reaching out, asking what they can do.
First take care of yourself and your family. Take a moment to connect with your community. Call your elderly neighbour, video-chat with a friend who lives alone, email someone who may be isolated.
Reach out to your local United Way to find out how our network of services and programs are helping people in your community. Ask if and how you can volunteer.
If you need help yourself, call 211: a phone line that can connect you to the right information and local community services.
Because in times like these, people matter.  All people. And community matters. The caring ties that connect and bind us.  All of us. In a united way.
This article originally appeared on Toronto.com.
SUPPORT UNITED WAY'S LOCAL LOVE FUND
Your gift to United Way Greater Toronto's Local Love Fund will help friends and neighbours access life's essentials during this challenging time. Donate now.
Posted in COVID-19 Community Response	| Tagged agency, community, community partners, community resources, community services, COVID-19, Daniele Zanotti, Peel Region, toronto, United Way Greater Toronto, York Region
Posted on September 11, 2017 by United Way Greater Toronto
Candace was seven when she met Marion. Her mom, a single parent, worked full-time and figured Candace and her two younger sisters could benefit from having another role model around. But Marion, who was a volunteer with Big Brothers Big Sisters, would eventually become more than a mentor; she'd become a lifelong friend.
"I don't remember having too many hesitations about having a Big Sister," Candace wrote in a blog post on the Big Brothers Big Sisters website. "Marion welcomed me into her life with open arms. There was almost an immediate level of comfort with us."
There's no question that kids benefit from mentorship. Young people need role models and someone they can count on, and mentors can provide friendship, a listening ear and kindness. But because the stakes feel so high, potential mentors are often unsure if they have what it takes.
It is a big commitment, says Allison Haskins, volunteer coordinator at Big Brothers Big Sisters of York, a United Way–supported agency. But potential mentors receive plenty of support. Haskins is there for every step of the application process, answering questions and making sure each candidate is suitable.
"Mentorship is all about being a positive role model and friend. Modelling good character traits and following through on the commitment are key," she explains. "There's no expectation to be or do anything other than that."
At Big Brothers Big Sisters, mentors go through a comprehensive screening process that includes an interview, reference check, police vulnerable sector screening and interview before they're matched with children. Mentors can request a particular age group (Big Brothers Big Sisters serves kids aged six to 18) and can choose a volunteer program that best suits their schedule. In one-on-one community-based programs, mentors spend three to four hours every week or every other week with their mentee, doing things like going to the park, playing video games or hanging out at the library. There are also one-on-one school programs, in which mentors can spend one lunch hour a week playing sports, crafting or reading. And finally, volunteers can sign up for group programming. Big Brothers Big Sisters plans the activities for these group sessions, which require an hour or two a week. Volunteers are expected to commit to at least one year, but many continue volunteering beyond that—and often, volunteers in the one-on-one programs remain friends with their mentees for life.
The growth seen in children with mentors is tremendous and can have lifelong benefits for them. Their behaviour improves in school and at home, they build positive character traits of their own, and they share their growth with family, friends and classmates. Their school work improves, and they tend to stay in school longer. Mentees also set goals and make better life choices. "There is an awesome ripple effect in the community," says Haskins. "Children thrive with positive mentors!"
But the value to the mentor can be just as profound.
"There's huge and incredible opportunity for growth as a human being when you act as a mentor," she says. "Volunteers have a fantastic opportunity to gain experience and build character, sound judgment and personal discipline. Mentoring brings about personal fulfillment, and a great sense of pride and accomplishment. It is a great boost to one's self-confidence."
The decision to become a mentor shouldn't be taken lightly, but the benefits to both mentor and mentee are worth it. Just ask Candace—after experiencing the ways in which having a Big Sister changed her life, she recently became a Big Sister herself. She's excited to make a difference in a child's life and share memories that will last a lifetime.
Learn more about how to become a mentor on the Big Brothers Big Sisters website, where you can connect with a local chapter or talk to a staff member about other volunteer opportunities.
Posted in Issues	| Tagged agency, Big Brothers, Big Brothers Big Sisters, Big Sisters, children, community, Mentee, mentor, Mentorship, toronto, united way, United Way Toronto & York Region, volunteer, York Region, youth
Discovering the "unsung heroes" of our community
Posted on May 25, 2017 by United Way Greater Toronto
Raksha M. Bhayana
We often talk about the importance of a strong social safety net, or a circle of care that surrounds all of us—ensuring everyone has the help they need, when they need it and where they live. It's this web of social supports, things like newcomer language services, mental health programs and employment resources, that help people build better lives. But behind these services and supports are the people who work tirelessly and passionately every day to make a difference in the lives of others. We spoke to Raksha M. Bhayana, a former United Way board member and champion of these frontline agency workers and staff to help us understand why these "unsung heroes" should be recognized and celebrated.
1. You started your own career in social services before moving to the corporate sector to join your family business. Tell us a bit about your experience.
I have a Master's degree in social work, and I was one of those idealistic Boomers who wanted to change the world. I especially wanted to help youth have more opportunities. My last position was at Family Services Toronto. I was responsible for directing all of the agency's programs, which included supports for women experiencing violence, adults and couple counselling, seniors' wellness and support programs, case management for individuals with developmental disabilities. I was also responsible for government relations and designing new programs based on emerging needs. Before Family Services, I was at a children's mental health centre, where I was director of the Child and Family Clinic.
2. What do you think motivates agency and community services staff, who you've said are often the "unsung heroes" of the sector, to do the important work that they do?
The motivation is primarily intrinsic. They care, and are driven by their passion and ideals. The have the skills, the expertise and creativity to help people make changes. They help people improve their quality of life and their sense of well-being. I think there's tremendous satisfaction in watching people change, and being a part of bringing that change about.
3. Working in the social services sector can be incredibly rewarding—but also challenging. Describe some of these challenges?
I think one of the biggest challenges is the increasing demand for support. There are always waiting lists from people seeking help. You can get a call from a woman being assaulted by her partner, a suicidal single parent—I've been through all of these scenarios. Every day is different. One day you might hear from an isolated senior who needs support or from a young person who has just left home and needs help. These can be very emotionally challenging situations to deal with. In many cases, we are also faced with limited resources, so you have to use a lot of ingenuity and creativity to get people the help they need. These are pretty special people to be able to deal with this kind of pressure.
4. The Bhayana Family Foundation Awards shines a light on the vital contributions of United Way agency staff who help fuel change across our communities. Why is this recognition so important?
The frontline staff talk about United Way/ Bhayana awards as the "Academy Awards" of the social services sector. When we started these awards more than nine years ago, we wanted to raise the profile of the entire social services sector, including the frontline workers who are such a big part of making change happen. We also wanted to raise awareness amongst the broader public for the incredible, and often challenging, work they do to support people and families in need. This is a sector, that as a whole, contributes economically and socially to society, yet has traditionally received little recognition for the work they do, compared to the private sector. We know this recognition is important because the research suggests there is a positive correlation between employee recognition and enhanced engagement, and performance of staff. When we celebrate these frontline workers and make them feel special and valued, we raise the bar of performance for the entire non-profit sector.
Posted in Issues	| Tagged agency, award, awards, Bhayana, Bhayana Family Foundation Awards, community services staff, Family Services Toronto, foundation, frontline, non-profit, Raksha Bhayana, Raksha M. Bhayana, social safety net, social service worker, social services, social services sector, social supports, social worker, staff, toronto, united way, United Way Toronto & York Region, York Region
#UNIGNORABLE
A neighbourhood lens on food security
5 steps to building a more inclusive workplace
Celebrating the frontline workers supporting community in Peel and York
Recognizing the efforts of frontline community workers during COVID-19
Access to food during COVID-19
Charitable Registration Number: 119278216RR0001
© 2018 United Way Greater Toronto. All Rights Reserved.
Theme: Twenty Eleven | Proudly powered by WordPress


It looks like someone's cycles are in sync!
First (thanks for the alert Cate!) gURL.com posts an historical overview of menstrual products. Then Grist posts about our contemporary options from an environmental perspective.
The two-part series contains irreverent product reviews from staffers. They test both outerwear and innerwear.
I appreciate that they report on the bunching factor. Um, and Anna? You'll be glad to see they assess each product's odor as well.
It's awesome how 300 years later, homemade cloth pads are back in style. Oh, who am I kidding? As if they ever left!


text:
27 F. 3d 1294 - Duncan Energy Company
27 F3d 1294 Duncan Energy Company
DUNCAN ENERGY COMPANY; NBB Oil & Gas Partners (U.S.A.);
Amerada Hess Corporation; Tyrex Oil Company;
Turtle Mountain Gas & Oil, Inc., Appellees,
THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES OF the FORT BERTHOLD RESERVATION;
Three Affiliated Tribes Tribal Business Council; Three
Affiliated Tribes Tax Commission; Wilbur D. Wilkinson
Chairman, Tribal Business Council; Joseph J. Walker, Tax
Commissioner, Marcus Wells, Jr., Director, Tribal Employment
Rights Office, Appellants.
Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 1994.
Decided June 8, 1994.
Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Denied July
19, 1994.*
Charles Allen Hobbs, of Washington, DC, argued, for appellant.
Brian Raymond Bjella, Bismarck, ND, argued, for appellee.
Before BEAM, LOKEN and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
BEAM, Circuit Judge.
Wilbur D. Wilkinson, Joseph J. Walker, and Marcus Wells, Jr., officers of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation ("the Tribe"),1 appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment to various oil companies (hereinafter "Duncan Energy") challenging the Tribe's taxation and employment authority. The district court concluded that the Tribe lacked sovereign power to enforce the challenged tax statutes in the Northeast Quadrant of the Fort Berthold Reservation and enjoined the Tribe from enforcing the statutes against Duncan Energy. Duncan Energy Co. v. The Three Affiliated Tribes, 812 F.Supp. 1008, 1009-10 (D.N.D.1993). We reverse and remand to the district court with directions to either dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of exhaustion of tribal remedies, or to stay any proceedings pending an exhaustion of those remedies.
The Fort Berthold Reservation ("the Reservation") was created on March 3, 1891. 26 Stat. 1032. On June 1, 1910, after negotiations with the Tribe, Congress authorized homesteading in the Northeast Quadrant of the Reservation. 36 Stat. 455. Most of the land in the Northeast Quadrant is now owned in fee by non-Tribe members. Tribe members comprise slightly more than one-third of the overall population in the Northeast Quadrant, and almost half of the Tribe members living on the Reservation live in the Northeast Quadrant. Tribe members comprise slightly more than half of the population of New Town, the principal town in the disputed region. The Tribal Government is located primarily in New Town, as is the Bureau of Indian Affairs Office.
Tribal law imposes a one-percent tax on all interests in real and personal property within the Reservation used for business or profit. Tribal Tax Code, Chapter 7. The tax is assessed on forty-five percent of the fair market value of the property. Tribal Tax Code Sec. 706(3). Tribal law also imposes a gross production tax of one-percent on all oil and gas produced within the Reservation. Tribal Tax Code, Chapter 8. Furthermore, the Tribal Employment Rights Office Ordinance ("TERO") requires all employers within the Reservation to hire qualified Indian workers preferentially. The TERO prevents mineral developers from hiring non-Indian contractors unless no qualified, reasonably-priced Indian contractors are available.
Pursuant to leases from non-Indian landowners, Duncan Energy operates oil and gas wells in the Northeast Quadrant of the Reservation. Under Tribal law, Duncan Energy would therefore be subject to the oil and gas tax, the property tax, and the employment ordinance described above. Duncan Energy filed suit in the district court seeking to enjoin the Tribe from assessing or collecting taxes and from enforcing the TERO against their activities within the Reservation. The Tribe moved to dismiss or to remand the case to the Tribal adjudicative system. The district court concluded that Duncan Energy need not exhaust Tribal remedies before proceeding in federal court and granted Duncan Energy's motion for summary judgment on the merits. The Tribe appeals.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Reservation Boundaries
As its primary ground for affirmance, Duncan Energy contends that the 1910 Act, which opened the Reservation for homesteading, diminished the Reservation. If we were to adopt this contention, it would end our inquiry in this case; the Northeast Quadrant would no longer be part of the Fort Berthold Reservation, and the Tribes would not have jurisdiction to regulate activities there. However, this court has previously ruled that the 1910 Act did not diminish the Reservation. New Town v. United States, 454 F.2d 121 (8th Cir.1972). Duncan Energy suggests that Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463, 104 S.Ct. 1161, 79 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984), an intervening Supreme Court decision, nullifies our prior disposition of this issue. We disagree.
We are convinced that Solem did not articulate a new framework for analyzing questions of reservation diminishment. In rendering its decision, the Solem Court specifically noted that "our precedents in the area have established a fairly clean analytical structure." Id. at 470, 104 S.Ct. at 1166. Solem merely restates and applies this same analytical structure, albeit more concisely. Just this term, the Supreme Court revisited the issue of how to determine whether a Surplus Land Act diminished a reservation or merely offered non-Indians the opportunity to purchase land within established reservation boundaries. Hagen v. Utah, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 958, 127 L.Ed.2d 252 (1994). The Court reiterated the same longstanding legal framework employed in Solem. Our reading of Hagen and Solem only confirms our previous conclusion; the 1910 Act did not diminish the Fort Berthold Reservation.
Duncan Energy also contends that New Town was incorrectly decided, and directs the court's attention to United States ex rel. Cook v. Parkinson, 525 F.2d 120 (8th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 982, 97 S.Ct. 1677, 52 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977) and to Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 521 F.2d 87 (8th Cir.1975), aff'd, 430 U.S. 584, 97 S.Ct. 1361, 51 L.Ed.2d 660 (1977) as support for the proposition that the 1910 Act diminished the Reservation. As a panel of the Eighth Circuit, we have no authority to overrule a previous panel's decision.2 In any event, we do not find those cases instructive. Both cases cited by Duncan Energy involved different Surplus Land Acts and it is settled law that some Surplus Land Acts diminished reservations while other acts did not. Solem, 465 U.S. at 469, 104 S.Ct. at 1165-66; compare Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 430 U.S. 584, 97 S.Ct. 1361, 51 L.Ed.2d 660 (1977) with Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481, 93 S.Ct. 2245, 37 L.Ed.2d 92 (1973). To determine whether a reservation has been diminished, we examine three factors: the statutory language, the historical context, and the population that settled the land. Hagen, --- U.S. at ----, 114 S.Ct. at 965, (citing Solem, 465 U.S. at 470-72, 104 S.Ct. at 1166-67.) Of the three factors, the statutory language is the most probative. Solem, 465 U.S. at 470, 104 S.Ct. at 1166. Throughout the inquiry, ambiguities are to be resolved in favor of the Indians, and diminishment should not be found lightly. Id.; see also South Dakota v. Bourland, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 2309, 2316, 124 L.Ed.2d 606 (1993).
The language of the 1910 Act does not lend itself to the interpretation urged by Duncan. In cases where courts have found diminishment of a reservation, the Surplus Land Act itself contained phrases unambiguously expressing congressional intent to diminish the reservation. See, e.g., Hagen, --- U.S. at ---- - ----, 114 S.Ct. at 966-67 ("restore to the public domain"); Rosebud, 430 U.S. at 591 n. 8, 97 S.Ct. at 1365 n. 8 ("cede, surrender, grant, and convey to the United States all [the Tribe's] claim, right, title, and interest"); DeCoteau v. District County Court for the Tenth Judicial Dist., 420 U.S. 425, 439 n. 22, 95 S.Ct. 1082, 1090-91 n. 22, 43 L.Ed.2d 300 (1975) ("cede, sell, relinquish, and convey to the United States all [the Tribe's] claim, right, title and interest"). No similar language appears in the 1910 Act which merely authorized the Secretary of the Interior to "surve[y] and to sell and dispose of ... all the surplus unallotted and unreserved lands within [a] portion of said reservation...." 36 Stat. at 455.
The 1910 Act further authorized the Secretary to reserve land in the opened territory for schools and religious institutions to be maintained for the benefit of the Tribe. Id. at 456. The Act also maintained the prohibition against the introduction of intoxicants into Indian Country in the opened territory, id. at 458; reserved all timber rights in the opened territory for the Tribe, id.; reserved all coal rights in the opened territory for the Tribe, id. at 455; and specifically stated that the United States would act merely as "trustee for said Indians to dispose of said lands and to expend and pay over the proceeds received from the sale thereof only as received...." Id. at 459. Considering similar statutory language and provisions, the Solem Court concluded that a reservation had not been diminished. Solem, 465 U.S. at 472-73, 104 S.Ct. at 1167.
We find the contrast between the provisions of the 1910 Act and the language employed in the 1891 Fort Berthold Treaty to be particularly illuminating. In the 1891 Treaty, the Tribe agreed to "cede, sell, and relinquish to the United States all their right, title, and interest in" a portion of the Reservation. 26 Stat. 1032. Thereafter, the Treaty referred to the "diminished Reservation" and provided for surveying to mark the new "outboundaries of the diminished Reservation." Id. at 1035. It would be contrary to the principle of resolving ambiguities in favor of the Indians were we to conclude that Congress intended the same meanings for the vastly different language employed in these two documents affecting the Tribe.
The district court acknowledged that it was bound to consider the land in question as part of the Reservation. Duncan Energy Co. v. The Three Affiliated Tribes, 812 F.Supp. 1008, 1010-11 (D.N.D.1993). ("Adopting the position that the 1910 and 1914 acts3 removed this area from the reservation would solve all the issues presented. The ink is hardly dry however on the decision in United States of America v. Neil D. Standish, 3 F.3d 1207 (8th Cir.1993), wherein the 8th Circuit disposed of this argument in short order.") Having done so, the court concluded that population and fee ownership patterns in the Northeast Quadrant resulted in a de facto exclusion of that area from most aspects of Tribal jurisdiction. We find this exclusive reliance on the third Solem factor to create a quasi-diminishment totally inappropriate.4
B. Montana Factors
Reaffirming that the Northeast Quadrant remains a part of the Reservation does not end our inquiry in this case. The Supreme Court has determined that the sovereign power of Indian tribes to regulate the activities of non-tribe members on non-Indian fee-lands is limited. See Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 101 S.Ct. 1245, 67 L.Ed.2d 493 (1981).
Montana set out the standard for determining whether an Indian tribe's regulatory activities constitute an exercise of its remaining sovereign powers or an unwarranted intrusion into areas outside the tribe's jurisdiction. In Montana, the Crow Nation sought to prohibit fishing and hunting by non-Tribe members within the Crow Reservation. The Supreme Court rejected the sovereignty justifications raised by the Crow Nation and ruled that absent an express congressional delegation, the challenged regulation must fail. Id. at 565, 101 S.Ct. at 1258. However, the Court did not decide that a tribe never has the authority to regulate the conduct of nonmembers. Instead, the Court noted:
[t]o be sure, Indian tribes retain inherent sovereign power to exercise some forms of civil jurisdiction over non-Indians on their reservations, even on non-Indian fee lands. A tribe may regulate, through taxation, licensing, or other means, the activities of nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with the tribe, or its members, through commercial dealing, contracts, leases, or other arrangements. A tribe may also retain inherent power to exercise civil authority over the conduct of non-Indians on fee lands within its reservation when that conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe.
Id. at 565-66, 101 S.Ct. at 1257-78 (citations omitted). It is the second Montana exception, protection against a threat to welfare, that the Tribe raises as grounds for its taxing and regulatory actions.
As support for its claim that the Tribe acted impermissibly, Duncan Energy relies heavily on Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, 492 U.S. 408, 109 S.Ct. 2994, 106 L.Ed.2d 343 (1989). In Yakima Nation, the Supreme Court reviewed the district court's application of the Montana exceptions in three cases consolidated for review. A majority of the Court concluded that in two of the cases the zoning ordinance did not rise to the level of a regulation designed to protect against a threat to welfare as described in Montana. Id. at 432, 109 S.Ct. at 3009. In the third case, a different majority of the Court upheld the Yakima Nation's regulatory authority under the second Montana exception. Id. at 444, 109 S.Ct. at 3015. In the case before us, the applicability of the Montana exceptions is one of the unresolved questions. Due to this difference in the posture of the case, and to the vastly different claims raised as support for the regulations, Yakima is of limited assistance to our inquiry. We note that Justice Stevens, who joined both majority opinions in Yakima, emphasized that the decisions turned on the specific facts of each complaint. Id. at 447, 109 S.Ct. at 3016-17.
Since Yakima was decided, the Supreme Court has again addressed the issue of tribal authority to regulate activities on non-Tribe member fee lands and has reaffirmed the exceptions to the general rule, articulated in Montana, that Indian tribes cannot exercise sovereignty over nonmembers. See South Dakota v. Bourland, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2309, 124 L.Ed.2d 606 (1993). In Bourland, the Sioux Nation sought to regulate all hunting and fishing on the Cheyenne River Reservation, including hunting and fishing by non-Tribe members in the Oahe Dam and Reservoir recreation area. The Court concluded that by taking Reservation land for the dam project, and then by opening the reservoir for public use as a recreation area, Congress eliminated the Tribe's regulatory power over the lands. The Court also noted that the Flood Control Act of 1944, expressly transferred regulatory authority over the dam and reservoir to the Army Corps of Engineers.5 Id. --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2317. Despite these conclusions, the Supreme Court remanded Bourland for an analysis of the case in light of the Montana exceptions.
Based on our analysis of Montana and Bourland, we find summary judgment clearly inappropriate in this case. The Northeast Quadrant is part of the Reservation, and the Tribe argues that its regulations are permitted under the second Montana exception. We make no judgment as to the merits of the case, but hold that the district court erred by failing to analyze the applicability of the Montana exceptions and by finding this exercise of regulatory authority to be impermissible as a matter of law.
C. Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies
Duncan Energy contends that exhaustion of tribal remedies would be both unnecessary and futile. The Tribe, on the other hand, urges us to direct the district court to dismiss this case for failure to exhaust tribal remedies. We agree that exhaustion is necessary as a matter of comity in this case.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the Federal Government's longstanding policy of encouraging tribal self-government. See, e.g., Iowa Mutual Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9, 14, 107 S.Ct. 971, 975-76, 94 L.Ed.2d 10 (1987); Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 138 n. 5, 102 S.Ct. 894, 902 n. 5, 71 L.Ed.2d 21 (1982). Tribal courts play a vital role in tribal self-government, and the Federal Government has consistently encouraged their development. Iowa Mutual, 480 U.S. at 14-15, 107 S.Ct. at 975-76. Civil jurisdiction over tribal-related activities on reservation land presumptively lies in the tribal courts unless affirmatively limited by a specific treaty provision or by federal statute. Id. at 18, 107 S.Ct. at 977-78. The deference that federal courts afford tribal courts concerning such activities occurring on reservation land is deeply rooted in Supreme Court precedent. Because a federal court's exercise of jurisdiction over matters relating to reservation affairs can impair the authority of tribal courts, the Supreme Court has concluded that, as a matter of comity, the examination of tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction should be conducted in the first instance by the tribal court itself. National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845, 856, 105 S.Ct. 2447, 2453-54, 85 L.Ed.2d 818 (1985).
In addition to encouraging tribal self-government, exhaustion of tribal remedies permits:a full record to be developed in the Tribal Court before either the merits or any question concerning appropriate relief is addressed [in the federal district court].... [It will also] encourage tribal courts to explain to the parties the precise basis for accepting jurisdiction, and will provide other courts with the benefit of their expertise in such matters in the event of further judicial review.
National Farmers Union, 471 U.S. at 856-57, 105 S.Ct. at 2453-54. Thus, the requirement of tribal exhaustion contemplates the development of a factual record that will serve the "orderly administration of justice in the federal court." Id. at 856, 105 S.Ct. at 2453.
Once tribal remedies have been exhausted, the Tribal Court's determination of tribal jurisdiction may be reviewed in the federal district court. See Iowa Mutual, 480 U.S. at 19, 107 S.Ct. at 978. However,
unless a federal court determines that the Tribal Court lacked jurisdiction, ... proper deference to the tribal court system precludes relitigation of issues raised ... and resolved in the Tribal Court.
Id. Therefore, on review, the district court must first examine the Tribal Court's determination of its own jurisdiction. This determination is a question of federal law that must be reviewed de novo. See FMC v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, 905 F.2d 1311, 1313 (9th Cir.1990). However, in making its analysis, the district court should review the Tribal Court's findings of fact under a deferential, clearly erroneous standard. Id. The Tribal Court's determinations of federal law should be reviewed de novo while determinations of Tribal law should be accorded more deference. Id.
Duncan Energy contends that National Farmers Union and Iowa Mutual are inapplicable to cases involving fee lands. We find such a limited reading of those cases to be inappropriate; nothing in the broad language employed by the Supreme Court indicates that the reasoning in Iowa Mutual and National Farmers Union applies only to similar factual situations. This court has previously interpreted National Farmers Union and Iowa Mutual to require exhaustion of tribal court remedies before a case may be considered by a federal district court. City of Timber Lake v. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, 10 F.3d 554 (8th Cir.1993); see also United States ex rel. Kishell v. Turtle Mountain Housing Auth., 816 F.2d 1273, 1276 (8th Cir.1987) ("a federal court should stay its hand until tribal remedies are exhausted and the tribal court has had a full opportunity to determine its own jurisdiction"); Weeks Constr., Inc. v. Oglala Sioux Housing Auth., 797 F.2d 668, 674 (8th Cir.1986).
Other circuits considering this issue have reached a similar conclusion. See, e.g., Smith v. Moffett, 947 F.2d 442, 445 (10th Cir.1991) (relying on Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 131, 107 S.Ct. 1671, 1673-74, 95 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987) for the proposition that Iowa Mutual and National Farmers established "an inflexible bar to consider[ing] the merits of [a] petition by the federal court, and therefore requir[ing] that a petition be dismissed when it appears that there has been a failure to exhaust [tribal remedies]"); Crawford v. Genuine Parts, Co., 947 F.2d 1405, 1407 (9th Cir.1991) ("The requirement of exhaustion of tribal remedies is not discretionary; it is mandatory. If deference is called for, the district court may not relieve the parties from exhausting tribal remedies."), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1174, 117 L.Ed.2d 419 (1992). We find this dispute over tribal taxation and employment rights to be a dispute arising on the Reservation that raises questions of tribal law and jurisdiction that should first be presented to the tribal court. See Weeks Constr., 797 F.2d at 673; Altheimer & Gray v. Sioux Mfg. Corp., 983 F.2d 803, 815 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 621, 126 L.Ed.2d 585 (1993).
Duncan Energy also contends that any recourse to Tribal remedies would be futile because the Tribal Court will be biased in favor of upholding the taxes. The Supreme Court excepts from the general comity requirement situations where:
an assertion of tribal jurisdiction is motivated by a desire to harass or is conducted in bad faith, or where the action is patently violative of express jurisdictional prohibitions, or where exhaustion would be futile because of the lack of an adequate opportunity to challenge the court's jurisdiction.
National Farmers Union, 471 U.S. at 856 n. 21, 105 S.Ct. at 2453-54 n. 21. We note that Duncan Energy does not present any evidence of bias, but merely assumes that it could not receive a fair trial in the Tribal Court. The Supreme Court has declined to permit parties to excuse themselves from the exhaustion requirement by merely alleging that tribal courts will be incompetent or biased. See Iowa Mutual, 480 U.S. at 18-19, 107 S.Ct. at 977-78 ("[t]he alleged incompetence of tribal courts is not among the exceptions to the exhaustion requirement established in National Farmers Union"); see also Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 65-66 n. 21, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 1680-81 n. 21, 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978). Absent any indication of bias, we will not presume the Tribal Court to be anything other than competent and impartial.
Finally, we note that the Tribe may have a heavy burden justifying these tax and employment statutes under the Montana exceptions, but that caveat does not alter our conclusion that this issue6 is for the Tribal Court to determine in the first instance.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the district court is reversed and the case is remanded to the district court. The district court should either dismiss this case without prejudice for failure to exhaust tribal remedies, or should stay any proceedings until those remedies are exhausted.
LOKEN, Circuit Judge, concurring.
I agree with the court that we are bound to follow New Town and that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the Montana exception issues. I am more troubled than the court by the difficult exhaustion issue. On balance, I conclude that National Farmers Union Ins. Co. v. Crow Tribe, 471 U.S. 845, 105 S.Ct. 2447, 85 L.Ed.2d 818 (1985), is controlling and requires that we remand with instructions to stay this case until the parties have had a reasonable opportunity to present the Montana exception issues to the tribal court.
The Montana exceptions are standards for determining the extent of tribal power. Although most courts have looked at National Farmers Union as involving only tribal court jurisdiction, in fact the Supreme Court's focus was broader:
This Court has frequently been required to decide questions concerning the extent to which Indian tribes have retained the power to regulate the affairs of non-Indians. [Citing Montana ] ... In this case the petitioners contend that the Tribal Court has no power to enter a judgment against them.... [P]etitioners, in essence, contend that the Tribe has to some extent been divested of this aspect of sovereignty.... The question whether an Indian tribe retains the power to compel a non-Indian property owner to submit to the civil jurisdiction of a tribal court is one that must be answered by reference to federal law and is a "federal question" under Sec. 1331.... The District Court correctly concluded that a federal court may determine under Sec. 1331 whether a tribal court has exceeded the lawful limits of its jurisdiction.
471 U.S. at 851-53, 105 S.Ct. at 2451-52. Even though federal law governed and conferred federal court jurisdiction, the Supreme Court required the parties in National Farmers Union to exhaust pending tribal court jurisdiction because of the "policy of supporting tribal self-government," the benefit to the federal court in "allowing a full record to be developed in the Tribal Court," and the advantages of "encourag[ing] tribal courts to explain to the parties the precise basis for accepting jurisdiction." 471 U.S. at 856-57, 105 S.Ct. at 2454. These reasons to require exhaustion seem perfectly applicable to this case. The shoe fits, so we should wear it? Unfortunately, there are three problems that make this a far-from-obvious solution.
First is the fact that every case raising Montana exception issues came to the Supreme Court from lower federal courts, yet the Court never even considered exhaustion of tribal court remedies in cases like South Dakota v. Bourland, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2309, 124 L.Ed.2d 606 (1993), and Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, 492 U.S. 408, 109 S.Ct. 2994, 106 L.Ed.2d 343 (1989), which were decided well after National Farmers Union. Perhaps the Supreme Court did not consider this question because no party raised it. On the other hand, perhaps the Court did consider and reject exhaustion for cases raising Montana exception issues, rather than tribal court jurisdiction issues. Though the question is hardly free from doubt, I think the first answer must be correct, particularly because the Court cited Montana in developing its exhaustion principles in National Farmers Union. Thus, I conclude that National Farmers Union exhaustion may properly be required in Montana exception cases.
Second is a problem that concerned the district court--if Montana exception issues require tribal court exhaustion, will the tribal court's answer be the last word? This question requires analysis of an often ignored but highly significant passage in Iowa Mutual Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9, 19, 107 S.Ct. 971, 978, 94 L.Ed.2d 10 (1987):
Although petitioner must exhaust available tribal remedies.... [if] the Tribal Appeals Court [rules] that the tribal courts have jurisdiction, petitioner may challenge that ruling in the District Court. See National Farmers Union, supra, [471 U.S.] at 853, [105 S.Ct. at 2452]. Unless a federal court determines that the Tribal Court lacked jurisdiction, however, proper deference to the tribal court system precludes relitigation of issues raised ... and resolved in the Tribal Courts.
As the district court recognized, tribal court jurisdiction is not at issue here--the tribal court of course has jurisdiction to enforce a tribal tax or employment law. The federal question here goes to the merits of the case--whether the Tribe has the sovereign power to enact the tax and employment laws being enforced. If the preclusion referred to in Iowa Mutual is that which normally applies between federal and state courts, for example, the tribal court's decision on this question of federal law will be binding on the parties. See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 103-04, 101 S.Ct. 411, 419-20, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980); Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 156, 99 S.Ct. 970, 975, 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979). In that event, by requiring exhaustion, we will have surrendered authority to decide these critical Montana exception issues, a result at odds with the many Supreme Court decisions reserving these issues for the federal courts.
I believe that the key to unraveling this enigmatic passage in Iowa Mutual is to recall both the breadth of the discussion in National Farmers Union, which encompassed issues of tribal sovereignty as well as tribal court jurisdiction, and the nature of the merits of the case before the Court in Iowa Mutual, a diversity dispute over insurance coverage. With that in mind, I agree with the court that tribal court decisions concerning federal questions of tribal sovereignty may be challenged in the federal courts.
But I do not agree that, in deciding such challenges, we conduct some sort of direct review of the tribal court, considering issues of law de novo and findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard. "Federal courts.... possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute," Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., --- U.S. ----, ----, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994), and I know of no statute giving the district and circuit courts jurisdiction to review tribal court decisions. See 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1330-67 (district court jurisdiction), and Secs. 1291-92 (court of appeals jurisdiction). The Supreme Court has ruled that we have federal question jurisdiction to decide Montana exception issues. The district court will ultimately decide those issues, with whatever guidance the tribal court may now provide. In my view, it is premature to determine what evidentiary or legal weight to ultimately give the tribal court's decision.
The third problem, and the most serious in my view, is that here there is no case pending in the tribal court, as there was in both National Farmers Union and Iowa Mutual. Requiring "exhaustion" in a forum not chosen by any party looks like a subversion of "the virtually unflagging obligation of the federal courts to exercise the jurisdiction given them." Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 1246, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). Moreover, we do not know what form the dispute may take in tribal court, or whether the tribal court will even agree to review Montana exception issues that the federal court retains ultimate authority to decide.
On the other hand, the reasons for exhaustion cited in National Farmers Union--the policy of supporting tribal self-government, the advantages of allowing a full record to be developed in tribal court, and the benefit of receiving the tribal court's expertise on these issues of tribal sovereignty--apply whether or not the dispute is already pending in the tribal court. In these circumstances, I agree with the court that exhaustion is appropriate, but I also conclude that it would be an unwarranted abdication of the district court's jurisdiction to dismiss the case at this time. In my view, that court should grant a stay for a reasonable period to permit one or more of the parties to submit these disputes to the tribal court and to permit the tribal court to accept jurisdiction and rule. Following that, the district court should again take up the Montana exception issues, exercising its discretion to give the tribal court's decision (if there is one) such deference as may be warranted.
Judges Bowman and Magill would grant the suggestion
The district court dismissed the Three Affiliated Tribes, and the Tribal entities from this suit on the grounds of sovereign immunity. However, the real party in interest here is the Tribe. For convenience and clarity, we will refer to the remaining appellants in this case as "the Tribe."
We note that this Circuit has recently rejected a similar challenge to New Town in the context of a criminal case. See United States v. Standish, 3 F.3d 1207 (8th Cir.1993) citing with approval New Town v. United States, 454 F.2d 121 (8th Cir.1972)
The 1914 Act opened the surface of coal lands for homesteading while reserving the underlying mineral rights for the Tribe. 38 Stat. 681
We are not convinced that the district court correctly concluded that the third Solem factor weighed in favor of Duncan. While it is true that the land in the Northeast Quadrant is owned almost entirely by non-Tribe members, it is also true that the seat of Tribal government is located there and that a significant percentage of the Tribe members who live on the Reservation live in the Northeast Quadrant. We also note that the Tribe owns all of the coal beds underneath the Northeast Quadrant. Because we believe that the language of the 1910 Act was not intended to, and did not in fact, diminish the Reservation, we need not further analyze this issue
We note that Bourland presents a much stronger case for a finding of no Tribal regulatory authority than does this case. The land at issue in Bourland had been opened as a public recreation area, and a federal agency had been expressly granted regulatory authority over the land. While rejecting the Tribe's claim that even under these facts its inherent sovereignty enabled it to regulate hunting and fishing, the Supreme Court expressly reserved the question of the Tribe's regulatory authority in other contexts. Bourland, --- U.S. at ---- n. 9, 113 S.Ct. at 2316 n. 9
At a minimum, we would be obliged to remand this case to the district court for an examination of the Montana exceptions. However, we are convinced that the better course is to defer to the Tribal Court


text:
Board index The other stuff Religion & Politics
For discussion of religion and politics
Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus
Location: Approximately Wissahickon
Re: Brexit
Post by Holman » Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:36 am
Speaking of Brexit...
Trump is now in the UK for a working visit, where he has professed his friendship with Theresa May and his support for Brexit.
Of course that hasn't stopped him from giving a rambling interview to the Sun tabloid in which he essentially blasts May as an incompetent who can't even do a simple anti-immigrant Brexit right and threatens to withhold a US-UK trade deal. This, at a time when the May government is already reeling towards possible collapse.
Trump and May have a joint press conference today, and British headlines are dominated by the Sun interview. It will be awkward.
More tidbits from the interview:
--Trump claims that the U.S. GDP has "doubled or tripled" since his presidency began,
--insistence that Boris Johnson (who just quit May's government) would be a great PM,
--a complaint that the United Kingdom isn't called "England" anymore,
--a dire warning about immigrants "destroying" European culture,
--a denial that recent poisonings in the UK should affect his relationship with Putin.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
Grifman
Post by Grifman » Fri Jul 13, 2018 2:36 pm
Today in a press conference, Trump called his own interview where he trashed May on tape, "fake news".
Another note, a "hard BREXIT" which would take England out of the EU customs union, would be a total economic disaster. May wants a "soft " BREXIT that keeps the UK in, because that is the only way to avoid economic meltdown. But that would require still ceding some amount of sovereignty to the EU, which is what BREXIT is all about. The problem is that BREXIT was sold as an easy deal, England would even get money back that it contributes to the EU. But the BREXITers were lying, it will be an economic disaster. Many, such as Johnson, never thought it would pass, but supported it for pure political gain. Now the bill is coming due. Some very prominent wealthy BREXITers' are taking their money out of the UK and moving it to the EU in a rank display of hypocrisy.
Frankly, if I were May, I'd make a public address and tell the UK that they were sold a bill of goods, and these are the choices and these are the consequences - and put it to a vote - let the voter decide what sort of BREXIT they want. Either that or wash her hands of it and let one of the true believers step up and deal with the mess they created.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
Max Peck
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole
Post by Max Peck » Sun Jul 22, 2018 8:56 am
This will end well . . .
British reject May's Brexit plan, some turn to Boris and far right: poll
Prime Minister Theresa May's plans to leave the European Union are overwhelmingly opposed by the British public and more than a third of voters would support a new right-wing political party committed to quitting the bloc, according to a new poll.
May's political vulnerability was exposed by the survey which found voters would prefer Boris Johnson, who quit as her foreign minister two weeks ago, to negotiate with the EU and lead the Conservative Party into the next election.
Only 16 percent of voters say May is handling the Brexit negotiations well, compared with 34 percent who say that Johnson would do a better job, according to the poll conducted by YouGov for The Sunday Times newspaper.
The Sunday Times poll found voters are increasingly polarized, with growing numbers of people alienated from the two main political parties.
Thirty-eight percent of people would vote for a new right-wing party that is committed to Brexit, while almost a quarter would support an explicitly far-right anti-immigrant, anti-Islam party, the poll found.
Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage and U.S. President Donald Trump's former adviser Steve Bannon are in discussions about forming a new right-wing movement, according to The Sunday Times.
Time and tide melt the snowman.
There are worlds out there where the sky is burning, where the sea's asleep and the rivers dream, people made of smoke and cities made of song. Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice and somewhere else the tea is getting cold. Come on, Ace, we've got work to do.
-- The Doctor
Isgrimnur
Location: Chookity pok
Contact Isgrimnur
Post by Isgrimnur » Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:31 pm
WaPo
[T]he British government is also warning — and panicking — British consumers and companies that they should brace themselves for a cold-turkey withdrawal, a "no-deal Brexit" or "Brexit doomsday."
"I believe we will get a good deal, we will bring that back from the E.U. negotiations, and put that to Parliament," Prime Minister Theresa May said in an interview with the BBC that aired Monday. But she added that if the British Parliament rejects her proposals, then the alternative "would be not having a deal."
May's government once sang a song of "Global Britain," a vision for a 21st-century trading dynamo, exploiting new markets in new lands. But now Brexit secretary Dominic Raab is encouraging drug companies to stockpile extra medicine in case supplies cannot get onto the island after a no-deal Brexit.
Cadbury has started hoarding chocolate for fear that ingredients will become difficult to obtain.
On Thursday, the French minister for European affairs warned that British trains and planes might not be allowed into France without a deal, while the governor of the Bank of England told the cabinet that a no-deal Brexit would wreak havoc rivaling the financial crisis of 2008.
In its latest assessment, the International Monetary Fund warned Monday that the British economy would incur "substantial costs" without a deal in place.
It has gotten so bad that British authorities have had to downplay rumors the army would be deployed to maintain civil order.
Silver - 1k
GreenGoo
Location: Ottawa, ON
Post by GreenGoo » Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:31 pm
I've followed along enough to know that this is a rock and a hard place.
They've made exactly zero progress on this and it continues to loom over their heads.
I haven't followed closely enough to know who's supporting who and what the options are (beyond the obvious deal/no deal with the EU), so I don't know if we can expect anything in the coming months.
I know a lot of noise is being made but there is a lot of noise over there every single week about Brexit (for obvious reasons).
They have completely screwed themselves. If things go south it's gonna hurt, and I don't know how long it will take for them to recover. A decade at a minimum I would think. Longer, possibly. I don't know enough to know every little thing that rests on this, except to know that every little thing DOES rest on it.
malchior
Post by malchior » Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:52 pm
The talk about effects approaching the financial crisis of 2008 aren't just cheap talk or hyperbole. With the City being such a systemically important part of the financial universe you have to think about massive capital outflows or movements running up to any deadline. In short, capital markets may panic and banks aren't designed for big runs on their reserves. The UK will be stuck making decisions with spiraling effects. Do they impose capital controls? Panic. Do they halt trading on certain platforms? If logistics falls apart between nations? You got it...panic and more panic. This is unexplored territory and it is a slow-motion disaster in the making.
LawBeefaroni
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies
LawBeefaroni OO
Post by LawBeefaroni » Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:33 pm
Be careful what you vote for. You just might get it.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton
Post by El Guapo » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:14 pm
Lord Buckethead DID warn them:
Don't put it to a vote, dumbasses.
That's why people voted for you.
About 32% are deplorable in any case and will burn the country to the ground in a tantrum about how unfair everything is.
GreenGoo wrote: ↑
Yeah, that's the crazy thing. The whole Brexit referendum was called because the Conservative prime minister wanted to get his tea party right wing (especially Boris Johnson) to STFU about Brexiting. Basically to clamp down on his right wing intraparty fighting. It wouldn't really have worked even if Remain won, and they wound up starting this countrywide fire over their political bullshit.
Makes me feel mildly better about the U.S. political system, at least. Not MUCH, but a little.
Archinerd
Location: Shikaakwa
Post by Archinerd » Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:17 pm
El Guapo wrote: ↑
It wouldn't really have worked even if Remain won, and they wound up starting this countrywide fire over their political bullshit.
Even scarier, there is no guarantee the fire won't spread further.
Location: Tongue in cheek
Post by Defiant » Wed Oct 17, 2018 1:00 am
Explaining Brexit with cakes:
LEAVER: I want an omelette.
REMAINER: Right. It's just we haven't got any eggs.
LEAVER: Yes, we have. There they are. [HE POINTS AT A CAKE]
REMAINER: They're in the cake.
LEAVER: Yes, get them out of the cake, please.
REMAINER: But we voted in 1975 to put them into a cake.
LEAVER: Yes, but that cake has got icing on it. Nobody said there was going to be icing on it.
REMAINER: Icing is good.
LEAVER: And there are raisins in it. I don't like raisins. Nobody mentioned raisins. I demand another vote.
DAVID CAMERON ENTERS.
DAVID CAMERON: OK.
DAVID CAMERON SCARPERS.
LEAVER: Right, where's my omelette?
REMAINER: I told you, the eggs are in the cake.
LEAVER: Well, get them out.
EU: It's our cake.
JEREMY CORBYN: Yes, get them out now.
REMAINER: I have absolutely no idea how to get them out. Don't you know how to get them out?
LEAVER: Yes! You just get them out and then you make an omelette.
REMAINER: But how?! Didn't you give this any thought?
LEAVER: Saboteur! You're talking eggs down. We could make omelettes before the eggs went into the cake, so there's no reason why we can't make them now.
THERESA MAY: It's OK, I can do it.
REMAINER: How?
THERESA MAY: There was a vote to remove the eggs from the cake, and so the eggs will be removed from the cake.
REMAINER: Yeah, but…
LEAVER: Hang on, if we take the eggs out of the cake, does that mean we don't have any cake? I didn't say I didn't want the cake, just the bits I don't like.
REMAINER: But you can't take the eggs out of the cake and then still have a cake.
LEAVER: You can. I saw the latest Bake Off and you can definitely make cakes without eggs in them. It's just that they're horrible.
REMAINER: Fine. Take the eggs out. See what happens.
LEAVER: It's not my responsibility to take the eggs out. Get on with it.
REMAINER: Why should I have to come up with some long-winded incredibly difficult chemical process to extract eggs that have bonded at the molecular level to the cake, while somehow still having the cake?
LEAVER: You lost, get over it.
THERESA MAY: By the way, I've started the clock on this.
REMAINER: So I assume you have a plan?
THERESA MAY: Actually, back in a bit. Just having another election.
REMAINER: Jeremy, are you going to sort this out?
JEREMY CORBYN: Yes. No. Maybe.
LEAVER: Where's my omelette? I voted for an omelette.
REMAINER: This is ridiculous. This is never going to work. We should have another vote, or at least stop what we're doing until we know how to get the eggs out of the cake while keeping the bits of the cake that we all like.
LEAVER/MAY/CORBYN: WE HAD A VOTE. STOP SABOTAGING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. EGGSIT MEANS EGGSIT.
REMAINER: Fine, I'm moving to France. The cakes are nicer there.
LEAVER: You can't. We've taken your freedom of movement.
Meet Pete
Pete for America
Post by malchior » Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:57 am
News is breaking that the inevitable failure of a ratification of the May brokered Brexit deal has been postponed until it can fail again later.
Post by El Guapo » Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:59 am
Not that they're going to be capable of taking advantage of this, but the European Court of Justice ruled that Britain can unilaterally call off Brexit without permission from the other EU states. My impression is that a second referendum would probably end in favo(u)r of remaining, but seems like that's probably not going to happen, because the major party leaders are all fools and idiots.
The one big upshot of Brexit is that it does make me feel a little bit better about how our political system works.
Post by malchior » Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:06 pm
I agree, My take on May postponing this vote is that it is to prevent a second referendum from being feasible. If it had failed today, they would have had to talk about another referendum or crashing out plus a no confidence vote. In other words, this move was to probably partially to protect herself and force people to eventually accept her plan. Ugly stuff.
Post by El Guapo » Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:22 pm
malchior wrote: ↑
The main problem is that Corbyn won't push for a new referendum either, because he's a fool who also dislikes the EU for different reasons (views it as impeding a socialist state in the UK).
Yeah I agree - but keeping this vote "out there" was part of a strategy to still keep the focus on her negotiating with the EU. Which clearly the EU is not interested in. They've already said they'll clarify statements in the agreement but they won't re-open the books. The insanity is that this showdown over the 'backstop' was predicted early in this process. This is like watching WW1 kicking off without all the excuses about why it couldn't be stopped.
I've been watching this session and I don't think her strategy is tenable anyway. The MPs see right through this as a time wasting exercise. The factions all want to proceed in their own directions and that chaos prevents a solution. They are basically beating on her rhetorically right now. Strong questioning about her credibility and view on reality is dominating. It is pretty clear that the only reason she is still PM is because no one wants to be PM until the dust settles here. What a disaster this is.
Sepiche
Post by Sepiche » Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:52 pm
The obvious play for some time has been to have another vote and hope they can convince the EU to take some sort of payoff and forget the whole thing ever happened.
Given Nigel Firange's disappearing act after the Brexit vote and his potential ties to Russia they have every reason to question the motivation of many of the Brexit campaigners.
The FX rate on the pound and world markets took a strong dive during this session. It looks like many investors are taking the opportunity to begin to throw in the towel for the year on the uncertainty.
Alefroth
Location: Bellingham WA
Post by Alefroth » Mon Dec 10, 2018 1:13 pm
Sepiche wrote: ↑
No payoff required. EU said they could reverse their decision at any time.
Post by Sepiche » Mon Dec 10, 2018 1:15 pm
Alefroth wrote: ↑
I thought I remembered the EU president giving dire warnings about the UK trying to just go back to business as usual, but that might have been posturing that I misinterpreted.
The ruling just came out today.
Wow, that makes the right path even more obvious.
Post by malchior » Mon Dec 10, 2018 2:09 pm
They have deep divisions between their factions that clouds all the paths. There isn't a right path anymore. At this late stage they have three options, take this deal, no deal, or no brexit. Each path does terrible damage to the UK.
Post by El Guapo » Mon Dec 10, 2018 2:15 pm
But as far as I'm aware no political leader with the capacity to make a new referendum happen is pushing for a new referendum. And they're running out of time pretty quickly given that the drop dead "hard brexit" deadline isn't that far away.
Post by Isgrimnur » Mon Dec 10, 2018 2:26 pm
On the bright side, that ought to make foreign tourism nice and cheap for a few years.
Post by Fireball » Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:36 pm
This is where the mistake of Labour picking Corbyn becomes painfully clear. Any reasonable Labour leader would be demanding a new referendum now, and would be poised to tear away a lot of reasonable Tories in the next general election. Unfortunately, Corbyn is the Sanders of the UK, and refuses to consider any path but the one he's alway been on. He's incapable of seizing this moment... incapable of saving a country that desperately needs someone to save it.
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
Fireball wrote: ↑
As it is, with Corbyn it's hard to see how the UK avoids the disaster of a hard Brexit.
Post by Isgrimnur » Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:51 pm
British Prime Minister Theresa May embarked Tuesday on a whirlwind tour of European capitals to try to win concessions on her deal to pull Britain from the European Union, a day after the plan's unpopularity forced her to cancel a key parliamentary vote.
But the issue that has made the Brexit deal politically toxic at home is nonnegotiable on the European side, and it was unclear whether May could do anything to alter her own political math as she bounced from The Hague to Berlin to Brussels.
Leaders in those capitals offered kind words and said they would do everything they could to help her sell the deal to her own public, but they refused to back down from an ironclad backup plan to ensure there will never be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
"There is no room whatsoever for renegotiation," European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker told the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Tuesday. "Ireland will never be left alone."
In Brussels, European leaders said one after another said they could imagine no change in the fundamentals of the deal.
Asked whether the European Union could do anything to help May, German Minister of State for Europe Michael Roth said "it's always good to talk to each other.
But on Tuesday, leaders instead appeared to be talking past each other. Roth's British counterpart, Martin Callanan, said that May wanted "additional, legal reassurances that the U.K. cannot be permanently trapped in the Irish backstop," using the term for the backup plan that would keep an open border on the island of Ireland. "That's been the issue all along, and that's the issue at the heart of the concerns expressed by many members of parliament."
tjg_marantz
Location: Queen City, SK
Post by tjg_marantz » Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:11 am
No confidence vote upcoming:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46535739
Home of the Akimbo AWPs
Paingod
Post by Paingod » Wed Dec 12, 2018 10:44 am
Isgrimnur wrote: ↑
In.Deed.
That was WAY longer and more committed than I expected, and got a couple good laughs.
More than ever, now is the time to stand by the causes you believe in; donate and support to keep America great.
Reproductive Rights, Environmental Defense, Civil Liberties, LGBTQ Awareness, Immigration Rights
Currently playing: GTV V, Everspace
raydude
Post by raydude » Wed Dec 12, 2018 12:15 pm
I don't understand. What the hell could possibly be his long game?
Post by El Guapo » Wed Dec 12, 2018 12:22 pm
raydude wrote: ↑
As Labour leader, he is at the moment the main alternative to the Conservatives. If things get bad enough, and the conservatives get unpopular enough, it's not hard to imagine him becoming PM after the next election. So he doesn't totally have the strongest of political incentives to get the best outcome for the country.
Post by raydude » Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:17 pm
So he gets to be ruler of a broken and ruined land? I guess whatever floats his boat.
Post by El Guapo » Thu Dec 13, 2018 10:31 am
Chaos is a ladder.
Post by malchior » Thu Dec 13, 2018 10:55 am
Corbyn has been waiting a long time for his opportunity and this is probably his best, greatest chance to become PM and make real change. He can with some honesty point at this whole mess and say that global capitalism is the cause. That the level of inequality in the West is the real problem, etc. His problem is that his party is divided in a similar way to the Tories. He can't even get his own people to not call him out in parliament and embarrass him (especially Gardiner). If I were to handicap it as I see it now, the chance for a no deal are probably higher than should be possible. I could see May throwing in the towel on her deal and relinquishing to a 2nd referendum but there will be hell to pay. However, I think there is a lower chance of that because only part of the left want it and almost no one on the right does. If I was to lay money out, I'd bet on them driving over that cliff.
I think his rigid ideology is also a driving factor - as I mentioned he dislikes the EU too, but for different reasons (neoliberal shills, etc.). Corbyn is far left, and the far left and far right often wind up in the same place on substantive issues, just with very different routes there (and while despising each other all the while).
At this point I would rate the probability on outcomes as:
80% - hard Brexit
10% - Parliamentary opposition blinks in the face of a hard Brexit and they accept May's deal (possibly with some minor face-saving tweaks)
5% - the EU ultimately agrees to some substantive tweak to the deal that smoothes the passage in Parliament
5% - new referendum.
Post by Sepiche » Thu Dec 13, 2018 11:41 am
I follow British politics fairly closely, and it's still a bit of a mystery to me how Jeremy Corbyn managed to get to the head of Labour and stay there for so long given his wild views on so many topics.
Return to "Religion & Politics"