I guess I was expecting a link to a specific article on Measure M. Very misleading sez I and I once again blame the Internet Marketing Management.

General microsite on all transportation related bonds and initiatives that are relevant to southern california.

And suck it kevy. Suck it hard and suck it long.

Don't tempt him!;)

:D

Good point.

You're confusing the idea of nation with the modern nation-state with boundaries and distinctive laws, etc. The term "nation" can be applied to tribes who have an historic sense of where they lived, who they were linguistically and culturally. When you understand that the term "nation" is a broader definition than the modern nation-state, I think you'll agree that Indian "tribes" can also be called "nations" and were recognized as such by the U.S. government when treaties were made defining their territory and rights.

Yes, it's been 300 years but most of those "nations" still have a sense of who they are, where they came from, etc. Some of them were never recognized by the U.S., especially in the East, because their contact with Europeans predated the United States. As a result, there are a number of tribal "nations" in the East that have only been recognized by states and may never gain national recognition. This is unfortunate because their status in the eyes of the U.S. government is not as high as the Western tribes where treaties were made.

My knowledge of Indian law is limited, but I think it's been over a century since Congress declared that Indian tribes are not separate nations with whom treaties can be made.

That's true. Congress did declare in 1868 that the period of making treaties was over. That doesn't mean that the ideas of sovereignty, as defined by Justice Marshall in Cherokee v Georgia and Worchester v Georgia in the
1830's as dependant sovereign nations does not still hold.

Of course, President Jackson ignored this ruling and ordered the removal of the Cherokee nation to Indian Territory (now Oklahoma, of course).

I'm trying really hard not to be offended by you educating me on what right and left are. :rolleyes: As a friend to a friend, the condescention here is unnerving. I've posted many times about my migration from one side of the spectrum to the other to some degree, so please, don't tell me what each side is like, thanks.

I totally see where you're coming from, as I used to agree with you. One argument I would make is that even if you personally are not going to have children, the people that you work with throughout your life - your doctor, your real estate agent, your auto repairman, your grocery checker - may or may not have had a good education. You will not have cared about that until the moment that they screw up your order at a restaurant or handle your complaint poorly due to lack of socialization growing up.

Oh, and the guy that breaks into your car, or hangs around homeless near your freeway exit may have had a better start due to all of our help. Again, I know this is all pointless in the light of the doctrine of personal responsibility, but I've come to understand that there's no way to be personally responsible if you didn't have a decent education.

The thing is, what is "infrastructure"? As an employee of AAA, you should know the history of the company. Originally it was formed as a private club to provide road infrastructure where there wasn't any. So, shock of shocks, a private agency provided this infrastructure instead of the government. I fail to see how this isn't any different from education in your rationale.

Personally, I think both should be on the list of things we provide for the public good.

Aren't federally-recognized tribes sovereign somewhat in the sense that states are sovereign? Individual states can't go off and make treaties, but they can (within Constitutional limits) make laws that apply in that state.