#or so I'm told

[dicenete]

I tried to make this demon pay rent, but he convinced me otherwise.

[ofdarklands]

moon & leaf - 04

durian :) delicious but oh so oh so smelly

[beatlesdiscord]

Brian: I once quoted a vine in front of John.

Brian: no one will ever believe him, and now he lives in fear of my supposed knowledge of the internet.

Brian: it's delightful.

[wilburytwist]

George: roses are red, violets are blue. George: sunflowers are yellow...tulips come in all kinds of colours...daffodils are also yellow. Jeff: are you writing a poem? George: no, I just really like flowers.

[forgottenbones]

[wardenswateringhole]

Okaaay...

Seems some of you thought my antics were a bit attractive. I did not foresee a wrathful Warden thirst becoming a thing. I am in a committed relationship.

But that's negotiable

[beardedmrbean]

The Supreme Court has upheld a federal law designed to keep Native American children connected to Native American families in custody and adoption proceedings. 

A 7-2 majority of justices rejected challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act from several states and White families who were seeking to permanently adopt Native children. They had argued they are being discriminated against and disadvantaged, in violation of equal protection guarantees in the Constitution.

"They argue that it exceeds federal authority, infringes state sovereignty, and discriminates on the basis of race," Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the court's opinion for the case of Haaland v. Brackeen. "The United States, joined by several Indian Tribes, defends the law. The issues are complicated… .But the bottom line is that we reject all of petitioners’ challenges to the statute, some on the merits and others for lack of standing."

The dispute is a clash of tribal sovereignty, states' rights and racial discrimination claims.

At issue is whether the high court should toss out or severely dismantle the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, meant to protect Native American rights in state child custody proceedings. It has long been championed by tribal leaders as a means of preserving their families and culture. 

The case dealt with aspects of a unique relationship between Native tribes and the federal government, and the ability of state courts to broadly determine the discretionary "best interests" of children in placement hearings.

Among those challenging the law were Jennifer and Chad Brackeen of Fort Worth, Texas, who had first fostered, then adopted, a son known in court papers as A.L.M., beginning in 2016, after his mother, a member of the Navajo Nation was unable to care for him. The tribe sought to place the boy with other out-of-state tribal members not related to him. 

The Brackeens eventually won custody of A.L.M but now would like to adopt the child's half-sister, identified in state proceedings as Y.R.J.

"It's been three-and-a-half years in court, and we have not been able to finalize the adoption," Chad Brackeen told Fox News Digital. "Ultimately, these two siblings belong together."

But the more than three-fourths of the 574 federally-recognized American tribes told the Supreme Court in various amicus briefs the law has been on the books for 44 years and is working.

"The precedent of the Supreme Court is that Indian tribes are political groups of people, they are not racial groups of people," said Chrissi Ross Nimmo, the deputy attorney general of Cherokee Nation. "Tribes determine citizenship... just like countries." 

Many tribes warn of a broader loss of political sovereignty if the ICWA is struck down or weakened, over such matters as health care, education and housing, which are all covered under specific federal laws. 

Texas, along with Indiana and Louisiana, have also challenged the federal law, saying it oversteps authority over state child custody matters.

[rabbit-1961]

Monthly problems too?! But it's not even full moon..???

It's a different monthly problem.

It's not a furry little problem.

[sorcerous-caress]

The key to writing good smut is to become a degenerate pervert

[embervoices]

I'm just... I can't...

Okay, look.

I'm an openly queer, genderfluid, polyamorous, neurodivergent, disabled, pagan spirit worker.

Why the fuck would my fandoms be the thing I need to hide?

[commaclear]

I’m sorry but I need to say This..Emus absolutely suck and whoever likes those disgusting birds are just lying to themself,Sure they won a war but they suck and look like those crusty rugs in those mini vans. They probably feel all dusty and crusty and musty like omg,The one place a emu should be is on a kfc menu. I hope they all DIE

I apologize to all those emus lovers(You all SUCK/lh/r) -</:)

So uh, Promise spends their summers working at the local Renaissance Festival and she's heard some shit from the cooks abt the "turkey" legs they serve there....

More of you might be emu lovers than you know ;)

[monty-glasses-roxy]

There is good news though, the game has mod support, as well as mods to make the game significantly easier, and to be fair, I don't think many people mind if you go to the wiki to read the lore, considering that beyond the quests itself, it is an ordeal and a half to get it.

That's good then. Good to know the community isn't very "just get good" when it comes to the difficulty. Fuck knows some communities hate you actually being able to play the game for some reason

[beatlesdiscord]

John, in his Thisbe costume: there. how do I look?

George: like a cheap Swedish harlot.

John: Swedish?!

[wilburytwist]

Bob: I forgot the word "torch" earlier today, so I wrote "fire on a stick".

Bob: I have a Nobel Prize for Literature.

[leebrontide]

Ok so my kid had an ear infection, right? As kids often do.

The doctor scraped out a bit of earwax to have a better look inside.

I was sent a bill for $200 PER EAR for this 5 second procedure which I did not give permission for them to do.

That was key- they did not ASK me if they could do this "procedure". And, as I OWN a medical practice (it's me. The medical practice is me, sitting in my house on video calls) I knew to call them when this bill came in to be like "You did not obtain informed consent for this procedure, and it was not en emergency procedure. You had full ability to gain my consent and didn't. I'm not paying."

And the massive hospital who owned the bill said "yuh-huh you do have to pay."

And I said "I own a practice. I know these laws. I do not owe you money for this."

And they conducted an "internal review" and SURPRISE! Decided I totally owed them money and they had never done anything wrong ever.

And so I called my state's Attorney General office, and explained the situation because, as I mentioned, I know the law. The AG got in touch within a couple days to say they were taking the case and would send the massive hospital conglomerate a knock it off, guys letter.

Lo and Behold, today I have a letter where said hospital graciously has agreed to forfeit the payment.

"How not to get screwed over by companies" should be part of civics class.

Know your rights and know who to call when they're infringed on. This whole process cost me $0 and honestly less effort than I would have expected.

May this knowledge find its way to someone else who can use it.

[patheticperipatetic]

:O Like Illinois! We legalized weed and then purged the records.

personally I think that if we make something legal, everyone who's in jail for breaking the previous law should be released. I can't believe that's not a common sense belief.