Well, we can start off with the network definition. Any server outside the firewall is by it's very nature, more insecure than the ones protected by a DMZ.
Moving up the network layers, let's talk about the protocol. Any server using insecure protocols to transmit data, is more insecure than ones protected by basic SSL encryption. The FBI document also details that gap (which, eventually, was remediated, but not before work related emails were transported across it).
Finally, we can talk about process and policy. Any server working outside the standard process and policy protocols of an institution, which would include standardized backup, security maintenance, and security audits, is by definition more insecure.
Anyone who has worked in the private sector for a financial or health care institution will recognize immediately that using an insecure, secret server, to conduct work related business is grossly negligent. The fact that this was the State department, our scrutiny should be even more heightened.
Like you keep forgetting, a home server is NOT INHERENTLY riskier than the regular office email server.
Of course it is. Besides the obvious physical security issues, having a home email server (literally in your home), is a technical nightmare when dealing with secure information.
Now, maybe if every email she ever sent was pgp encrypted, you might argue that insecure SMTP might be okay. But when you have a regular office email server that literally shuffles the emails from one side of l0 to the other side of l0, without ever exposing that to external network traversals, you by definition have an *inherently* more secure server.
This is why she sent an email to all of her staff warning them not to use personal email for business.
And why do you keep calling it a "secret" server?
Read the FBI report that was release - it was explicitly kept secret from the public.
The proof is in the pudding even: the office server WAS hacked, while there's no evidence so her home server was
Obligatory "absence of evidence" and "evidence of absence" trope there.
Now, if you want to prosecute the State Dept. guys who were hacked for gross negligence as well, I'm happy to add them to the list of bad actors in government:) Let's face it, truly secure email is *not* rocket science here - I'm shocked they didn't actually encrypt every single message.
The act of avoiding a state approved blackberry, and using the previously created server, was intentional, wanton, and grossly negligent.
Whether or not you're talking about the actual, physical creation of the server, or the "creation" of it as a method for doing possibly classified work during her tenure at the state department, the fact remains the same - it was not "by accident", it was willful negligence.
And quite frankly, after reading the report what she did is not that big of a deal and if the tables were turned the Republicans would be crying foul as loud as they are crying crime today.
I agree that if the tables were turned, both sides would take the opposite position.
I don't agree that isn't a big deal. Government corruption is particularly poisonous and insidious, and while our two party system may make for a great crop of hypocrites, that doesn't make their bad behavior excusable.
In fact, the reason why I'm voting for Trump is because he's the only candidate hated enough by the media and the establishment to be held accountable for his actions, and properly checked and balanced. Clinton's narrow escape here through political pressure is just one in a long litany of corrupt practices the mainstream media has given her a pass on.
One has to show either intent, or an extreme form of carelessness.
Secret servers are not setup unintentionally. Comey himself called out extreme carelessness.
Q.E.D.
Again, the box means nothing here. It's not about the server.
Yes, in fact, it is. It is grossly negligent to set up a secret server and transmit work-related information there, when your work-related emails can have various levels of classification.
If she received those emails on gerbils it would be the same damned issue.
Correct. If they had setup an insecure, secret, private gerbil delivery system for work-related information that could be classified, that would also demonstrate gross negligence.
I am only claiming your evidence SO FAR is weak.
No, you're not. You're claiming that the evidence doesn't matter, based on your semantic interpretation of "gross negligence" which is in contradiction to the SCOTUS application of it, and that there are possible legal arguments that may inject a reasonable doubt in the eyes of a jury.
There is conflicting case law in certain courts, but in general, the "Federal" rule as per SCOTUS does not require criminal intent:
But it is interesting to note, in the Lockwood case, the United States Supreme Court modified its earlier decisions by refusing to reject degrees of care or diligence. Thus, if there is anything of a "Federal" rule, it is that there are no degrees of negligence, but that there are degrees of care.
By intentionally creating the server, she showed conscious and wanton disregard (extreme carelessness aka gross negligence). Arguing her intent had to be specific to an individual email, and therefore she could always defend with "I could not recall", misses the larger carelessness that occurred. She *intentionally* set up a system that facilitated the violation of 18 U.S.C 793 (f), and then that actual risk was actualized on numerous, ongoing occasions.
At the very least, we should all be able to agree that this should have been adjudicated at trial, and avoiding such a trial was a political move, not a legal one.
Even if I were to stipulate to your assertion, having a private, insecure server for *years* is certainly an ongoing pattern.
From Comey:
There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
They had an ongoing set of improper conversations on this unclassified system for years.
Now, even if you want to argue that it *wasn't* grossly negligent, surely you can admit that this should have been adjudicated in a trial, instead of bypassed by political appointees.
What politician out there is advocating for limiting executive power? What judiciary or legislative branch is holding the executive to account? What mainstream news organization is investigating and exposing the corruption and deceit of the executive?
Imagine for a moment, King John *wasn't* a prick, and we *didn't* get the Magna Carta, and simply lived under arbitrary executive power?
As far as the legal meaning of "gross negligence", it appears it either requires intent, OR very very extreme carelessness.
And I think we can both agree that ultimately, this should have been adjudicated in a court of law. There was clearly enough to bring charges.
Comey himself said that existing laws and case history applied to her actions and statements wouldn't qualify for a crime.
No, that's not what he said:) He was quite specific when he said that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case". It was definitely a crime, but in this case the "number of factors before bringing charges" obviously included the political pressure of the Obama administration:)
Setting up the server BY ITSELF is not a crime.
Of course not. Setting up the server BY ITSELF is an *intentional* act. Whether or not that intent was to harm the US (as per 18 U.S.C 793 (a) and (b)), or if it was simply "wantonness" (as per jurisdictions that require intention with gross negligence) that it was used in violation of 18 U.S.C 793 (f), simply changes which paragraph she violated.
Comey clearly stated "there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information". Given those potential violations, the case should have been brought to trial. It was not brought to trial because of political considerations, not legal ones.
Now, It seems to me a reasonable person would agree that final judgement would be rendered by a judge and jury. But it's manifestly unreasonable for you to assert that there was no possible criminal violation here.
Comey used a synonym for "gross negligence", and it makes sense that he did so - the pressure on him to avoid an indictment was phenomenal, but he couldn't help but hold onto the last shred of integrity that he had by stating obliquely that indeed, she had committed a crime. Reminiscent of that POW that said one thing but blinked in code another.
(One mentioned "gross negligence", but the common legal interpretation of that phrase is pretty much the same as "intent".)
I re-read your statement. My disagreement stands - the common legal interpretation is not "pretty much the same as intent".
Although, I will agree that there are some specific cases where that legal interpretation is made. Here's a more recent cite, with some support for your position in specific states (showing some of the confusion across some courts): http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi...
As for "up to the judge", I'll defer to the SCOTUS (granting that some federal courts may on occasion disagree with each other). As per the original citation:
But it is interesting to note, in the Lockwood case, the United States Supreme Court modified its earlier decisions by refusing to reject degrees of care or diligence. Thus, if there is anything of a "Federal" rule, it is that there are no degrees of negligence, but that there are degrees of care.
More importantly, given that 18 U.S.C 793 specifically differentiates between "intent" and "gross negligence", it is difficult to assert that they are meant as synonyms.
That all being said, it's obvious there was "intent" (as in "intentional act"), given that creating a secret email server is an action that cannot be done accidentally. Whether or not it was intended to hurt the US (18 U.S.C 793 (a) (b)), or if it was simply an "intentional act" of gross negligence, lacking care (i.e., careless), then that fits 18 U.S.C 793 (f).
So regardless of ambiguity in lower court interpretation, Hillary fails on both counts - gross negligence, and intent.
Unintentional "gross negligence" would be something like, leaving your car unlocked and your secret blackberry laying on the seat in a bad neighborhood - a reasonable amount of care would have avoided the risk. Building your own private secret email server isn't something that happens through chance, or by accident - it is an intentional act, and in this case, a grossly negligent one.
Boy, it would've been nice to actually have this adjudicated in a court of law though, instead of having the process short circuited by secret meetings on tarmacs:)
The real fear about Trump isn't that he would *be* president, but that he would abuse the *power* of the presidency.
The real fear is that now that we've allowed unchecked expansion of the powers of the presidency for decades, we're worried about it being abused.
The real answer is to use the system of checks and balances to limit the power of the presidency.
Having the obnoxious, hated, vilified Trump in office would in fact, be the greatest incentive for the judiciary and the legislative branches of the government to *do their jobs*. Heck, maybe even the press would finally hold the president accountable for corruption, law breaking, and bad faith!
If you want this country to get better, the best way is to have a president hated so much that we begin to finally curtail executive abuse of power.
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
tl;dr - she didn't have to know it was wrong, she simply had to be "extremely careless" (aka, "grossly negligent")
Comey is an investigator, and is required to understand law as part of his job. His statements were legal declarations, of an investigatory agent, subject of course to an actual trial (which, we should have had). Comey, in fact, is a lawyer.
Insofar as the "intent" pagragraphs: (a) mentions "intent" (b) mentions "intent"
You made the assertion that "gross negligence" == "intent", which is obviously untrue. If it was true, they would not have needed to specify "gross negligence" from "intent".
It is basically a failure to excercise the degree of care demanded by the circumstances, or a failure to use the care which an ordinarily prudent man would use under the circumstances.
If you cannot understand how "extreme carelessness" is "a failure to exercise the degree of care demanded by the circumstances", you'll need to more carefully consult your english language dictionary.
The critical difference for me is that the media is behind Hillary, and will let her get away with anything.
On the other hand, the media hates Trump, and will hold his feet to the fire for *everything*.
I want a president that the media hates, so that they can't just break laws, magically make new ones with executive orders, and engage in wholesale corruption with no consequences.
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Comey used the words "extremely careless", which, in legal terms, is synonymous with "grossly negligent".
"intent" is not "gross negligence", as demonstrated by the separate specification of intent in 18 U.S.C 793 (a), 18 U.S.C 793 (b)
(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or (b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or
I want a president who is hated by the press, and will therefore be kept accountable by the systems of checks and balances our government should be exercising. At this point, their particular views on *anything* mean little to me, if our system colludes with them to avoid any sort of accountability. I would literally pick the most vile child murderer currently on death row for president, before allowing someone aided and abetted by the press to get away with rampant corruption and felonious handling of classified material.
My problem with their analysis (and indeed, it may be an impossible problem to solve), is factoring in productivity.
Here's what they looked at:
Job and Workplace Characteristics Occupation Industry Employer sector (e.g., nonprofit) Hours worked per week Whether employee worked multiple jobs Workplace flexibility, ability to telecommute Months at employer
Education and Training Characteristics Educational attainment (bachelor’s and any graduate enrollment or completion) Current enrollment status Other license or certification Work-related training Undergraduate GPA Undergraduate major Ever attended less-than-four-year institution Institution sector Institution selectivity
Demographic and Personal Characteristics Gender Age Highest education of either parent Race/ethnicity U.S. citizen Disabled Region of residence Marital status Has children Volunteered in past year
On top of that, they are comparing only college educated folk, and make the statement:
That is, after controlling for all the factors known to affect earnings, college-educated women earn about 5 percent less than college-educated men earn.
So, it's not "all the factors known to affect earnings", it's just "a large number of factors". Or maybe even "a large number of factors we're able to measure."
Nobody has told you that engineering isn't for girls, and nobody has told you that you have to act feminine when asking for a raise, and if you decide that the lower paid partner should take parental leave, you can always work harder if you want to make more money than your partner. Or give your partner the choice to make less money.
Now, as for women being the child bearing sex, well, agreed, that's not a choice - but given that biological fact, nobody is stopping you from making free choices, even if they are influenced by your biology.
Clearly, in some professions, men have an inherent advantage, just as in some professions women have an inherent advantage - it's not just about physical differences, there are mental differences between men and women too.
Being primarily left-brained helps you write code, and being willing to sacrifice social bonds can help you precision engineer a new widget.
Free choices can lead to disparate outcomes without any nefarious external influences.
You do realize that the often reported "pay-gap" doesn't control for qualifications, workload, or responsibility, right?
The pay-gap exists because men and women make different choices, and these choices have consequences even when everyone is paid identically based on qualifications, workload and responsibility.
Now, if you really want to talk about equal pay, hows about union shops where seniority drives pay, rather than qualifications, workload and responsibility. Two people, both working the same job, both producing the same results, and one gets paid more simply because they have been there longer. Now that's a sticky wicket.
If you mean "hard" as in "put in my own personal maximum effort", you've got a point. A five year old girl can "work as hard" as a 35 year old man, if they're both trying their best. Hell, a five year old girl can work even *harder* than a 35 year old man, if he's just slacking.
If you mean "hard" as in "actually performed an objectively measurable feat of strength", then, yes, there are some inherent sexual differences, and you can clearly see this in the over-representation of men in objectively hard, dangerous, physical jobs. Your "hard working" five year old girl might be putting 100% maximum effort to lift that 10 pound bag, and the "slacking" 35 year old man might only be putting in 10% effort moving around a 40 pound bag, but the 35 year old man is doing harder work.
I only point this out because GP didn't use the word "effort", which you seem to have interpreted into their comment.
In my experience, there is a significant difference in productivity for men and women, across quite a number of professions. Claiming that there is no difference in the productivity is quite misandrinistic. It's also false.
Say we stipulate for a moment you're correct, that it was "one factor".
By what method do you discern how much of a factor? How do you tell the difference between "3% responsible for leading to an arid desert wasteland" and "30% responsible for leading to an arid desert wasteland"?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, we can start off with the network definition. Any server outside the firewall is by it's very nature, more insecure than the ones protected by a DMZ.
Moving up the network layers, let's talk about the protocol. Any server using insecure protocols to transmit data, is more insecure than ones protected by basic SSL encryption. The FBI document also details that gap (which, eventually, was remediated, but not before work related emails were transported across it).
Finally, we can talk about process and policy. Any server working outside the standard process and policy protocols of an institution, which would include standardized backup, security maintenance, and security audits, is by definition more insecure.
Anyone who has worked in the private sector for a financial or health care institution will recognize immediately that using an insecure, secret server, to conduct work related business is grossly negligent. The fact that this was the State department, our scrutiny should be even more heightened.
Have you been asleep? Obama just let the terrorists out of gitmo. Who needs to close a prison when you can just let the prisoners go?
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
Of course it is. Besides the obvious physical security issues, having a home email server (literally in your home), is a technical nightmare when dealing with secure information.
Now, maybe if every email she ever sent was pgp encrypted, you might argue that insecure SMTP might be okay. But when you have a regular office email server that literally shuffles the emails from one side of l0 to the other side of l0, without ever exposing that to external network traversals, you by definition have an *inherently* more secure server.
This is why she sent an email to all of her staff warning them not to use personal email for business.
Read the FBI report that was release - it was explicitly kept secret from the public.
Obligatory "absence of evidence" and "evidence of absence" trope there.
Now, if you want to prosecute the State Dept. guys who were hacked for gross negligence as well, I'm happy to add them to the list of bad actors in government :) Let's face it, truly secure email is *not* rocket science here - I'm shocked they didn't actually encrypt every single message.
The act of avoiding a state approved blackberry, and using the previously created server, was intentional, wanton, and grossly negligent.
Whether or not you're talking about the actual, physical creation of the server, or the "creation" of it as a method for doing possibly classified work during her tenure at the state department, the fact remains the same - it was not "by accident", it was willful negligence.
That's simply not true.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
104 is not a handful.
I agree that if the tables were turned, both sides would take the opposite position.
I don't agree that isn't a big deal. Government corruption is particularly poisonous and insidious, and while our two party system may make for a great crop of hypocrites, that doesn't make their bad behavior excusable.
In fact, the reason why I'm voting for Trump is because he's the only candidate hated enough by the media and the establishment to be held accountable for his actions, and properly checked and balanced. Clinton's narrow escape here through political pressure is just one in a long litany of corrupt practices the mainstream media has given her a pass on.
Secret servers are not setup unintentionally. Comey himself called out extreme carelessness.
Q.E.D.
Yes, in fact, it is. It is grossly negligent to set up a secret server and transmit work-related information there, when your work-related emails can have various levels of classification.
Correct. If they had setup an insecure, secret, private gerbil delivery system for work-related information that could be classified, that would also demonstrate gross negligence.
No, you're not. You're claiming that the evidence doesn't matter, based on your semantic interpretation of "gross negligence" which is in contradiction to the SCOTUS application of it, and that there are possible legal arguments that may inject a reasonable doubt in the eyes of a jury.
See: http://scholarship.law.marquet...
And also: http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi...
There is conflicting case law in certain courts, but in general, the "Federal" rule as per SCOTUS does not require criminal intent:
By intentionally creating the server, she showed conscious and wanton disregard (extreme carelessness aka gross negligence). Arguing her intent had to be specific to an individual email, and therefore she could always defend with "I could not recall", misses the larger carelessness that occurred. She *intentionally* set up a system that facilitated the violation of 18 U.S.C 793 (f), and then that actual risk was actualized on numerous, ongoing occasions.
At the very least, we should all be able to agree that this should have been adjudicated at trial, and avoiding such a trial was a political move, not a legal one.
Even if I were to stipulate to your assertion, having a private, insecure server for *years* is certainly an ongoing pattern.
From Comey:
They had an ongoing set of improper conversations on this unclassified system for years.
Now, even if you want to argue that it *wasn't* grossly negligent, surely you can admit that this should have been adjudicated in a trial, instead of bypassed by political appointees.
Actually, it seems like we do.
What politician out there is advocating for limiting executive power? What judiciary or legislative branch is holding the executive to account? What mainstream news organization is investigating and exposing the corruption and deceit of the executive?
Imagine for a moment, King John *wasn't* a prick, and we *didn't* get the Magna Carta, and simply lived under arbitrary executive power?
And I think we can both agree that ultimately, this should have been adjudicated in a court of law. There was clearly enough to bring charges.
No, that's not what he said :) He was quite specific when he said that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case". It was definitely a crime, but in this case the "number of factors before bringing charges" obviously included the political pressure of the Obama administration :)
Of course not. Setting up the server BY ITSELF is an *intentional* act. Whether or not that intent was to harm the US (as per 18 U.S.C 793 (a) and (b)), or if it was simply "wantonness" (as per jurisdictions that require intention with gross negligence) that it was used in violation of 18 U.S.C 793 (f), simply changes which paragraph she violated.
Comey clearly stated "there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information". Given those potential violations, the case should have been brought to trial. It was not brought to trial because of political considerations, not legal ones.
Now, It seems to me a reasonable person would agree that final judgement would be rendered by a judge and jury. But it's manifestly unreasonable for you to assert that there was no possible criminal violation here.
Comey used a synonym for "gross negligence", and it makes sense that he did so - the pressure on him to avoid an indictment was phenomenal, but he couldn't help but hold onto the last shred of integrity that he had by stating obliquely that indeed, she had committed a crime. Reminiscent of that POW that said one thing but blinked in code another.
I re-read your statement. My disagreement stands - the common legal interpretation is not "pretty much the same as intent".
Although, I will agree that there are some specific cases where that legal interpretation is made. Here's a more recent cite, with some support for your position in specific states (showing some of the confusion across some courts): http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi...
As for "up to the judge", I'll defer to the SCOTUS (granting that some federal courts may on occasion disagree with each other). As per the original citation:
More importantly, given that 18 U.S.C 793 specifically differentiates between "intent" and "gross negligence", it is difficult to assert that they are meant as synonyms.
That all being said, it's obvious there was "intent" (as in "intentional act"), given that creating a secret email server is an action that cannot be done accidentally. Whether or not it was intended to hurt the US (18 U.S.C 793 (a) (b)), or if it was simply an "intentional act" of gross negligence, lacking care (i.e., careless), then that fits 18 U.S.C 793 (f).
So regardless of ambiguity in lower court interpretation, Hillary fails on both counts - gross negligence, and intent.
Unintentional "gross negligence" would be something like, leaving your car unlocked and your secret blackberry laying on the seat in a bad neighborhood - a reasonable amount of care would have avoided the risk. Building your own private secret email server isn't something that happens through chance, or by accident - it is an intentional act, and in this case, a grossly negligent one.
Boy, it would've been nice to actually have this adjudicated in a court of law though, instead of having the process short circuited by secret meetings on tarmacs :)
The real fear about Trump isn't that he would *be* president, but that he would abuse the *power* of the presidency.
The real fear is that now that we've allowed unchecked expansion of the powers of the presidency for decades, we're worried about it being abused.
The real answer is to use the system of checks and balances to limit the power of the presidency.
Having the obnoxious, hated, vilified Trump in office would in fact, be the greatest incentive for the judiciary and the legislative branches of the government to *do their jobs*. Heck, maybe even the press would finally hold the president accountable for corruption, law breaking, and bad faith!
If you want this country to get better, the best way is to have a president hated so much that we begin to finally curtail executive abuse of power.
Trump 2016
Intent is not necessary to violate 18 U.S. Code 793
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
tl;dr - she didn't have to know it was wrong, she simply had to be "extremely careless" (aka, "grossly negligent")
Comey is an investigator, and is required to understand law as part of his job. His statements were legal declarations, of an investigatory agent, subject of course to an actual trial (which, we should have had). Comey, in fact, is a lawyer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Insofar as the "intent" pagragraphs:
(a) mentions "intent"
(b) mentions "intent"
You made the assertion that "gross negligence" == "intent", which is obviously untrue. If it was true, they would not have needed to specify "gross negligence" from "intent".
For more detailed legal analysis, about "gross negligence", please see: http://scholarship.law.marquet...
If you cannot understand how "extreme carelessness" is "a failure to exercise the degree of care demanded by the circumstances", you'll need to more carefully consult your english language dictionary.
The critical difference for me is that the media is behind Hillary, and will let her get away with anything.
On the other hand, the media hates Trump, and will hold his feet to the fire for *everything*.
I want a president that the media hates, so that they can't just break laws, magically make new ones with executive orders, and engage in wholesale corruption with no consequences.
Trump 2016.
18 U.S.C 793 (f)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Comey used the words "extremely careless", which, in legal terms, is synonymous with "grossly negligent".
http://legal-dictionary.thefre...
"intent" is not "gross negligence", as demonstrated by the separate specification of intent in 18 U.S.C 793 (a), 18 U.S.C 793 (b)
I want a president who is hated by the press, and will therefore be kept accountable by the systems of checks and balances our government should be exercising. At this point, their particular views on *anything* mean little to me, if our system colludes with them to avoid any sort of accountability. I would literally pick the most vile child murderer currently on death row for president, before allowing someone aided and abetted by the press to get away with rampant corruption and felonious handling of classified material.
Trump 2016.
Well, CO2 is driven by temperature. Of course it will correlate.
http://joannenova.com.au/globa...
Assuming you're citing: https://www.aauw.org/files/201...
My problem with their analysis (and indeed, it may be an impossible problem to solve), is factoring in productivity.
Here's what they looked at:
On top of that, they are comparing only college educated folk, and make the statement:
So, it's not "all the factors known to affect earnings", it's just "a large number of factors". Or maybe even "a large number of factors we're able to measure."
Nobody has told you that engineering isn't for girls, and nobody has told you that you have to act feminine when asking for a raise, and if you decide that the lower paid partner should take parental leave, you can always work harder if you want to make more money than your partner. Or give your partner the choice to make less money.
Now, as for women being the child bearing sex, well, agreed, that's not a choice - but given that biological fact, nobody is stopping you from making free choices, even if they are influenced by your biology.
Clearly, in some professions, men have an inherent advantage, just as in some professions women have an inherent advantage - it's not just about physical differences, there are mental differences between men and women too.
Being primarily left-brained helps you write code, and being willing to sacrifice social bonds can help you precision engineer a new widget.
Free choices can lead to disparate outcomes without any nefarious external influences.
You do realize that the often reported "pay-gap" doesn't control for qualifications, workload, or responsibility, right?
The pay-gap exists because men and women make different choices, and these choices have consequences even when everyone is paid identically based on qualifications, workload and responsibility.
Now, if you really want to talk about equal pay, hows about union shops where seniority drives pay, rather than qualifications, workload and responsibility. Two people, both working the same job, both producing the same results, and one gets paid more simply because they have been there longer. Now that's a sticky wicket.
Ask yourself for a moment why there are separate men's and women's events in the olympics.
For extra credit, calculate what medals the women would've won if they were required to compete against the men.
I suppose it depends on how you measure "hard".
If you mean "hard" as in "put in my own personal maximum effort", you've got a point. A five year old girl can "work as hard" as a 35 year old man, if they're both trying their best. Hell, a five year old girl can work even *harder* than a 35 year old man, if he's just slacking.
If you mean "hard" as in "actually performed an objectively measurable feat of strength", then, yes, there are some inherent sexual differences, and you can clearly see this in the over-representation of men in objectively hard, dangerous, physical jobs. Your "hard working" five year old girl might be putting 100% maximum effort to lift that 10 pound bag, and the "slacking" 35 year old man might only be putting in 10% effort moving around a 40 pound bag, but the 35 year old man is doing harder work.
I only point this out because GP didn't use the word "effort", which you seem to have interpreted into their comment.
In my experience, there is a significant difference in productivity for men and women, across quite a number of professions. Claiming that there is no difference in the productivity is quite misandrinistic. It's also false.
Say we stipulate for a moment you're correct, that it was "one factor".
By what method do you discern how much of a factor? How do you tell the difference between "3% responsible for leading to an arid desert wasteland" and "30% responsible for leading to an arid desert wasteland"?
Obligatory CO2 desert greening link: http://phys.org/news/2013-07-g...