How come I never hear these complaints when people are insisting on huger, even more centralized nuke plants, or coal plants, or oil plants?
Maybe these limits are real. But in that case, the nuke boosters are lying when they tell us all we need are more nuke or coal plants, or just more oil drilling - because every centralized generation increase will bottleneck on the grid.
All the more reason a lot more power should be generated near where it's consumed. Which is one reason solar is good, and why a mix of various alternative power sources is essential to a reliable energy future.
It's always been like this. We've wasted a lot of power we've generated in transmission losses, and especially under Enron's leadership (into crooked debt hell) we've wasted a lot on redundant market manipulation. Many of the grid bottlenecks we're stuck with are good excuses for power barons to restrain supply in order to raise their prices.
We should have a better grid. After that huge 2005 Northeast Blackout, we didn't even bother to reinvest in that infrastructure, though we could see our danger as clearly as we couldn't see our noses on our faces. But we shouldn't just give yet another $billions handout to these spoiled, reckless power barons. Either they should invest in their own distribution, or the people should do for electricity what we did for the Internet, and the electic grid before that: build, own and protect a grid that doesn't just get written off as an insurance loss.
But really the end-run around these power misers should be better power networking, which means better local distribution. We've learned a lot about networks and grids since we built any of the several that changed the world. We can get the next version even more right, and avoid repeating the history that causes these crises.
No, I said "those Western states", never "the Western states", and the much more general "the West" when describing the overall region without specifying any particular state, because the "independence" myth is held by the whole region, though only a few places in it can make that claim.
You are a liar. Not just "biased", but a liar. Now tell me you're a "libertarian", and I'll tell you that's redundant.
Nonsense. No one "desperately wants taxes to go up", and of course no one would "e find not getting much money". As demonstrated by these clear facts.
Blue Staters tend to pull their weight a lot more. And the people who live in Blue States like NY, CA, MA and the rest are much more likely to pay professionals to prepare our tax returns than people in rural Red States.
The reality is that Republicans taxed the Blue States and spent it on the Red States. In the most massive tax & spend operation ever - the hugest debt creation ever.
Only a Republican could reverse sense into nonsense like that. Listen, just because you're grammatically correct when it's your turn to speak doesn't mean that your contribution "balances" the truth.
One essential role the government has in protecting a free market is enforcing truth in advertising. Left to just the buyers and sellers, the market fills with fly-by-night liars who sell a boatload of lies before they can be caught, then reappear under another name later to sell some more lies.
Instead, civilized societies of people band together to protect ourselves by making a government that enforces laws requiring substantial public statements to be true.
No, by "those Western states" I mean Western states that are Red States. If that sentence actually meant what that response perverted it into, it would have said "all the Western states", not "all those Western states".
As usual, a Republican just took a statement they didn't like, ripped it from the clear context that gives it its sense, and selfservingly reinterpreted it in public into a fake attack on them to whine about, just because their version is grammatically, but not semantically, "correct".
Wow, you are a perfect example of how Republicans shortchanging education makes Republicans who can't think. Republican thinking starts and ends with projecting your own worst fears about yourselves onto whoever threatens your faulty worldview with the facts.
Those data I cited areper capita. They have nothing to do with having a more urban population, because they're Federal taxes, not state/municipal. Except perhaps that people living in cities know how to get along with other people better than the welfare queens living in Federally subsidized landscapes.
Red States, not just "Western States", are the Welfare States, as I clearly state in my post, as is clearly supported by the data. California is a Blue State. So of course it's paying to carry the Red States (that attack it for the fraudulent opposite), just like I said.
You've really got a lot of nerve pretending you can tell me about reading comprehension, when you got that basic premise of this discussion so basically wrong.
And though Maine receives the welfare at a substantially higher rate than it it pays in taxes, it pays so little in taxes compared to, say, New York, that it's actually getting a little more than it pays, compared to the huge amount the US is paying to prop up Maine and the other net recipients.
Blue Staters don't "want to send more money to DC". We want to send enough money to DC in return for services we need. Red Staters differ only in that they want extra services, like wars (fought by someone else), will say they want fewer services (but only to everyone else), and never want to pay for it (though they always get someone else to).
What's "missing" is the truth about the Red States, which are Welfare States. They always have been: they were all colonized and defended by the Blue States, starting with the armies raised and funded by the Blue States; their infrastructure, from roads to irrigation to electrification to telephone and Internet, all paid by Blue States; their economies have all been paid by Blue State customers; their Dust Bowls, Depressions and bank catastrophies all bailed out by Blue States. And we can see clearly that when the Red States get total control of the government, that Welfare State programme is blatantly obvious.
What's also missing is Blue States finally holding Red States to their myths of "independence and self-sufficiency". We should cut them off from the public tit. Then let's see how their plummeting population manages to support enough votes in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College to keep the scam going enough to stay afloat.
Actually, the "lazies" you're talking about are the "Red States", which all get more money back from the Federal government than they send it in Federal taxes. The "Blue States" like New York pay to prop up those Welfare States by sending more taxes to DC than we get back.
There are a few notable exceptions. New Mexico is the poorest state, with the most tribal population, and lots of large Federal military bases and labs, so its welfare goes mainly to big Federal contractors who don't spread it around the state much. Hawaii is another state with a lot of poor people, many of them tribal, and lots of large Federal military bases. Maine gets a little more than it pays, but again is overall pretty poor. Texas, that "Republican Paradise", is taxed and feeladen every which way, in a giant ripoff, getting just a little less than it pays. Florida is right near the breakeven, but at least it's paying to prop up a system it was #1 in ushering in with its 2000 election. New Hampshire somehow gets screwed, too.
But other than that, the other 44 states all demonstrate that voting Democratic does get you taxed to redistribute your wealth to the rest of the country - even when the redistributors are a Republican controlled Federal government. The list also demonstrates the myth that "the West is independent": other than NM and TX, all those Western states are subsidized by the rest of the country, as they have been since they were colonized.
That list represents the most valuable wealth redistribution programme ever undertaken. Run by Republicans, at the peak of their power. Even as those Republicans cut Federal taxes while running up the Federal expenses, both in record amounts. But evidently spreading the benefits along more or less strict Party lines.
That device is $325. How about a $50 Linux PC that might not be the smallest, but is still smaller than a notebook, runs at least as fast as a P3/500MHz, has at least one each USB and PCI (but maybe no onboard VGA), and runs fanless?
So these guys go and convince the spooks that the Internet can be hijacked for comprehensive but totally stealth eavesdropping. And the spooks "don't do anything about it".
Except they do, don't they. The spooks go ahead and snoop the entire Internet. For the last 10 years.
I'm surprised at only the fact that the L0pht guys and others are still alive and running around loose to tell anyone that the spooks have known how to do this for this whole time.
Why is it taking so long for all Internet traffic to be encrypted end to end by default?
Maybe if the notaries were banks, or some other org that can pay damages when they enable some exploit to damage someone who trusts them, this system might be reliable. Because then the notaries' recommendation to trust the other site would actually have some consequences when they're inevitably wrong sometimes.
And if the transactions, with the questionable sites and the notaries themselves, were all recorded at yet another independent storage. Auditing those logs is the crux of any protection this system can offer.
Really, a software counselor for those lonely people stuck all the way out there in space with just each other for so long is just going to drive them all more nuts.
Human counselors work not just for the info they respond with, not just because they get you to talk, but because of the compassion from the counselor for the human's problem. Any software that can actually offer compassion to a twitchy astronaut is going to get driven crazy itself by the same shared conditions. Otherwise, the human would never trust it with their own problems.
We should keep our personal data in "memory banks", which are the fewest possible storage places, to which anyone else accessing the data must go to get it. Let the memory bank store an Access Control List, too, of who can access whose personal data, and the credentials for each access transaction. Then, those who access it just have a reference to the master data, and their own login info.
The memory bank spends its time and money protecting its data from getting cracked. It should be someplace with enough expertise and insurance that it can both protect from cracks, and pay to clean up the damage when it is inevitably cracked sometime, for some amount.
In fact, a regular bank's network, or even an insurance corp, sound like a good place for the master copy. Because people already trust them with their life's savings. If people want to take over their own data records, so the pointers all point at their personal storage, that should be an option. But their own insurance and liability will probably be higher cost than if they let experts do it for them, like every other info transaction we depend on.
It's all legal, but it's wrong. The point I made is that the state should not release those charges to the public until they're proven. The state can wrongly defame people, too, even if it's legally immune. And the mass media repeating that defamation is of course even more defamation. All wrong. It should stop. It's done way too much damage already.
Since SEER = COP * 3.792, a 10 SEER has a 2.6371308 COP. So you are correct, it consumes an extra 9.48W to cool 25W.
Thanks for teaching me better about these efficiency ratings. However, even if the problem isn't as extreme as I'd mistakenly thought, 75W of charge requiring 109.48 watts still means that system uses about 46% more energy than what actually charges the device.
But the question is always about alternatives. So what is the efficiency of typical direct-electric chargers, including while they're usually not charging a battery (but might or might not still be connected)? If they require more than 46% extra energy than what they actually deliver to the battery, then maybe this wireless charging is actually a good idea, after all.
No, you don't understand. Anybody who makes false or unsupported claims in public who damages someone else with those claims is guilty of slander/libel.
An accusation is not an arrest warrant. Before there is an arrest warrant, the accusation must be supported by enough evidence that a judge decides they're credible. Accusations that pass that test are not slander/libel, they've been vetted, so the arrest warrant can be published. The fact of the arrest is also a fact, and so is not slander/libel, nor are the charges.
But mere accusations are not facts, even though the fact is that someone accused someone else.
And likewise, until the state has proven the charges on which the person has been arrested, making those charges in public are slander/libel.
Nearly everything you just said is an oversimplification that changes the clear distinctions and protections into merely "secrecy", and so ignoring privacy and protection of those not (yet, perhaps) proven guilty.
The one point on which you and I can debate without your oversimplifications misrepresenting what I said is how to deal with an arrest warrant. The fact is that those warrants do occasionally notify the public not to associate with someone whose association can, once they're wanted for arrest, create a liability in the associated person. But that warrant doesn't need to reveal the charges, which discredit the wanted person perhaps even without their being guilty of anything. The warrant should simply identify the wanted person, and mention whether there's any risk to anyone else as justified in the hearing that created the warrant, like "armed and dangerous".
When CowboyNeal is actually put on the stand in a hearing, where they can respond to the charges, the charges against their identity can be published, first by the government, then by anyone else in the public, including news media. Until that time, there is no just cause for publicly defaming them, because that defamation is not proven.
Too many people with no guilt have been damaged by these public charges and arrests. The degree of proof required for an arrest, especially on "clear and present danger" charges (which are among the most defamatory), is much too low to be sure that the person deserves anything but a brief detention to ensure they can both be tried and defend themself. But publishing those charges in connection to their name does do that damage, often irreparable despite being falsely based. And those charges don't actually help apprehend that person, or protect the public (or their alleged victims, or the accused) in any way.
Yes, even the arrest itself, and the public record of it, is damaging, but they did at least engage in behavior risky enough to get arrested. Arrests themselves are small marks against someone in our highly policed state, so that cost is minimal, and probably unavoidable. But all the rest is unnecessary and counterproductive to actual justice, in which people who aren't guilty shouldn't be damaged at all.
Obama has accomplished quite a lot constructively as senator, whether with Democrats, or despite Republican opposition, or even with Republican partnership. His campaign has featured many events in which he has explained lots of details of his presidential policies. He has a solid legislative history in the Senate and in the Illinois statehouse, even despite his fairly brief tenures there.
McCain also has a lot of Senate record. He has made pretty clear that he will continue Bush's policies, even though he will varnish that by saying he's "different" - McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time even in 2007, after Bush wasn't even popular anymore. Because McCain is just as much a spokesmodel as Bush for the same Republican lobbyists who fed Bush most of his policies.
The problem with your description is that it describes media coverage, like CNN's windbag Bill Schneider. You somehow believe that the media is "mostly liberal", which means that you're "independent" only because Republicans aren't authoritarian enough for you, and because the corporate mass media has cultivated the "liberal media myth" to pretend their news cartel is some kind of competition.
There's no need to look at corporate mass media whitewashes of these politicians anymore. Look directly at their records, look at their specific plans. And don't quote a media whore like Bill Schneider, who just reads a script approved by his own corporate sponsor, as if he's got any insight. Especially when he says that blaming the other side in public for their failures is somehow more important to politicians than actually getting what they want. Which is mostly what they get.
No gag. I'd just apply established libel and slander laws to public criminal accusations. If they're true, no penalty. If they're false, penalty.
I'd also anonymize official government announcements of accusations, unless the accused waived privacy. The public hearings should still be open to the public, and a matter of public record, including the accused's identity. But until the actual hearing commences, the accused's identity should be anonymous. After the hearing resolves their guilt, their identity can be available as an exonerated person who was falsely accused (with the false accuser's identity public), or in fact as a person guilty of the proven accusations.
That simple system, with clear and reasonable boundaries, would protect everyone's interests, including the public interest in both information and rights protection. Justice is like that.
No, I'm asking for public accusations not to destroy the privacy of the accused. Because all too often the accusation is wrong, and it never is legally certain until after the trial, which of course can't happen until after the accusation.
The accused has the right for their accuser to make the accusation in public, and for the accuser's identity to be public. And also the right for the accused to publish their own identity, if they want to.
In fact, the just presumption that an accused is not guilty also requires they not be punished by simply accusing them. But ask anyone who's been "investigated" and cleared whether that was at all equal to never being falsely accused at all.
There is a vast difference between a "secret court" and protecting the rightful privacy of people who aren't proven guilty. The distinct degrees between have important differences.
BTW, publishing the "Pentagon Papers" has practically nothing to do with the rights of the accused.
I don't see what legitimate basis exists for publishing the names or other identifying info of people who are merely accused. There are real costs to being publicly accused, without justification that the person is necessarily guilty.
Public accusation of a crime should be equal to slander unless there's proof that the accused is actually guilty. Therefore publishing it in print should be libel.
Publish the names of those found guilty. That's a fact. But until then, slamming everyone who's accused just puts a weapon into any accuser's hands, wreaking havoc on plenty of people who never did anything but draw the attention of a liar, or just someone reckless with the truth.
The ones who remember how abysmal the past 8 years have been, and how much worse the next 4-8 would be with McCain keeping the Bush economy running.
Especially those who know that Bush squandered every penny and ounce of respect this country had amassed in over two centuries.
Oh, and especially those miners especially aren't going to vote for the guy who helped bury so many miners under the ground in unsafe mines "governed" by reps of the mine owners.
You are really one of the most incurable Republicans I've ever seen. Good thing the rest of America isn't so unable to learn from trauma.
To TrollMods, simple, public, indisputable facts about the chain of command of this report in Bush's government is a "troll". And somehow, specifically how the government is reporting on itself is "offtopic".
Slashdot Mirror
How come I never hear these complaints when people are insisting on huger, even more centralized nuke plants, or coal plants, or oil plants?
Maybe these limits are real. But in that case, the nuke boosters are lying when they tell us all we need are more nuke or coal plants, or just more oil drilling - because every centralized generation increase will bottleneck on the grid.
All the more reason a lot more power should be generated near where it's consumed. Which is one reason solar is good, and why a mix of various alternative power sources is essential to a reliable energy future.
It's always been like this. We've wasted a lot of power we've generated in transmission losses, and especially under Enron's leadership (into crooked debt hell) we've wasted a lot on redundant market manipulation. Many of the grid bottlenecks we're stuck with are good excuses for power barons to restrain supply in order to raise their prices.
We should have a better grid. After that huge 2005 Northeast Blackout, we didn't even bother to reinvest in that infrastructure, though we could see our danger as clearly as we couldn't see our noses on our faces. But we shouldn't just give yet another $billions handout to these spoiled, reckless power barons. Either they should invest in their own distribution, or the people should do for electricity what we did for the Internet, and the electic grid before that: build, own and protect a grid that doesn't just get written off as an insurance loss.
But really the end-run around these power misers should be better power networking, which means better local distribution. We've learned a lot about networks and grids since we built any of the several that changed the world. We can get the next version even more right, and avoid repeating the history that causes these crises.
Hey, *I* discovered that prime, years ago.
I just never realized it was the 45th Mersenne Prime. Thanks for filling in that gap in its resume!
No, I said "those Western states", never "the Western states", and the much more general "the West" when describing the overall region without specifying any particular state, because the "independence" myth is held by the whole region, though only a few places in it can make that claim.
You are a liar. Not just "biased", but a liar. Now tell me you're a "libertarian", and I'll tell you that's redundant.
Nonsense. No one "desperately wants taxes to go up", and of course no one would "e find not getting much money". As demonstrated by these clear facts.
Blue Staters tend to pull their weight a lot more. And the people who live in Blue States like NY, CA, MA and the rest are much more likely to pay professionals to prepare our tax returns than people in rural Red States.
The reality is that Republicans taxed the Blue States and spent it on the Red States. In the most massive tax & spend operation ever - the hugest debt creation ever.
Only a Republican could reverse sense into nonsense like that. Listen, just because you're grammatically correct when it's your turn to speak doesn't mean that your contribution "balances" the truth.
One essential role the government has in protecting a free market is enforcing truth in advertising. Left to just the buyers and sellers, the market fills with fly-by-night liars who sell a boatload of lies before they can be caught, then reappear under another name later to sell some more lies.
Instead, civilized societies of people band together to protect ourselves by making a government that enforces laws requiring substantial public statements to be true.
No, by "those Western states" I mean Western states that are Red States. If that sentence actually meant what that response perverted it into, it would have said "all the Western states", not "all those Western states".
As usual, a Republican just took a statement they didn't like, ripped it from the clear context that gives it its sense, and selfservingly reinterpreted it in public into a fake attack on them to whine about, just because their version is grammatically, but not semantically, "correct".
Wow, you are a perfect example of how Republicans shortchanging education makes Republicans who can't think. Republican thinking starts and ends with projecting your own worst fears about yourselves onto whoever threatens your faulty worldview with the facts.
Those data I cited are per capita. They have nothing to do with having a more urban population, because they're Federal taxes, not state/municipal. Except perhaps that people living in cities know how to get along with other people better than the welfare queens living in Federally subsidized landscapes.
Red States, not just "Western States", are the Welfare States, as I clearly state in my post, as is clearly supported by the data. California is a Blue State. So of course it's paying to carry the Red States (that attack it for the fraudulent opposite), just like I said.
You've really got a lot of nerve pretending you can tell me about reading comprehension, when you got that basic premise of this discussion so basically wrong.
And though Maine receives the welfare at a substantially higher rate than it it pays in taxes, it pays so little in taxes compared to, say, New York, that it's actually getting a little more than it pays, compared to the huge amount the US is paying to prop up Maine and the other net recipients.
Blue Staters don't "want to send more money to DC". We want to send enough money to DC in return for services we need. Red Staters differ only in that they want extra services, like wars (fought by someone else), will say they want fewer services (but only to everyone else), and never want to pay for it (though they always get someone else to).
What's "missing" is the truth about the Red States, which are Welfare States. They always have been: they were all colonized and defended by the Blue States, starting with the armies raised and funded by the Blue States; their infrastructure, from roads to irrigation to electrification to telephone and Internet, all paid by Blue States; their economies have all been paid by Blue State customers; their Dust Bowls, Depressions and bank catastrophies all bailed out by Blue States. And we can see clearly that when the Red States get total control of the government, that Welfare State programme is blatantly obvious.
What's also missing is Blue States finally holding Red States to their myths of "independence and self-sufficiency". We should cut them off from the public tit. Then let's see how their plummeting population manages to support enough votes in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College to keep the scam going enough to stay afloat.
Actually, the "lazies" you're talking about are the "Red States", which all get more money back from the Federal government than they send it in Federal taxes. The "Blue States" like New York pay to prop up those Welfare States by sending more taxes to DC than we get back.
There are a few notable exceptions. New Mexico is the poorest state, with the most tribal population, and lots of large Federal military bases and labs, so its welfare goes mainly to big Federal contractors who don't spread it around the state much. Hawaii is another state with a lot of poor people, many of them tribal, and lots of large Federal military bases. Maine gets a little more than it pays, but again is overall pretty poor. Texas, that "Republican Paradise", is taxed and feeladen every which way, in a giant ripoff, getting just a little less than it pays. Florida is right near the breakeven, but at least it's paying to prop up a system it was #1 in ushering in with its 2000 election. New Hampshire somehow gets screwed, too.
But other than that, the other 44 states all demonstrate that voting Democratic does get you taxed to redistribute your wealth to the rest of the country - even when the redistributors are a Republican controlled Federal government. The list also demonstrates the myth that "the West is independent": other than NM and TX, all those Western states are subsidized by the rest of the country, as they have been since they were colonized.
That list represents the most valuable wealth redistribution programme ever undertaken. Run by Republicans, at the peak of their power. Even as those Republicans cut Federal taxes while running up the Federal expenses, both in record amounts. But evidently spreading the benefits along more or less strict Party lines.
That device is $325. How about a $50 Linux PC that might not be the smallest, but is still smaller than a notebook, runs at least as fast as a P3/500MHz, has at least one each USB and PCI (but maybe no onboard VGA), and runs fanless?
So these guys go and convince the spooks that the Internet can be hijacked for comprehensive but totally stealth eavesdropping. And the spooks "don't do anything about it".
Except they do, don't they. The spooks go ahead and snoop the entire Internet. For the last 10 years.
I'm surprised at only the fact that the L0pht guys and others are still alive and running around loose to tell anyone that the spooks have known how to do this for this whole time.
Why is it taking so long for all Internet traffic to be encrypted end to end by default?
Maybe if the notaries were banks, or some other org that can pay damages when they enable some exploit to damage someone who trusts them, this system might be reliable. Because then the notaries' recommendation to trust the other site would actually have some consequences when they're inevitably wrong sometimes.
And if the transactions, with the questionable sites and the notaries themselves, were all recorded at yet another independent storage. Auditing those logs is the crux of any protection this system can offer.
I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.
Really, a software counselor for those lonely people stuck all the way out there in space with just each other for so long is just going to drive them all more nuts.
Human counselors work not just for the info they respond with, not just because they get you to talk, but because of the compassion from the counselor for the human's problem. Any software that can actually offer compassion to a twitchy astronaut is going to get driven crazy itself by the same shared conditions. Otherwise, the human would never trust it with their own problems.
We should keep our personal data in "memory banks", which are the fewest possible storage places, to which anyone else accessing the data must go to get it. Let the memory bank store an Access Control List, too, of who can access whose personal data, and the credentials for each access transaction. Then, those who access it just have a reference to the master data, and their own login info.
The memory bank spends its time and money protecting its data from getting cracked. It should be someplace with enough expertise and insurance that it can both protect from cracks, and pay to clean up the damage when it is inevitably cracked sometime, for some amount.
In fact, a regular bank's network, or even an insurance corp, sound like a good place for the master copy. Because people already trust them with their life's savings. If people want to take over their own data records, so the pointers all point at their personal storage, that should be an option. But their own insurance and liability will probably be higher cost than if they let experts do it for them, like every other info transaction we depend on.
It's all legal, but it's wrong. The point I made is that the state should not release those charges to the public until they're proven. The state can wrongly defame people, too, even if it's legally immune. And the mass media repeating that defamation is of course even more defamation. All wrong. It should stop. It's done way too much damage already.
Since SEER = COP * 3.792, a 10 SEER has a 2.6371308 COP. So you are correct, it consumes an extra 9.48W to cool 25W.
Thanks for teaching me better about these efficiency ratings. However, even if the problem isn't as extreme as I'd mistakenly thought, 75W of charge requiring 109.48 watts still means that system uses about 46% more energy than what actually charges the device.
But the question is always about alternatives. So what is the efficiency of typical direct-electric chargers, including while they're usually not charging a battery (but might or might not still be connected)? If they require more than 46% extra energy than what they actually deliver to the battery, then maybe this wireless charging is actually a good idea, after all.
No, you don't understand. Anybody who makes false or unsupported claims in public who damages someone else with those claims is guilty of slander/libel.
An accusation is not an arrest warrant. Before there is an arrest warrant, the accusation must be supported by enough evidence that a judge decides they're credible. Accusations that pass that test are not slander/libel, they've been vetted, so the arrest warrant can be published. The fact of the arrest is also a fact, and so is not slander/libel, nor are the charges.
But mere accusations are not facts, even though the fact is that someone accused someone else.
And likewise, until the state has proven the charges on which the person has been arrested, making those charges in public are slander/libel.
Nearly everything you just said is an oversimplification that changes the clear distinctions and protections into merely "secrecy", and so ignoring privacy and protection of those not (yet, perhaps) proven guilty.
The one point on which you and I can debate without your oversimplifications misrepresenting what I said is how to deal with an arrest warrant. The fact is that those warrants do occasionally notify the public not to associate with someone whose association can, once they're wanted for arrest, create a liability in the associated person. But that warrant doesn't need to reveal the charges, which discredit the wanted person perhaps even without their being guilty of anything. The warrant should simply identify the wanted person, and mention whether there's any risk to anyone else as justified in the hearing that created the warrant, like "armed and dangerous".
When CowboyNeal is actually put on the stand in a hearing, where they can respond to the charges, the charges against their identity can be published, first by the government, then by anyone else in the public, including news media. Until that time, there is no just cause for publicly defaming them, because that defamation is not proven.
Too many people with no guilt have been damaged by these public charges and arrests. The degree of proof required for an arrest, especially on "clear and present danger" charges (which are among the most defamatory), is much too low to be sure that the person deserves anything but a brief detention to ensure they can both be tried and defend themself. But publishing those charges in connection to their name does do that damage, often irreparable despite being falsely based. And those charges don't actually help apprehend that person, or protect the public (or their alleged victims, or the accused) in any way.
Yes, even the arrest itself, and the public record of it, is damaging, but they did at least engage in behavior risky enough to get arrested. Arrests themselves are small marks against someone in our highly policed state, so that cost is minimal, and probably unavoidable. But all the rest is unnecessary and counterproductive to actual justice, in which people who aren't guilty shouldn't be damaged at all.
Obama has accomplished quite a lot constructively as senator, whether with Democrats, or despite Republican opposition, or even with Republican partnership. His campaign has featured many events in which he has explained lots of details of his presidential policies. He has a solid legislative history in the Senate and in the Illinois statehouse, even despite his fairly brief tenures there.
McCain also has a lot of Senate record. He has made pretty clear that he will continue Bush's policies, even though he will varnish that by saying he's "different" - McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time even in 2007, after Bush wasn't even popular anymore. Because McCain is just as much a spokesmodel as Bush for the same Republican lobbyists who fed Bush most of his policies.
The problem with your description is that it describes media coverage, like CNN's windbag Bill Schneider. You somehow believe that the media is "mostly liberal", which means that you're "independent" only because Republicans aren't authoritarian enough for you, and because the corporate mass media has cultivated the "liberal media myth" to pretend their news cartel is some kind of competition.
There's no need to look at corporate mass media whitewashes of these politicians anymore. Look directly at their records, look at their specific plans. And don't quote a media whore like Bill Schneider, who just reads a script approved by his own corporate sponsor, as if he's got any insight. Especially when he says that blaming the other side in public for their failures is somehow more important to politicians than actually getting what they want. Which is mostly what they get.
No gag. I'd just apply established libel and slander laws to public criminal accusations. If they're true, no penalty. If they're false, penalty.
I'd also anonymize official government announcements of accusations, unless the accused waived privacy. The public hearings should still be open to the public, and a matter of public record, including the accused's identity. But until the actual hearing commences, the accused's identity should be anonymous. After the hearing resolves their guilt, their identity can be available as an exonerated person who was falsely accused (with the false accuser's identity public), or in fact as a person guilty of the proven accusations.
That simple system, with clear and reasonable boundaries, would protect everyone's interests, including the public interest in both information and rights protection. Justice is like that.
No, I'm asking for public accusations not to destroy the privacy of the accused. Because all too often the accusation is wrong, and it never is legally certain until after the trial, which of course can't happen until after the accusation.
The accused has the right for their accuser to make the accusation in public, and for the accuser's identity to be public. And also the right for the accused to publish their own identity, if they want to.
In fact, the just presumption that an accused is not guilty also requires they not be punished by simply accusing them. But ask anyone who's been "investigated" and cleared whether that was at all equal to never being falsely accused at all.
There is a vast difference between a "secret court" and protecting the rightful privacy of people who aren't proven guilty. The distinct degrees between have important differences.
BTW, publishing the "Pentagon Papers" has practically nothing to do with the rights of the accused.
I don't see what legitimate basis exists for publishing the names or other identifying info of people who are merely accused. There are real costs to being publicly accused, without justification that the person is necessarily guilty.
Public accusation of a crime should be equal to slander unless there's proof that the accused is actually guilty. Therefore publishing it in print should be libel.
Publish the names of those found guilty. That's a fact. But until then, slamming everyone who's accused just puts a weapon into any accuser's hands, wreaking havoc on plenty of people who never did anything but draw the attention of a liar, or just someone reckless with the truth.
The ones who remember how abysmal the past 8 years have been, and how much worse the next 4-8 would be with McCain keeping the Bush economy running.
Especially those who know that Bush squandered every penny and ounce of respect this country had amassed in over two centuries.
Oh, and especially those miners especially aren't going to vote for the guy who helped bury so many miners under the ground in unsafe mines "governed" by reps of the mine owners.
You are really one of the most incurable Republicans I've ever seen. Good thing the rest of America isn't so unable to learn from trauma.
Moderation -2
50% Troll
50% Offtopic
To TrollMods, simple, public, indisputable facts about the chain of command of this report in Bush's government is a "troll". And somehow, specifically how the government is reporting on itself is "offtopic".