It took me a few seconds to see how the path shown on the map is straight. Sure, straight lines on the Earth will look curved on a map, but that path heads very much South, then turns and heads very much North. How can that possibly be straight?
Then it dawned on me. If you're near the South Pole and you head South, toward the pole, then keep going PAST the South Pole, you'll be headed North - all the while going straight.
Where the path goes South of South America, it's near the pole. What looks like a turn North is actually going straight across Antarctica and up the other side.
One can greatly reduce the cost of producing and storing hydrogen by using a little chemistry. Just wrap about 18 hydrogen atoms around 6 or 8 carbon atoms and you have a real convenient liquid fuel with extremely high energy density. Runs great in any ordinary car too.:)
My logic? You are arguing that he was on duty, and off duty - at the same time.
My friend "X and not X" is always false, for any value of X. Would you like to decide whether or not you think he was on duty and we can take it from there? That'll determine which section applies, 7423 or 7424.
Nah, you were right the first time. It's an independent establishment. But let's assume you were wrong when you said that, and you are right when you now say it's not part of the executive branch at all. I'll assume that's your final answer and you won't change your mind again.
In that case, you might want to look at the Hatch Act again. It says employees within the scope of the Act aren't allowed to do certain things, and defines who those employees are:
5 USC S 7322(1) (1)âoeemployeeâ means any individual, other than the President and the Vice President, employed or holding office inâ" (A)an Executive agency other than the Government Accountability Office; or (B)a position within the competitive service which is not in an Executive agency;
"the competitive service" is government jobs you take a test for, jobs where the person is not appointed or elected. FCC commissioners are appointed, so they aren't part of the competitive service. The question, therefore, is are FCC commissioners "employed or holding office in - an Executive agency"?
If they are NOT employed or holding office in an executive agency, the Hatch Act has nothing to do with them whatsoever. You sure you want to stick with that answer?
Just to save you the time of looking it up, 7323(a) 1, which the Office of the Counsel pointed to, is using one's official authority to influence an election.
This took place at the Conservative Political Action Conference Maryland. Not at his office in Washington. So by the OSCâ(TM)s complaint, while he's attending a conference in Maryland he's still exercising his official authority, still on duty.
7324 exempts those who are on duty while not at the office. So if you're right, that he's not "on duty while away from the normal duty post", then the Special Counsel is wrong, and he's not guilty of a 7323 violation.
If you want him to be guilty, your best path to get there is to agree with OSP that he is on duty at all times and places, and therefore could have violated 7323. If he was off-duty, not exercising his official authority while stating that opinion, than there is no 7323 violation. Your argument ends up being one his defense would make (if it were sensible).
> For the set of excluded employees under 7324, I think you'd have an uphill climb claiming an FCC commissioner falls under section 7324 (b) (2) (A) "the duties and responsibilities of whose position continue outside normal duty hours and while away from the normal duty post". I don't think a business trip to a convention/meeting/panel discussion qualifies for that clause, although I'll grant you you can try to shoe-horn it in. I'll enjoy seeing how you manage that and exclude all the other career gov employees that regularly travel to conventions etc, effectively rendering the Hatch Act moot except in defined workplaces.
The exemption is for officials appointed by president and confirmed by the Senate, whose duties continue past 5:00. 99.999% of government employees are hired by managers, not appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. THAT is why the exemption doesn't apply to any but a very few - because it says people appointed by POTUS and confirmed by the Senate.
I'm actually surprised that you're arguing a top-level government official, the heads of major agencies, clock out and 5:00 and cease to have any duties after hours. Generally that terminology "duties continue after hours" is used to basically mean salaried people. Hourly people done when they clock out, salaried people are always "in the clock".
The operative phrase of (B) is: may engage in political activity otherwise prohibited by subsection (a)
So (B) is an exception to (a). If (B) applies, (a) does not. In this instance, his position does fall under (B), and he therefore "may do things prohibited by (a)" - (a) does not apply to him.
(C) clarifies that even for people to whom (a) applies, they can also express their political opinions, as he did.
As a matter of wise *policy*, to avoid any *appearance* of coming close to violating the Act, most officials generally avoid expressing political opinions at any time and place they are there as officials. That isn't required by the Act, though. That's a much stricter rule than what the Act requires.
> FCC commissioners do not qualify for this exemption even if they go through a similar process because they are not a cabinet level position AND they are in charge of an independent agency.
Instead of making stuff up, let's look at the statute again:
5 USC Â 105 Executive agency For the purpose of this title, âoeExecutive agencyâ means an Executive department, a Government corporation, and an independent establishment.
As you correctly stated, the FCC in an independent establishment, placing it's commissioners under the definition in 105, and therefore 7323.
-- It is the policy of the Congress that employees should be encouraged to exercise fully, freely, and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and to the extent not expressly prohibited by law, their right to participate or to refrain from participating in the political processes of the Nation. --
If someone told you that the intent of the Act is to make sure people DON'T participate in political discussion - well now you know they lied to you.
What isn't stated in the Act's statement of purpose, but is obvious from the context in which it is written, is that it was about government managers ordering, or "strongly encouraging", their employees to contribute to a certain candidate, typically the manager's boss, and "strongly encouraging" their employees to vote as directed.
Also, the government bureaucrats are supposed to just follow the policies set by elected and appointed officials, not advocate policy as part of their job. Senators obviously advocate policy, and create policy and encourage people to vote a particular way. The job of appointed officials such as the Secretary of State and FCC commissioners is to create policy. Do you seriously think the FCC Commissioners are legally barred from commenting on Net Neutrality and other political issues? It's illegal for Democrat commissioners to say Trump is wrong about Net Neutrality? No, that's their job. They are supposed to know more about Net Neutrality than Trump does, and speak up when he's wrong.
Thanks for that. I hadn't read the OSC letter. So the theory is using official authority to influence the outcome of an election.
I'm not sure which election they are referring to. Given subsection (c), which explicitly states they CAN state their political opinions, I'm not too sure his statement was an unlawful "use of official authority" either, it sounded more like stating an opinion to me.
I COULD extend my old Tampermonkey script to hide all of thr annoying people, or only show comments from people in my whitelist.
I made it years ago to make that ADP or whatever guy disappear from my browser. That guy who could never understand why in 1982 the world switched from hosts files to DNS. Seen that dude lately? I vanished him with Tampermonkey about three or four years ago.
It's four sentences. You don't have to guess what it might say. Just read it.
>> Perhaps the most interesting bit is 7324 subsection (B) > Unless one of those friends happens to be a CEO of a telecom bugging you about a policy and they you might be on duty again. It means your on-duty status is determined by the role you're playing in the moment, not by whether you're in the office during regular working hours.
It says nothing of the sort. It says the restriction does not apply to appointed officials, period. Not at a BBQ, not at the dentist, on a train or in a plane.
The REASONING of WHY it says that is because, as you said, it could be unclear as to when they are on duty and when they are not. That's the reason it says "An employee, the duties and responsibilities of whose position continue outside normal business hours, and who is appointed, MAY engage in political activity otherwise prohibited".
It doesn't say "may, unless there is a telecom CEO nearby". It says he's allowed to do it, period. Precisely because it would be unworkable to always try to figure out who all the other guests are at a party, and guess whether a judge would consider it bad for some reason. So the Act leaves no room for guessing. It says these officials may engage in political activity, they are not prohibited. Period.
Here's the entire subsection for you. It's really not that hard to read. -- (b) (1) An employee described in paragraph (2) of this subsection may engage in political activity otherwise prohibited by subsection (a) if the costs associated with that political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States. (2) Paragraph (1) applies to an employeeâ" (A) the duties and responsibilities of whose position continue outside normal duty hours and while away from the normal duty post; and (B) who isâ" (i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President; or (ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in relations with foreign powers or in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.
As eluded to in the article you linked, the problem for Sebelius was using tax payer money, under 7324. That's why she paid the money back from political funds.
7323(a) is limited by 7323(c), and the First Amendment. Appointed policy makers (which are political positions by nature) can, like everyone else, state their political opinions. 7323(c) states that clearly, in case there was any confusion. 7323(a) says they can't use their OFFICIAL AUTHORITY to affect an election, such as by ordering government resources, employees or money, be used to advance a political campaign. It does NOT say they can't state their opinions. Subsection (c) makes it very clear they can state their opinions.
That's if it wasn't obvious - politics is arguing about policy (politics and policy are from the same root word), so obviously policy makers are going to talk about politics - that's their job.
If you want to know what the Hatch Act says, the Act itself is probably shorter than that Comey article. You can see for yourself exactly what it says, with no worry that the reporter is spinning it.
Perhaps the most interesting bit is 7324 subsection (B). It says that people who are always on duty, because they are appointed officials rather than 9-5 employees, still have their first amendment rights. They can voice their political opinions just like everyone else, and the "not while on duty" rule doesn't apply to them since they are on duty 24/7.
You quoted the first half of 7324, subsection A. Read the rest of it, subsection B.
(ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in relations with foreign powers or in the nationwide administration of Federal laws. [That's an FCC commissioner] may engage in political activity otherwise prohibited by subsection (a) if the costs associated with that political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States.
Subsection (a) is what you quoted. But subsection (B) says appointed people CAN do those things, as long as they don't spend government money doing it.
They mention those six, let's step through them one-for-one and see. Below I will quote the statue and then comment on each.
7321 It is the policy of the Congress that employees should be encouraged to exercise fully, freely, and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and to the extent not expressly prohibited by law, their right to participate or to refrain from participating in the political processes of the Nation. -- 7321 says generally he, and all others, should be allowed to talk about politics.
7322 definitions, nothing interesting
7323 a) Subject to the provisions of subsection (b), an employee MAY take an active part in political management or in political campaigns, except an employee may notâ" (1) use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election; (2) knowingly solicit, accept, or receive a political contribution from any person, unless [There is a labor union involved]
[Here's subsection (B), which is the "except" above:
b) (1) An employee of the Federal Election Commission (except one appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate) [which he is] may not request or receive from, or give to, an employee, a Member of Congress, or an officer of a uniformed service a political contribution. (2) (A) No employee described under subparagraph (B) [list of agencies which does NOT include the FCC] (except one appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate), may take an active part in political management or political campaigns. (B) The provisions of subparagraph (A) shall apply toâ" (i) an employee ofâ" (list of federal agencies) --
So far he's doubly exempt - he's appointed by the President AND he doesn't work for any of the listed agencies.
7323 continued
3) No employee of the Criminal Division or National Security Division of the Department of Justice (except one appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate), may take an active part in political management or political campaigns.
(c) An employee retains the right to vote as he chooses and to express his opinion on political subjects and candidates. --
(C) might be worth reading twice. Even employees covered by the Hatch Act are allowed to express their opinion on political subjects and candidates. They are not allowed to run political campaigns.
7324 might be easier to read backward. It says what's not allowed, then lists several circumstances under which it IS allowed, including by a person appointed by the President, such as an FCC commissioner:
(2) in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an individual employed or holding office in the Government of the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof; (3) while wearing a uniform or official insignia identifying the office or position of the employee; or (4) using any vehicle owned or leased by the Government of the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof. (b) (1) An employee described in paragraph (2) of this subsection may engage in political activity otherwise prohibited by subsection (a) if the costs associated with that political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States. (2) Paragraph (1) applies to an employeeâ" (A) the duties and responsibilities of whose position continue outside normal duty hours and while away from the normal duty post; and (B) who isâ" (i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President; or (ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in relations with foreign powers or in the nationwide administration of Federal laws. -- The last bit may be confusing, b
This is bizarre. I wonder if anyone involved in this has READ the Hatch Act.
The Hatch Act doesn't apply to all federal employees. One group the Hatch Act says it does NOT apply to is: -- an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in the nationwide administration of Federal laws. --
The FCC commissioners are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Their job is to determine policies to pursued in the nationwide administration of Federal laws related to communications.
His job description is PRECISELY that which the Hatch Act, by its own terms, does not apply to.
It would make no sense to say that those senior officials who make political decisions, such the the Secretary of State and the FCC commissioners, aren't allowed to talk about politics. Net neutrality etc are essentially political issues, and it's the commissioner's job. Of course he's going to take a political stand! That's his job, deciding policy.
Artificial intelligence isn't sentience. Here's another surprise - I'm going to get my Masters from Georgia Tech, but I haven't yet decided between two different programs - Artificial Intelligence, or Machine Learning. The are two different degrees, covering different topics.
The English Oxford Living Dictionary gives this definition of artificial intelligence:
âoeThe theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making, and translation between languages.â
Slashdot Mirror
I should have said the path goes "straight past Antarctica", rather than "straight across Antarctica".
As you head South, as you pass Antarctica you're suddenly heading North, without ever turning.
It took me a few seconds to see how the path shown on the map is straight. Sure, straight lines on the Earth will look curved on a map, but that path heads very much South, then turns and heads very much North. How can that possibly be straight?
Then it dawned on me. If you're near the South Pole and you head South, toward the pole, then keep going PAST the South Pole, you'll be headed North - all the while going straight.
Where the path goes South of South America, it's near the pole. What looks like a turn North is actually going straight across Antarctica and up the other side.
One can greatly reduce the cost of producing and storing hydrogen by using a little chemistry. Just wrap about 18 hydrogen atoms around 6 or 8 carbon atoms and you have a real convenient liquid fuel with extremely high energy density. Runs great in any ordinary car too. :)
My logic? You are arguing that he was on duty, and off duty - at the same time.
My friend "X and not X" is always false, for any value of X.
Would you like to decide whether or not you think he was on duty and we can take it from there? That'll determine which section applies, 7423 or 7424.
Nah, you were right the first time. It's an independent establishment. But let's assume you were wrong when you said that, and you are right when you now say it's not part of the executive branch at all. I'll assume that's your final answer and you won't change your mind again.
In that case, you might want to look at the Hatch Act again. It says employees within the scope of the Act aren't allowed to do certain things, and defines who those employees are:
5 USC S 7322(1)
(1)âoeemployeeâ means any individual, other than the President and the Vice President, employed or holding office inâ" (A)an Executive agency other than the Government Accountability Office; or (B)a position within the competitive service which is not in an Executive agency;
"the competitive service" is government jobs you take a test for, jobs where the person is not appointed or elected. FCC commissioners are appointed, so they aren't part of the competitive service. The question, therefore, is are FCC commissioners "employed or holding office in - an Executive agency"?
If they are NOT employed or holding office in an executive agency, the Hatch Act has nothing to do with them whatsoever. You sure you want to stick with that answer?
> > O'Reilly was subject to 7324 (b) (1) which means that 7324
> O'Reilly's statements violate 7323
So you'e changed your mind. Cool. You see they can't violate both, he can't be both on-duty and off-duty at the same time.
Just to save you the time of looking it up, 7323(a) 1, which the Office of the Counsel pointed to, is using one's official authority to influence an election.
This took place at the Conservative Political Action Conference Maryland. Not at his office in Washington. So by the OSCâ(TM)s complaint, while he's attending a conference in Maryland he's still exercising his official authority, still on duty.
7324 exempts those who are on duty while not at the office. So if you're right, that he's not "on duty while away from the normal duty post", then the Special Counsel is wrong, and he's not guilty of a 7323 violation.
If you want him to be guilty, your best path to get there is to agree with OSP that he is on duty at all times and places, and therefore could have violated 7323. If he was off-duty, not exercising his official authority while stating that opinion, than there is no 7323 violation. Your argument ends up being one his defense would make (if it were sensible).
That's an interesting take on it. Fyi, the Office of the Special Counsel and the Attorney General disagree with you.
OSP says it's dangerously close to violating 7323 (a)1.
> For the set of excluded employees under 7324, I think you'd have an uphill climb claiming an FCC commissioner falls under section 7324 (b) (2) (A) "the duties and responsibilities of whose position continue outside normal duty hours and while away from the normal duty post". I don't think a business trip to a convention/meeting/panel discussion qualifies for that clause, although I'll grant you you can try to shoe-horn it in. I'll enjoy seeing how you manage that and exclude all the other career gov employees that regularly travel to conventions etc, effectively rendering the Hatch Act moot except in defined workplaces.
The exemption is for officials appointed by president and confirmed by the Senate, whose duties continue past 5:00. 99.999% of government employees are hired by managers, not appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. THAT is why the exemption doesn't apply to any but a very few - because it says people appointed by POTUS and confirmed by the Senate.
I'm actually surprised that you're arguing a top-level government official, the heads of major agencies, clock out and 5:00 and cease to have any duties after hours. Generally that terminology "duties continue after hours" is used to basically mean salaried people. Hourly people done when they clock out, salaried people are always "in the clock".
The operative phrase of (B) is:
may engage in political activity otherwise prohibited by subsection (a)
So (B) is an exception to (a). If (B) applies, (a) does not. In this instance, his position does fall under (B), and he therefore "may do things prohibited by (a)" - (a) does not apply to him.
(C) clarifies that even for people to whom (a) applies, they can also express their political opinions, as he did.
As a matter of wise *policy*, to avoid any *appearance* of coming close to violating the Act, most officials generally avoid expressing political opinions at any time and place they are there as officials. That isn't required by the Act, though. That's a much stricter rule than what the Act requires.
> FCC commissioners do not qualify for this exemption even if they go through a similar process because they are not a cabinet level position AND they are in charge of an independent agency.
Instead of making stuff up, let's look at the statute again:
5 USC Â 105
Executive agency
For the purpose of this title, âoeExecutive agencyâ means an Executive department, a Government corporation, and an independent establishment.
As you correctly stated, the FCC in an independent establishment, placing it's commissioners under the definition in 105, and therefore 7323.
Here's the very first sentence of the Hatch Act:
--
It is the policy of the Congress that employees should be encouraged to exercise fully, freely, and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and to the extent not expressly prohibited by law, their right to participate or to refrain from participating in the political processes of the Nation.
--
If someone told you that the intent of the Act is to make sure people DON'T participate in political discussion - well now you know they lied to you.
What isn't stated in the Act's statement of purpose, but is obvious from the context in which it is written, is that it was about government managers ordering, or "strongly encouraging", their employees to contribute to a certain candidate, typically the manager's boss, and "strongly encouraging" their employees to vote as directed.
Also, the government bureaucrats are supposed to just follow the policies set by elected and appointed officials, not advocate policy as part of their job. Senators obviously advocate policy, and create policy and encourage people to vote a particular way. The job of appointed officials such as the Secretary of State and FCC commissioners is to create policy. Do you seriously think the FCC Commissioners are legally barred from commenting on Net Neutrality and other political issues? It's illegal for Democrat commissioners to say Trump is wrong about Net Neutrality? No, that's their job. They are supposed to know more about Net Neutrality than Trump does, and speak up when he's wrong.
Thanks for that. I hadn't read the OSC letter. So the theory is using official authority to influence the outcome of an election.
I'm not sure which election they are referring to. Given subsection (c), which explicitly states they CAN state their political opinions, I'm not too sure his statement was an unlawful "use of official authority" either, it sounded more like stating an opinion to me.
Let me know if you find such a site.
I COULD extend my old Tampermonkey script to hide all of thr annoying people, or only show comments from people in my whitelist.
I made it years ago to make that ADP or whatever guy disappear from my browser. That guy who could never understand why in 1982 the world switched from hosts files to DNS. Seen that dude lately? I vanished him with Tampermonkey about three or four years ago.
It's four sentences. You don't have to guess what it might say. Just read it.
>> Perhaps the most interesting bit is 7324 subsection (B)
> Unless one of those friends happens to be a CEO of a telecom bugging you about a policy and they you might be on duty again. It means your on-duty status is determined by the role you're playing in the moment, not by whether you're in the office during regular working hours.
It says nothing of the sort. It says the restriction does not apply to appointed officials, period. Not at a BBQ, not at the dentist, on a train or in a plane.
The REASONING of WHY it says that is because, as you said, it could be unclear as to when they are on duty and when they are not. That's the reason it says "An employee, the duties and responsibilities of whose position continue outside normal business hours, and who is appointed, MAY engage in political activity otherwise prohibited".
It doesn't say "may, unless there is a telecom CEO nearby". It says he's allowed to do it, period. Precisely because it would be unworkable to always try to figure out who all the other guests are at a party, and guess whether a judge would consider it bad for some reason. So the Act leaves no room for guessing. It says these officials may engage in political activity, they are not prohibited. Period.
Here's the entire subsection for you. It's really not that hard to read.
--
(b)
(1) An employee described in paragraph (2) of this subsection may engage in political activity otherwise prohibited by subsection (a) if the costs associated with that political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States.
(2) Paragraph (1) applies to an employeeâ"
(A) the duties and responsibilities of whose position continue outside normal duty hours and while away from the normal duty post; and
(B) who isâ"
(i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President; or
(ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in relations with foreign powers or in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.
As eluded to in the article you linked, the problem for Sebelius was using tax payer money, under 7324. That's why she paid the money back from political funds.
7323(a) is limited by 7323(c), and the First Amendment.
Appointed policy makers (which are political positions by nature) can, like everyone else, state their political opinions. 7323(c) states that clearly, in case there was any confusion. 7323(a) says they can't use their OFFICIAL AUTHORITY to affect an election, such as by ordering government resources, employees or money, be used to advance a political campaign. It does NOT say they can't state their opinions. Subsection (c) makes it very clear they can state their opinions.
That's if it wasn't obvious - politics is arguing about policy (politics and policy are from the same root word), so obviously policy makers are going to talk about politics - that's their job.
The people who wrote this proposal got tax payers to pay their next two years expenses while they fart around with a wifi router.
The bureaucrat who approved it and the tax payers who are funding it might be dumb as fuck, however.
Uhm, I copied/pasted and commented on ALL of the sections and of the entire Act.
Are you trying to say the entire Act only applies to FEC employees, are or you just really, really stoned?
If you want to know what the Hatch Act says, the Act itself is probably shorter than that Comey article. You can see for yourself exactly what it says, with no worry that the reporter is spinning it.
I copy/pasted the Act above, here:
https://politics.slashdot.org/...
That's copy / pasted from:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Through
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Perhaps the most interesting bit is 7324 subsection (B).
It says that people who are always on duty, because they are appointed officials rather than 9-5 employees, still have their first amendment rights. They can voice their political opinions just like everyone else, and the "not while on duty" rule doesn't apply to them since they are on duty 24/7.
You quoted the first half of 7324, subsection A. Read the rest of it, subsection B.
(ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in relations with foreign powers or in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.
[That's an FCC commissioner]
may engage in political activity otherwise prohibited by subsection (a) if the costs associated with that political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States.
Subsection (a) is what you quoted. But subsection (B) says appointed people CAN do those things, as long as they don't spend government money doing it.
> 5 U.S.C. 7321-7326
They mention those six, let's step through them one-for-one and see. Below I will quote the statue and then comment on each.
7321
It is the policy of the Congress that employees should be encouraged to exercise fully, freely, and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and to the extent not expressly prohibited by law, their right to participate or to refrain from participating in the political processes of the Nation.
--
7321 says generally he, and all others, should be allowed to talk about politics.
7322 definitions, nothing interesting
7323
a) Subject to the provisions of subsection (b), an employee MAY take an active part in political management or in political campaigns, except an employee may notâ"
(1) use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election;
(2) knowingly solicit, accept, or receive a political contribution from any person, unless [There is a labor union involved]
[Here's subsection (B), which is the "except" above:
b)
(1) An employee of the Federal Election Commission (except one appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate) [which he is] may not request or receive from, or give to, an employee, a Member of Congress, or an officer of a uniformed service a political contribution.
(2)
(A) No employee described under subparagraph (B) [list of agencies which does NOT include the FCC] (except one appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate), may take an active part in political management or political campaigns.
(B) The provisions of subparagraph (A) shall apply toâ"
(i) an employee ofâ" (list of federal agencies)
--
So far he's doubly exempt - he's appointed by the President AND he doesn't work for any of the listed agencies.
7323 continued
3) No employee of the Criminal Division or National Security Division of the Department of Justice (except one appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate), may take an active part in political management or political campaigns.
(c) An employee retains the right to vote as he chooses and to express his opinion on political subjects and candidates.
--
(C) might be worth reading twice. Even employees covered by the Hatch Act are allowed to express their opinion on political subjects and candidates. They are not allowed to run political campaigns.
7324 might be easier to read backward. It says what's not allowed, then lists several circumstances under which it IS allowed, including by a person appointed by the President, such as an FCC commissioner:
(2) in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an individual employed or holding office in the Government of the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof;
(3) while wearing a uniform or official insignia identifying the office or position of the employee; or
(4) using any vehicle owned or leased by the Government of the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof.
(b)
(1) An employee described in paragraph (2) of this subsection may engage in political activity otherwise prohibited by subsection (a) if the costs associated with that political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States.
(2) Paragraph (1) applies to an employeeâ"
(A) the duties and responsibilities of whose position continue outside normal duty hours and while away from the normal duty post; and
(B) who isâ"
(i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President; or
(ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in relations with foreign powers or in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.
--
The last bit may be confusing, b
This is bizarre. I wonder if anyone involved in this has READ the Hatch Act.
The Hatch Act doesn't apply to all federal employees. One group the Hatch Act says it does NOT apply to is:
--
an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.
--
The FCC commissioners are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Their job is to determine policies to pursued in the nationwide administration of Federal laws related to communications.
His job description is PRECISELY that which the Hatch Act, by its own terms, does not apply to.
It would make no sense to say that those senior officials who make political decisions, such the the Secretary of State and the FCC commissioners, aren't allowed to talk about politics. Net neutrality etc are essentially political issues, and it's the commissioner's job. Of course he's going to take a political stand! That's his job, deciding policy.
> likely leads viewers to buy it on the internet.
Not just "the internet", but the videos had links to the publishers site, and instructed viewers to buy there. So plain old illegal drug advertising.
The person on YouTube may have been an advertising affiliate for the site, or may have owned it outright. I don't see much difference.
I know where you can get 1.21 gigawatts in wheels. It goes 88 MPH.
Artificial intelligence isn't sentience. Here's another surprise - I'm going to get my Masters from Georgia Tech, but I haven't yet decided between two different programs - Artificial Intelligence, or Machine Learning. The are two different degrees, covering different topics.
The English Oxford Living Dictionary gives this definition of artificial intelligence:
âoeThe theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making, and translation between languages.â