The issue of whether health care should be reformed is moot, IMO. The issue is the Constitutionality of the federal government involving itself in an area not permitted by its Limited Powers by a misinterpretation of the Spending Clause.
Besides the fact that the health care field is one of the most regulated fields of human endeavor in the U.S. Perhaps some deregulation is in order.
"This little disagreement looks like he's just wanting a share of any monetary damages awarded - or at least his name in the news. Bruce certainly doesn't have any grounds to stop the lawsuit anyway, and he approves of protecting the GPL."
So, in the article he asserts a copyright interest in BusyBox. He asserts that subsequent BusyBox code is derived from his work. He asserts he released via GPL. He asserts that subsequent BusyBox developers have violated the GPL by removing the copyright statement of ancestor developers (including himself). So, he's claiming the plaintiffs in the lawsuit may be liable to him for copyright violation themselves. His use of "appear to have" is a legal weaseling to avoid being found wrong in court and accruing damages.
Does he have grounds? Well, if he argues that he is the original copyright owner (which he does) and that they violate his GPL (which he does), then it certainly appears that he is claiming they cannot have grounds to sue. If I steal your car (or borrow it to go "to the store," but then drive it out-of-state for a fortnight), and somebody damages the car while I possess it, I cannot sue for damages to the car; right? You can sue for damages against me or the other party (or both?).
You cannot derive a work without permission (license) from the copyright owner. GPL was that permission, but he claims they violated the license. Had they complied with the GPL, then they would have standing. Legally speaking, you cannot profit from your own error.
I don't think Bruce needs his name in the news; I think he's established himself. It sounds like the lawsuit is harming his interests and he is trying to protect his interests. He's not asking for monetary damages (which can be fairly high), but is asking to work with violators (for a nominal fee) to bring them back into compliance. So, aside from the apparent claim that they are violating his right, he's also claiming they are harming his livelihood. He came to Slashdot because it's an expedient way to get the word out.
"Not necessarily, because if evidence of that deletion was found, then that in itself would have led to prosecutions."
So, you created a nice straw man hypothetical. The issue of the GPP is that the emails were not deleted, therefore there was no cover up. We don't have evidence (reported) that there was any deletion attempt (or success). That 22mio emails were found suggests something other than a cover up. You are right, _had they deleted emails_ that would have suggested a possible cover up. But, they _had not deleted_ emails. Therefore, your point is moot.
"The expansion in world film revenues since 1970 has grown from $1.2 billion to over $15 billion annually according to the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)."[link]
So, we have 10 billion mentioned, but another reference to 15 billion.
In 1970, an ounce of gold went for 35. Today it's 1,100. That's 31 times higher. So, in 1970 dollars (gold), the movie industry made about 320 million (@10 billion) or 483 million (@15 billion). That is forty percent (@15 billion) or 27 percent (@10 billion). I'm not saying they lost money, but that inflation is a killer.
Okay, so there are two sides to the story; and the only thing published is a fiction writers. Judging from his blog, there are a lot of people looking for an excuse to be sorry to be American. Here I get to play the other side, who won't say anything because that's the appropriate thing.
He got out of the car during a border crossing, obviously without instruction from law enforcement. That he was half-naked suggests something of the state he was in before he precipitated the altercation. Without video, there's nothing to say he didn't take a swing at the law enforcement, who responded in kind. You never get out of the car when stopped by law enforcement without their explicit say so. There was a time when you could do that; but we've had enough criminals who have attacked that the cops can't take chances. By getting out of the car and refusing to return, he precipitated this event.
So, your point is best summarize by a comment found on that link:
"'This technique of cherry-picking atypical "typical" values for rhetorical effect is[...]'
"I would have completed this sentence 'intellectually dishonest[.'] Contrasting that with the way you completed it is a rather sad comment on scientific publishing, especially if this piece has already passed peer review without any of the reviewers finding this worthy of comment."
My experience is this situation is more common than not: that even peer-reviewed scientific papers are conclusory, generally in the direction of bias of the specific field (or at the very least, in the direction of the peer-reviewers.
It's quite obvious that we caused this rather significant change. When will we step up and take responsibility for this climate change and do something to reverse it?
And, why can't the Sumerian story follow the Biblical one?
Or, better yet, if all the people in the world experienced the same event, why can't they each have a different perspective on it?
And somebody who focuses on my using the word random doesn't understand the first thing about sarcasm. I'm quite aware of evolution; I just don't accept a certain premise upon which it is based. I also don't accept a certain premise about the opposing viewpoint.
However, I do think the issue itself is petty. It's a fundamentally useless controversy that does nothing to improve the quality of man; but at least reduces us to pointless bickering.
The guy who came up with this storage system was pretty damn smart. RAM with a swap drive, parity. Quite intelligent. Not at all random, if I may say so myself.
"The use of agents provocateurs is standard practice at these sort of events. You can't legally break up a peaceful riot, so you send men in, incite the crowd, and then break up the riot you started. It happened at the last G20 in london. It happened at the WTO protests in Seattle. And you can bet your ass it's happening here."
There's a self-serving, conspiracy mindset. When the Conservatives and Libertarians were protesting during the town hall meetings, and holding their tea parties, there wasn't nearly the same sort of wanton disregard for authority. The Washington D.C. tea party, contrasting the G20 riot, was incident free. A Democrat-run D.C. and Democrat-run Congress/Executive would have gotten a lot of traction if the tea party had a riot. Why weren't there agent provocateurs?
Perhaps there's a more fundamental issue here. Perhaps the nature of those protesting? Perhaps because disruption is the primary means these various protests employ to get attention? No need for a police-infiltrating agent provocateur. The protesters are effective on their own.
Okay, so we're looking at 154,500,000 USD, right? The Federal gas tax is 18.4 cents.[tax] Average gas mileage is, say 22 MPG.[miles] Or, we pay.8 cents per mile. This means the study costs 18,472,826,890 miles---18 billion. We drove 1,444 billion miles last year. So, this "only" costs one percent of our mileage tax.
But, this is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, as the information collected is unreasonable---there are less intrusive measures (odometer).[fourth] Of course, there are a lot of you who think the Constitution is outdated and prefer a flexible interpretation.
I cannot believe the callous attitude shown by others on this board. Here we have a clear act of wanton aggression on a neighbor, and we do nothing? Where is the outrage? Where is the protesting in the streets? Why are we not contacting the Andromedan Embassy? We can't just sit here and watch it happen, we must do something! Just because this happened 2.5 million years ago is no reason to sit on the sideline. We must ACT!
"The question is what are you going to do when oil is permanently above 100USD a barrel and climbing, or worse, constantly volatile? What are you going to do in 50 years when the supply of oil is tightly constrained and wars are being fought over supplies?"
That's easy. I'll by one of the last V8s, paint it black, get a dog and start driving across the outback. Maybe I'll find an oil well pumping thousands of gallons, as much as I want, kachunk, kachunk. Or, just go to a wee town that uses pigs for fuel.
``Intelligent design is simple, everything can be explained because a god decided it had to be so. So our eyes work the way they work because god said so and you can't go questioning god. However god is not perfect. Why are some men color-blind while some women can perceive an extra color? Why can't we see ultra-violet? Why is that other animals have 4 or even 5 cones while we got only 3? It doesn't sit well with the ID idea that birds and fish got far better vision then we do."
Just because there exists color-blindness, etc. does not mean God is not perfect. (It is a proper name, like Gates.) And, "fairness" isn't a rationale, stating that birds and fish have better vision. We have better reasoning, and are slightly more articulate. Would you rather see very far, but be an idiot who pecks at the ground, or swoops at prey?
This man strikes me as being very much against any type of environmental regulation, and I'm not surprised that the EPA is trying to silence him.
Once upon a time, there was a man who flouted the institutional authority. He said the Earth revolved around the Sun, instead of the other way around. He was branded a heretic. Based on your statement, I would assume you would have sided with the clerics.
I don't know what "article" you refer to. I read a paper of his that is available from the links above. He builds his argument by first showing that the models used to support GW does not properly address the impact of solar radiation in their model. He also shows how the international organization stated it is 90 percent certain; which indicated a 10 percent risk of being completely wrong. His argument is that any uncertainty carries risk, and you have to effectively hedge your bets. He also argues that the predictions contradict 35 million years of data; and that the 1-2 meter sea level rise is less than the historic level that was 6 meters higher than present when the temperatures were 2deg C above present.
His paper then builds on that fundamental premise by showing the proposed solutions have doubtful impact on climate change and carry significant economic implications. He then operates under an assumption that something must be done, and offers options that are more tenable. I figure as an economist he might know something about that. I figure 38 years in the EPA means he might know a little something on the subject of the environment, especially when he's published in that field. At the very least, he offered his underlying assumptions and findings and allows for discussion. The EPA appears to refuse any information contrary to the party line. Sounds very much like the Earth again revolves around the Sun to me.
"I don't believe in global warming. However, even if I did, there's no reason to regulate CO2 emissions."
His paper isn't as you suggest. It's a classic approach to counter another point of view. "Their data fail to support the conclusion they reach, or it's faulty. However, assuming they're right, the solutions they recommend fail to properly address the underlying problem or causes; or they are impractical to implement."
There will ALWAYS be skepticism on a scientific theory as controversial as this. At some point we have to take action...
Why must action be taken if we are uncertain as to which action? If you believe action must be taken, then you believe the matter is settled. However, you acknowledge that there is controversy. Therefore, you acknowledge the matter is not settled. This leads to the conclusion that you are operating with an agenda, or are at the very least behaving in a conclusory manner. If your reaction to the first sentence was emotional, or that I was crazy, then your reaction validates my observation.
The controversy exists primarily because there are political underpinnings at work. There are those who feel a moral obligation to change things to make everything better. However, it is not certain or verifiable that the change will actually produce meaningful results---you can't prove things will be "better." It is a massive assumption to think that we can return to 1910 emissions levels and reverse the natural trend. We haven't even conclusively proven that the trend is of our own creation. One side points to data and offers a cause, and the other side offers plausible causes of that data. That the data show supports two divergent opinions suggests we don't know what we're talking about.
Democracy is the worst government system. Except for all the other ones we have tried in the past...
So, what's your alternative? Socialism is merely democratic Communism. So, if democracy is bad, then you'll have to go to some -archy, like monoarchy...
"[Science] is a pursuit of truth, with each experiment leaving a puzzle piece."
That is the problem...truth. Truth is relative to the perspective of the viewer. You are, in actuality, trying to disprove the presence of a higher power through observation. You resign yourself to use your limited faculties and believe that because you can't see, it can't be.
Let's just say you are very myopic and don't realize you need glasses because you've always been myopic. Just because some of us have 20/20 vision doesn't mean we're wrong because you aren't.
Okay, so we have staffers using non-government email to conduct government business? There is at least one law on the books about archiving WH emails for various purposes. That they are relying on external systems at all for that purpose seems like a clear violation. Whether Palin did it or not does not justify the new WH staff violating the law. "He committed murder, so I can commit murder, too."
That they are using a rationalization means they know they are violating something. But now, they have established a shadow infrastructure that allows them to continue to carry on government business outside government channels. Nothing prevents them from continuing to use this shadow infrastructure after they have legitimate accounts.
I would have thought that most of these accounts could have been created during the transition. It's not like the previous transition, where members of the outgoing administration ripped the letter 'W' off the keyboards and slipped porn into the paper in printers and copiers. If the prior administration here caused any significant delay, you can bet your bippy the press would have informed by the incoming administration.
My point is 1) that the delay is probably a ruse, or at best a minor inconvenience and 2) the new administration has established a way to violate federal law.
Maybe we should all set up gmail accounts with WH....
"It doesn't even outline what the supreme court is supposed to do."
Incorrect. Article III "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court..." So, judicial power rests with the court. Those who wrote the document knew exactly what that meant. It explicitly puts judicial power in the Court, not in the Legislature or the Executive (unless otherwise clearly stated. Included in this is the implicit exclusion if political authority, which is vested in the Executive and Legislative. Marbury v. Madison was pretty clear on this. The Court is not granted the ability to enact legislation, but to interpret legislation passed in accordance with the Constitution.
"What strict constitutionalists fail to realize is that the constitution is not a document written by a group of well meaning men with no political bias or agenda."
Again, incorrect. Just read what Scalia, the arch-strictarian has to say on the matter. All law is compromise, anybody who thinks differently is ignorant. Or do you prefer to make uninformed generalizations? I'll likely be modded down here because of what I say is controversial to those who refuse to be informed.
What strict constitutionalists generally assert is what is clearly stated in Article VI, "This Constitution...shall be the supreme Law of the Land." That is, that the written constitution is a law, and shall be interpreted as such. Importantly, not enact law, nor make assessments in which policies to apply to the Constitution that are not clearly stated.
What the Court has done over the past 50 years is exert political authority, in violation of its mandate, by making policy decisions. One example is the assertion of when somebody has reached an age of majority for execution, or the policy decision that the Eighth Amendment should be viewed in a "deterrence" or "punishment" capacity. Those are policy, and therefore political, decisions. This has led to categorical bars to entire classes of legislation, not based on a legitimate interpretation of the Constitution, but on the viewpoint of a few who prefer to ignore the legitimate role of the Constitution.
In truth, the Constitution has rules for changing its meaning, rules that have been successfully employed dozens of times, with legitimate changes occurring only about 29 times. The "living constitutional" camp decry the written meaning as being etched in stone--which it should be. If you don't like it change it. What those who prefer the written constitution acknowledge is their views are not truely majoritarian enough, which makes them anti-democratic.
The fact that the Court is embroiled in politics demonstrates is its violation of its Constitutional mandate; brought on by living constitutionalists.
What is sad about this is the rise of the Conservatives is anchored in the politization of the Courts. If the Courts would return to legitimate authority, then the Conservative movement would whither.
Slashdot Mirror
The issue of whether health care should be reformed is moot, IMO. The issue is the Constitutionality of the federal government involving itself in an area not permitted by its Limited Powers by a misinterpretation of the Spending Clause.
Besides the fact that the health care field is one of the most regulated fields of human endeavor in the U.S. Perhaps some deregulation is in order.
"This little disagreement looks like he's just wanting a share of any monetary damages awarded - or at least his name in the news. Bruce certainly doesn't have any grounds to stop the lawsuit anyway, and he approves of protecting the GPL."
So, in the article he asserts a copyright interest in BusyBox. He asserts that subsequent BusyBox code is derived from his work. He asserts he released via GPL. He asserts that subsequent BusyBox developers have violated the GPL by removing the copyright statement of ancestor developers (including himself). So, he's claiming the plaintiffs in the lawsuit may be liable to him for copyright violation themselves. His use of "appear to have" is a legal weaseling to avoid being found wrong in court and accruing damages.
Does he have grounds? Well, if he argues that he is the original copyright owner (which he does) and that they violate his GPL (which he does), then it certainly appears that he is claiming they cannot have grounds to sue. If I steal your car (or borrow it to go "to the store," but then drive it out-of-state for a fortnight), and somebody damages the car while I possess it, I cannot sue for damages to the car; right? You can sue for damages against me or the other party (or both?).
You cannot derive a work without permission (license) from the copyright owner. GPL was that permission, but he claims they violated the license. Had they complied with the GPL, then they would have standing. Legally speaking, you cannot profit from your own error.
I don't think Bruce needs his name in the news; I think he's established himself. It sounds like the lawsuit is harming his interests and he is trying to protect his interests. He's not asking for monetary damages (which can be fairly high), but is asking to work with violators (for a nominal fee) to bring them back into compliance. So, aside from the apparent claim that they are violating his right, he's also claiming they are harming his livelihood. He came to Slashdot because it's an expedient way to get the word out.
All this to say, don't say "certainly."
"Not necessarily, because if evidence of that deletion was found, then that in itself would have led to prosecutions."
So, you created a nice straw man hypothetical. The issue of the GPP is that the emails were not deleted, therefore there was no cover up. We don't have evidence (reported) that there was any deletion attempt (or success). That 22mio emails were found suggests something other than a cover up. You are right, _had they deleted emails_ that would have suggested a possible cover up. But, they _had not deleted_ emails. Therefore, your point is moot.
A different link:
"The expansion in world film revenues since 1970 has grown from $1.2 billion to over $15 billion annually according to the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)."[link]
So, we have 10 billion mentioned, but another reference to 15 billion.
In 1970, an ounce of gold went for 35. Today it's 1,100. That's 31 times higher. So, in 1970 dollars (gold), the movie industry made about 320 million (@10 billion) or 483 million (@15 billion). That is forty percent (@15 billion) or 27 percent (@10 billion). I'm not saying they lost money, but that inflation is a killer.
[link]: http://www.architecture.uwaterloo.ca/faculty_projects/terri/dystopia/mcauley/filmcost.html
Okay, so there are two sides to the story; and the only thing published is a fiction writers. Judging from his blog, there are a lot of people looking for an excuse to be sorry to be American. Here I get to play the other side, who won't say anything because that's the appropriate thing.
He got out of the car during a border crossing, obviously without instruction from law enforcement. That he was half-naked suggests something of the state he was in before he precipitated the altercation. Without video, there's nothing to say he didn't take a swing at the law enforcement, who responded in kind. You never get out of the car when stopped by law enforcement without their explicit say so. There was a time when you could do that; but we've had enough criminals who have attacked that the cops can't take chances. By getting out of the car and refusing to return, he precipitated this event.
Sorry, no sympathy.
So, your point is best summarize by a comment found on that link:
"'This technique of cherry-picking atypical "typical" values for rhetorical effect is[...]'
"I would have completed this sentence 'intellectually dishonest[.'] Contrasting that with the way you completed it is a rather sad comment on scientific publishing, especially if this piece has already passed peer review without any of the reviewers finding this worthy of comment."
My experience is this situation is more common than not: that even peer-reviewed scientific papers are conclusory, generally in the direction of bias of the specific field (or at the very least, in the direction of the peer-reviewers.
It's quite obvious that we caused this rather significant change. When will we step up and take responsibility for this climate change and do something to reverse it?
And, why can't the Sumerian story follow the Biblical one?
Or, better yet, if all the people in the world experienced the same event, why can't they each have a different perspective on it?
And somebody who focuses on my using the word random doesn't understand the first thing about sarcasm. I'm quite aware of evolution; I just don't accept a certain premise upon which it is based. I also don't accept a certain premise about the opposing viewpoint.
However, I do think the issue itself is petty. It's a fundamentally useless controversy that does nothing to improve the quality of man; but at least reduces us to pointless bickering.
The guy who came up with this storage system was pretty damn smart. RAM with a swap drive, parity. Quite intelligent. Not at all random, if I may say so myself.
"The use of agents provocateurs is standard practice at these sort of events. You can't legally break up a peaceful riot, so you send men in, incite the crowd, and then break up the riot you started. It happened at the last G20 in london. It happened at the WTO protests in Seattle. And you can bet your ass it's happening here."
There's a self-serving, conspiracy mindset. When the Conservatives and Libertarians were protesting during the town hall meetings, and holding their tea parties, there wasn't nearly the same sort of wanton disregard for authority. The Washington D.C. tea party, contrasting the G20 riot, was incident free. A Democrat-run D.C. and Democrat-run Congress/Executive would have gotten a lot of traction if the tea party had a riot. Why weren't there agent provocateurs?
Perhaps there's a more fundamental issue here. Perhaps the nature of those protesting? Perhaps because disruption is the primary means these various protests employ to get attention? No need for a police-infiltrating agent provocateur. The protesters are effective on their own.
Okay, so we're looking at 154,500,000 USD, right? The Federal gas tax is 18.4 cents.[tax] Average gas mileage is, say 22 MPG.[miles] Or, we pay .8 cents per mile. This means the study costs 18,472,826,890 miles---18 billion. We drove 1,444 billion miles last year. So, this "only" costs one percent of our mileage tax.
But, this is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, as the information collected is unreasonable---there are less intrusive measures (odometer).[fourth] Of course, there are a lot of you who think the Constitution is outdated and prefer a flexible interpretation.
[tax]: www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp
[miles]:http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html
[total]: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/09juntvt/09juntvt.pdf
[fourth]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
I cannot believe the callous attitude shown by others on this board. Here we have a clear act of wanton aggression on a neighbor, and we do nothing? Where is the outrage? Where is the protesting in the streets? Why are we not contacting the Andromedan Embassy? We can't just sit here and watch it happen, we must do something! Just because this happened 2.5 million years ago is no reason to sit on the sideline. We must ACT!
While you're being funny, if it was filed in Federal Court, the choices are Word Perfect or PDF...last I checked.
"The question is what are you going to do when oil is permanently above 100USD a barrel and climbing, or worse, constantly volatile? What are you going to do in 50 years when the supply of oil is tightly constrained and wars are being fought over supplies?"
That's easy. I'll by one of the last V8s, paint it black, get a dog and start driving across the outback. Maybe I'll find an oil well pumping thousands of gallons, as much as I want, kachunk, kachunk. Or, just go to a wee town that uses pigs for fuel.
``Intelligent design is simple, everything can be explained because a god decided it had to be so. So our eyes work the way they work because god said so and you can't go questioning god. However god is not perfect. Why are some men color-blind while some women can perceive an extra color? Why can't we see ultra-violet? Why is that other animals have 4 or even 5 cones while we got only 3? It doesn't sit well with the ID idea that birds and fish got far better vision then we do."
Just because there exists color-blindness, etc. does not mean God is not perfect. (It is a proper name, like Gates.) And, "fairness" isn't a rationale, stating that birds and fish have better vision. We have better reasoning, and are slightly more articulate. Would you rather see very far, but be an idiot who pecks at the ground, or swoops at prey?
This man strikes me as being very much against any type of environmental regulation, and I'm not surprised that the EPA is trying to silence him.
Once upon a time, there was a man who flouted the institutional authority. He said the Earth revolved around the Sun, instead of the other way around. He was branded a heretic. Based on your statement, I would assume you would have sided with the clerics.
I don't know what "article" you refer to. I read a paper of his that is available from the links above. He builds his argument by first showing that the models used to support GW does not properly address the impact of solar radiation in their model. He also shows how the international organization stated it is 90 percent certain; which indicated a 10 percent risk of being completely wrong. His argument is that any uncertainty carries risk, and you have to effectively hedge your bets. He also argues that the predictions contradict 35 million years of data; and that the 1-2 meter sea level rise is less than the historic level that was 6 meters higher than present when the temperatures were 2deg C above present.
His paper then builds on that fundamental premise by showing the proposed solutions have doubtful impact on climate change and carry significant economic implications. He then operates under an assumption that something must be done, and offers options that are more tenable. I figure as an economist he might know something about that. I figure 38 years in the EPA means he might know a little something on the subject of the environment, especially when he's published in that field. At the very least, he offered his underlying assumptions and findings and allows for discussion. The EPA appears to refuse any information contrary to the party line. Sounds very much like the Earth again revolves around the Sun to me.
"I don't believe in global warming. However, even if I did, there's no reason to regulate CO2 emissions."
His paper isn't as you suggest. It's a classic approach to counter another point of view. "Their data fail to support the conclusion they reach, or it's faulty. However, assuming they're right, the solutions they recommend fail to properly address the underlying problem or causes; or they are impractical to implement."
There will ALWAYS be skepticism on a scientific theory as controversial as this. At some point we have to take action...
Why must action be taken if we are uncertain as to which action? If you believe action must be taken, then you believe the matter is settled. However, you acknowledge that there is controversy. Therefore, you acknowledge the matter is not settled. This leads to the conclusion that you are operating with an agenda, or are at the very least behaving in a conclusory manner. If your reaction to the first sentence was emotional, or that I was crazy, then your reaction validates my observation.
The controversy exists primarily because there are political underpinnings at work. There are those who feel a moral obligation to change things to make everything better. However, it is not certain or verifiable that the change will actually produce meaningful results---you can't prove things will be "better." It is a massive assumption to think that we can return to 1910 emissions levels and reverse the natural trend. We haven't even conclusively proven that the trend is of our own creation. One side points to data and offers a cause, and the other side offers plausible causes of that data. That the data show supports two divergent opinions suggests we don't know what we're talking about.
And, as then, this is the 20th anniversary of my first post.
So, what's your alternative? Socialism is merely democratic Communism. So, if democracy is bad, then you'll have to go to some -archy, like monoarchy...
"Actually damages may be limited if he never registered his copyrights."
So, he may be able to file his copyright now, then start accruing damages...
So what the fuck do you want them for?
I want them so I can sleep soundly knowing peacnik idiots stay up nights worrying about them.
Gore is widely recognized as that leader because he helped get the public to accept the faux science. There, fixed that for you.
"[Science] is a pursuit of truth, with each experiment leaving a puzzle piece."
That is the problem...truth. Truth is relative to the perspective of the viewer. You are, in actuality, trying to disprove the presence of a higher power through observation. You resign yourself to use your limited faculties and believe that because you can't see, it can't be.
Let's just say you are very myopic and don't realize you need glasses because you've always been myopic. Just because some of us have 20/20 vision doesn't mean we're wrong because you aren't.
Okay, so we have staffers using non-government email to conduct government business? There is at least one law on the books about archiving WH emails for various purposes. That they are relying on external systems at all for that purpose seems like a clear violation. Whether Palin did it or not does not justify the new WH staff violating the law. "He committed murder, so I can commit murder, too."
That they are using a rationalization means they know they are violating something. But now, they have established a shadow infrastructure that allows them to continue to carry on government business outside government channels. Nothing prevents them from continuing to use this shadow infrastructure after they have legitimate accounts.
I would have thought that most of these accounts could have been created during the transition. It's not like the previous transition, where members of the outgoing administration ripped the letter 'W' off the keyboards and slipped porn into the paper in printers and copiers. If the prior administration here caused any significant delay, you can bet your bippy the press would have informed by the incoming administration.
My point is 1) that the delay is probably a ruse, or at best a minor inconvenience and 2) the new administration has established a way to violate federal law.
Maybe we should all set up gmail accounts with WH....
"It doesn't even outline what the supreme court is supposed to do."
Incorrect. Article III "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court..." So, judicial power rests with the court. Those who wrote the document knew exactly what that meant. It explicitly puts judicial power in the Court, not in the Legislature or the Executive (unless otherwise clearly stated. Included in this is the implicit exclusion if political authority, which is vested in the Executive and Legislative. Marbury v. Madison was pretty clear on this. The Court is not granted the ability to enact legislation, but to interpret legislation passed in accordance with the Constitution.
"What strict constitutionalists fail to realize is that the constitution is not a document written by a group of well meaning men with no political bias or agenda."
Again, incorrect. Just read what Scalia, the arch-strictarian has to say on the matter. All law is compromise, anybody who thinks differently is ignorant. Or do you prefer to make uninformed generalizations? I'll likely be modded down here because of what I say is controversial to those who refuse to be informed.
What strict constitutionalists generally assert is what is clearly stated in Article VI, "This Constitution...shall be the supreme Law of the Land." That is, that the written constitution is a law, and shall be interpreted as such. Importantly, not enact law, nor make assessments in which policies to apply to the Constitution that are not clearly stated.
What the Court has done over the past 50 years is exert political authority, in violation of its mandate, by making policy decisions. One example is the assertion of when somebody has reached an age of majority for execution, or the policy decision that the Eighth Amendment should be viewed in a "deterrence" or "punishment" capacity. Those are policy, and therefore political, decisions. This has led to categorical bars to entire classes of legislation, not based on a legitimate interpretation of the Constitution, but on the viewpoint of a few who prefer to ignore the legitimate role of the Constitution.
In truth, the Constitution has rules for changing its meaning, rules that have been successfully employed dozens of times, with legitimate changes occurring only about 29 times. The "living constitutional" camp decry the written meaning as being etched in stone--which it should be. If you don't like it change it. What those who prefer the written constitution acknowledge is their views are not truely majoritarian enough, which makes them anti-democratic.
The fact that the Court is embroiled in politics demonstrates is its violation of its Constitutional mandate; brought on by living constitutionalists.
What is sad about this is the rise of the Conservatives is anchored in the politization of the Courts. If the Courts would return to legitimate authority, then the Conservative movement would whither.