What are you talking about? Whoever hides, conceals, or destroys any public document shall be banned from public office. Her emails are public documents.
Or 18 U.S. Code 2071:
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Exactly. I'm not sure why yet another study confirming this is a big deal, or why it's a big deal when people such as Larry Summers make statements that, yes, there are tendencies for gender differences when talking about brains on a general basis, even if you can't make a specific prediction about any one individual based on that general tendency.
U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 101, Section 2071, Paragraph a: “Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
Paragraph b: Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.
That's the law, right there - plain and simple. She should be barred from holding any office in the U.S., and yet her supporters constantly defend her regardless of the reeking corruption and criminality. I get that you won't vote for a conservative, but why don't you at least try to find someone who's not criminal?
Nothing about the big-dig is associated with any "lowest bidders". Speaking as a Bostonian, the project was a massive demonstration of the sort of crony capitalism that runs on Beacon Hill, and especially within the various transportation departments. Massachusetts, for example, spends roughly 7 times per highway dollar as New Hampshire, and yet has far worse roads. It's all about kickbacks to cronies.
http://reason.org/studies/show...
Exactly. And if we make that break, then government's civil unions can apply to any sort of household where that makes sense, such as people caring for disabled relatives, etc.
Agreed. So make government civil unions about that, and "marriage" a definition churches or other organizations can apply to whatever they want. I see no good reason why any sort of family unit - such as someone caring for a disabled relative - shouldn't qualify for the property rights we currently grant to marriage.
Yes, many politicians and government officials are idiots - and no politician has the local knowledge that individuals in their specific circumstances have when making decisions - so even the smart politicians cannot be smart about the specific decisions their policies will force. Because of exactly that, the guiding principle of public policy and government needs to be to maintain as light a footprint as possible in society, and foster non-government or local solutions to exist wherever possible.
It always boggles my mind how much of the techie crowd, especially developers, advocate for big government solutions to problems. The first principle of good programming is probably that top-down, monolithic designs are a bad idea, and yet that's exactly what Federal government 'solutions' to most problems are.
Has he never heard of CO2? Why would any sane person want to burn all that and turn it into CO2?
Oh, yeah, profit. Fuck the Earth and all future generations, there's profit to be made! I can own sixteen mansions instead of twelve and have a bigger yacht.
Because the only people who make any money are the CEOs with the twelve mansions you mention? What about the tens of thousands of jobs that we could use in our economy, right now - or the fact that energy prices are climbing precisely when Americans are suffering through the toughest economic times since the 1920s?
CO2 is a gas vital to all life on earth. The concentration is very minute, and its effects on global temperature are totally dwarfed by the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor. The "climatologists" are politically and economically driven, not scientifically.
I love how this comment got instantly modded to troll, when it was simply pointing out some simple truths about biology, ecology, and politics.
I take it you're happy with the way government agencies are currently running? And with the political leadership we've had these past, oh, however back you wish to go?
Well, congratulations on being one of the few. Pretty much 90% of the country disapproves of congress, and just about every government agency you can grant initials to, or at least how they're performing their job.
Interesting...As a physicist, I attack string theory.
My main problem is it's method of development. Unlike most of the rest of the theories in the history of physics, string theory seems to be developed with a preconceived notion about what the solution is. If you look at the rest of the physics world, the theories were developed after data came in and partially upset the previous theory, and they were developed in accordance with the new data.
While I think that the birthers are silly, I feel bound by honesty to point out that your article (which I followed for amusement) explains that Hawaii isn't honoring requests because they get too many -- but also that only the State Health Director of Hawaii has made claims to actually having seen it.
I realize a majority of Muslims are not violent. My problem with the Muslim community as a whole is that while Christians come out and protest when violence is committed in their name (such as with Abortion doctor killings), and make it known that such behavior is NOT acceptable behavior to most of them, the Muslim community very rarely condemns the violent behavior that comes from their ranks. Instead, they almost always deflect away, usually blaming Israel. Hamas and Fatah both atrociously use terrorism, human shields, and other non-acceptable behaviors as they fight, but the behavior also extends to the radical sexism Muslim countries display so frequently: honor killings, locking women and girls into burning buildings because they're not completely covered, caning women for sexual immorality because four male witnesses can't step forward to verify that it was rape...it's just awful.
I'm not saying the majority of Muslims explicitly support these behaviors, but the fact that cartoons about Allah and Mohammed are able to get so many of them protesting and even rioting because they see it as offensive and reflecting badly on Islam, while these disgusting sex crimes, war crimes, and absolutely unjustifiable terrorist behaviors committed by other Muslims in the name of their religion can occur without mention is absurdly hypocritical and shows at least a tacit willingness to look the other way for so many of these behaviors.
Again, I'm not claiming Christianity wasn't as violent as anything else during the middle ages, and even more violent than many - and it probably is more of a statement about human nature than anything else. And I'm not trying to say that Christianity is superior to the other religions. My only point here is that while pretty much all of the other religions grew up in the past couple hundred years and figured out how to be tolerant of other cultures and religions, Muslims are still massacring each other and everyone else around the world, launching wars of religious conquest, enslaving, raping, and pillaging throughout Africa and southeast Asia, and in general not acting too different than they did throughout the whole middle ages. And very few Muslim organizations actually stand up and condemn so many of these atrocities that are being committed, in the name of their religion - while just about every other religion condemns the few instances of bad apples they get in their mix.
Sure, if the SHTF maybe some of the other religions would revert to more thuggish behavior, but right now Islam is the only religion I see taking hits out on people, and I just find it absolutely retarded when people try and spout politically correct moral equivalency crap about how because a handful of abortion doctors were murdered and Christianity waged religious wars a thousand years ago it's just as bad. It's utter bullcrap, and I'll call it when I see it. I would do the same if I saw someone say similar about Buddhism or Hinduism, but they're not the politically correct religion to bash.
It's true that Muslims had a higher level of civilization during the middle ages. That doesn't mean they were peaceful though - Eastern Europe, Moorish Spain, their history is all about Muslim conquest after the Roman Empire fell, much of that conquest during the middle ages.
Oh, and as far as the child molesting: I agree that the Catholic church has done a bit of coverup with their scandals - but I doubt any more than any other organization. In fact, the rate of child abuse is lower for Catholic priests than most other professions that work with children - the media just loves a scandal. Do you know how many more teachers have committed statutory rape than priests, and are STILL KEPT ON PAYROLL!!!? Look up "rubber rooms" sometime.
At one time, Christianity was pretty brutal, medieval, and savage. I'll admit it. But Islam never left that stage of development. When was the last Christian mob assembled for violence? Find me one incident in the past 200 years. How many times have artists "bravely" done things like submerge a crucifix in piss in the past 100 years, especially?
Now look at all the attacks committed in the name of Islam every day, around the world. All the honor killings, all the terrorist bombings, all the antisemitic attacks and torture. Trying to even compare the two is laughable.
Ah, I knew someone would bring up Abortion as proof that Christianity was just as violent as Islam.
There's been what, 10 abortion killings, ever? That's so clearly proof that Christians are just as much a threat as the same religion that's exiled Jews from their lands, launched worldwide terrorist guerrilla wars of conquest against practically every other religion, in Malaysia, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Sudan...the same religion that riots through France and Belgium torching cars, demands Sharia law trump all national laws and customs, and rarely condemns their own honor killings and terrorism against their own members (see Hamas vs. Fatah, Sunni vs. Shiite).
Christians, like practically every other adult religion regularly condemn any extremists. For every abortion killing numerous public groups come out and condemn the killer.
Next time you want to try and make a moral equivalence argument, try looking at the facts.
I think the implications of a national ID entirely depend on implementation. National IDs could be very scary indeed if, for example, they directly tied things like your tax history to the card. On the other hand, there are ways to do national IDs that would be an absolute boon to businesses, privacy, security, and personal liberty. Some time ago I submitted a proposal to ANSI to develop an ID standard. If national IDs were implemented as a set of requirements to a standard, than private issuers (think Credit Card issuers, for example) could compete with each other developing as secure and convenient of cards as possible. Furthermore, you could require those companies to store all personal data, and require that merchants (or whoever else needs to access your data, such as hospitals accessing your medical records) not store the data, and be verified and audited for security before they access it. This would in fact give citizens control over their own personal data, and provide a known level of security around everything.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you talking about? Whoever hides, conceals, or destroys any public document shall be banned from public office. Her emails are public documents.
Or 18 U.S. Code 2071: (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
As always, addressed best by Margaret Thatcher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Exactly. I'm not sure why yet another study confirming this is a big deal, or why it's a big deal when people such as Larry Summers make statements that, yes, there are tendencies for gender differences when talking about brains on a general basis, even if you can't make a specific prediction about any one individual based on that general tendency.
And yet, the Republican field is nearing 20 candidates, and I think only Walker and Christie have ever been the subject of serious investigations.
U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 101, Section 2071, Paragraph a: “Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
Paragraph b: Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.
That's the law, right there - plain and simple. She should be barred from holding any office in the U.S., and yet her supporters constantly defend her regardless of the reeking corruption and criminality. I get that you won't vote for a conservative, but why don't you at least try to find someone who's not criminal?
Nothing about the big-dig is associated with any "lowest bidders". Speaking as a Bostonian, the project was a massive demonstration of the sort of crony capitalism that runs on Beacon Hill, and especially within the various transportation departments. Massachusetts, for example, spends roughly 7 times per highway dollar as New Hampshire, and yet has far worse roads. It's all about kickbacks to cronies. http://reason.org/studies/show...
Seems logical to me.
Exactly. And if we make that break, then government's civil unions can apply to any sort of household where that makes sense, such as people caring for disabled relatives, etc.
Agreed. So make government civil unions about that, and "marriage" a definition churches or other organizations can apply to whatever they want. I see no good reason why any sort of family unit - such as someone caring for a disabled relative - shouldn't qualify for the property rights we currently grant to marriage.
Yes, many politicians and government officials are idiots - and no politician has the local knowledge that individuals in their specific circumstances have when making decisions - so even the smart politicians cannot be smart about the specific decisions their policies will force. Because of exactly that, the guiding principle of public policy and government needs to be to maintain as light a footprint as possible in society, and foster non-government or local solutions to exist wherever possible.
It always boggles my mind how much of the techie crowd, especially developers, advocate for big government solutions to problems. The first principle of good programming is probably that top-down, monolithic designs are a bad idea, and yet that's exactly what Federal government 'solutions' to most problems are.
Has he never heard of CO2? Why would any sane person want to burn all that and turn it into CO2?
Oh, yeah, profit. Fuck the Earth and all future generations, there's profit to be made! I can own sixteen mansions instead of twelve and have a bigger yacht.
Because the only people who make any money are the CEOs with the twelve mansions you mention? What about the tens of thousands of jobs that we could use in our economy, right now - or the fact that energy prices are climbing precisely when Americans are suffering through the toughest economic times since the 1920s?
CO2 is a gas vital to all life on earth. The concentration is very minute, and its effects on global temperature are totally dwarfed by the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor. The "climatologists" are politically and economically driven, not scientifically.
I love how this comment got instantly modded to troll, when it was simply pointing out some simple truths about biology, ecology, and politics.
Easily done
I take it you're happy with the way government agencies are currently running? And with the political leadership we've had these past, oh, however back you wish to go? Well, congratulations on being one of the few. Pretty much 90% of the country disapproves of congress, and just about every government agency you can grant initials to, or at least how they're performing their job.
What does DARPA have to do with the NSF?
Interesting...As a physicist, I attack string theory.
My main problem is it's method of development. Unlike most of the rest of the theories in the history of physics, string theory seems to be developed with a preconceived notion about what the solution is. If you look at the rest of the physics world, the theories were developed after data came in and partially upset the previous theory, and they were developed in accordance with the new data.
While I think that the birthers are silly, I feel bound by honesty to point out that your article (which I followed for amusement) explains that Hawaii isn't honoring requests because they get too many -- but also that only the State Health Director of Hawaii has made claims to actually having seen it.
I realize a majority of Muslims are not violent. My problem with the Muslim community as a whole is that while Christians come out and protest when violence is committed in their name (such as with Abortion doctor killings), and make it known that such behavior is NOT acceptable behavior to most of them, the Muslim community very rarely condemns the violent behavior that comes from their ranks. Instead, they almost always deflect away, usually blaming Israel. Hamas and Fatah both atrociously use terrorism, human shields, and other non-acceptable behaviors as they fight, but the behavior also extends to the radical sexism Muslim countries display so frequently: honor killings, locking women and girls into burning buildings because they're not completely covered, caning women for sexual immorality because four male witnesses can't step forward to verify that it was rape...it's just awful.
I'm not saying the majority of Muslims explicitly support these behaviors, but the fact that cartoons about Allah and Mohammed are able to get so many of them protesting and even rioting because they see it as offensive and reflecting badly on Islam, while these disgusting sex crimes, war crimes, and absolutely unjustifiable terrorist behaviors committed by other Muslims in the name of their religion can occur without mention is absurdly hypocritical and shows at least a tacit willingness to look the other way for so many of these behaviors.
Again, I'm not claiming Christianity wasn't as violent as anything else during the middle ages, and even more violent than many - and it probably is more of a statement about human nature than anything else. And I'm not trying to say that Christianity is superior to the other religions. My only point here is that while pretty much all of the other religions grew up in the past couple hundred years and figured out how to be tolerant of other cultures and religions, Muslims are still massacring each other and everyone else around the world, launching wars of religious conquest, enslaving, raping, and pillaging throughout Africa and southeast Asia, and in general not acting too different than they did throughout the whole middle ages. And very few Muslim organizations actually stand up and condemn so many of these atrocities that are being committed, in the name of their religion - while just about every other religion condemns the few instances of bad apples they get in their mix.
Sure, if the SHTF maybe some of the other religions would revert to more thuggish behavior, but right now Islam is the only religion I see taking hits out on people, and I just find it absolutely retarded when people try and spout politically correct moral equivalency crap about how because a handful of abortion doctors were murdered and Christianity waged religious wars a thousand years ago it's just as bad. It's utter bullcrap, and I'll call it when I see it. I would do the same if I saw someone say similar about Buddhism or Hinduism, but they're not the politically correct religion to bash.
It's true that Muslims had a higher level of civilization during the middle ages. That doesn't mean they were peaceful though - Eastern Europe, Moorish Spain, their history is all about Muslim conquest after the Roman Empire fell, much of that conquest during the middle ages.
Oh, and as far as the child molesting: I agree that the Catholic church has done a bit of coverup with their scandals - but I doubt any more than any other organization. In fact, the rate of child abuse is lower for Catholic priests than most other professions that work with children - the media just loves a scandal. Do you know how many more teachers have committed statutory rape than priests, and are STILL KEPT ON PAYROLL!!!? Look up "rubber rooms" sometime.
At one time, Christianity was pretty brutal, medieval, and savage. I'll admit it. But Islam never left that stage of development. When was the last Christian mob assembled for violence? Find me one incident in the past 200 years. How many times have artists "bravely" done things like submerge a crucifix in piss in the past 100 years, especially?
Now look at all the attacks committed in the name of Islam every day, around the world. All the honor killings, all the terrorist bombings, all the antisemitic attacks and torture. Trying to even compare the two is laughable.
Ah, I knew someone would bring up Abortion as proof that Christianity was just as violent as Islam.
There's been what, 10 abortion killings, ever? That's so clearly proof that Christians are just as much a threat as the same religion that's exiled Jews from their lands, launched worldwide terrorist guerrilla wars of conquest against practically every other religion, in Malaysia, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Sudan...the same religion that riots through France and Belgium torching cars, demands Sharia law trump all national laws and customs, and rarely condemns their own honor killings and terrorism against their own members (see Hamas vs. Fatah, Sunni vs. Shiite).
Christians, like practically every other adult religion regularly condemn any extremists. For every abortion killing numerous public groups come out and condemn the killer.
Next time you want to try and make a moral equivalence argument, try looking at the facts.
I think the implications of a national ID entirely depend on implementation. National IDs could be very scary indeed if, for example, they directly tied things like your tax history to the card. On the other hand, there are ways to do national IDs that would be an absolute boon to businesses, privacy, security, and personal liberty. Some time ago I submitted a proposal to ANSI to develop an ID standard. If national IDs were implemented as a set of requirements to a standard, than private issuers (think Credit Card issuers, for example) could compete with each other developing as secure and convenient of cards as possible. Furthermore, you could require those companies to store all personal data, and require that merchants (or whoever else needs to access your data, such as hospitals accessing your medical records) not store the data, and be verified and audited for security before they access it. This would in fact give citizens control over their own personal data, and provide a known level of security around everything.
My proposal is here, in pdf form.