VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
No bio...
User ID: 64
if a 10K time was fast or slow
Where would you put the threshold for "fast" or "slow"? I run a fair amount, and while I'm definitely not "fast" by my own definition, I have won a race or two when it's a low-key park run or such. I suppose compared to the average American I'm "fast", but my personal mark is "the Boston qualifying time" which continues to be slightly out of reach.
even if it didn't involve classified intel
Honestly it should be pretty embarrassing regardless, but the technicalities probably side with the folks in the administration saying it didn't: classified is a distinction largely imposed by executive orders (excluding some unrelated carve outs) and the power to declare a given fact "secret" or not is a power that has long been delegated to some of the people in the chat.
Maybe it should have been treated more sensitively, but the Secretary of State is empowered to decide "this isn't classified" definitively, and everyone else is supposed to follow along.
I've certainly heard this opined about high-level political types. In my experience the contractors and low level folks take it pretty seriously, and I know there was a lot of annoyance from those groups in particular about Hillary's email server, for example. There is (perhaps rightfully) a pretty strong view of a two-tier system there.
ETA: I've also heard rumblings that different departments within the government handle things like this very differently too.
The boring answer is that "the official channels" require badging through a few locked doors to log into a desktop computer in a windowless room to check email, which isn't very responsive if you're trying to move very quickly across several tiers of organization.
That is a poor excuse, but it seems the most likely one to me. Either that or concern about opsec was minimal given the adversary's technical prowess, but that also strikes me as a poor excuse.
I think the text of the laws in question largely date from a time with well-defined "work" and "not work" life spaces, but they're hardly unique to the US. If you're a laptop-class worker, can you "check your email" while on vacation somewhere? I can appreciate that there is a line somewhere before your host country should at least expect you to pay income taxes and such, but a small amount of de minimus work seems pretty harmless.
I follow a number of professional artists on social media, and at least once have seen a post lamenting that following the letter of the US tourist visa meant they couldn't paint a canvas, even for fun, while visiting (a high profile makes legal scrutiny more likely to appear too).
On the other hand, I don't have a specific threshold of "reasonableness" in mind. I'm open to hearing ideas, but "no" is at least a clear answer, and I'm fortunate enough to be able to personally leave work at work when I'm on vacation.
There are a surprising number of cricket fields in the couple American metro areas I frequent. Not a ton, but people are clearly investing in them. I suspect a good chunk of the players are South Asians on H1B visas or their relations, but I don't see a problem with trying to evangelize a sport.
if you're the product of a mixed family, are roughly the same color as Taylor Lautner and have the surname "Lopez" are you hispanic or white?
There have been a number of shifts in the common definition of "white" (which has occasionally gone by other terms like "WASP") that generally get swept under the rug by partisans. In the late 1800s, it didn't include Italians. Catholics more broadly were probably excluded until maybe the JFK administration.
I sometimes wonder if we'd all get along better if we actively tried to culturally expand that definition to include all Americans, rather than focusing on divisive "hyphenated Americans" (a term which dates back to the late 1800s). But it seems an unpopular idea in political activist circles.
I am generally supportive of peaceful, voluntary political union, and have occasionally mused on the topic myself. I could see some trouble selling Americans on it with an actual monarch as it's head, though.
I did think it was interesting when The Queen died that everyone so quickly agreed that Charles would head the Commonwealth (apparently agreed upon in advance by the heads of state), since the position is officially non-hereditary.
I think you'd be more likely to win this for those without work visas or other formal federal recognition, which is still a large number. "If you (1) sneak over the border and never talk to customs and immigration, or (2) if you overstay the terms of the visa through which you went through customs, you clearly don't see yourself as subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" strikes me as at least defensible, especially the former.
Remember when Trump totally ended the deluge of illegal immigrants in a week using only executive power?
People cite this frequently, but I think the biggest change isn't one of law or even executive policy, but only one of stated preference. The Biden administration was perceived as being friendly to illegal immigrants asylum seekers, and when a flood showed up in response, then administrative choices (the CBP app, for example) demonstrated the perception to be broadly correct. So far, at least, it seems enough to merely change that perception, although I assume some actions to back it up would eventually be necessary.
ICE raids my workplace and I tell them I’m Jose Gonzalez, I’m a US citizen, and I don’t say another word the whole time. How could they affirmatively prove that I’m not?
Lying to a federal officer (in this case about citizenship status) is a felony. It won't prove their case for them, but if they already had one current practice would allow them to tack on a "charged with felony" qualifier that seems to have a much broader approval rate with the public for rapid deportation.
Being silent might prove an alternative strategy, but I'm definitely not in a position to provide legal advice here.
This is the law in Japan for any non-Japanese. You must carry proof of your status at all times--the 外国人登録証 or popularly-known "gaijin card," which indicates your visa status. Everyone here who stays longer than 3 months gets one (students, those employed, etc.) except maybe diplomats. This is in lieu of carrying your passport, which visitors (under 3 months) are required to do.
I feel like this is pretty standard for all the non-US countries I've visited worldwide, at least on paper. I will admit to, say, going for a run and leaving my passport at the hotel, but in theory I've been required to carry it with me at all times. As far as I know, this is true in the US too: green card holders are supposed to carry it with them at all times, and visitors are supposed to carry their passports, although citizens are not required to do so (but if you are carrying such ID, you may be compelled to display it). Actual checks seem less frequent outside of ports of entry (and the occasional border patrol checkpoint further from the border).
On one hand, I respect the American tradition of civil liberties, but on the other I have trouble being alarmed at backsliding into fascism by adopting policies that checks notes align with every other first world country.
Does he think the United States government has, by itself, the capacity to replicate 1% of all intra-country flight capacity? To multiple different countries around the world? To do this every day for a year? I am skeptical.
The US government has contracts with commercial airlines as part of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet to support DOD needs in emergencies, presumably in advance of their other customers.
I don't think this would be popular, but the mechanism at least exists.
Young people live in a world where they constantly have doors slammed in their face.
Worse, "ghosting" has become ubiquitous in dating and employment, so doors aren't even being slammed. They just disappear without feedback.
Even more boring: the files implicate intelligence collection methods that would be embarrassing to admit existing. "We know he's not an Israeli asset because we've wiretapped the entire country of Israel and nobody ever mentioned him as an asset" is probably overstating the US power level, but is an example of something that isn't directly germane but would cause international relations trouble if it got out. IIRC there was that incident involving Merkel I think a decade or so ago.
In general I consider aesthetics-based zoning rules to be a left-leaning preference, and many of those are varying degrees of "traditional": I've heard Europeans in touristy cities complain that installing a heat pump is difficult because they can't visibly change the facade. Or San Francisco requiring expensive custom woodwork for similar reasons. Santa Fe codified "traditional" adobe as an architectural requirement, and I've suspected some "cute" small American towns I've visited do similarly to manage their aesthetics.
If anything, architectural free-for-all seems a bit of a libertarian aesthetic, and it's popularity in the US strikes me as a remaining vestage of the nation's cultural focus on "liberty".
Compare the programming concept of recursively subdividing an area into ever-smaller pieces as a quadtree.
The original zip code system was designed to simplify mail routing in a similar fashion. It's somewhat duplicative of the rest of the street address, but it was implemented to improve efficiency, despite occasional complaints about its supposed nonsensibility (not aligning with political boundaries, etc). The Irish solution is an interesting take on it with fully computerized sorting available, but there are legitimate questions about the comparative expense of renumbering everything versus the existing systems.
No doctor, sports PT or coach has ever quite told me that though, probably because it's considered rude and most people can't reliably and significantly affect their weight.
Serious coaches and such also have to be careful because eating disorders are common among (elite) endurance athletes: "if losing 10 pounds made me faster before, let's try it again" only works a finite number of times. There is a point, which I would doubt you've hit so far, at which losing weight is actually detrimental or harmful to more general health (hugely increased injury risk).
The US was rather close to getting Newfoundland in 1948.
I think that would have been possible as a goal six months ago. Less so, today. Although that would probably require more harmonization of national security and immigration concerns, I think compromises could have been worked out.
cheap cotton and rum and tea
Sometimes I'm amused that many commodities that launched empires --- spices, tea, sugar --- are largely now available cheaply at my local grocery store. A box of tea bags is a couple bucks, and pepper is put out freely on restaurant tables. Sugar is abundant enough to cause health risks from excess!
On the American side, I can see a case to be made for "stronger together" generally, but I feel like if Trump were serious about this, he's going the wrong way: winning hearts and minds would be the first step to doing so.
On the other hand, there are relatively few (peaceful) examples of nations unifying successfully. Notionally the EU seems to intend to do that, with discrete steps taken, but hasn't agreed to form, say, a single army together yet. The US Constitutional Convention maybe counts as an example, and IMO proves the point that we are stronger united as 50 states, but if you were trying to do it today, I can't imagine getting Texas, Florida, California, and New York to agree both to throw in their lot together and to let DC be in charge of them.
I suppose that's true, but I think the modal shoddy government decision looks more like spending absurd amounts on high speed rail that never materializes. Deaths at the hand of the government outside of wartime are pretty small in number (cops shooting people, the death penalty, maybe bad disaster planning). The PEPFAR example I'd broadly agree with, but the emotional valence of "caused death" versus "didn't save life" strikes me as not quite equivalent: if you accept that wholesale, then how many have you killed by not liquidating your life savings and giving to EA causes?
On the corporate side, you could look at Thomas Midgley, who was instrumental in popularizing leaded gasoline and freon, with drastic effects on probably tens of millions of lives. And the anti-car folks (I am not a hardcore believer) might have you found the tens of thousands of motor vehicle fatalities there in the US annually against the industry too.
- Prev
- Next
I don't think Hillary ever claimed the documents in question weren't classified on that basis. And I don't think they were publicly released like these seem to have been. I'm not sure it would have gone more smoothly if she had, either.
More options
Context Copy link