> "Despite the nation's justice system being built on the presumption of innocence, a large percentage of the population views "arrested and charged" as being no different than "found guilty."
The problem isn't incomplete online records. It's that people will link to the arrest or accusation story - and ONLY to the arrest or accusation story - but not to the exoneration story from weeks or months later.
While "political operatives do not need the Internet to find dirt", c'mon; be realistic. Mug shots, newspaper clippings and other records were always publicly available for those willing to travel and expend significant effort. But with the internet one can "find dirt" - or find non-dirt and misrepresent it - from a vastly greater number of sources than before the internet. Without leaving their chair.
Consider the Cardinal Richelieu quote: If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
The internet gives you an encyclopedia of information about any public figure. Their own quotes. Stories and claims about them by others. Finding "something with which to hang them" is trivial. A few carefully selected links not only "prove" your accusation, but let you say "All I did is link to the story!"
I'm not saying that Tim Cushing is on the balance wrong; I'm saying that it's a bit more complicated. We're in the information age. Our standards for citations haven't caught up with the technology.
Hubble's initial problem would have just as easily happened on a space telescope launched on a conventional disposable rocket.
The difference is that Hubble was designed to be serviced in space by the Shuttle. And so the Shuttle essentially did it's first mission early and repaired Hubble. In your non-shuttle world it would have been a write-off.
Later servicing missions not only greatly extended Hubble's life, but gave it capabilities far beyond the original design.
No space walks means no space station, no missions beyond Low Earth Orbit, and virtually no repair or recovery missions.
Linking to defamatory content may not be defamation, but even when done without malice it may be little different from defamation.
I'm think here of the many online newspaper archives. You may be accused of something horrible, but cleared in a later issue. Someone could link to the newspaper issue with the accusation (giving it enormous credibility), without any hint that the accuser later apologized to you.
This it the sort of thing that can be used as a dirty trick in political campaigns and elsewhere.
I strongly suggest that you offer a non-rabid badger and ballbat without spikes under certain narrow circumstances. Be sure to point out that non-threatening and non-violent responses don't benefit those like Shkreli.
While we're at it, let's mandate that every home owner must leave a house key under their front doormat. Criminals have been known to lock their doors and police are put in real danger busting them down not knowing what's waiting for them on the other side.
But don't worry; mandating house keys hidden under everyone's doormats won't be any more a security risk than a back-door password in every device. Only the police will know that the key or password is there.
Forgive me, but I believe it's because your model of what happened is more than a bit oversimplified. I prefer how a Vox.com writer put it over a year ago:
"The absurdity runs deep." America uses American military equipment to bomb American military equipment that ISIS captured (from inept Iraqi soldiers, inept in part since America disbanded Iraq's professional military in 2003). America's Kurdish allies, fighting ISIS, use inferior Russian weapons they captured in the 1980s. ISIS has a so-far-safer haven in Syria because America declined to arm moderate Syrian rebels, largely out of fear that radicals like the future ISIS would capture weapons America provided. "So now (America is) bombing the guns that (it) didn't mean to give ISIS because (America) didn't give guns to their enemies because then ISIS might get guns." [Vox.com, 8-8-2014]
As I indicated in my original post, I *do* consider it a campaign stop. Dropping in unscheduled to grandstand on an issue is a traditional part of campaigning. Huckabee was establishing his political "brand", even if the brand is "protecting the sanctity of traditional bigotry."
Why would I call *you* "hateful," "bigoted," "phobic", etc., etc., etc.?
Incorrect. She went to jail for using a government position to force her religion on others. It's not the same thing.
Nor did she do it for Christianity as a whole; other Christian denominations endorse and perform same-sex marriages. She did it for her own personal interpretation of Christianity.
> Even the Pope recognized this attack on religion and met with her.
Incorrect. The Pope briefly met with a group of "several dozen" people that she happened to be in. She did not have a private audience. Comments that her fan club misrepresent as supporting her, were made to reporters on the flight back to Europe and had nothing to do with her.
> if she were ANY other religion besides Christianity, accommodations would have been made (and have since been made)
Incorrect. What's been shown - and no-one denies this - is that accommodations are often made for other religions IN ADDITION TO Christianity. Jews and Muslims may be allowed to refuse to serve pork for example, while Christians may be allowed to refuse to work on Sundays. All may refuse to perform or attend same-sex marriage ceremonies.
But Christian or otherwise, those accommodations don't extend to letting a government official force their religion on OTHERS as Davis tried to do. Jews and Muslims can't use their government positions to deny food licences to restaurants serving pork. A Catholic with Davis's job could not have used her Catholic beliefs to deny Davis a licence for her second, third or fourth marriages. A Jehovah's Witness can't use a government position to stop blood donations and transfusions.
We've been hearing about the "War on Christianity" from the wingnut blogosphere all through the Obama administration, but we still haven't seen any such attack.
No, refusing to allow someone to use her government position to force her personal interpretation of her religion's marriage policy on everyone else, is not an attack on Christianity. Especially not when other major Christian denominations endorse and perform same-sex marriages.
No, not putting snow flakes on Starbucks cups is not an attack on Christianity.
If you don't like "all the tension in this country", then stop trying to create it.
ISIS supporters have been found in the United States and most other western Democracies. One can guarantee that this is still the case, even without lowering the bar to "suspected." Do you plan to glass over the United States, Britain, France, etc.?
How about terrorists from other organizations? For example Jeb Bush arranged the pardon and residency in the US for Orlando Bosch with his dad. This after Bosch was responsible for bombings from South America to Florida to Canada, and even a car bombing in Washington DC. His "greatest hit" was bombing an airliner out of the sky, killing 73 people.
He only died in 2011, having been given refuge in the US all through the "War on Terror." Are you calling on the US to nuke itself, or for another country to do it?
Perhaps we can arrange a debate between Hillary and Ted "Hackers Will Take Down Our Electric Grid" Koppel.
No doubt she'll concede that corporations can have encryption. But since people want to do internet banking, Apple Pay and other functions that require an encrypted connection to those corporations - from a secure personal device - she'll just switch to a different line of hypocrisy and wishful thinking.
I recently watched the The PBS series The Mystery of Matter: Search for the Elements. I shudder to think of how much our civilization would be set back if each new element, each new method of discovering new elements and their properties, and Mendeleev's Periodic Table itself were encumbered by patents.
I miss the pre-internet days when terrorists communicated through same-day flower deliveries and candygrams. (President's Daily Briefing: Hamas's truffle cream "nougat" selection indicates imminent attack)
Today that first episode is rather creepy to watch. It starts with Burke at the foot of the Word Trade Center towers and then on the roof, talking about a jetliner on a collision course with the towers during the blackout.
The entire series is well worth watching even today.