Texas Poised To Pass Unprecedented Email Privacy Bill 262
An anonymous reader writes "A bill has reached the desk of Texas Governor Rick Perry that would give stronger privacy protections to email accounts than exist in any other state. If Perry signs it (or simply declines to veto it before June 16th), the legislation would force law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before reading somebody's email, even if the email has been sitting on the server for a long time. 'As we've noted many times before, there are no such provisions in federal law once the e-mail has been opened or if it has been sitting in an inbox, unopened, for 180 days. In March 2013, the Department of Justice acknowledged in a Congressional hearing that this distinction no longer makes sense and the DOJ would support revisions to ECPA.' This bill passed the state legislature unanimously. The article points out that the legislation won't protect from federal investigations, but it will set a precedent that the U.S. Congress will surely notice. An attorney with the EFF said, 'It's significant as proof that privacy reform is not only needed, but also politically-feasible with broad bipartisan support. And hopefully that will impact federal ECPA reform efforts by getting people on both of sides of the political aisle to work together to make meaningful electronic privacy reform a reality. The more states that pass similar legislation, the more pressure it will put on Congress to keep up with the changing legal landscape.'"
Texas leads the way, again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Texas leads the way, again (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of folks like to mis-characterize Texas and Texans, but as a foreigner they seem to be doing plenty of things right.
This legislation would only affect organizations and individuals within the state of Texas, whose customers are also within the State of Texas, when dealing with local and state authorities. And even with that very significant limitation, the fact that internet traffic is, by definition, interstate, means that this piece of legislation has next to zero chance of surviving in Federal court. Federal law and jurisdiction trumps state law; And all a court needs to say to put an end to this is say "Interstate commerce! Congress only! Denied."
Their state economy is not borked like California,
Off topic, but I'll bite. [wikipedia.org] Texas is ranked 9 and California 14 in terms of federal tax dollars contributed versus taken as of 2007. Both are net positive, and within 1 standard deviation. Neither state economy is "borked".
they have low tax,
Continuing to go off topic... There's at least a million different taxes. Can you be more specific on which one?
they value individual rights more than overbearing 'nanny' governance,
The most important right, the right to life, is apparently eschewed -- Texas murders its own citizens at a rate higher than the rest of the country combined and has won numerous dubious awards for its human rights abuses, especially in prison. Whatever their values, their actions speak to a marked lack of respect for human life, a fact often highlighted in international press.
and they have good political leadership.
I'm not even sure how to approach this; It's fractally flamebait-worthy, if only because the popular opinion is that "good" should never appear in the same sentence as "political leadership", which itself is popularly held to be an oxymoron.
Ted Cruz for Prez 2016 would not be a bad choice it seems - he's very smart and would stop the current rot in DC.
Oooh, so epically off-topic now... le sigh. Okay then. Yes, another graduate of Harvard Law and Princeton will surely clean up the 'rot' of all the other politicians in Congress, most of whom also hold Ivy-league degrees. And I'm the Queen of England. And I don't want to vote for a man who thinks communists teachers at his alma matter are plotting to overthrow the government and often resorts to wild accusations of impropriety towards his opponents -- like suggesting a nominee to the secretary of defense position was accepting bribe money from North Korea. The dude's got a screw loose -- if you want to show how Texas is full of competent and rational people, make a better choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Texas murder it's own citizens? Weren't you just complaining about tin foil hat nonsense a few post up?
Re:Texas leads the way, again (Score:4, Insightful)
That article is about executions not murders. You are either confused or making a deliberate misrepresentation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That article is about executions not murders. You are either confused or making a deliberate misrepresentation.
Murder is the deliberate killing of another human being. Which part of strapping someone to a chair and then murdering them do you not understand? That it's legal has nothing to do with whether it is moral or ethical. You call it an execution, but the only difference between your 'execution' definition and the 'murder' definition is "We made it legal." In other words, absent a law making it okay for the state to murder people, it is the exact same thing.
But this is all academic; Regardless of what definitio
Re:Texas leads the way, again (Score:5, Informative)
Murder is the deliberate killing of another human being
Murder is the crime of unlawfully killing a person [...] [merriam-webster.com].
That it's legal has nothing to do with whether it is moral or ethical. You call it an execution, but the only difference between your 'execution' definition and the 'murder' definition is "We made it legal."
Yes, that is exactly the difference between 'execution' and 'murder'. It is not murder because it is legal.
Insisting on using the wrong word makes your argument confusing and deceptive.
Re:Texas leads the way, again (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, here goes:
****WARNING: I AM ABOUT TO BREAK GODWIN'S LAW.****
When we refer to the atrocities in Nazi Germany, in spite of them being nominally legal (they were declared extra-legal by Hitler, placing them in the same logical category as gitmo) we refer to the murder of the Jewish people.
So therefore regardless of dictionary definition, I think the general consensus is that the difference between murder and execution is a moral one, subject to hindsight.
BTW, Canada's murder rate went DOWN after we stopped executing people. Just sayin.
Re:Texas leads the way, again (Score:5, Interesting)
> in the case of a human child/embryo it has no choice and no voice
Do you understand what an embryo is? It doesn't think, suffer, feel or make choices of any kind. At 8 weeks, the nervous system is not at that stage yet. Equating an embryo to a human is almost like having an omelet and thinking you had fried chicken. 25% of embryos get spontaneously aborted by 6 weeks. By your definition, we have an avalanche of accidental deaths of full persons that overshadows deaths from any other cause. With elective abortions of embryos, we are not raising that by much.
A fetus is by definition, not a "child" as is convenient for you to frame as. But we can have a sane discussion here based on when the fetal capacity to suffer begins & develops self-awareness and draw moral/legal lines from that data. But if your positions are based on imaginary pre-scientific concepts such as "souls", there is no discussion to be had.
> yet perhaps you are happy for *millions* of murders to be carried out just so the mother can continue her lustful lifestyle?
You realize that married woman have abortions too, right? Are they being lustful? Many of the women seeking abortion are in monogamous relationships, even if unmarried. Do you also judge them as lustful? Do you consider fathers-to-be in these cases to also be lustful, or just mothers-to-be? A majority of women getting abortions are already mothers raising children who cannot handle one more, not party and one-night-stand types. A disproportionate number are poor at the time. Do you think it is moral to bring a child into a world when the mother is not in a position to provide a proper childhood yet? Are unplanned children statistically (don't care for anecdotes) poised to develop into superior citizens/human beings? Last one is rhetorical.
> Actually, I'm pro-choice
I doubt it. You sound like a conservative whose religious thought is in conflict with his libertarian thought. It just an association of political convenience, not philosophical parity. Don't bother with trying to reconcile them.
> That's the problem with young leftists, they believe in all diversities except the one that really matters - diversity of opinion.
When they do, they get branded as relativists with no moral compass who cannot be trusted. All that needs to be done is to base things on data at hand. When data changes, positions need to change. Diversity of opinion here is like giving a quack and a scientist equal time (and the left, with its New Age mumbo jumbo, is hardly spotless... but at least they don't impose those metaphysics on others). We can have standards of objectivity.
> to argue for enforcing your agenda on them shows the typical totalitarian streak of the political Left.
My position? Let women figure it out. Let them exclusively vote on whether it ought to be legal for them. Men don't get to choose. You can vote if you develop a uterus tomorrow. Do this sound totalitarian?
Re: (Score:2)
The distinction is made everywhere because the concepts are distinct. Some places of the world don't execute people while others do.
Re:Texas leads the way, again (Score:5, Insightful)
. . . which is why in the civilized parts of the world they put their soldiers in prison if they kill anybody in combat?
Every society in the world, without exception, allows agents of the state to use lethal force.
The implicit racism of declaring India, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan uncivilized is truly disgusting. The idea that they're barbarians because they don't adhere to a recently-invented purely European standard of what circumstances allow lethal force to be used by the state is intellectually indefensible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This legislation would only affect organizations and individuals within the state of Texas, whose customers are also within the State of Texas, when dealing with local and state authorities. And even with that very significant limitation, the fact that internet traffic is, by definition, interstate, means that this piece of legislation has next to zero chance of surviving in Federal court. Federal law and jurisdiction trumps state law; And all a court needs to say to put an end to this is say "Interstate commerce! Congress only! Denied."
So State Police aren't bound by state law? What an amazing civics teacher you had!
Re: (Score:2)
Things have happened since 2007; California was doing really well during the high tech bubble despite its already broken state government, but it is in dire straits now. Nor does that table tell you anything about the quality of a state's government, whether its citizens are
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Texas leads the way, again (Score:5, Interesting)
Lots of folks like to mis-characterize Texas and Texans, but as a foreigner they seem to be doing plenty of things right. Their state economy is not borked like California, they have low tax, they value individual rights more than overbearing 'nanny' governance, and they have good political leadership. Ted Cruz for Prez 2016 would not be a bad choice it seems - he's very smart and would stop the current rot in DC.
You are correct. I work with people from all over the country. These people have had to move to Texas because they couldn't find jobs in their original state. All of the, ALL of them absolutely love it here, even though they hate the weather nine months out of the year (Michiganders don't do well at 105). Most simply can't believe the freedom that they have here that they never knew they missed where they came from. "You mean I can just walk into a Walmart and buy a shotgun?" "I won't get arrested for having a gun rack on my truck?" "My state vehicle inspection was only $15. Where do I pay the rest of it?" "Why do people keep calling me offering me jobs that pay more money. Is this some sort of scam?" And finally, "I think there is a mistake. The company didn't take out for my state income tax."
Don't listen to these other yahoos. They are mad because the majority of Texans value freedom and values over a strong central government and political correctness. Our education system is fine. The negative numbers they'll throw at you is due to the fact that Texas has one of the largest non-English speaking student population in the country. As for property tax, yeah, it's high, but it's nothing compared to the income taxes paid in other states. And to the AC that said that Texas is anti-science has no idea what he's talking about. Texas has one of the largest tech sectors in the country. "Texas" is even in the name of many of these tech companies. "Texas Instruments" ring a Dell... I mean BELL?
Texas is an awesome place to live, provided all our imports don't use their voting power to turn Texas into the places they came from.
and yes, Ted Cruz would make an awesome president. It's amazing how these people try to paint him as the new leader of the Republican party. Cruz challenged and defeated Rick Perry's hand pick successor for Kay Bailey Hutchinson's Senate seat. He took on the Texas Republican political machine and won. It's funny that these liberals constantly scream for someone to change the Republican party, but as soon as someone does so, they do everything they can to vilify him. Ted Cruz is the child of Cuban immigrants. He was born in Cuba and educated at Princeton. But because he is the Texas Senator and his name ends with an (R), they paint him as some sort of ignorant, backwoods, hick.
Re: (Score:2)
Who can't buy a gun at Walmart anywhere in the country?
Who gets arrested anywhere for a gun rack?
Sounds like you don't get out of Texas much.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't find anything on the google about people getting arrested for having a gun rack in their car in either Wisconsin or Illinois. Do you have some more info or a link I could look at?
Re: (Score:2)
But having a rack isn't illegal... there are 4 states that have regulations about the status of the guns being carried in the racks as I understand it.
In Wisconsin the DNR had a rule that guns couldn't be carried outside of a case in order to discourage spontaneous poaching. The rule apparently was working to prevent roadside poaching since people wouldn't be caught driving down the road with their guns unsheathed. I read a couple anecdotes that poaching since the rule was repealed has been on the rise and
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
troll harder bro. troll harder.
Re:Texas leads the way, again (Score:5, Informative)
the majority of Texans value freedom and values over a strong central government and political correctness
This is the state that defended its law criminalizing sodomy to the Supreme Court in 2003, and whose GOP still supports the (now unconstitutional) law. Which means that a majority of Texans are happy to jettison freedom as soon as it conflicts with their (religious) values.
Re: (Score:3)
they value individual rights more than overbearing 'nanny' governance
Here's some overbearing nanny governance for you: In Texas, the maximum penalty for possession of small amounts of marijuana is 180 days and the offense is treated as a misdemeanor while in California the maximum penalty is a ticket and the offense is treated as an infraction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Texas leads the way, again (Score:4, Informative)
The Texas economy is based on adding jobs that can't be done by native Texans - most have to be filled by out-of-state hires who were educated in places like Iowa or Massachusetts. Meanwhile, the Texas education system is woefully underfunded and isn't producing people able to fill those roles in the future.
In other words, Texas leeches taxpayer money from other states' education systems to fund their low-tax business environment. It's not sustainable.
Yes, I've a non-native currently living in Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their state economy is not borked like California, they have low tax,
Just to clarify something: if both those things are true, there is likely a third thing that is also true about their economy. Either they must actually control spending, or they must suck down federal dollars or be selling some public good to make up the difference. The former would be quite impressive and indeed Texas would be truly a model. No one seems capable of controlling spending, every politician likes spending wildly in order to buy votes. Voters like it when "their guy" spends other people's
Re:Texas leads the way, again (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think that Ted Cruz would be a serious presidential contender then you have no idea what you are talking about. I am a Texan and he is a joke to most of the state. As much eye rolling as he causes within the state, he would cause even more than Rick Perry did on the national stage. I am not saying your completely wrong, but please do a bit more research before thinking Cruz (or Perry) are responsible for much of anything that is right with our state.
Ted Cruz is a "joke to most of the state"? Tell me, genius, how did he win his Senatorial election by such a wide margin? He may be a joke in YOUR circles, but everyone I speak to thinks the man is brilliant, with the exception of the most rabid liberals who think that it is OK for the IRS to target conservatives for no other reason than they are conservatives.
Re:Texas leads the way, again (Score:5, Informative)
So take this one, singular victory. Have it, it's yours. You can feel righteous for a bit now -- you have a right to be upset. But I'm not going to lose sight over the many thousands of pages of fuckups from the last time you assclowns were in power -- Obama and Co. still have a loooooooooooooong way to go before they'll equal the level of incepid governance that his predecessors engaged in.
Fast and Furious ring a bell? How about the lying to Congress that resulted from that. Executive Privilege to protect the President from having to divulge communications, that he said never existed just a week before?
Oh, and say what you will about Bush, his administration never used the power of the IRS, the EPA, OSHA and the FBI to attack political opponents for no other reason than their politics.
You know, until that happened, you'd just be a tin-foil hat wearer, without a shred of credibility to you. Actually, you still are. But thanks to the colossal mistake of a couple of people in the IRS
You speak of credibility and then tell a lie. It has been proven that the IRS scandal goes well beyond just a "couple of people in the IRS". You should know this. If you don't, then you are completely ignorant of things you try so hard to sound knowledgeable about. If you do know this, then you are a liar and you blew whatever credibility you had in the very same sentence you claimed that I had none. Is that irony or projection?
Tell me, what was Article II of the Nixon Articles of Impeachment?
The Obama administration STILL calls the Ft. Hood shooting "Workplace Violence". This prevents the victims of that shooting from receiving Purple Heart benefits. These people are struggling to make ends meet while the US Army is still paying Nadal Hassan hundreds of thousands of dollars. Again, all Obama would have to do is say, "it was terrorism". Three words could change the lives of true American heroes who became the victims of terrorism. I guess you don't think that's very important either, do you? I guess that somehow makes me "a tin-foil hat wearer" for wanting the best for our soldiers. (Disclaimer, I was a soldier stationed at Ft. Hood)
Seizing AP phone records to catch a leaker after they knew who the leak was? The AG saying under oath before Congress he knew nothing about any actions against anyone in the media AFTER signing the search warrant to secretly read a Fox News Reporters email, tap his phone and follow his movements? Oh, they also spied on his fricken PARENTS!!! He also claimed that Rosen had committed a crime in order to get the warrant and used tried three judges before one decided to sign the warrant. Oh, did I mention that Eric Holder signed the request for this warrant after claiming ignorance before Congress, UNDER OATH? Obama's response? He has asked Eric Holder to investigate.
Benghazi ring a bell? Are you OK being lied to by the President? He did lie, you know. That's common knowledge. His administration lied more, from Hillary on down. And don't pull that "Bush lied" crap either. That's a fallacy of "Two wrongs make a right." If Bush were a murderer, would that make it OK for Obama to just be a rapist?
80% of stimulus funds going to unions? Head of the treasury a tax cheat? Accepting campaign donations from Visa Gift Cards? Releasing Mitt Romney's tax records to liberal media outlets? Listing name of conservative donors on the web so they may be targeted? You're OK with all this or do you simply deny that any of it happened?
You seem to think that there are no scandals in the Obama administration. You haven't been paying attention. I can't say I blame you as you really have had to search for them since no one in the press will report them with the exception of FoxNews, and I'm sure you don't watch FoxNews. Well, there's just a few to get you started. And don't worry. These investigations are just beginning and they will probably be reported by some media outlets. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and say what you will about Bush, his administration never used the power of the IRS, the EPA, OSHA and the FBI to attack political opponents for no other reason than their politics.
Actually the IRS conducted a multi-year investigation of the NAACP during Bush2. The PATRIOT Act and Bush2 invented the use of National Security Letters and they most certainly were used against dissidents. Bush2 began the use of blacklists for travelers and dissidents, particularly peace activists were put on those lists. You're right he didn't go after opponents with the EPA or OSHA. He put lackeys in charge of those agencies to make sure his corporate buddies were hassled by common sense safety or e
Re: (Score:3)
Actually the IRS conducted a multi-year investigation of the NAACP during Bush2
You are correct. However, the NAACP is a 501(c)3. The conservative groups that were targeted by the IRS were applying for 501(c)4 status. 501(c)4's are allowed to lobby, endorse candidates, campaign, all that good stuff, provided that politics is not their primary purpose. 501(c)3's are only allowed to deal with policy issues and are NOT allowed to endorse a candidate or many of the other things that 501(c)4's are allowed to do. Churches are examples of 501(c)3's, and as I'm sure you are aware, they ar
Re: (Score:3)
Minor correction:
"501(c)4's are allowed to ... endorse candidates"
Not true. They can only engage in "issues" advertising. They can give candidates "ratings", but they cannot run ads which explicitly say "Vote for ___________"
I was part of "Campaign for Liberty", a 501c(4), for a while, and that was one of the specific prohibitions.
Re: (Score:3)
at the same time obama is a dick, except most on the left continue to inhale his farts.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So your official stance is that because Bush was horrible, Obama is a saint? Or as the parent put it:
And don't pull that "Bush lied" crap either. That's a fallacy of "Two wrongs make a right." If Bush were a murderer, would that make it OK for Obama to just be a rapist?
You Republicrat cheerleaders make me sick. Can you fuckers stop rooting for your team long enough to see that both teams are rotten? You're making the whackjob parent look reasonable. At least he wasn't apologizing for Bush.
Re:Texas leads the way, again (Score:5, Informative)
You know, until that happened, you'd just be a tin-foil hat wearer, without a shred of credibility to you. Actually, you still are. But thanks to the colossal mistake of a couple of people in the IRS and Obama's total and complete inability to deal with a scandal, that singular act has managed to make the tinfoil hat crowd look more credible than the government.
Well, you know what, okay. Out of the thousands of times Obama and the "rabid liberals" have gotten it right, after six years of constant, sustained, unending attempts by the Republicans to find something, anything, to sink Obama even if it means repeatedly punching themselves in the face (Comeon guys, with all the major issues out there, your party platform for the previous four years has been trying to ensure Obama didn't get re-elected. Petty much?)... I suppose yes, with that much scrutiny eventually something had to pan out.
So take this one, singular victory. Have it, it's yours. You can feel righteous for a bit now -- you have a right to be upset
Well, that's mighty white of you [phrases.org.uk]. You are indeed a generous spirit.
True Scandal [nationalreview.com] - A tea-party group ... gets attention from the IRS—and the FBI, OSHA, and the ATF.
The IRS Fiasco Is Only The Tip Of The Iceberg [forbes.com]
A Frequent Visitor to the White House [commentarymagazine.com]
...Douglas Shulman, Commissioner from 2008 to 2012, during the Obama administration, visited the White House 118 times just in 2010 and 2011. His successor, Steven Miller, also visited “numerous” times.
Lawmakers say IRS targeted dozens more conservative groups than initially believed [foxnews.com]
The IRS targeting of conservative groups is far broader than first reported, with nearly 500 organizations singled out for additional scrutiny, according to two lawmakers briefed by the agency
IRS Admits Targeting “Tea Party” Groups [volokh.com]
The New Nixon This time, the press cheered as the IRS investigated the president's opponents. [wsj.com]
Tea party groups call IRS process 'nightmare' [detroitnews.com]
IRS approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo [usatoday.com]
Curious IRS Timing - Did the tax agency also target groups that support Israel? [wsj.com]
Obamacare + IRS = gangster government [washingtonexaminer.com]
7 Questions That The IRS Inappropriately Asked Of Tea Party Groups [businessinsider.com]
The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting - An apology, but no explanation [nationalreview.com]
Did The IRS Try To Swing Election To Obama? [investors.com]
Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert [typepad.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You do know the MAJORITY of the groups targeted for extra review were NOT conservative? There are liberal groups, middle groups, all kinds of crap.
And your links suck. Sure you couldnt get the heritage group in there too?
Re: Texas leads the way, again-- que horror! (Score:5, Insightful)
BTW the low tax Texas is myth just look how much we pay property tax!
Well, as taxes go, property taxes come closer than most others to having the tax burden be proportional to how much it costs the government to provide services to you. I have moral problems with taxes per se, but if we have to have them, then having the amount of money you have to pay to Texas be proportional to how much you own of Texas is much better than an income tax or a sales tax.
Re: (Score:3)
having the amount of money you have to pay to Texas be proportional to how much you own of Texas is much better than an income tax or a sales tax.
Yet it seems to fly in the face of "no taxation without representation".
Re: (Score:3)
Is there a law (natural or man-made) to say: you get the amount of representation is a proportion of the paid taxes?
Just s/taxes/campaign contributions/g, and there is.
Re: (Score:3)
but if we have to have them, then having the amount of money you have to pay to Texas be proportional to how much you own of Texas is much better than an income tax or a sales tax.
OK...so for those working a minimum wage job trying to support a family, who own no property in Texas, you're fine with them not having to pay tax? Or are you going to call them freeloaders? or part of the 47%?
Or maybe things aren't so black-and-white?
Re: Texas leads the way, again-- que horror! (Score:5, Insightful)
OK...so for those working a minimum wage job trying to support a family, who own no property in Texas, you're fine with them not having to pay tax? Or are you going to call them freeloaders? or part of the 47%? Or maybe things aren't so black-and-white?
I'm fine with them not having to pay a direct tax for those services that are funded by the property tax. First, they will be paying it indirectly via the rent they pay to their landlord, just like they indirectly pay gas tax on items they buy that have been trucked to the store. Second, I would not propose having everything paid this way, just those services whose cost is (roughly) proportional to the value/size of your property -- police protection, for instance, since thieves obviously would rather rob rich people than poor people. The aforementioned gas tax is a better way to pay for roads, since (until electric cars become more popular) the amount of gas you burn is roughly proportional to how much wear and tear you inflict on the roads. That assumes that the gas tax goes only for the roads and doesn't, as it usually is now, get put into the general fund. That general fund is one of the basic problems, because it muddles the connection between what you pay and what you take.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and as a general rule, heavier vehicles consume more fuel (and so pay more taxes) per mile driven.
Re: Texas leads the way, again-- que horror! (Score:4, Interesting)
Wear and tear on roads is more related to the pressure the vehicle places on the road. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_axle_weight_rating [wikipedia.org]
Yes, but in general, the heavier the vehicle, the more gas it burns. And the more it is driven, the more gas it burns. So, a per-unit tax on fuel is roughly proportional to weight times miles. You could certainly come up with a more precise measure, but this seems a good enough approximation to me, without having to actually monitor the vehicle's activity.
A general fund is not a problem anymore than insurance is a problem because it pools risks from many, and that many pay for the few.
Except that your car insurance is separate from your health insurance, both of which are separate from your home insurance, etc. And for each one, the amount you have to pay is based on the probable amount that you will receive. That is how I am saying taxes vs. government spending should work. If you have a more expensive car, you pay higher car insurance rates, and if you have more property attracting thieves, your contribution to police funding should be higher. But just because you make more money doesn't mean you should be made to pay for, say, a public pool which you may never use. That's what entrance fees are for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's cool. So Texas charges property tax on property outside of real estate, like stocks and bonds and intellectual "property"?
If you mean do they now, I don't think so. If you mean should they according to what I said before, then no. If you own a stock, you own part of a company, not part of Texas.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Really? I would have guessed New Jersey had em beat on at least one of those.
Re:Texas leads the way, again (Score:5, Informative)
I think that makes you #1 in (Citation Needed)'s
You forgot #1 in refining, which would account for the vast majority of the issues you site (if true). Also, being such a big damn state, it doesn't surprise that Texas pollutes more than, say, Rhode Island. Do you like that plastic keyboard you are typing on? Odds are that the oil used to make it was in part either pumped from or refined in Texas. That makes you part of the problem. Stop using your keyboard, computer or anything else that uses plastic or anything else made from those evil, polluting fossil fuels or STFU.
As for children in poverty and illiteracy, again, if true, it would be due to the large number of immigrants living in the state. For example, Hidalgo County, in far South Texas is number 1 for percentage of people on food stamps at 29%. By the way, that county has to share it's #1 status with the Bronx. Hidalgo County Texas can blame immigration from Mexico. What's the Bronx's excuse? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidalgo_County,_Texas)
#1 in executions? Yeah, we are proud of that one.
And again, with these and the others, (Citation Needed).
Re:Texas leads the way, again (Score:5, Informative)
Education:
Census: Texas High School Graduation Rate Worst in Nation:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_hig_sch_dip_or_hig_by_per-high-school-diploma-higher-percentage
Texas DOE: Texas Ranks 49th in Literacy, 49th in Verbal SATs, 46th in Math SATs
http://www.window.state.tx.us/comptrol/wwstand/wws0512ed/
Texas Teen Birth Rate Highest in Nation:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/hea_tee_bir_rat_per_100-birth-rate-per-1-000
Poverty:
Census: 17% of Texans Live Below the Poverty Level.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_per_bel_pov_lev-economy-percent-below-poverty-level
Dept of Labor: 9.5% of Texans Paid At or Below Minimum Wage - Nations Highest:
http://www.bls.gov/ro6/fax/minwage_tx.htm
Census: 22% of Texas Children Live Below the Poverty Level:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_per_of_chi_bel_pov_lev-percent-children-below-poverty-level
Texas 2nd in Nation for Bankruptcy Filings:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_ban_fil-economy-bankruptcy-filings
Census: Texas Ranks 47th in Percentage of Households with Retirement Income:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_per_of_hou_wit_ret_inc-economy-percent-households-retirement-income
EPI: Texas Ranks 2nd in Income Disparity
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/studies_pulling_apart_2006/
Uninsured:
Census: Texas leads the nation in uninsured people.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/hea_cha_in_num_uni-health-change-in-number-uninsured
Texas Ranks Last in Overall Child Health Status
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/hea_ove_chi_hea_sta-health-overall-child-status
Texas is #2 in Suicides:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/hea_cha_in_num_uni-health-change-in-number-uninsured
Dallas News: Texas Leads Nation In Child Abuse Deaths
http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/10/texas-leads-the-nation-in-chil.html
Texas Executions:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_cap_pun_tot_exe_sin_193-punishment-total-executions-since-1930
Texas Incarcerations:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_pri_und_the_jur_of_sta_or_fed_cor_aut-jurisdiction-state-federal-correctional-authorities
Census: Texas Ranks 2nd in Uninsured Children:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GRTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-_box_head_nbr=R2702&-ds_name=ACS_2009_1YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-format=US-30&-mt_name=ACS_2009_1YR_G00_R2701_US30&-CONTEXT=grt
Census: 24% of Texans are Uninsured:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GRTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-_box_head_nbr=R2701&-ds_name=ACS_2009_1YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-format=US-30&-mt_name=ACS_2009_1YR_G00_R2702_US30&-CONTEXT=grt
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Texas leads the way, again (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-peanalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates [deathpenaltyinfo.org]
Illiteracy is higher in California and New York State than in Texas.
http://nces.ed.gov/naal/estimates/StateEstimates.aspx [ed.gov]
I'll leave it at that. Obviously, your statements are politically motivated fabrications.
Re:Texas leads the way, again (Score:5, Informative)
Since it's easy, I checked this one. Texas, in 2011, had a murder rate of 4.4 per 100,000 people, making it #23. Note that CA, IL, PA are all rather higher.
Note also that LA is the real #1 in murders per capita.
I will therefore assume that the rest of your #1's are probably incorrect as well...
Re:Texas leads the way, again (Score:5, Funny)
Fortunately, Texas is turning purple.
I hope you're right. It shouldn't be too surprising since Texas actually has a strong populist tradition.
Ok, that's two good (in my opinion) things I've said about Texas. One more and I'll have to turn in my damnyankee card.
Re:Ted Cruz is Canadian (Score:4, Informative)
Ted Cruz was born in Canada, and therefore Constitutionally prohibited from running for President of the United States.
He was born to two American citizens, making him a naturalized citizen of the United States. That's something that the "birthers" could never quite grasp. Even if Obama had been born in Kenya, it would not have kept him from being President as his mother was an American Citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
Naturalized is different from natural born. Natural born is not actually legally defined anywhere, but the the context of historical uses does support the idea that being born of US citizens would count as natural born.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what "naturalized" means, don't you?
Re:Texas leads the way, again (Score:5, Informative)
No, it's terrible because they teach creationism as fact and ignore well accepted science. This is but one example.
One example of pure BS? Is there any chance the lying nitwits will give it a rest any time soon?
Chapter 112. Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Science - Subchapter C. High School [state.tx.us]
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Mod parent +1 proper bitchslap!
Re: (Score:3)
Perry has stated his disbelief in evolution (which is reason enough to want him gone) but Texas itself still teaches it.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not acceptable to teach things in school that are demonstrably false.
But it apparently is acceptable to post things that are demonstrably false [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, they're not. They have that law on the books, and then they wink-wink-nudge-nudge when it gets widely broken. Even the governor admitted that they do, in reality, http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/08/18/7407124-perry-to-child-on-creationism-vs-evolution-youre-smart-enough-to-figure-out-which-is-right [slashdot.org].
So yes, I'm concerned with what's happening in reality. Do you really think that regulation is getting consistently enforced, and teachers who violate it disciplined or fired, when even the governor i
Re: (Score:3)
Here is what it says at the link you provided:
"Perry continues, "but in Texas we teach both creationism and evolution...""
Evolution is part of the state standards as my link shows.. It apparently is testable. They teach it. The governor says they teach it. I don't think you have much to stand on here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if evolution is "part" of the state standard, teaching of creationism in a science class is forbidden by both law and definition. It was ruled by the SCOTUS, long ago, to be a religious doctrine and not a scientific theory, and it is exactly that, as it is either unfalsifiable (old-earth) or already falsified (young-earth). Any "science" class teaching creationism, is not one.
If you really need a citation for the SCOTUS ruling, I'll dig one up. But yes, I absolutely have "something to stand on" here.
Re: (Score:2)
If they teach evolution, they teach evolution. They meet the requirement for a science class. I don't think your personal definitions have force under Texas law.
What statute in Texas law makes their actions illegal?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why are you asking "statute in Texas law"? I thought I was pretty clear it was a Supreme Court ruling. (I did use an unqualified acronym for it, SCOTUS, so if that's the source of the confusion I apologize.)
Anyway, Dover v. Kitsmiller is one of the well-known and recent ones, but never reached the SCOTUS. One that did, though, is Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education. That explicitly barred even the mention of creationism as an "alternative" to evolution, let alone its explicit teaching. That went
Re:Texas leads the way, again (Score:5, Informative)
As I suspected, this is overblown. Texas doesn't require teaching Creationism, or related doctrines. If some teacher does discuss it, it is by no means clear that it runs foul of the law.
Fact check: Does Texas teach creationism in public schools? Is it constitutional? [nbcnews.com]
Clay Robison, a spokesman for the Texas State Teachers Association, the state’s teachers’ union, says, “It is not part of the recognized official state curriculum.”
But, Robison, who criticized Perry for "trying to reach right-wing voters," added, “I can’t say that some teacher someplace” that isn’t widely known about, isn’t teaching it.
More definitively, Suzanne Marchman, a spokeswoman for the Texas Education Agency, the state’s version of the Department of Education, tells NBC, the state’s science standards for high-school biology “require students to analyze, evaluate, and critique, scientific explanations.”
And since teachers craft their own lesson plans, “It’s likely that other theories, likely creationism, are being discussed in class" -- whether it's because teachers plan lessons around it, or because students bring it up. . . .
In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that requiring the teaching of creationism, or forbidding the teaching of evolution, violates the separation of church and state. The court struck down a Louisiana law that banned teaching evolution unless accompanied by instruction in creationism. . . .
The central question, the court said, was the law's purpose. Louisiana's intent, the majority concluded, was to endorse a particular religious doctrine. But, the court added, "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."
Also note that there are various factors that play into determining if a particular case becomes Precedent [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
> “It’s likely that other theories, likely creationism, are being discussed in class"
I hope it is discussed in such a way that it makes clear that "creationism" is not a theory in a scientific way. Like if you ask the class to bring up counter-examples of scientific theories, and you get 5 points for "creationism", 5 points for the flying spaghetti monster, and so on.
Re:Texas leads the way, again (Score:4, Informative)
"creationism" is not a theory. You can call it a "hypothesis" in a sense that there is a flying teapot somewhere in the Universe. But at least the teapot "hypothesis" is a theory if you assume that we live in a limited universe.
The one difference between a scientific theory and nonsense is very simple: a scientific theory can be falsified.
You cannot falsify "creationism", or "God".
How would you try to falsify "creationism"? You need a time machine to go back to whatever time the "creationism" claims that "God" created everything. You can't use evidence because you don't know what "God" is so you can't say: it is because the evidence shows that that was God. You need to define and prove "God" first. Since anything can be "God".
Let me put it this way. If I say: God blessed me with my good wife and my good children. Can you _disprove_ that is was not God? If it is not possible to _disprove_ something, it is not a theory, it's faith.
Let me ask now. If I say: my genes shows that we share at least 90% similarity with hominidae, and Hominidae share genes with Catarrhini, and they share genes with Primates, and they share genes with Placental Mammals and further with Mammals. Of course you can disprove that, it's easy: just analyse the genes and get evidence that I'm wrong.
See Tree of life Project [tolweb.org]
You see now the difference between a "scientific theory" and faith?
Eh, evolution is proven beyond any doubt. If anything the theory of evolution is the best proven theory. I think, even the Theory of Relativity is not as good proven as the theory of evolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you're going to teach creationism you really should teach all of them but as that's impractical as every culture that has ever existed has come up with different ones each with the same amount of proof (someones vision, dream or such) then all the poplar ones should be taught concentrating on the ones that agree with reality, perhaps mostly the Hindu versions as they at least deal with realistic time lines.
The Christian one can be used as an example of ridiculous unscientific theories of creationism
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, managed to screw up the link in the last post somehow, will get more coffee. Here's the corrected one: Link [nbcnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That and the goddamn heat/humidity.
Even a damnyankee knows Texas is big enough for a variety of climates. I highly recommend a place that has winter [dallasnews.com]. Save the Gulf Coast for beach vacations.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it deregulation or lack of regulation to begin with?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Business is booming is funny comment but in a very sad way for those who died.
I think the business was ignoring some regulations however.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah and California has plenty of it as well. They have so much that they are currently scrambling to pass laws making it nearly impossible to get it out of the ground. One of many reasons why they are declaring bankruptcy.
Governor's remarks (Score:2, Funny)
This act is of historic significance for three reasons: One, it protects the privacy of Texas citizens when they're communicating using email. Two, it requires the government to get a search warrant. And three... uh oh, email privacy, search warrant, what was the third one again? Email privacy was one...
Re: (Score:3)
Email is a bad technology for privacy.
Deterring local law enforcement or investigative agencies from browsing through an old email cash from 180 days ago to decide if someone is a good target for investigation for whatever reason is good. Setting a precedent that the government needs to ask before looking, even where it is pretty visible is good. It sets protocols. Bored cops cant just browse up the local mail server now. It is a bit of a deterrent to invasion of privacy. If they do they have to at least an
Re: (Score:2)
*cache I meant.
Oh and I helped run a small hosted qmail server. And if the feds, or anyone came near our rack and touched our stuff without some kind of official anything. We would have shit bricks. No one would have touched our servers without our permission. They would have had to most likely take them via the threat of force. The hosting company had access cards, biometrics, and 24/7 surveillance. If they asked us we would have told them to come back with a court order.
Though we never did anything that i
Rule of Thumb (Score:5, Insightful)
If a privacy bill makes it harder to catch corrupt legislators, then you can be pretty sure it is going to pass.
Re: (Score:3)
You say that as if it's a bad thing. But you can justify ever more egregious violations of privacy and civil liberties with a supposed need to catch crooks and criminals. Places like East Germany had very low crime rates.
If we value our privacy and freedom, we have to accept a certain level of crime, because privacy and freedom make crime easier. In different words, in a free country, you have to trust the citizens by default, even if that trust is sometimes misplaced.
Re: (Score:2)
Places like East Germany had very low crime rates.
In the official stats, but not necessarily in reality. The USSR claimed very low crime rates, but it's easy to rig the stats w/ a totalitarian government. Many people who lived there say the crime was actually quite high. Also, without protections like the Bill of Rights, the easy way to "solve" a crime is to pick someone you don't like, or a plausible J. Random Citizen, and railroad them. Case closed! To the extent that the Bill of Rights is enforced, it makes our law enforcement better.
Oh God Damn It (Score:2, Troll)
Yeah but.... (Score:2)
The funny thing is that I know I'm probably the most boring per
and all the ISP need to do is move the servers out (Score:2)
and all the ISP need to do is move the servers out of TX.
Re: (Score:3)
And then all you have to do is switch to an e-mail provider who values your privacy enough to not leave Texas.
And seriously, who the hell uses their ISP's e-mail service anyway? I prefer to use a service independent of my ISP, so in the likely chance my ISP pisses me off I can just tell them to fuck off and switch to a new one... and not have my e-mail communications interrupted.
This shouldn't be necessary (Score:5, Interesting)
US Constitution Amendment 14: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
There's no legitimate way that government could be reading these emails 180 days and "opened" or not without a probably cause warrant. I understand the fact is they do, so it's great that Texas is passing the law to stymie that abuse, but how is it possibly justified to begin with? It's right there plain to read. That's prohibited. Has nobody taken it to court?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the biggest mistake of Email was that it is per default in clear text.
Normally you would expect for such a system that transports private messages over the world to be encrypted, but in the beginning Internet was only between Universities, so the whole politic was different.
One Anonymous Coward is comparing an Email send to a mailbox or a postal office, like FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc. But there is one big difference: a physical letter is sealed and only the destination (and possible the origin) are visib
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly right.
Also, sending an email is just like sending a postcard. Anyone can come break into your house and pick it up off the table and read it after you've received it. Your expectation of privacy is in the way of the government's expectation of doing whatever it wants.
In the style of Inigo... (Score:2)
"Texas! You did something right!"
Should Congress be pro-privacy? (Score:2)
If anybody has something to hide no doubt most congress members do. Maybe they should be all for privacy in order to keep their own skeletons closeted!
Law applies only to STATE & LOCAL cops (Score:2)
Read the article. The law does NOT apply to federal authorities. That's why Holder is enthusiastically supporting it.
And of course, there's no restriction against the FBI reading Texans' emails and then passing the info on to local Texas law enforcement...
And since Texas has essentially no state law enforcement, this law applies only to Texas county mounties, who as we all know, are armed to the teeth with the latest most invasive ultra-high tech surveillance equipment and so pose a much graver threat to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Opened (Score:4, Insightful)
There is only one possible meaning, silly-head: there is some electronic record of the message being marked "read".
You're probably right, but it makes no sense. If you receive a letter and open it, that doesn't give the government the right to read it. The lack of protection for email is completely at odds with the Supreme Court's usual "reasonable expectation of privacy" requirement.
Re: (Score:3)
When email worked the way it use to, and you use to download it from the server and removed it from the server - that would be like you take a letter into your house, and then read it, and keep it inside your house. THEN you could expect privacy. But the way the majority of people
Re: (Score:3)
Opening an email and then leaving it on the server (as most people do) is like opening a letter and then leaving it open, taped to your mailbox outside. Anyone walking down the street can then read it, including the government.
No it isn't. You've stretched that metaphor too far. You can't read someone else's email (even if it's left on the server (a la IMAP)) without cooperation from the provider or directly hacking the account.
A better metaphor is a PO box. Previously, stuff left in a PO box for 180 days is arguably abandoned. However, now the PO box company has upgraded their service to treat the PO box more like a locker (IMAP), where you can store your stuff and access it when you want it. It's no longer reasonable to say tha
Re:Opened (Score:4, Insightful)
Opening an email and then leaving it on the server (as most people do) is like...
... is like not taking explicit action to delete the email from the server.
No need for complicated analogies when the situation isn't that complicated.
Re: (Score:3)
Opening an email and then leaving it on the server (as most people do) is like opening a letter and then leaving it open, taped to your mailbox outside. Anyone walking down the street can then read it, including the government.
If that is really how your email provider operates, I think you need to find a new provider. Because you are telling us that once you've read it, if you keep it on their server, you no longer need a username/password to access it.
Re: (Score:2)
Its on the state level only. State level only... state level.
Even if the Feds find cute ways around it, and it's just a political statement, it's a damn good one. As a damnyankee I don't often say good things about Texas, but I gotta give credit where it's due. Maybe I'll even reconsider the idea of giving Texas back to Mexico.