pacino wrote:You just spent the past two pages discussing the 2016 presidency.

TenuredVulture wrote: It's intention is to get people to click.

As first reported by the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative online publication, Paul new media staffer Jack Hunter has for years been a provocative talk radio host who called himself the “Southern Avenger.” Before that, he was a member of the League of the South, a group that advocates Southern secession.

It’s not clear how close Hunter is to the senator. He serves as Paul’s new media director. According to a recent Washington Monthly article, Hunter has been advising Paul on foreign policy. In addition to his current work for the senator, Hunter helped Paul write a 2011 book, “The Tea Party Goes to Washington.” But on his Web site and radio show he clearly speaks for himself (as when he endorsed Mark Sanford in the May South Carolina special election). Hunter also worked on former South Carolina senator Jim DeMint’s 2011 book, “Now or Never: Saving America From Economic Collapse.”
“My entire adult life I’ve defended the Old South and the southern cause in America’s bloodiest war. Not because I support slavery or racism but despite it,” Hunter says in one 2011 video.
But in other commentary, Hunter has waded explicitly into racial politics.
“Americans aren’t wrong to deplore the millions of Mexicans coming here now,” he wrote in 2007. “A non-white majority America would simply cease to be America for reasons that are as numerous as they are obvious – whether we are supposed to mention them or not.”
That same year, discussing a racial disparity in school suspensions and expulsions, he wrote, “there are probably more black youth who deserve to be expelled … who never receive proper punishment out of fear of accusations of ‘racism.’”
In 2004, he lamented a “racial double standard” that meant that “Not only are whites not afforded the same right to celebrate their own cultural identity – but anything that is considered ‘too white’ is immediately suspect.”
Another 2004 post declares that “not only was Abraham Lincoln the worst President, but one of the worst figures in American history” while arguing that “John Wilkes Booth’s heart was in the right place” when he assassinated the president.
Hunter told the Beacon that he has changed his views on Lincoln’s assassination, race and Hispanic immigration.

Before working for the senator Hunter was a supporter of Paul’s father, former congressman Ron Paul of Texas, and the official blogger for his 2012 campaign. The elder Paul is no stranger to race-related controversy. He faced scrutiny over newsletters put out in his name in the 1990s that made derogatory comments about black and gay people. He has also described the Civil War as a “senseless” way to end slavery.
But Sen. Paul also has waded into these issues himself, with comments he made in 2010 questioning the part of the Civil Rights Act that dealt with private businesses. He has since said that he has always supported the legislation. In 2009, a staffer for Paul’s Senate campaign resigned after a racist post left on his MySpace page surfaced.

An investigation is being carried out into why the U.S. military spent $34 million constructing a building in Afghanistan that has never been used - and may now be demolished.

An investigation is under way to uncover why the 64,000-square-foot building was constructed. Pentagon Inspector General John Sopko calls the expensive project a waste of taxpayers' money. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reports.
The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, John Sopko, sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and two top generals this week, requesting more information about the project in Helmand Province.

The 64,000-square foot building was commissioned by the Army in February 2010 to be the Command and Control Facility for Regional Command Southwest during the surge.

But, in May 2010, even before construction began, the Marine commander in the area submitted a request to U.S. Forces Afghanistan to cancel the project.

In his letter, dated July 8, Sopko said the military knew the building would not be used for its original purpose well before construction began. He asked Hagel, as well as Gen. Joseph Dunford and Gen. Lloyd Austin, to explain why construction ever began.

Sopko also asked them to find out whether another facility had been built to replace the unused building.

And he questioned whether turning the building over to the Afghan government was possible, given that the Afghans might not have the technical capacity or money to maintain it.

PHILADELPHIA — Pennsylvania’s elected attorney general said Thursday that she will not defend the state law effectively banning same-sex marriage from a legal challenge in federal court, meaning the task will be left up to Gov. Tom Corbett.

“I cannot ethically defend the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s (law banning same-sex marriage), where I believe it to be wholly unconstitutional,” Kathleen Kane announced to reporters at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia today.

Under Pennsylvania law, it is the attorney general’s duty to defend the constitutionality of state laws. But the law also says the attorney general may allow lawyers for the governor’s office or executive-branch agencies to defend a lawsuit if it is more efficient or in the state’s best interests.

Kane, a Democrat who supports same-sex marriage, said she will leave the job to Corbett, a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage. Both were named in a lawsuit filed in federal court Tuesday seeking to overturn the law and legalize same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania.
Corbett’s office has declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Pennsylvania is the only northeastern state that does not allow same-sex marriage or civil unions.
A 1996 state law defines marriage as a civil contract in which a man and a woman take each other as husband and wife. The state also does not allow civil unions or recognize same-sex marriages from other states that allow it.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are a widow, 10 couples and one of the couples’ two teenage daughters. The group includes four couples who were legally married in other states but whose marriages go unrecognized by Pennsylvania.

Same-sex marriage is legal or soon will be in 13 states. The lawsuit asks a federal judge to prevent state officials from stopping gay couples from getting married and to force the state to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples who wed in other jurisdictions.

Lawyers in the case believe it is ultimately bound for the U.S. Supreme Court, probably along with similar cases in other states, and could force the high court to rule on the core question of whether it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

TenuredVulture wrote:Another thing about Hilary is she seems to have no real principles. Now, I'm pretty much against the idea of politicians having principles, but you can go too far. What is Hilary about? Given that almost everyone prioritizes domestic issues in choosing a President, how does her recent history help her there? What accomplishments can she really point to during her time in the Senate?

In a six-page report, Mr. Holder outlined changes to the Justice Department’s investigative guidelines that would prevent the Federal Bureau of Investigation from portraying a reporter as a co-conspirator in a criminal leak as a way to get around a legal bar on secret search warrants for reporting materials.

The revisions would also make it harder — though not impossible — for prosecutors to obtain a journalist’s calling records from telephone companies without giving news organizations advance notice. Notifying news organizations in advance would give them a chance to contest the request in court.

“The Department of Justice is firmly committed to ensuring our nation’s security, and protecting the American people, while at the same time safeguarding the freedom of the press,” Mr. Holder said. “These revised guidelines will help ensure the proper balance is struck when pursuing investigations into unauthorized disclosures.”

Another set of changes would update the guidelines, last revised three decades ago, so that the same protections that cover phone calls will also cover all “communications records” and “business records” that are stored and maintained by third parties. In 2011, it came to light that investigators had secretly obtained credit card, bank, and airline travel records of a New York Times reporter, James Risen, in another leak investigation.

The guidelines will say that the department’s top press and civil liberties officials must review and make a recommendation about any request for reporters’ records, and they will direct the Justice Department to start issuing an annual tally disclosing how many times it has made an effort to obtain them, the report said.

Mr. Holder also reiterated the administration’s support — announced in May — for reviving efforts to enact a federal media shield law that would place the decision about delaying notice of any subpoena for reporters’ phone records in the hands of a judge rather than the attorney general. A bill to do so, sponsored by Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, had faltered in 2010.

“While these reforms will make a meaningful difference, there are additional protections that only Congress can provide,” Mr. Holder said. “For that reason, we continue to support the passage of media shield legislation.”

At the end of the workday on January 4, 2010, Dr. Knight called Nelson into his office. He had arranged for another pastor from the church to be present as an observer. Dr. Knight, reading from a prepared statement, told Nelson he was firing her. The statement said, in part, that their relationship had become a detriment to Dr. Knight’s family and that for the best interests of both Dr. Knight and his family and Nelson and her family, the two of them should not work together. Dr. Knight handed Nelson an envelope which contained one month’s severance pay. Nelson started crying and said she loved her job.

Nelson’s husband Steve phoned Dr. Knight after getting the news of his wife’s firing. Dr. Knight initially refused to talk to Steve Nelson, but later called back and invited him to meet at the office later that same evening. Once again, the pastor was present. In the meeting, Dr. Knight told Steve Nelson that Melissa Nelson had not done anything wrong or inappropriate and that she was the best dental assistant he ever had. However, Dr. Knight said he was worried he was getting too personally attached to her. Dr. Knight told Steve Nelson that nothing was going on but that he feared he would try to have an affair with her down the road if he did not fire her.

So the question we must answer is the one left open in Tenge— whether an employee who has not engaged in flirtatious conduct may be lawfully terminated simply because the boss’s spouse views the relationship between the boss and the employee as a threat to her marriage. Notwithstanding the Eighth Circuit’s care to leave that question unanswered, it seems odd at first glance to have the question of
10
whether the employer engaged in unlawful discrimination turn on the employee’s conduct, assuming that such conduct (whatever it is) would not typically be a firing offense. Usually our legal focus is on the employer’s motivation, not on whether the discharge in a broader sense is fair. Title VII and the Iowa Civil Rights Act are not general fairness laws, and an employer does not violate them by treating an employee unfairly so long as the employer does not engage in discrimination based upon the employee’s protected status.

The present case can be contrasted with another recent Eighth Circuit decision. In Lewis v. Heartland Inns of America, L.L.C., a female front desk employee at a hotel claimed she lost her job because she did not have the “Midwestern girl look.” 591 F.3d 1033, 1037 (8th Cir. 2010). As the court explained, “The theory of [Lewis’s] case is that thevidence shows Heartland enforced a de facto requirement that a female employee conform to gender stereotypes in order to work the A shift.” Id. In fact, the evidence showed that motel management later procured video equipment so they could observe the appearance of front desk applicants prior to hiring. Id. at 1042. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer and remanded for trial. Id. However, the critical difference between Lewis and this case is that Nelson indisputably lost her job because Dr. Knight’s spouse objected to the parties’ relationship. In Lewis, by contrast, no relationship existed.
Nelson also raises a serious point about sexual harassment. Given that sexual harassment is a violation of antidiscrimination law, Nelson argues that a firing by a boss to avoid committing sexual harassment should be treated similarly.6 But sexual harassment violates our civil rights laws because of the “hostile work environment” or “abusive atmosphere” that it has created for persons of the victim’s sex. See, e.g., Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 786–90, 118 S. Ct. 2275, 2283–84, 141 L. Ed. 2d 662, 675–78 (1998). On the other hand, an isolated decision to terminate an employee before such an environment arises, even if the reasons for termination are unjust, by definition does not bring about that atmosphere.7

Accordingly, Nelson has stated a claim supported by our law. Yet, legal claims must also be supported by facts. When placed under the scrutiny of this legal proposition, Nelson’s claim fails because the facts failed to support her claim. The fact of the matter is Nelson was terminated because of the activities of her consensual personal relationship with her employer, not because of her gender. A review of the summary judgment record bears out this conclusion.
It is an undisputed fact in this case, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Nelson, that Nelson and Dr. Knight developed a consensual personal relationship. Similarly, it is undisputed that this relationship extended well beyond the workplace. Nelson and Dr. Knight communicated with each other outside the workplace on matters extraneous to the employment. Their relationship was personal and closer than the relationships Dr. Knight maintained with the other employees. Dr. Knight readily acknowledged he grew attracted to Nelson and was developing feelings of intimacy, and it is accepted for purposes of summary judgment that these feelings were more developed than those possessed by Nelson. Yet, during a frustrating moment involving a co-employee, Nelson confided in Dr. Knight that he was the reason she continued to work at the office. She also acknowledged she maintained a closer relationship with Dr. Knight than he maintained with the other
27
employees in the office. Additionally, Nelson acknowledged that another employee in the office viewed her conduct towards Dr. Knight as flirting, although Nelson believed this employee felt she flirted with Dr. Knight because the employee was jealous of the close relationship she enjoyed with Dr. Knight.l

The communication between Nelson and Dr. Knight included comments by Dr. Knight that were marked by sexual overtones. These communications have been explained by the majority. One evening after texting her about the tight shirt she wore to work that day, he followed up with another text message indicating it was good that her pants were also not too tight because he would “get it coming and going.” Another time, in response to a comment regarding the relative infrequency of her sexual activity, Dr. Knight told Nelson, “That’s like having a Lamborghini in the garage and not ever driving it.” Dr. Knight also once texted Nelson to ask how often she experienced orgasms. While these comments would commonly be viewed as inappropriate in most any setting and, for sure, beyond the reasonable parameters of workplace interaction, they nevertheless were an undeniable part of the consensual personal relationship enjoyed by Nelson and Dr. Knight. The banter, at least, revealed a relationship that was much different than would reasonably be expected to exist between employers and employees in the workplace.
The personal relationship also lasted six months and did not end until Dr. Knight’s wife discovered Nelson and Dr. Knight were texting each other while Dr. Knight was out of state on a vacation. Dr. Knight’s wife examined phone records to discover the texting only because shehad grown suspicious of the relationship between Nelson and her husband.

Barry Jive wrote:asking in earnest, what's the justification for the tampon ban in the state senate?

Josh Rubin ‏@CNNExpress 10h
DPS is no longer confiscating unopened tampons or other the like. Say the issue was earlier some were trying to bring USED ones in. #txlege