zoocrew

It's not dishonorable to hold religious convictions, even if they are different than yours. The law requires an honorable discharge because there is no dishonor in having religious beliefs, and the Navy doesn't get to decide what religious beliefs are honorable and which ones are not. There was never any doubt about the legal outcome of this and all of the waste of taxpayer money could have been avoided if the Navy had just followed the law.

The law requires he be given an honorable discharge. All he asked for is what the law says and to be treated like any other CO. The Navy has to obey the law just like we all do. The chaplains supported his decision and that he given an honorable discharge. We may not like it or agree with it, but that is his religion and not ours.

Right on.

He said at the very beginning he would pay back the cost of his education. That was never a question. Yes, they delved into this. The naval chaplains also supported him in getting the CO status. The whole question was over the Navy following the law. If someone is a CO, they get an honorable discharge. In this case, the Navy refused the honorable discharge. That is what the whole legal fight was over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDaX5DTmbfY

Michael Izbicki has finally won conscientious objector status after graduating from the Naval Academy. Twice the Navy rejected his application saying his beliefs were not sincere. Yesterday the Navy decided that there is enough evidence to grant Izbicki conscientious objector designation. The Ensign's realization that he was a conscientious objector with a question on a Navy psychological exam asking him if he would launch a missile carrying a nuclear warhead if ordered to do so. We talked about this back in November. My Link NY Times Link

Child molestation is a crime. Different scenario. Perversion is relative. Private life is private life. If a crime is committed, that is different and the government has to go through the same process to gather evidence just like it does for everyone else. Public employees do not give up private lives just because they are on the public payroll and they should NOT expect to lose privacy for being public servants.

I was with you until the last part. Agreeing to give up privacy rights in order to have a job is wrong and the employer should not be allowed to ask for that permission, even if voluntarily given. Even asking for that permission is coercion.

Hear! Hear!

I disagree with the supposition. The links you gave were not about personal passwords and personal conversations on hidden from general view. Those instances were very public postings. That is a different scenario, much like having a conversation in a public park so everyone can hear what is being said.

In this case, yes. It is about government invasion of privacy. I was answering the broader implication of "if you have nothing to hide, it shouldn't be a problem" argument that, while was only hinted at, will certainly come up.

Why should anyone have to delete an account? A personal account is a personal account. If the government just wanted to come into your house and look around, would that be OK, too? If you have nothing to hide, it should not be a problem if they just came in anytime they wanted, right?

Different topic. This is about passwords on social networks.

Maryland corrections officer Robert Collins was told there was a blanket requirement that applicants for employment, as well as current employees undergoing recertification, provide the government with their social media account usernames and personal passwords for use in employee background checks. Should employers be allowed to require your PERSONAL passwords as part of the employment process? My Link The Washington Post, USA Today's Technology Live blog, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer have all covered Officer Collins' case. Alexis Madrigal at The Atlantic writes: Keep in mind that this

There is no way in the hell I would even remotely consider a do-it-yourself divorce when kids are involved. That is like setting your own broken leg or cutting out your own gall bladder. Crazy.

There is still a long way to go but with consumer confidence at a three year high, the expectation is the economy is getting much better. Of course, real estate prices will stay lower than the super highs but that is because they were too high to begin with, just like the huge trucks and SUVs that were selling at a premium 10 years ago. My Link

Those gorgeous locks of hair are now gone!

That's it. People will have to begin driving more economical cars. People will have to consider where they live when they apply for jobs and become more mobile, meaning less owning and more renting. People will have to DEMAND investments into alternative fuels / energy because when the price does go down, no one pushes for those things and we just let it ride. People will have to DEMAND community transportation arrangements.

Now that it's been taken care of, why would the school act any differently now? The risk was greater last week than this week. The risk for a rabid animal in the county near a school is always there.

The school will not let an animal in the school. Nothing to worry about. Yes, if they shot it, it will be tested. It was not the smartest thing for people to be chasing it because it could attack them. That's why the taxpayer pays for public service to handle those things.

We got my dear daughter a cell phone when she turned 14. My now 10 year old thinks he is old enough for a cell phone. Too, I'm thinking my 8 year old will start wanting one. What age does paulding.com think is an appropriate age?

The National Retail Federation is the nation's largest retail trade group and it said today that it expects retail sales to rise 4 percent this year, the biggest increase since 2006. While the group acknowledges unemployment will keep consumers cautious, the thinking is that consumers are feeling much better about the economy. That's good news for the economy! My Link

It's not unconstitutional. You're going by what one outlier Republican Senator from Sharpsburg mentioned yesterday (who doesn't want to see Sunday sales) but no one has given his comment any credence.

Hypocritical Republicans under the Gold Dome. They talk a good game about individual responsibility, local control and keeping Muslim law out of our system, but they turn right around and keep state control and a certain christian religious view in our law. Hypocrites.

No. Not for a long while, barring some sort of calamity.