Comparing apples and rocks & other musings
Kristian Saucier is a former U.S. Navy machinist's mate who spent a year in prison after being convicted of taking photographs aboard a U.S. nuclear submarine. He was pardoned this past March by Donald Trump. Now he's going to sue the Obama Administration asserting that he was the victim of selective prosecution because Hillary Clinton was not charged in the email controversy.
This is not comparing apples and oranges. It is comparing apples and rocks. Let's examine the differences. Mr. Saucier's intent was to violate the law. The initial infraction was taking his personal electronic device anywhere in the sub other than the berthing area. The next infraction was in taking photographs of classified spaces in the sub. Perhaps the most frightening issue is that Mr. Saucier disposed of the phone at a dump. It was discovered there and that was how he was caught.
Then there is the fact that after the FBI asked Mr. Saucier about the personal computer he took with him on the deployment when the photos were taken. He went home immediately after that interview and destroyed the computer. That's obstruction of justice.
I do not believe for one minute his intent was to sell or give the photos to anyone else. I believe they were for personal use, proof of what's he had been part of. But the intent was to violate regulations and orders. To violate the law.
While there were three emails on Secretary Clinton's email server that contained the (C) marking that indicates information that has been classified as Confidential, she claims she wasn't aware of that designation. I don't buy that, but okay. Aside from those three mails, none of the others that contained classified material were properly labeled. I do not believe that Secretary Clinton intended to violate the law.
Intent matters.
* * *
I just saw a news item that fashion designer Kate Spade has died of an apparent suicide. I might have never known who she was except for a controversy dating back to the days when I worked at the private school.
There was an issue with girls in the Middle School bringing Kate Spade bags to school. I remember that word was passed around by the administration that girls were to no longer bring their Kate Spade purses to school. I guess they were evidence of economic inequality when girls whose families could afford them would negatively impact those girls whose families could not.
It is also a stark reminder that no matter how successful a person becomes, they are not immune to the ravages of depression and other mental illnesses.
RIP
* * *
Michael Feinberg is a resident of Long Island, NY. He took a Viagra prescription to a CVS pharmacy and instructed them not to put the prescription through his insurance. He said he would pay cash. At over $60 per pill, the 8 pill prescription would have run him over $500. There were five refills on the prescription. Still, if he didn't want his insurance to pick up part of the tab, that is his privilege. Then his wife phoned the pharmacy about a prescription of her own and was told about the "blue bombers" her husband wasn't putting through their insurance.
Now he is suing CVS claiming they violated his privacy by revealing his confidential health information to his wife, who is a "third party."
I think he'll win. It is a violation of HIPAA, the law the protects the privacy of health care information.
* * *
Michael Clark (R), a member of the South Dakota State House of Representatives. He is also the newest member of the "I would never say what I just said" club.
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision that said a Colorado baker didn't get a fair hearing by the state's Civil Rights Commission when he refused to decorate a cake for a couple's same-sex wedding; Mr. Clark posted about that on Facebook.
Celebrating the decision as a victory for freedom of speech and freedom of religion, Mr. Clark wrote, "He should have the right to run his business the way he wants. If he wants to turn away people of color, then that's his choice."
As soon as the heat was turned up on him, he deleted the post on FB and issued an apology by email. In it he wrote, "I am apologizing for some of my Facebook comments. I would never advocate discriminating against people based on their color or race."
Never? You just said it hours earlier. Seriously? If you're going to apologize, don't say you would never say it. Admit you said it and that on reflection; it was the wrong thing to say. Saying you would never say something when you just said it is NOT an apology.
This is not comparing apples and oranges. It is comparing apples and rocks. Let's examine the differences. Mr. Saucier's intent was to violate the law. The initial infraction was taking his personal electronic device anywhere in the sub other than the berthing area. The next infraction was in taking photographs of classified spaces in the sub. Perhaps the most frightening issue is that Mr. Saucier disposed of the phone at a dump. It was discovered there and that was how he was caught.
Then there is the fact that after the FBI asked Mr. Saucier about the personal computer he took with him on the deployment when the photos were taken. He went home immediately after that interview and destroyed the computer. That's obstruction of justice.
I do not believe for one minute his intent was to sell or give the photos to anyone else. I believe they were for personal use, proof of what's he had been part of. But the intent was to violate regulations and orders. To violate the law.
While there were three emails on Secretary Clinton's email server that contained the (C) marking that indicates information that has been classified as Confidential, she claims she wasn't aware of that designation. I don't buy that, but okay. Aside from those three mails, none of the others that contained classified material were properly labeled. I do not believe that Secretary Clinton intended to violate the law.
Intent matters.
* * *
I just saw a news item that fashion designer Kate Spade has died of an apparent suicide. I might have never known who she was except for a controversy dating back to the days when I worked at the private school.
There was an issue with girls in the Middle School bringing Kate Spade bags to school. I remember that word was passed around by the administration that girls were to no longer bring their Kate Spade purses to school. I guess they were evidence of economic inequality when girls whose families could afford them would negatively impact those girls whose families could not.
It is also a stark reminder that no matter how successful a person becomes, they are not immune to the ravages of depression and other mental illnesses.
RIP
* * *
Michael Feinberg is a resident of Long Island, NY. He took a Viagra prescription to a CVS pharmacy and instructed them not to put the prescription through his insurance. He said he would pay cash. At over $60 per pill, the 8 pill prescription would have run him over $500. There were five refills on the prescription. Still, if he didn't want his insurance to pick up part of the tab, that is his privilege. Then his wife phoned the pharmacy about a prescription of her own and was told about the "blue bombers" her husband wasn't putting through their insurance.
Now he is suing CVS claiming they violated his privacy by revealing his confidential health information to his wife, who is a "third party."
I think he'll win. It is a violation of HIPAA, the law the protects the privacy of health care information.
* * *
Michael Clark (R), a member of the South Dakota State House of Representatives. He is also the newest member of the "I would never say what I just said" club.
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision that said a Colorado baker didn't get a fair hearing by the state's Civil Rights Commission when he refused to decorate a cake for a couple's same-sex wedding; Mr. Clark posted about that on Facebook.
Celebrating the decision as a victory for freedom of speech and freedom of religion, Mr. Clark wrote, "He should have the right to run his business the way he wants. If he wants to turn away people of color, then that's his choice."
As soon as the heat was turned up on him, he deleted the post on FB and issued an apology by email. In it he wrote, "I am apologizing for some of my Facebook comments. I would never advocate discriminating against people based on their color or race."
Never? You just said it hours earlier. Seriously? If you're going to apologize, don't say you would never say it. Admit you said it and that on reflection; it was the wrong thing to say. Saying you would never say something when you just said it is NOT an apology.
posted by me at 8:49 AM
<< Home