Actually, if that were true, then the Federal Records Act wouldn't need a section dealing with archiving personal emails and the like. What about using personal stationary and your own stamps, is that forbidden, too?

No, the Federal Records Act simply states that the communications need to be archived and submitted, which she actually did. This is nothing more than trying to make a scandal where none exists. Even Condoleezza Rice used her own cell phone while SOS. SOS Kerry is the first to use a government issued phone and email account.

According to the news this morning, Secretary Kerry is the first Secretary of State to use a government issued email account for correspondence. If it is fishy and there is to be an investigation, then is seems like Hillary and all of her predecessors are going to be in trouble.

The fact is that the law does not require her or anybody else to use a government email account. It does require emails that are not sensitive or classified to be turned over, which she did. Of course, that was after the fact, and one could argue that was a problem, but she still complied with the law. Unless you want government officials to carry two cell phones, computers, tablets, etc., this is the compromise. After all, they can't use the government supplied equipment for personal use, particularly political activity.

I wonder if she used her own stamps and stationary instead of government ones if people would be as upset?

Hell, even Reagan is a liberal by today's standards!

Why, even if it were a government address, this would not happen. Only those records that are not sensitive or classified get turned over, which is exactly what she did, although after the fact. So, why would you hold her to a higher standard than what the law requires?

And yet, Kerry is the first Secretary of State to actually use a government email. Clinton was evidently following standard practices at the State Department.

I don't disagree, but human testing usually only follows after successful animal testing. So, even a paralytic, isn't do "no harm" if we don't know whether we can actually do this or not. Once we know it can be done, well then, a paralytic would seem to be the one to benefit most. But, until then, we would just be experimenting on handicapped human beings for the sake of gaining research knowledge. Most medical ethicists would say that is unethical.

And that would be because paralyzed people are less human or less valuable? How about practicing and perfecting it on rats first, then higher animals?

Actually, computers and the internet, etc. do follow the laws of nature, quite well. Technically speaking, everything we do follows the law of nature, otherwise it would be miraculous. That said, it still doesn't address the morality of the issue.

Because it's not really about building sustainable plants, but avoiding US taxes. If you're going to build a new plant, it's not significantly more expensive than a regular one. It's not about saving the planet, it's about seeking tax shelters.

If the universe always existed, then we don't know that entropy is always increasing. Maybe the universe always existed, but there is some mechanism that causes entropy to cycle between increasing and decreasing? Who knows? OTOH, this is just a hypothesis and has yet to be accepted.

Isn't this just a rehashing of the steady state theory of the universe?

Nothing. As accepted, currently, time began with the Big Bang, so there was no before the Big Bang.

But wait, girls excel at math and science according to test scores in elementary schools, so it must be the teacher's fault that by high school and college they drop from it. Of course it couldn't have anything to do with a culture that hypersexualizes young women. Look at the upcoming 50 Shades movie. Obviously, a young woman can't be complete and productive unless she is first an object of desire.

If you want more women in science and math, you need to change the culture that tells them that their primary role is of being an object. That's not the school system, but the media. As long as the media emphasizes cleavage over brains, the problem will continue to exist. But go ahead and blame the schools, we'll pour lots of money into fixing the problem, but since it is the wrong problem, nothing will change.

Technically, it is, because it is a resource. But usually when speaking of economic cost, the focus is on lowering the cost of production. In this case, water is a resource for production, but the focus is usually on the price of the water, not on the impact to the surrounding communities that might be impacted by using it for fuel production.

This is not restricted to bio-fuels. We see it all the time, usually, though it is more likely to be an issue of damming some river for tourism purposes at the expense of downstream agriculture needs.

There are more costs than economic ones to consider. Making ethanol uses vast amounts of water -- water that is then not available for other uses. If they could find a way to do it with, say, sea water, that would be one thing, but in the Midwest, where much of the production is, water is becoming a scarce resource.