text:
Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Politics & Elections > I have changed my mind about the Clinton email scandal (and so should you)
I have changed my mind about the Clinton email scandal (and so should you)
When it was originally reported, my view of the scandal was that it was not properly a national security scandal but instead a scandal over the effort to hide emails from FOIA access. I believed that it was unlikely that she sent any truly sensitive information, as distinct from technically classified stuff like the existence of the drone program. I also believed that the security for the home server was likely good enough for these purposes.
In retrospect, I was incredibly naive about the level of security necessary to protect an email server from foreign governments, and the level of security employed for officials like SecState. I was also naive about Clinton's understanding of what information is sensitive. As it turns out, Clinton had people telling her how vulnerable this made her communications, and she continued to do it anyway--and sent highly sensitive information over a server without even using any form of encryption.
Here's what was reported last week in the Washington Post (and has previously been reported elsewhere):
He emphasized: "Any unclassified Blackberry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving e-mails, and exploiting calendars."
Nine days later, Clinton told Boswell that she had read his memo and "gets it," according to an email sent by a senior diplomatic security official. "Her attention was drawn to the sentence that indicates (Diplomatic Security) have intelligence concerning this vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia," the email said.
But Clinton kept using her private BlackBerry — and the basement server.
That's pretty damning. If security people were telling her to knock it off for good reason, she acknowledged those concerns, and then essentially ignored them, then this is a justified national security scandal. I still doubt that a crime was committed, given the scope of the criminal law. But it has caused me to downgrade my estimation of Clinton's judgment by a good notch. I'm not sure she has worse judgment than her competitors, but it's now a closer call in my book. 1
Find all posts by Richard Parker
CarnalK
If Blackberrys are so vulnerable, why do so many foreign governments demand that Blackberry give their security people access? 2
Find all posts by CarnalK
As I understand it, it isn't so much that Blackberry is uniquely vulnerable. I suspect they would have said the same thing about her using an iPhone. The vulnerability is not the device, but the device's connection with a homebrew server that didn't even use encryption for the first few months.
There is often a spectrum of exploits ranging from possible but difficult and expensive to one-click easy-peasy. Often the access sought by foreign governments is to make their lives easier and to enable mass surveillance, and not because it is the only possible way in. When you're talking about targeting one high-profile individual, that's a whole different story. 3
iiandyiiii
If she knowingly discussed classified things on the BlackBerry, then that's a big problem. But were the security people really telling her she couldn't use a BlackBerry ever, for any reason? Or just not for classified information, and in secure spaces in which classified discussions take place? 4
Visit iiandyiiii's homepage!
Find all posts by iiandyiiii
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii
If she knowingly discussed classified things on the BlackBerry, then that's a big problem. But were the security people really telling her she couldn't use a BlackBerry ever, for any reason? Or just not for classified information, and in secure spaces in which classified discussions take place?
There's a few different issues, I suppose.
One issue is that the Blackberry could be hacked to transform it into a listening device. This was apparently one of the concerns expressed to her. It is why they would not let her take it into the SCIF. But if she was carrying it on her during all kinds of other official business, presumably some of that involved highly sensitive conversations.
The other issue is what information she sent using the device. Based on the reporting, it looks like at least some of it was indeed sensitive information, whether it was classified or not. In the context of knowing how vulnerable her security was, it strikes me as scandalous to send sensitive information regardless of whether it is classified. 5
Omar Little
Location: Within
I'm not sure that she violated any laws. But her own preference to keep things like she wanted them without thinking about potential security threats even after being told shows an arrogance and lack of judgment that is extremely concerning. 6
Find all posts by Omar Little
If the OP is correct, then this may demonstrate an extreme sense of entitlement that overrode good judgment, which would be a big mark against her.
It would take many, many such big marks against her to make her judgment anything close to as bad as any of the Republicans, though, in my opinion. 7
It would take many, many such big marks against her to make her judgment anything close to as bad as any of the Republicans, though, in my opinion.
It wouldn't shock me to learn that a majority of conservatives think Clinton has better judgment than Trump. That's about as low as a bar gets.
The comment at the end of my OP was mostly about Bernie and Jill Stein. And while I recognize that the Democratic primary is basically over, so forcing me to vote for Bernie doesn't mean much, I do feel less enthusiastic about volunteering for and donating to Hillary in the fall. 8
GIGObuster
Originally Posted by Richard Parker
The comment at the end of my OP was mostly about Bernie and Jill Stein. And while I recognize that the Democratic primary is basically over, so forcing me to vote for Bernie doesn't mean much, I do feel less enthusiastic about volunteering for and donating to Hillary in the fall.
I just see it like this: This is a moot point since she will not be able to do that anymore and there will be many others at the behest of the conservatives keeping an eye at her future communications, regardless if there was any "scandal".
Donald Trump still should not be let to control the CIA (Trump is worse than Nixon on "the enemies list" front) The CDC (Trump is anti-vaccine) NOAA (Trump is climate change denier) and we also should not allow him to be closer to the nuclear football. 9
Find all posts by GIGObuster
Bad judgment is never moot.
You're right, electorally. She is lucky that the only obstacles to her presidency are a 74-year-old atheist socialist and a wildly bigoted reality show character who singlehandedly proves David Dunning and Justin Kruger to be correct. But notwithstanding the forum choice of my OP, I think criticism is important even when it doesn't cause one to change one's voting behavior. 10
Procrustus
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Getting a president with the judgment and temperament of Obama is a once in a generation thing, if we're lucky. Hillary Clinton will be an adequate President. I don't need her to be perfect. If there were qualified alternatives (with a chance of winning) this all might be more relevant 11
Find all posts by Procrustus
CaptMurdock
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
*snore*
Wha- -- What?
Dear Og, are we still talking about this??
Yes, Hillary didn't pay attention to security protocols. Neither has half the officials in Washington in the last twenty years, it seems. Dang this newfangled internet anyway.
Have Hillary and Colin and Condoleeza and the Bush administration secretaries and anybody else who couldn't read the directions, hold out their hands and then slap the back of them with the Sister Mary Elephant Memorial Ruler.
Then we can all go back to sleep. 12
Find all posts by CaptMurdock
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock
Dear Og, are we still talking about this?
Yes, it has been all of two or three days since these latest details were reported. How can we still be talking about it?!
Then we can all go back to sleep.
Were Colin Powell and anyone else specifically warned to stop doing this for security reasons, agreed to do so, and then didn't? 13
It's hard for me to get excited about this "scandal". I think if the Chinese want to hack something bad enough, they have the expertise and the resources to do it regardless of how secure we think our systems are. Not the best idea to use devices that are more hackable, but I'm not really seeing a scenario where anything intercepted would adversely affect national security.
Your choice this fall will be between someone with a clear head but capable of making minor errors and someone compulsively ignorant and mentally unstable. It shouldn't take too long to figure out the right choice. 14
Thing is that I read the article and it strikes me as yet another rehash of what was reported before with very little new details and omitting a few things to keep the "scandal" going.
http://mashable.com/2016/03/17/clint.../#TPauUO4o_aqJ
You're right, electorally. She is lucky that the only obstacles to her presidency are a 74-year-old atheist socialist and a wildly bigoted reality show character who singlehandedly proves David Dunning and Justin Kruger to be correct. But notwithstanding the forum choice of my OP, I think criticism is important even when it doesn't cause one to change one's voting behavior.
Of course it is, and Clinton already admitted that it was a mistake, in the end the issue of the intention (No secrets were intended to be sent to enemies or for personal gain) is what makes this "scandal" underwhelming. What I do think is going is that a lot of members of the media do have to make the contest a horse race, after all they still have to get all those millions from Trump and the supporters of Hillary. If Clinton gets too high on the polls she must be taken a few pegs down by any means necessary. To make this a race worth covering and that also benefits their bottom line.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201...ails-ev/209574 15
Last edited by GIGObuster; 03-29-2016 at 11:46 AM.
Also, it's hard to take seriously a government security classification system that retains "top secret" coding for information published in the New York Times. As I understand it, truly sensitive stuff, like the names of spies, would never be emailed around in the first place. If the Chinese hack in and find out the Secretary is planning on raising a particular issue in her talks with the Prime Minister of India next month, I doubt they'd be surprised or have any "actionable intelligence." Remember, the NSA listened in to phone conversations of some European leaders a while back, and I don't recall any of them getting in hot water for lax security precautions. 16
I think if the Chinese want to hack something bad enough, they have the expertise and the resources to do it regardless of how secure we think our systems are.
This is not an evidence-based belief.
Not the best idea to use devices that are more hackable [ . . . ]
This is quite an understatement. You don't think it's a good idea to keep sensitive information secret from foreign governments?
[ . . . ]but I'm not really seeing a scenario where anything intercepted would adversely affect national security.
This is naive. It could very easily harm national security for a foreign power to listen in on a private conversation between Clinton and a foreign leader, or intercept trip reports sent by Clinton back to the White House.
Originally Posted by GIGObuster
[I]n the end the issue of the intention (No secrets were intended to be sent to enemies or for personal gain) is what makes this "scandal" underwhelming.
That's the whole point. It would be one thing if this were just ignorance about security. But what's being reported now (among the new details you hand-wave away based on your conspiracy theory about the media) is that she was specifically warned, acknowledged the problem, and then ignored the warning.
Originally Posted by Procrustus
Also, it's hard to take seriously a government security classification system that retains "top secret" coding for information published in the New York Times. As I understand it, truly sensitive stuff, like the names of spies, would never be emailed around in the first place. If the Chinese hack in and find out the Secretary is planning on raising a particular issue in her talks with the Prime Minister of India next month, I doubt they'd be surprised or have any "actionable intelligence." Remember, the NSA listened in to phone conversations of some European leaders a while back, and I don't recall any of them getting in hot water for lax security precautions.
This is half-correct. Yes, over-classification is rampant and a problem. But no, it's not true that "truly sensitive stuff" is never communicated electronically. 17
Actually the NSA ignored the warning, but once again, she already admitted her mistake.
And yes, after many back eyes the media got by exaggerating and even lying (they had to backtrack several reports already) I will be happy to continue to hand wave away, it is not done just on a whim. 18
Even if your claim were true, that the NSA ignored the warning, that would only mean they both ignored it. Not that the NSA "actually" ignored it. But I don't see that your claim is based on any evidence anyway.
As for her mea culpa. She has generally admitted making a mistake. She has denied that she did anything to compromise national security. 19
Try2B Comprehensive
Yes it is. According to NPR anyway, when the Pentagon plays cyber-warfare games, there has not yet been an instance when the "bad guy team" was not able to compromise the Pentagon's networks. Everything we have is, apparently, hackable. 20
Find all posts by Try2B Comprehensive
I still don't see it. Let's say she goes off to Germany. In her hotel she fires off a summary to the White House. What's the worst that can happen? She lets on that we weren't ready to go to war if the Ukraine was invaded? Hell, everybody already knew that. 21
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive
Yes it is. According to NPR anyway, when the Pentagon plays cyber-warfare games, there has not yet been an instance when the "bad guy team" was not able to compromise the Pentagon's networks. Everything we have is, apparently, hackable.
The Pentagon being able to hack some unspecified part of its own network is different from claiming that "if the Chinese want to hack something bad enough, they have the expertise and the resources to do it regardless of how secure we think our systems are."
Indeed, it's not even relevant to that claim. We know that some of our systems are not well secured. It does not follow that none of our systems are--especially not when we're talking about protecting the communications of a single high-level official. 22
I already did link to the Mashable report, that quotes BTW messages obtained by Judicial Watch. 23
I already did link to the Mashable report, that quotes BTW messages obtained by Judicial Watch.
You just inserted the link, but didn't characterize it at all. Looking at it now, I don't see where it supports your thesis. Perhaps you could favor me with a quote? 24
When somebody tells me I SHOULD think something, I immediately look at that with a jaundiced eye.
Just the next in the series of molehills that conservatives will do their utmost to make into mountains. Sounds familiar, huh? 25
Find all posts by Johnny Ace
Boyo Jim
... That's the whole point. It would be one thing if this were just ignorance about security. But what's being reported now (among the new details you hand-wave away based on your conspiracy theory about the media) is that she was specifically warned, acknowledged the problem, and then ignored the warning.
I would say it still WAS ignorance, not about the vulnerability of the equipment, but about the probability that someone was actively trying to hack it or listen through it. If her Blackberry tree falls in the forest but no one is there to hear it, has it made a sound?
Or perhaps she didn't care if someone was listening because she didn't believe that what she was discussing posed a risk even if it was intercepted. In fact I would be much more concerned if lower level people did what she did, such as people on various treaty negotiating teams. I think when someone at her level steps in the room, she's more likely there to put in an appearance, sign a document, and add some political weight to a situation, not to discuss the terms in depth in advance.
However, if she genuinely broke a law, she should be held accountable. I would love to see Bernie as the Democratic nominee. 26
Find all posts by Boyo Jim
So if you were to learn that, contrary to your expectation, the Secretary of State routinely discusses sensitive matters and doesn't just do ceremonial bullshit, would that change your mind? 27
You just inserted the link, but didn't characterize it at all. Looking at it now, I don't see where it supports your thesis. Perhaps you could favor me with a quote?
Newly released emails show a 2009 request to issue a secure government smartphone to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was denied by the National Security Agency.
A month later, she began using private email accounts accessed through her BlackBerry to exchange messages with her top aides.
The messages made public Wednesday were obtained by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal advocacy group that has filed numerous lawsuits seeking the release of federal documents related to Clinton's tenure as the nation's top diplomat.
"We began examining options for (Secretary Clinton) with respect to secure 'BlackBerry-like' communications," wrote Donald R. Reid, the department's assistant director for security infrastructure. "The current state of the art is not too user friendly, has no infrastructure at State, and is very expensive."
Reid wrote that each time they asked the NSA what solution they had worked up to provide a mobile device to Obama, "we were politely told to shut up and color."
Again, the point was that the NSA IMHO were acting like cads. But IIUC then a more secure Blackberry was provided, as it is clear that other email accounts can not be added as this exchange in the news (yes, this is not as new an issue as implied in the article on the OP) showed:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03...couldnt/202833
After playing video of Clinton's comment, Bolling asked, "Are you kidding me? Any tenth grader could set up multiple email accounts on a single handheld device. Does she think the American people are that stupid?"
But as the technology blog Mashable reports, maintaining separate personal and government accounts on the same device is less secure, presenting a "real concern of attack vectors on the personal side." Moreover, when Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, "there was no standard way to secure a BlackBerry like Clinton's with two email accounts, at least not without giving the IT person in charge complete dominion over all the data on the phone. To fulfill the criteria that Clinton demanded -- secure email that's not sitting on a cloud service, plus a single-BlackBerry solution -- she had just one option: Set up her own email server."
Last edited by GIGObuster; 03-29-2016 at 01:53 PM.
Your initial claim was that the NSA knew about and ignored the problem. Nothing in the quoted matter supports that claim.
Your new claim is that the NSA was bad for refusing to give Hillary the same secured communications device that Obama received. I don't see how you can reach that conclusion without knowing how much it cost, how difficult it would be, etc. 29
Martin Hyde
I do think Hillary's judgment was poor here. But I don't view this as changing the degree to which I view it as poor--anyone that knows what the State Department and the SecState do already knew that she was privy to sensitive information, and to be frank as loose as high political officials have been with such information since basically forever it'd be shocking if none of it made its way into email like it wasn't supposed to.
I will say this though--there's a big difference between information that the government would like secret and information that if disclosed would genuinely hurt national security. The former is a huge portion of all information the government holds, the latter is almost none of it. I mean our enemies know how to make nuclear weapons. Let that sink in. What exactly are they going to get from us that's worse than that on a strategic scale?
The answer is really very little. Specifications for U.S. military hardware? They largely have that already. Sure, it's classified, but they can analyze things based on performance in the real world that is harder to keep secret.
Probably the most sensitive information would be information on imminently occurring U.S. military actions, specific targets for troop deployments and etc--because that information will put troops in harm's way. Once an operation is over, that information is of almost no value. Additionally things like the identity of covert operatives overseas (which if leaked could endanger their lives)--note that a Republican leaked some of that deliberately just to hurt a political opponent. The SecState has access to information we'd like to not have leaked, but almost no access to genuinely important national security info--most of which is very time sensitive (i.e. it's only really important for a few weeks/days.) 30
Last edited by Martin Hyde; 03-29-2016 at 02:27 PM.
Find all posts by Martin Hyde
"we were politely told to shut up and color."
Your new claim is that the NSA was bad for refusing to give Hillary the same secured communications device that Obama received. I don't see how you can reach that conclusion without knowing how much it cost, how difficult it would be, etc.
That is what Juditial Watch and then Mashable reported. IMHO it should had prevented all her poor decisions, (It is looking as if the refusal of the secure blackberry at the beginning was the main reason for setting the personal e-mail server) 31
Obviously there is a spectrum of the sensitivity of information, ranging from technically classified but well-known (e.g., the CIA drone program) to critically sensitive (say, troop movements or which biological attacks we have not prepared well for).
You speculate that the SecState lacks access to the most sensitive stuff. I doubt that's true. We know, for example, that she is given information about what our intelligence services know about foreign military capabilities. You don't think it's highly sensitive what our best guess is about Iranian or North Korean missile ranges, for example? If not, I think you're not using your imagination.
But even if I was willing to accept your speculation that she lacks access to the most sensitive stuff, she clearly has access to a lot of the middle ground stuff. That is self-evident based on who she talks to, the meeting she attends, and what we know from things like WikiLeaks.
As a check of your calibration of what counts are highly sensitive, is it your position that none of the stuff in Wikileaks was a damaging disclosure? 32
So if you were to learn that, contrary to your expectation, the Secretary of State routinely discusses sensitive matters and doesn't just do ceremonial bullshit, would that change your mind?
It depends what the sensitive information is. Yes, it would change my mind if it is information that would genuinely endanger the country or the people in it, or US citizens abroad. But I believe that's very unlikely. 33
That does not support your claim. It supports the claim that she was told by the NSA that she would not get a secure blackberry.
That is what Juditial Watch and then Mashable reported. IMHO it should had prevented all her poor decisions, (It is looking as if the refusal of the secure blackberry at the beginning was the main reason for setting the personal e-mail server)
No, it isn't. They reported that the NSA said no. They didn't report anything about whether that was a reasonable decision. Your argument assumes without evidence that it wasn't. Indeed, you go further and assume that the NSA knew Hillary lied to them about stopping using her Blackberry and that they just didn't care. 34
Last edited by Richard Parker; 03-29-2016 at 02:40 PM.
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim
It depends what the sensitive information is. Yes, it would change my mind if it is information that would genuinely endanger the country or the people in it, or US citizens abroad. But I believe that's very unlikely.
So what's an example? Are you saying it's only a problem if she discloses something like the names of spies, but not a big deal if she reveals our negotiating strategy for a treaty? 35
I'll give you an example of some information that I believe did put American lives at risk, though I can no longer remember the details of who was responsible, or even where it was.
You may recall some years back the news got out that American troops were coming ashore at dawn. And at the landing beach were loads of reporters with cameras and bright lights, and it was IIRC carried on live TV. I was appalled by that. That could have turned into a shooting gallery, and everybody concerned was lucky that it didn't.
Whoever let that out should have been prosecuted and if it was the president he should have been impeached. 36
Last edited by Boyo Jim; 03-29-2016 at 02:49 PM.
I don't understand why you would only be concerned about Hollywood movie-style secrets.
I can imagine a whole wealth of information that as an individual unit of information might not cause imminent death, but would nevertheless make it easier for our adversaries to harm Americans or allies. Why should we be OK with releasing that kind of data?
I mean, take the negotiations over the Iranian sanctions. It is entirely plausible that one piece of information that might be shared with Sec. Clinton is whether a given country, like France, would have been willing to carry on with international sanctions if a deal broke down. If Iran got that information, it would be critical in assessing the strength of different negotiating positions. In turn, that could lead to things like the release or non-release of hostages, or how much money they got from us (that can then be used to fund terror), or a hundred other things. Why wouldn't you care about them getting that info? 37
So what's an example? Are you saying it's only a problem if she discloses something like the names of spies, but not a big deal if she reveals our negotiating strategy for a treaty?
What are you looking for? I agree that it shows bad judgment. Is that not enough? Are you personally going to vote for a Republican candidate because of this, or a third party candidate, or stay home and not vote at all? What do you think is an appropriate level of response from a concerned American?
Our primary is Tuesday. I will be voting for Bernie Sanders, which I would have done whether this news came to light or not. And if Hilary wins the Dem nomination, I will be (reluctantly) voting for her in the general election over any Republican candidate now in the running. Again, true whether these new facts came to light or not.
How should I change my behavior? 38
How should I change my behavior?
Perhaps I put this in the wrong forum, because I'm not suggesting you ought to change your voting behavior.
I think an open and honest accounting for this is important regardless of whether it changes any of your personal behavior. It is simply wrong to downplay the security breach because the Secretary of State only performs ceremonial duties.
And maybe taking the breach seriously would change your non-voting behavior. Perhaps there will come a time before or after November when the Democratic Establishment will start to characterize this as a partisan witch-hunt and call for an end to the investigation. Some posters in this thread are already championing that position. Taking this seriously means rejecting that position because you understand the importance of getting to the bottom of what kind security might have been breached and what needs to be changed to ensure it never happens again. 39
I don't understand why you would only be concerned about Hollywood movie-style secrets. ...
The example I chose might or might not have been "Hollywood movie-style", but it happened in the real world, and it involved the release of information that might have genuinely put lives at risk. 40
And maybe taking the breach seriously would change your non-voting behavior. Perhaps there will come a time before or after November when the Democratic Establishment will start to characterize this as a partisan witch-hunt and call for an end to the investigation. Some posters in this thread are already championing that position. Taking this seriously means rejecting that position because you understand the importance of getting to the bottom of what kind security might have been breached and what needs to be changed to ensure it never happens again.
Did the bad guys even know she had a private email server while she was in Office? If not, they wouldn't even know to try to access her basement server. If I'm some agent in Iran, how would I even know where to start looking? I'd probably start trying to hack into the State Department server. Clinton outsmarted them. 41
Indeed, put that under the rug, IOW, ignore it.
No, it isn't. They reported that the NSA said no. They didn't report anything about whether that was a reasonable decision. Your argument assumes without evidence that it wasn't. Indeed, you go further and assume that the NSA knew Hillary lied to them about stopping using her Blackberry and that they just didn't care.
I was only reporting what the emails are telling us, and I did not say that Hillary lied, IMHO the early report points to Hillary getting a more secure one and it would only be a guess to assume that no talk in other medium took place about the blackberry. I only can make an observation, based on the reports, that she got some sort of arrangement with the security groups, that now it looks bad and the fact that so far the FBI has pointed that Clinton is not being investigated, points to what the nature of the investigation is: They are investigating if other parties got access to secret information and how to prevent that from happening again. Because I do have the feeling that some security people did not see anything wrong then.
I'm already accepting that there was an error here from Clinton, but as pointed many times before, a very underwhelming one, unless it can be show that she on purpose let our enemies get information or that she had personal profit as a motive. 42
I think an open and honest accounting for this is important regardless of whether it changes any of your personal behavior. It is simply wrong to downplay the security breach because the Secretary of State only performs ceremonial duties. ...
I am not downplaying the security breach. I may be downplaying the risk of what particular information might have been leaked, and you may be overplaying that same risk, and neither of us can really know.
And as far an open and honest accounting of what happened, I've very hard-pressed to come up with any examples of when that happened or about what. Maybe NTSB crash investigations? Maybe some portions of the Abu Graib and related torture scandals, but certainly not others. And even when the facts do come out, what are the consequences? Few to none, and not very serious in any case, because actual facts have become issues of partisan squabbling. 43
Did the bad guys even know she had a private email server while she was in Office? If not, they wouldn't even know to try to access her basement server. If I'm some agent in Iran, how would I even know where to start looking? I'd probably start trying to hack into the State Department server. Clinton outsmarted them.
I sympathize with this kind of statement, because it seems sort of intuitive and I used to share it.
But that was before I had any idea how the modern communications technology works. The encryption used to protect data transmitted by a Blackberry over cell networks is very weak. Even relatively unsophisticated actors can crack it without too much trouble. Once you do so, you know what server the phone is communicating with. Indeed, since the email traffic apparently wasn't even encrypted, once you do so, that might be the whole ballgame.
The other concern was using the Blackberry itself as a listening device. AFAIK, we know that other countries have that capability and would have no way of verifying whether they used it on Clinton's unsecured phone.
That's a bizarre interpretation. They told her they could not give her a secure Blackberry and not to use an unsecured one. She agreed, but continued to use it! That's them ignoring it?
I'm already accepting that there was an error here from Clinton, but as pointed many times before, a very underwhelming one, unless it can be show that she on purpose let our enemies get information or that she had personal profit as a motive.
She apparently chose personal convenience over national security. That's not as bad as selling secrets or something. But it's still pretty bad. 44
Until more info is available I have to go with the idea that someone did not see anything wrong with her solution, of course here I have to remind you that I already acknowledged that it was not a good solution but the way the investigation is going (with the FBI going on record of reporting that she is not under investigation) points to someone not minding about that solution in the past.
She apparently chose personal convenience over national security. That's not as bad as selling secrets or something. But it's still pretty bad.
Again, if my hunch is right, someone later did not mind much and so it follows that the investigation concentrates on the failures in security, not much about who is at fault as there was no ill intention; but, very likely there was also a failure of communication and not much damming as the right wing would like it to be. 45
Until more info is available I have to go with the idea that someone did not see anything wrong with her solution...
Why? Because they didn't arrest her? I don't get why that's a better inference than either: (1) they didn't know that she continued to use it despite her telling them she would; or (2) they knew and there wasn't anything they could do about it short of trying to keep her from having access to their classified info. 46
She apparently chose personal convenience over national security.
Funny you should say that because I was just thinking that this pretty much sums up the whole thing, whatever one wants to make of it. And statements like this one from the article ... A request for a secure device from the NSA was rebuffed at the outset: "The current state of the art is not too user friendly, has no infrastructure at State, and is very expensive" ... is one that would be very familiar to many who have to deal with government or even large institutions, and I think provides a sympathetic glimpse into the frustrations of an ambitious high-energy person just wanting to get things done and being thwarted by an intransigent unproductive bureaucracy.
I'm not defending Clinton, but I think that's a valid perspective, and I can well believe the claims that she was far from the only one who bypassed official security protocols for the sake of productivity and effectiveness. If you remove the "national" from that quoted sentence and substitute "personal" or "corporate" then the number of people to whom that transgression applies probably numbers in the millions, including probably you and me. What I guess I'm saying is that even if what she did was wrong, I'm relatively sympathetic to the reasons she may have done it, namely for reasons of effectiveness rather than some nefarious desire to "control" the information. 47
Find all posts by wolfpup
I mostly agree. In fact, I think this new information makes clear that this probably wasn't a FOIA-avoidance scheme.
The part where I disagree is the empathy for the choice she made given the role she accepted. It's one thing to compromise your business's trade secrets in the relatively unlikely event that you are personally subject to a corporate espionage attempt. It is quite another thing to be Secretary of State of the United States--a figure who will be the target of ceaseless and sophisticated espionage with 100% certainty, and who has access to a whole wealth of sensitive information--deciding that her personal convenience is more important.
Even then I would be sympathetic if she was expected to understand this on her own. Most people, myself included until recently, didn't really understand how cybersecurity works. But she was told specifically that, for example, China could easily hack her Blackberry. And she kept using it. 48
I don't believe SecState would have any legitimate reason to be forwarding operational deployment/planning documents for upcoming military operations, or covert operative names. I don't believe that knowing our guesses on foreign state's military capabilities to be that sensitive because most countries probably have made very similar assessments of these sorts of things.
A lot of the WikiLeaks stuff was from a low level, but was potentially more dangerous because it contained information on say, Afghans who worked with the U.S. government covertly. The thing about SecState is it's a very high level/abstraction position, the SecState has no reason to even read that information, it'd be like the SecState being told what type of door handle they're installing in a U.S. Consulate in Münich.
As a check of your calibration of what counts are highly sensitive, is it your position that none of the stuff in Wikileaks was a damaging disclosure?
Eh, it was damaging because it was public disclosure of America's internal stances on some foreign powers. None of that was stuff they didn't know, but because it was leaked openly the foreign power could use it for PR purposes. The most damaging aspects of what say, Bradley Manning leaked was information about people in Iraq and Afghanistan who were working with the U.S., and who might be targeted for retribution. But again--that stuff isn't going to be on a SecStat's desk or in her emails. It's too low level.
The Secretary of State may have access to a greater breadth of information, theoretically, than a low level operative. But a low level operative is more likely to be in more regular contact with lots of information that is highly sensitive.
I also think that, considering the NSA has security policies like letting one SysAdmin have full privileges on the entire network and all its machines so he could write a simple program to crawl/pull files for hours and hours suggests that the high level, mostly abstract documents that come across Hillary's desk as SecState possibly being leaked are comparatively so unimportant as to be almost irrelevant.
Like I said, she showed poor judgment, but I already knew the moment I heard she was using a private email server that a) some classified information almost certainly had made its way onto that server and b) it'd probably already been exploited by some third party. So this revelation didn't change my reaction, and part of my reaction is based on thinking none of this is materially very important.
The President doesn't even have to deal with this stuff at all, his high level security aides do all the reading of it and then brief him--so as President she won't be in a position like this. 49
I mean, take the negotiations over the Iranian sanctions. It is entirely plausible that one piece of information that might be shared with Sec. Clinton is whether a given country, like France, would have been willing to carry on with international sanctions if a deal broke down. If Iran got that information, it would be critical in assessing the strength of different negotiating positions. In turn, that could lead to things like the release or non-release of hostages, or how much money they got from us (that can then be used to fund terror), or a hundred other things. Why wouldn't you care about them getting that info?
What you're not realizing is that the people that do diplomatic negotiations and top military/intelligence types largely know what the other side is thinking anyway. Ever seen The Lion in Winter? Maybe not, it's an old movie. There's a quote from that movie that is applicable:
Prince Geoffrey: I know. You know I know. I know you know I know. We know Henry knows, and Henry knows we know it.
Prince Geoffrey: We're a knowledgeable family.
It's not really a game of poker because both sides know what the cards are, it's largely about reaching an agreement on terms. 50


Navigate to the OpenCart theme directory, i.e.
and create a new directory here. Name it anything you like — thememobile, for example. It will contain the files for your mobile theme.
Choose a default theme you want to customize.
From the Mobile Theme dropdown choose the name of your custom mobile theme(e.g. thememobile).
You can change the mobile theme colours on the Advanced customization tab*.
*Please note: The Advanced customization tab is only available in OMF v2.0+ on OpenCart 1.5.2+.
in any text editor (e.g. Notepad).
Do not change anything before the hash sign(#) or your theme will become unusable. After the hash you can see a colour specified in hex. Change this number to display the colour of your choice. You can see the hex colour codes in most picture manipulation tools (like Photoshop) or use an online colour picker.
Refresh your mobile site and you should see the changes.
Most of the names are self-explanatory. You can play with the lightness and saturation settings until you achieve the desired effect.
Note! Be sure to change only the percentage values.
We have switched from standard CSS to preprocessed CSS through SCSS. This allows variables, mixins (functions in CSS), nesting, inheritance and more. We're currently using the Compass SCSS library.


Kyla Eva Nagim belongs to a typical Filipino family. Her father works in a distant city in order to provide for them. Her mother stays at home to care for Kyla and her siblings. Like most of the community, Kyla's family lives near the shorelines of Zambales. She often sees her grandmother, who would tell her something about the Bible. However, she wasn't keen on listening intently nor to ponder on what she heard.
The day came when she was given her very first copy of the Bible. Some people visited their school riding in motorbikes. Kyla heard that they had already visited other schools that morning despite the rain. In this curious visit, Kyla learned to open and read her first Bible.
"I can read this Bible if we don't get to attend church. I may even get to share it with my mom," Kyla said. Aside from her new Bible, she also held in her hand a booklet called How Should I Read My Bible?, which would be her companion to reading this very thick book.
For the first memorable time, she herself heard and listened to Bible verses being shared by the visitors. She and her classmates were separated into small groups, and each group had a personal time of sharing with the visitors, who called themselves The Word Riders.
One of these Riders was Eric Schuck, who knew a thing or two about kids. Being a dad of two lads, he took it upon himself to be their "bike buddy". Through the Word Riders he has managed to tag his sons along in a couple of rides where, together, they helped distribute Bibles to Grade 8 students in provincial high schools.
Alongside that opportunity, Eric has found much fulfillment in giving his time to the younger, less privileged children. For every Bible ride, Eric and his companions would engage eighth graders like Kyla about the Bible. then they would break up into small groups. When Eric leads a small group he would usually share a Bible passage, and spend the rest of the time encouraging them to start reading the Bible. Then he would pray with them.
Oftentimes he observed that the kids would get emotional when they pray together. "I could sense that these kids really need someone to talk to them about God. I'm glad to help them this way, because in my growing years no one really taught me how to be intimate with God. Every visit and every child is unique. And it's always a blessing to me," Eric said.
How the lives of these two individuals crossed paths could only be possible with God. On that day, Kyla took her first step to knowing God personally. And Eric, who knew the drill for Bible rides, met new lives that refreshed and strengthened his resolve to serve.
How would you like to be part of this opportunity to reach young lives with God's Word? Click here to know how you can get involved in this Kingdom work.


ABC Loans, Financiers, listed under "Financiers" category, is located at Serving your area Worongary QLD, 4213, Australia and can be reached by 1300551010 phone number. ABC Loans has currently 0 reviews.
Browse all Financiers in Worongary QLD.


Winner of the Weekly Alibi 2010 Best of Burque: Best Real Estate Agent Award and the 2010 Albuqurque Pride OUTStanding Acheivement Award for Best Real Estate Agent!
I am here to help you from the very start.
Question: I'm thinking of retiring to Albuquerque. What's the best way to go about this process?
Answer: If you're thinking of retiring to Albuquerque, you've come to the right place. I can help you through the process step by step and make sure it goes as smoothly as possible. One of the most important things to determine is how best you like to communicate. Some people prefer email. Some prefer the phone.
One of the most important tools I use is the web. I can create a private web portal where you can preview poperties which meet your criteria. Then when you're ready, you'll likely come to the Albuquerque area for visit and I'll show you the homes that are highest on your list, plus others I think you might like.
Once we find the right home, we'll write and negotiate the contract. I'll see you through the rest of the home buying process from conducting inspections, getting a mortgage if needed and going to closing. You can even sign your closing documents in your home town if needed. This can be done with Notary or with a title company.
Each person's wants and needs are different. I help you explore exactly what you want from your Albuquerque retirement home, and together we figure out the best way to find that home and work through the process.
Question:Why should I work with a Realtor if I can find properties on line?
Answer: Buying a house involves a lot of research on your part as well as mine. I have lots of buyers who spend time on my website looking at properties and writing down which ones they want to see. I also have buyers who just let me know what they want and I pick the properties for them. If you like doing the research, that's great. But there's a lot more that goes into buying a house and it helps to have someone on your side to help you through it.
I will help you compare the pros and cons of each property. I will help you figure out how much to offer. I'll help you write and negotiate the offer. And, once you have a contract on a house, I'll schedule inspections, communicate with the title company, negotiate repairs, set up closing, do a walk through with you, communicate with your lender, go to closing and get the keys. And I will always be working to protect your interests and make sure things go smoothly.
Question: Why do I have to sign a Buyer Broker Agreement?
Answer: Every area is different. It is commong to use a Buyer's Broker agreement in Albuquerque. I use them with my buyers and I'll explain why. I am incredibly dedicated to my clients and to my profession and my promise to you is to provide the absolute best service I can and in return, you promise to only work with me, not to see properties without me (including new construction) and to tell me if there is anything you are not completely happy with so we can work on it and have a solid working relationship.
Question: How do I go about getting approved for a mortgage?
Answer: The first thing you have to do is contact an Albuquerque mortgage lender. The reason the person needs to be from the Albuquerque area is because New Mexico lenders have to get licensed. That means, unless they've been licensed in a number of states, it's more likely than not your local lender won't be able to work in the Albuquerque area.
Call me if you'd like me to suggest a few people for you to consider. Through my clients, I have worked with a number of lenders and only recommend those with whom I and my clients have had good experiences. I'd be happy to put you in touch with someone.
The lender will research your credit, ask about your employment, request pay check stubs, tax returns or both. They'll also advise you (as am I) not to make any large purchases until after you buy the house. You don't want to do anything to negatively impact your financial situation and in particular, your credit score. So no new furniture for the new house until after you've closed and gotten the keys.
Question: Is there anything I should do about financing in the year or two before I buy a house?
Answer: If you're a planner, and you're thinking of buying a house in a year or two, you can take a few steps to make sure you're ready when the time comes.
First, check out your credit situation. You can get free copies of your credit reports to make sure there are no discrepencies which need to be fixed. If there are, you'll have time to fix them. If they are severe or you have trouble getting the problems removed from your credit report, you might want/have to employ a credit repair person.
Many states have ruled that credit agencies have to provide one free credit report per year per person. This is very helpful in clearing up any old credit cards or claims that may show up and impact your credit score. To do this you can visit AnnualCreditReport.com which is a site sponsored by Equifax, Experian and TransUnion which are three of the big credit reporting agencies in the US.
Question: How do I know how much I can spend on a house?
Answer: Getting approved for a mortgage is very important, but it's just as important to figure out how much you feel comfortable spending every month. Many people get approved for more than they actually want to spend. It's good to find out what your limits are from the mortgage company, but it's more important to know what you feel comfortable spending.
Think about your current expenses and then consider how much more you'd be willing to spend on a mortgage rather than rent. Having that figure ready will help you and your lender figure out how much house you can buy.
Question: What can I do to increase my equity in my house besides making extra principal payments on my loan?
Answer: Equity is the percentage, or amount, of your house that you own outright. So if you put 10% down on the house when you purchased it, you started out with 10% equity.
There are a number of ways of increasing your equity while you own your home. If you make additional mortgage payments, or pay extra towards the principal, you add to the equity you have in your home.
Another way to grow your equity is to improve the value of the house, which increases the difference between the loan amount and the total value of the home. This is done through making renovations, repairs and upgrades and updates to your house.
The third way to increase equity in a home is to sell in a high seller's market when values are higher than when you purchased your home.
Question: Am I going to have to make repairs on my home in order to sell it?
Answer: You never know what a buyer might ask for, but the single best thing you can do is make any needed repairs before your house is on the market. It's true, you may fix things that the buyer would not have requested, but the fewer items on the inspection report, the smoother things will go.
Few things have a stronger impact than a home that seems cared for, and nothing is worse than a home that seems neglected.
Question: What do I have to do to prepare my home for sale? Is cleaning it really well enough?
Answer: When you're ready to sell your home, there are a number of things you have to do to get it ready. You want to price your home to get people in the door, and then you need to make sure they like what they see. A good thorough cleaning is a great way to start, but it's just not enough.
It's always critical that your home stands out from the competition. That's where "Staging" comes in. Staging is when you take furniture and decorations and position them to highlight the best features of the house, downplay the worst and provide a clean, compelling and effective presentation.
You want the buyers to envision their own belongings in the house. If you have a wall of family photos, people can't see past them to imagine their own photos there. Staging provides them with an idea of how the space can be used, but otherwise gives them a blank canvas on which to design their future.
You can stage your home with your own furnishings, or you can rent or buy furniture with which to do it. Ideally, you'd hire a professional Stager to help with this, but if you can't afford that, a lot can be accomplished on your own or with the help of your Realtor.
You will need to de-clutter and de-personalize your space and then organize your furniture in a way that shows off the features and benefits of your house. You may even have to rent a storage unit if you don't have space to discretely hide the items you'll be removing. You'll likely be moving soon, so think of it as advance packing.
So when selling your home, create a space that entices the buyer, price it correctly, be aware of the market conditions and make it easy to show. All of these things will help give you the edge in a market with many listings to consider that are in direct competition to yours.
Question: I live in the Albuquerque area and I'm thinking of selling my home. How do I go about finding out how much it's worth?
Answer: If you're selling your home, pricing is one of the most critical steps. If you price too high, no one will come see it and you need people to see it in order to sell it. If you price much too low, you're leaving money on the table and no one wants to do that.
The first thing you should do is fill out the Comparative Market Analysis form on my website. This will give me the information I need to determine the general value of your home.
Then, I'll contact you and ask you some questions about your house, and set up a time when I can come see it in person. I can research your home's value, but I won't really know what it's most likely sales price will be until I've seen it.
Each area in Albuquerque has different prices, features and styles which sell best.
The condition of a house also has a lot to do with the value. If an older home has no updates, then it will sell for less than the same home which has been completely remodeled.
Call me at 505.263.7892 with any questions you may have.
Realtor. What a realtor should be? Every characteristic that Talia has is what a realtor should be. The moment I called Talia, she emailed me with listings of the type of homes and neighborhoods I was interested in. Every time (which was many) I called her, she would set a time to meet or pick me up to look at my long list of homes to see. She would never hesitate to meet with me or give just her hard honest opinion. If you want comfortable service, Talia provides that. Each outing she would make sure I was comfortable…even to go so far in providing snacks and water during our drive from one house to another!!!! Talia has provided beyond exceptional service that I am forever grateful for her help in finding my dream home!!!!


The week before last I got a late-night phone call from a friar I know in Durham and the news he shared left me stunned. A woman I knew well from my time at the parish in Durham had died that day, had taken her own life. How could this be? I had seen her last about a year ago, had been in touch with her since I left the parish in Durham four years ago. I went to the house the next day. A lot of people gathered, a lot of people I knew from my time there. We stood outside in the driveway, all of us stunned.
The funeral was this past week and the friar who preached the homily addressed the issue of mental illness and depression. Afterwards, a few of us talked about how there is often a stigma attached to these issues; they simply can't be talked about. A friend of mine who was there, who herself has lost family members to suicide, said she hoped that one day these issues could be spoken about in the same way as any other illness, without any sense of shame or hiding. We were left shaken – if this could happen to her, then who else? This has stayed with me ever since.
The friar who preached the homily did a magnificent job. He spoke about the mystery of death. It seems to be so final, nothing but an end. Then he spoke about the mystery of the human person, each person – how each of us is so much more than the sum total of atoms or molecules, that there is something transcendent about each of us, something lasting, something grounded in a loving Creator, and therefore how can it be that we are not destined for life with God? Then he spoke about the early apostles' experience of the crucifixion of Jesus. All seemed lost and abandoned, just another good man who died. But it was the experience of the empty tomb a few days later that changed them. Even amid a powerful sense of loss, God raised Jesus up. Love is more powerful than death.
A few years ago this woman sent me a text message from a church in Siena, Italy, "In Siena right now. At San Domenica. Just said a prayer for you and lit a candle. Hope all is well with you." The funeral mass last week felt like its own lit candle, our own offering of this woman's life, her kindness and generosity, offered back to a God of deep mercy. May she rest in peace.
This weekend of course is Fr. Bill's final weekend with us before he departs for a new assignment in Durham. I will miss having him around even though he'll be close by in Durham. As he packs his things, we find things such as this left on the kitchen counter: "maximum energy, intense focus, amplified endurance, explosive power, zero-crash, zero-sugar, multi strength fast-acting pre-workout energy drink: fruit punch flavor." With things like that going to Durham, it will now be easier to find my jar of Jif creamy peanut butter in the morning. I know that many people here will miss him greatly. We are all grateful for all the good things Bill has brought to St. Francis over the years. This weekend, after the 11:30 mass, we will have a reception for Bill, in Clare Fellowship Hall. All are invited.


Let us present you the best newspaper racks available on the modern market. Every newspaper racks from the list below can be ordered directly from the marketplace.
If you are looking for the best newspaper racks that money can buy, read our review before making your choice. Our team thoroughly compared hundreds of options presented at the marketplace to find the best newspaper racks among all the other products.
The clean lines and metal wire design of this magazine basket make it a style statement in any home, apartment, condo, or dorm.
Remove piles of magazines and newspapers from the bathroom floor or countertop.
This holder weighs approximately 20 lbs.
Features 5 slots for holding and organizing magazines, file folders, and other documents.
The wall mounted steel magazine rack includes all hardware for easy installation.
Wall-mounting hardware included. For added convenience, this lightweight rack easily mounts onto any open wall space. It features pre-drilled holes and includes all the necessary hardware for quick, simple installation. This adiroffice hanging magazine rack with clear acrylic adjustable pockets offers a convenient and professional way of displaying all of your literature while freeing up office furniture. You can quickly organize your magazines, pamphlets, fliers an. High-quality, durable construction. Expertly crafted of high-quality acrylic, this organizer is built to last without chipping or scratching. Lightweight yet extremely durable, this shatter-resistant material boasts great strength and won t break eve.
Clear, transparent acrylic furnishes an easy and unobstructed view of the literature within the display, making it easy for patients, customers and guests to view all that you have to offer. If needed, you can simply use a damp cl.
Thoughtfully sized: each measures 6″ x 12″ 8.5″ high. Stylish design: the clean lines and metal wire design of this magazine basket make it a style statement in any home, apartment, condo, or dorm; gridded wire design makes seeing what is stashed inside simple. Versatile: use this modern magazine holder in any room of your home; place it by a chair or end table and store your favorite books, newspapers or magazines, or by the entryway for mail, catalogs and paperwork; also use in living rooms, family rooms, bedrooms, offices, and more. Smart storage: freestanding magazine holder stores and organizes reading materials in one convenient place; raised feet ensure that reading materials stay off bathroom floors so they are always clean and dry; the oval shape fits in small or crowded bathroom spaces; set of 2.
Sturdy construction: made of sturdy steel wire with a durable rust-resistant finish; wipe clean with a damp cloth.
What do I need to check before choosing a newspaper racks?
Marketplace provides a myriad of convenient features to help you compare and choose newspaper racks. It also aggregates thousands of reviews from people all over the world. Always read them before choosing a newspaper racks!
Easy to hang: the wall mounted steel magazine rack includes all hardware for easy installation. The interdesign promise: bringing you elegant, affordable home products for over 40 years. Cut the clutter: remove piles of magazines and newspapers from the bathroom floor or countertop. Maximize small spaces: ideal for creating extra vertical storage space in smaller bathrooms. Close at hand: this newspaper and magazine holder keeps your favorite bathroom reading material organized and easy to reach.
This durable magazine/ newspaper holder will help to keep publications organized and visible. This floor standing newspaper holder can be placed in a variety of places, from diners and convenience stores, to library and school lobbies. Arrange several units next to each other to display different choices in news material. This newspaper holder is sent to you knocked-down but is easy to assemble – less than 1 minute. Shipping to canada and mexico: import duty and fees apply. This holder weighs approximately 20 lbs. It measures 11″w x 13.75″d x 48″h (excluding header height).
Features 5 slots for holding and organizing magazines, file folders, and other documents; small label panels allow for labeling contents of each slot. Easy to attach to any wall using appropriate mounting hardware (not included). Approximate dimensions (in inches): 12.8 w x 16 h x 4.1 d. Small bottom shelf can be used to hold pens, scissors, tape, and other small items. A wall-mounted magazine rack made of metal with a black finish.
An attractive way to store magazines and periodicals. Made of chrome-plated steel wire and textured, durable panels. Maximize small spaces: ideal for creating extra vertical storage space. Easy to hang: the wall mounted steel magazine rack includes all hardware for easy installation. This is the perfect organizational rack for private offices, collaborative spaces, hospitality spaces, lobbies, libraries, classrooms or any space that needs any sort of literature to be well organized.
Great sturdy 5 pockets organizer to quickly store all your favorite tv accessories and keep your books, ipad, remotes, game controllers, eye glasses, mobile phones organized and easily accessible with expandable band for magazine and newspapers. Please note if you have a cover on your ipad, your ipad might not fit in the pocket. Perfect size: 35.13 inches/90.34cm, fits for most couch, recliner and chair arms. With pipe inside to avoid sliding, retainer rod secures caddy position to keep organizer on the armrest. You can put the end which is with pipe inside under the sofa seat; and if you think it is too long, you can also roll up and then put it under seat.
Durable material: the remote holder is made of waterproof pongee + pp foam + non-woven, washable and durable. Protect the arms of your sofa or favorite easy chair from excessive wear and tear.
Is not buying newspaper rackson the internet is dangerous?
Buying newspaper racksonline is absolutely safe! In fact, it might be even safer than buying them in a local store, since you do not need to leave your house. Moreover, if you get a malfunctioning item you can always get a refund or a replacement.
What are the price limits for decent newspaper racks?
Price is a very important factor of any newspaper racks. Usually, the higher it costs the better its quality. However, we recommend you to consider all characteristics of a newspaper racks. There are many models with an average price tag that can compete with the most expensive options.
Is Amazone.com a good place to buy a newspaper racks?
Nowadays, online shopping is completely safe. In fact, it might even be safer than regular shopping, since you do not have to leave your home to buy products you need. There is nothing dangerous in buying newspaper racks. After all, you can always get a refund if you will not like the model you bought or you received it in a malfunctioning condition.
What should I do if I receive a wrong item instead of my newspaper racks?
There is no need to worry since the support team will help you to return your money or replace the wrong item with the chosen newspaper racks. Simply contact a support agent and describe your situation to get all the required help.


text:
package org.techdraw.sheets;

import org.w3c.dom.Document;
import org.w3c.dom.Element;

/**
 * @author Miroslav Kravec
 */
public interface PageDecorator {
    double headerHeight(double marginTop);
    double footerHeight(double marginBottom);

    void applyPageDecoration(Element svgRoot, Document doc, String svgNS);
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Radar von Balve is beautiful 3-4 year old Shepherd mix. This boy is so congenial and full of desirable qualities. Sweet and handsome, he has an easygoing and tolerant personality. He also walks great on leash and delights in the companionship of 4-footed friends, meeting them well and enjoying being walked next to other dogs. Radar came with his sister Bella von Balve and would love a home together with her, otherwise he needs another dog in the home. Social and friendly, he's a pro at doggie manners in playgroups, greeting other dogs with a wagging tail and easily making friends. He's even tolerant of more insistent types. So if you're ready to adopt, here's your new best friend and admirer, ready both to cuddle up with you on the couch and to make friends with another pup in the home. Radar seems to love everyone. He's eligible to travel in- or out-of-state to a family that will adore him as he deserves.


text:
Early releases
Infographics & illustrations
COVID-19 Articles
Authors & Reviewers
Overview for authors
Members & Subscribers
Benefits for CMA Members
CPD Credits for Members
Subscribe to CMAJ Print
Subscription Prices
JAMC
Trousse média 2023
CMAJ JOURNALS
CMAJ Open
Visit CMAJ on Facebook
Follow CMAJ on Twitter
Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
Follow CMAJ on Youtube
Follow CMAJ on Instagram
The consequences of son preference and sex-selective abortion in China and other Asian countries
Therese Hesketh, Li Lu and Zhu Wei Xing
CMAJ September 06, 2011 183 (12) 1374-1377; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.101368
Therese Hesketh
For correspondence: t.hesketh@ich.ucl.ac.uk
Li Lu
Zhu Wei Xing
Submit a Response to This Article
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Minimum 7 characters.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'. Minimum 12 characters.
Your organization, institution's or residential address.
"Rethinking the entire question"
jonathan s. ponesse
Posted on: 19 October 2011
Let's reconsider...
John Loge
Posted on: 20 September 2011
Gender issues and population dynamics: it is time to act now
Sergei V. Jargin
Posted on: 01 April 2011
Posted on: (19 October 2011)
Page navigation anchor for "Rethinking the entire question"
jonathan s. ponesse, developmental pediatric neurologist
I would like to thank the authors for highlighting the insidious problem of sex-selective abortion, what many would rightly consider the ultimate form of discrimination against women. I am cognizant of the fact that this report was descriptive of the current state of affairs and policy rather than proscriptive in nature; nonetheless, it is a case-study in contemporary relativistic and consequentialist bioethics. The major...
I would like to thank the authors for highlighting the insidious problem of sex-selective abortion, what many would rightly consider the ultimate form of discrimination against women. I am cognizant of the fact that this report was descriptive of the current state of affairs and policy rather than proscriptive in nature; nonetheless, it is a case-study in contemporary relativistic and consequentialist bioethics. The majority of this paper deals with describing the motive for sex-selection and the ensuing policy response to change that motive. Claiming that there is a need to differentiate a "proper" family-planning intent from the undesired sex-selection intent is impractical and virtually impossible to achieve, as acknowledged by the authors. However, it also raises the question of whether there is any good reason for targeting any unborn child, whether female or male, of a particular race or health status, etc. As the authors note, tackling the cultural mores surrounding male baby preference is likely more successful. It should also not be surprising to the authors that government-imposed bans or obstetrical society recommendations against the use of ultrasounds for sex-selection purposes will accomplish little. Inexpensive, direct-to-consumer home use genetic tests will proliferate. Many of them will have their accuracy called into question, perhaps lawsuits will result, but that will not likely quell the demand for them.
Next,the consequences are highlighted and speculated as dire for a society (ie. sex-trafficking, increased violence perpetrated by frustrated young men) or possibly having "positive aspects". This description of the upside of this phenomenon, albeit a minor portion of the paper, conveys a confusing and ironic thread; namely, that once upon a time the right to abortion empowered women but now it does not seem to empower them, yet if we look at it another way it will ultimately end up empowering them (ie. fewer females in the population will lead to enhanced social standing).
Given what I see as a befuddled attempts to address motive and make sense of consequence, it leads one to wonder why the action of this ethical framework does not receive its due treatment. The action itself, abortion, is barely mentioned as a locus for control or policy change. When we fail to look at the act itself, but only at the intended consequence, however well-intended, there are always unintended consequences. The problem is, as seen in this paper and Maria Hvistendahl's book "Unnatural Selection", is that the underlying pretext for abortion, the individual's right to choose, is sacrosanct. There is little universal outrage at present because of this fact. Society is now, in its unmitigated attachment to abortion on demand, reaping what it has sown. The impact of abortion is being displaced beyond the life ended in the womb and that of the potential mother to a nation's demographic balance sheet. Addressing the morality of abortion in its totality is the only way to save girls.
* Reference: "The consequences of son preference and sex-selective abortion in China and other Asian countries" (Hesketh et al. CMAJ 183 (12))
None declared
Posted on: (20 September 2011)
Page navigation anchor for Let's reconsider...
John Loge, physician
The article in the September 6/11 CMAJ about Sex-selective abortion in China (and elsewhere) was read with interest. Western societies have long promoted abortion on demand and have insisted that the discussion of reproductive health be kept between a doctor and the patient. We screen for "defects" such as down's syndrome and spina bifida, and taxpayer funds cover the termination of unwanted pregnancies of all sorts. T...
The article in the September 6/11 CMAJ about Sex-selective abortion in China (and elsewhere) was read with interest. Western societies have long promoted abortion on demand and have insisted that the discussion of reproductive health be kept between a doctor and the patient. We screen for "defects" such as down's syndrome and spina bifida, and taxpayer funds cover the termination of unwanted pregnancies of all sorts. This philosophy has been extended to the use of medications such as Plan B that are available in pharmacies without a prescription. A mother here in Canada can find out the gender of her unborn child and decide at less than 20 weeks to have an abortion. Western culture has gone to great lengths to make abortion on demand part of medical "rights" around the world. So when a Chinese (or any other nationality) person decides to have an abortion on demand for sex selection, are they not accepting our own culture's philosophy? That is abortion on demand. This sounds like we are reaping what we have sown, and that this is not a Chinese problem, but a world-wide problem. This writer would encourage a reconsideration of the policy of abortion on demand in the first place. Sincerely, John Loge, Bonnyville, Alberta
Posted on: (1 April 2011)
Page navigation anchor for Gender issues and population dynamics: it is time to act now
Sergei V. Jargin, Moscow, Russia
The distinction between men and women has been one of the key dimensions of population dynamics (Lutz and Samir 2010). In this regard, it has been reported that in China, the population's sex ratio has considerably skewed towards men, partly as a result of illegal sex- selective abortions. A similar phenomenon was reported from India and other countries (Heskethet al., 2011; Torjesen 2010), including the immigrant milieu...
The distinction between men and women has been one of the key dimensions of population dynamics (Lutz and Samir 2010). In this regard, it has been reported that in China, the population's sex ratio has considerably skewed towards men, partly as a result of illegal sex- selective abortions. A similar phenomenon was reported from India and other countries (Heskethet al., 2011; Torjesen 2010), including the immigrant milieu (Singh 2010). Note that official census data for China (Lutz and Samir 2010), India and other countries probably underestimate the population size and growth, as it was obviously the case in Russia, where many people even don't know that the census of 2010 has taken place. Overabundance of men is clearly visible also in the countries receiving many immigrants. Therefore, effective measures should be taken against sex -selective abortions in China and in other countries, because regional overproduction of men has a global repercussion, making it necessary to rethink the role of sexes and of traditional patterns of sexual behaviour. Regrettably, it appears improbable that such measures would be efficient. There were many campaigns in China since the 1940s, which ended with nothing; and the 'one child policy' is probably one of them (Lancet 2011). In future, it will be only worse, considering advancing prenatal sex- testing technologies, persistent discrimination against the girl child and son preference in China and other countries (Heskethet al., 2011). Therefore, measures within China must be taken by a powerful international executive. It is time to act now, or it will be too late.
Grandiose projects could be accomplished by a globalised mankind: construction of irrigation facilities for drought-stricken lands; nuclear, solar, tidal and other power plants to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels (Jargin 2011), which would create work for many people. Not much is required for that: a globalised administration and English as the first or second language for everyone. However, such globalization can be applied only if existing national borders remain barriers to international migrations. Only by concentrating of authority within a powerful international executive, based in the most civilized part of the world, can globalised leadership break the vicious circus of international competition and conflicts and create priorities for addressing overpopulation.
Hesketh T, Lu L, Xing ZW (2011) The consequences of son preference and sex-selective abortion in China and other Asian countries. CMAJ. Mar 14.
Jargin SV (2009) Overpopulation and modern ethics. South African Medical Journal, 99, 572–573.
Jargin SV. (2010) Ethical challenges in an age of overpopulation. South African Medical Journal, 100, 694. Jargin SV. (2011) Chernobyl consequences: obfuscated truth for the common good. Sustainable Energy Resource, 30 March 2011 http://www.energy- resource.co.za/content/energy-resource/ejournal/news-a-articles/press- releases/item/1046-chernobyl-consequences-obfuscated-truth-for-the-common- good.html
Lancet (2011) The end of the one-child policy in China? Lancet, 377(9770), 968.
Lutz W, Samir KC (2010) Dimensions of global population projections: what do we know about future population trends and structures? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 365, 2779–2791.
Singh N, Pripp AH, Brekke T, Stray-Pedersen B (2010) Different sex ratios of children born to Indian and Pakistani immigrants in Norway. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 10, 40. Torjesen I (2010) Chinese would resist having larger families if one child policy was relaxed. BMJ, 3;340:c1212 (doi: 10.1136/bmj.c1212).
CMAJ
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.
You are going to email the following The consequences of son preference and sex-selective abortion in China and other Asian countries
Message Subject (Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
Message Body (Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
Therese Hesketh, Li Lu, Zhu Wei Xing
CMAJ Sep 2011, 183 (12) 1374-1377; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.101368
 Request Permissions
Consequences of high sex ratios
The policy response
Prevalence and correlates of sex-selective abortions and missing girls in Nepal: evidence from the 2011 Population Census and 2016 Demographic and Health Survey
Gender-related differences in care-seeking behaviour for newborns: a systematic review of the evidence in South Asia
Determinants of imbalanced sex ratio at birth in Nepal: evidence from secondary analysis of a large hospital-based study and nationally-representative survey data
Sex ratios at birth after induced abortion
Socially repugnant or the standard of care: Is there a distinction between sex-selective and ability-selective abortion?
Socialement repugnant ou norme de soins: Y a-t-il une distinction entre l'avortement selectif en fonction du sexe ou de la capacite?
A proposed new international convention supporting the rights of pregnant women and girls and their newborn infants
Let us reconsider
Gaslighting in academic medicine: where anti-Black racism lives
Assessing the need for Black mentorship within residency training in Canada
Prostate cancer screening in Black men in Canada: a case for risk-stratified care
Show more Analysis
CMA Members
CPD credits
Governance Council
Journal Oversight
Accessibiity
CMA Civility Standards
Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)
All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.
To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Poor credit history may greatly affect your future charge card applications, a minimum of for the following seven years lower the street. We all know that poor credit doesn't just concentrate on the lazy person, it holds no discrimination regarding whom it'll target and it'll not. Plus, a lot of us understand poor credit can occasionally seem like the finish around the globe, but it doesn't need to be. With poor credit, getting approved for the standard charge card can be challenging, otherwise impossible, which is difficult to get any kind of unsecured charge card with poor credit. For those who have poor credit, you might be of the opinion that you're not able to try to get a charge card. However, today we've poor credit charge cards open to allow us to.
For those who have poor credit, you may still find charge card possibilities that you should affect as well as receive instant approval. That is among the reasons poor credit charge cards really are a highly looked item on the web. Poor credit charge cards are the most misinterpreted financial tools ever. They usually are meant to allow it to be simpler for a lot of to acquire credit. This is because poor credit charge cards allow individuals with under perfect credit, or no credit rating to obtain on course and start building or rebuilding their credit.
Poor credit cards approval can be done with lots of bad charge card applications, though poor credit cards approval may imply additional needs, for that applicant. Poor credit bank cards are regular charge cards, with the exception that the eye rates and charges can be a little greater, and they're particularly created for individuals without any credit rating, or bad credit history. Oftentimes those are the smartest choice for anybody who provides extensive debt and poor credit, also. As you can tell, poor credit charge cards are unique cards aimed at those who have had trouble getting approved for the standard unsecured charge card. Once acquired and used properly, poor credit charge cards help greatly to repair credit ratings. Utilizing a bad charge card the proper way rebuilds your poor credit history, so, if your credit rating needs improvement, don't hesitate, compare charge card offers and choose a low credit score charge card to begin rebuilding your credit rating at the same time. In the end, a low credit score charge card could be only the factor that saves your credit.
Poor credit charge cards could be a great way for consumers with poor, or no credit rating to determine and make a good credit rating. They are presented by many people banks as financial tools to help individuals establish or re-establish their a good credit score rating. Still, it is a fact that poor credit charge cards can be used responsibly, or perhaps your situation will undoubtedly worsen. For those practical purposes, poor credit charge cards are similar to regular charge cards, but they're particularly for top risk cardholders.
Poor credit charge cards charge various charges and provide various features and they're unlikely to become no annual fee charge cards, but searching to find the best a low interest rate charge cards for a bad credit score. Poor credit usually attracts high APR on charge cards, plus poor credit charge cards frequently charge annual charges as high as $50 or even more. Regardless of the extra charges poor credit charge cards are a great method for anyone with bad or no credit, to enhance their credit score and also to enjoy the advantages of charge cards.
Poor credit charge cards can be found by many people banks as financial tools to help individuals establish or re-establish their a good credit score rating. Though some consumers possess a negative look at poor credit charge cards, they ought to not. Poor credit charge cards are mainly intended to really make it simpler to acquire and re-build credit, which will work for consumers and retailers too.