text:
Had the same thing been carried out by a worker for the now-defunct ACORN, Republicans --- and even Newt Gingrich --- would have called it massive "voter fraud." But the 1,500 acts of fraud, by Gingrich's own admission, were carried out by a worker hired by his campaign, so it seems the media have barely noticed it.
Nonetheless, The BRAD BLOG has received confirmation from two different state agencies that the 1,500 alleged cases of ballot petition fraud said to have been carried out on behalf of the Gingrich campaign, in their unsuccessful attempt to qualify for the Republican primary ballot in Virginia, are now being carried out by the state Attorney General's office.
In late December, after Gingrich had failed to turn in enough valid signatures to qualify for the Virginia primary ballot, he was caught on video tape telling a supporter in Iowa that the reason for the failure was due to a campaign worker who created 1,500 fraudulent signatures.
"We turned in 11,100 --- we needed 10,000 --- 1,500 of them were by one guy who, frankly, committed fraud," Gingrich is seen and heard saying in video originally aired by CNN.
The former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives downplayed the incident, by explaining to the woman that the entire affair was "just a mistake," after they had "hired somebody who turned in false signatures."
Neither he nor his campaign, however, has made the name of the alleged "one guy" public, to our knowledge, despite the extraordinary number of fraudulent signatures created and turned in by that "one guy" in what an official at the Virginia State Board of Elections (SBE) described to us as "definitely an illegal act."
News of the embarrassing criminal investigation is confirmed today, even as voters go to the polls for Florida's 2012 GOP Primary, where Gingrich is facing off against front-runner Mitt Romney who, ironically --- and uncomfortably enough for Republicans --- may also find himself the subject of a criminal voter fraud investigation in the not-too-distant future...
Gingrich fraud investigation confirmed
In mid-January, in a little-noticed blog item by the Washington Post's Anita Kumar, it was reported that the SBE was requesting a probe by the office of VA's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) into what SBE chairman Charlie Judd described as "irregularities" found on the Gingrich petitions.
Late last week, SBE Deputy Secretary Justin Riemer confirmed to The BRAD BLOG both the referral to the AG's office as well as the fact that an investigation into the ballot petition fraud was officially being carried out by the AG.
"We're not an investigative body, but this issue has been referred to the State AG by the State Board of Elections, after learning of allegations of fraudulent signature gathering in that case, and a number of others," Riemer told us by telephone. "My understanding is that an investigation is under way," he said.
When we asked what "other" cases had also been referred to the AG, he pointed us to them for more details, though he characterized the petition signature fraud as described by Gingrich, if true, as "definitely an illegal act."
"We can confirm that there is an investigation underway," Brian J. Gottstein, Director of Communication for the Office of the Attorney General of Virginia confirmed to The BRAD BLOG via email on Monday, "but other than that, we cannot comment about an ongoing investigation."
When pressed as to whether Gingrich and his campaign were cooperating with the investigation, whether they had revealed the name of the "one guy" they claim created 1,500 fraudulent signatures, and what other cases were being probed as a part of the same investigation, Gottstein demurred.
"To maintain the integrity of any investigation, we can't disclose details. Sorry," he wrote.
He also responded that our related requests under the state of Virginia's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) were "exempt" from the act, presumably due to the ongoing criminal investigation.
Only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul successfully turned in enough valid petitions to qualify for the GOP primary in VA, which happens to be the home state of Gingrich, formerly a Congressman from Georgia, until he was forced to resign following an unprecedented ethics scandal in which he was fined some $300,000.
'Worse than what ACORN was accused of'
When Gingrich's 1,500 cases of alleged fraud first came to light at year's end, The BRAD BLOG observed that "If the same standards are applied to Newt Gingrich as have, for years, been applied to the now-defunct ACORN organization by both Republicans and their media arm, Fox 'News,' then it seems Newt Gingrich's campaign has committed thousands of acts of voter fraud."
Indeed, while neither ACORN, nor any of their hired workers have ever been found to have committed even a single instance of voter fraud, a handful of their workers --- almost all of whom were discovered and turned in to authorities by ACORN themselves --- did commit voter registration fraud by turning in fraudulently signed registration forms. There is no evidence that any of those fraudulent registrations has ever resulted in an actual vote being cast illegally in any election.
Nonetheless, Republicans, lazy (or worse) members of the media, and even Gingrich himself, have all long described those acts of fraud against ACORN as "voter fraud" by the former community organization itself. The relentless, years-long disinformation campaign against ACORN was carried out by the GOP in retaliation for the group's perfectly legal registration campaign, which succeeded in signing up hundreds of thousands of legal, low- and middle-income voters (who happen to vote largely Democratic) to participate in their own democracy.
When MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show picked up on the extraordinary hypocrisy exposed by the Gingrich campaign's apparent 1,500 acts of fraud --- in what guest host Chris Hayes described as being "from the Department of Shameless Schadenfreude" --- they pointed to a 2009 op-ed in which the former Speaker had inaccurately blasted ACORN for a crime they never committed. [See the Maddow Show's video below.]
"ACORN has a long history of engaging in voter fraud," Gingrich falsely charged in his op-ed at the time, in reference to the exact same thing that Gingrich himself now refers to as little more than "just a mistake": Submitting thousands of fraudulent signatures to election officials.
Mediaite's Tommy Christopher, however, notes that what Gingrich admits that his campaign has done "was arguably worse than what ACORN was accused of":
In fact, ACORN was required, by law, to submit each and every voter registration that they gathered, no matter what, but unlike Gingrich, ACORN reviewed and flagged tens of thousands of dodgy applications to make it easier for registrars to weed out the likes of Mickey and Donald. Although it's a popular talking point, this type of "fraud" doesn't result in any fraudulent votes being cast.
Christopher went on to note "Another distinguishing feature between ACORN and Gingrich":
The biggest difference, though, is that ACORN was registering voters in heavily minority communities, registering the kinds of people that Newt Gingrich wants to fire and replace with poor little inner-city nine year-olds. Registering those people is a heinous crime. Fraudulently getting Newt Gingrich on the Virginia primary ballot, apparently, is just a "mistake."
Gingrich's 2009 op-ed was littered with other inaccuracies and scurrilous false charges, including what he described as ACORN's "illegal and illicit activities." When it comes to his own actual apparently "illegal and illicit activities," that is was "just a mistake." The Virginia Attorney General's criminal investigation may conclude otherwise.
Their own petard
The long campaign against ACORN has been part and parcel of the even longer GOP campaign to push for Photo ID restrictions on voters at the polling place, despite the dearth of evidence to show that in-person polling place impersonation --- the only type of voter fraud which might be deterred by such measures --- is actually carried out by more than an infinitesimally tiny number of voters (at very best), out of hundreds of millions of votes cast each year. In fact, according to the George W. Bush Dept. of Justice's own statistics from 2002 to 2007, during which an unprecedented amount of resources were poured into ferreting out evidence to support GOP claims of a "voter fraud" epidemic among hundreds of millions of votes cast during the period, not a single instance of polling place voter impersonation was uncovered.
That, even as some 25 million legally registered voters nationally --- disproportionately minorities, elderly, and students, all of whom tend to vote Democratic --- lack the type of state-issued Photo ID required for voting under such laws, and will be put at risk of being disenfranchised by them.
Despite that risk, Republican officials around the nation have pushed over and again for such laws, often resorting to dubious "facts," such as claims about (non-existent) "voter fraud" by ACORN, or dead voters casting votes at the polling place, in order to support their claims that such measures are needed to combat a "voter fraud" scourge.
Just days ago, for example, after the U.S. Dept. of Justice rejected South Carolina's new Photo ID restrictions on the grounds that the state's own data reveal the measure to be discriminatory against minority voters, the state's Attorney General publicized an apparently specious claim that some 953 "dead voters" had been found to have cast votes in recent elections in the state.
As The BRAD BLOG detailed on Monday, however, claims of those 953 "dead voters" voting in SC appear to be greatly exaggerated, at least according to the state's chief election official, who testified in response to the allegations before a state legislative committee last week.
Marci Andino, Executive Director of the SC State Election Commission, pointed out during her testimony that, of the handful of names of alleged "dead voters" so far turned over to her office by the AG, not a single one of them has turned out to be an illegal vote. Most of them amounted to clerical errors by poll workers who checked the wrong name in the polls books or, in one case, "an absentee ballot cast by a voter who then died before election day."
Of the 10 voters claimed by the state DMV to be "dead," but who were found by the SC Election Commission to have applied for absentee ballots prior to the recent January 21 GOP Primary in the state, Andino noted: "In every case, the signatures on these forms were matched, and each of these ten voters was confirmed to be alive."
Of course, polling place Photo ID restrictions do nothing to deter absentee ballot voter fraud --- far and away the most prevalent type of fraud committed by actual voters --- but it hasn't stopped Republicans like Gingrich was using such incidents to push for polling place photo ID restrictions nonetheless.
Andino concluded her testimony by aptly noting: "Just as one instance of voter fraud is one too many, a single voter denied his or her right to vote because of a clerical error or the vagaries of data analysis is one too many as well."
Despite the risks of hundreds of thousands of legal voters being unable to cast their previously-legal ballot under such laws in the upcoming Presidential election, the GOP campaign for them has been relentless, and Gingrich has been all too happy to participate in it. When it comes to his own admitted fraud, however, he's more than happy to look the other way. Most in the media, to date, have unfortunately joined him in that distraction.
Speaking of actual voter fraud, let's not forget Mitt Romney's
If pre-election polls hold true, while today's GOP Primary in the state of Florida may effectively knock out Gingrich from contention for the 2012 GOP Presidential nomination, the party's likely standard bearer, Mitt Romney, seems to have some actual voter fraud issues of his own.
Charges concerning the former Massachusetts Governor's apparent voter fraud have largely been ignored by the media to date as well, just as the Republican Party would like them to.
As originally highlighted by long-shot Republican Presidential candidate Fred Karger last summer, Romney had been registered to vote in the unfinished basement of his son's manse in Belmont, Massachusetts long after the former Governor and his wife had sold their own home there, and purchased two others --- one in California and another in neighboring New Hampshire.
Despite testimony from local Belmont residents that neither he nor his wife had been seen in the town he was registered to vote in for years, Romney cast a ballot in the January 2010 special election for the U.S. Senate between Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley. However, it wasn't until July of 2010 that the Romneys once again purchased a small townhouse in MA in preparation for their Presidential run.
Last week, Romney release his federal income tax forms stating his residence to be "Belmont, MA." However, as we noted at the time, his specific address was redacted, so it's impossible to know, based on that return, if he used the address at his son's house or his newly purchased townhouse in the same small town, as his residence for tax purposes that year.
Notably, Romney failed to release his state income tax returns for 2010, nor any of them for years prior. A 2009 return showing his residence to be income-tax free New Hampshire would be damning evidence of voter fraud in the January 2010 election in Massachusetts.
The Romney campaign has failed to respond to several of our queries on this matter seeking to find out whether or not Romney considered himself a resident of Massachusetts, or not, at the time he cast his vote in the January 2010 special election.
At this time, it appears entirely possible that the likely 2012 Presidential nominee for the Republican Party, Mitt Romney, is, himself, a voter fraud criminal, even as his current alternative-of-the-moment, Newt Gingrich, faces a confirmed criminal felony investigation for some 1,500 acts of ballot petition fraud in his own home state of Virginia.
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show on 12/29/11 covers Newt Gingrich's claim that "one guy" turned in 1,500 fraudulent signatures to the Virginia Board of Elections on behalf of his campaign, but that it was little more than "just a mistake"...


text:
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 29, 2003
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I have no opening statement, so I'll be happy to take your questions. I'll try to move it along briefly today, because I know many of you are getting ready to depart for the trip. So let us begin. Helen.
Q Is the President satisfied with the intelligence he got before the war? Because now one Cabinet officer is saying that they buried the weapons; another said they destroyed them; and another official said they -- what is the President's view on all this?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is indeed satisfied with the intelligence that he received. And I think that's borne out by the fact that, just as Secretary Powell described at the United Nations, we have found the bio trucks that can be used only for the purpose of producing biological weapons. That's proof-perfect that the intelligence in that regard was right on target.
Q We go to war for two trucks?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry?
Q You would go to war from the finding of two trucks?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I don't think it's anything to dismiss. Iraq had, contrary to their protestations to the United Nations, trucks for the purpose of producing biological weapons. They said they didn't have them; they got caught -- proof-perfect that they had them. The only use for those trucks is to produce biological weapons. And so that's one item of it. And on the rest of all the intelligence, of course, the President continues to be satisfied with it. He thinks it's borne out.
Q But doesn't he have sort of a mix -- he gets the CIA, then he gets the Pentagon special briefing -- special intelligence group, and so forth. Do they all gibe?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me try to -- keep in mind, of course, that under the statute you have a Central Intelligence Director. His responsibility is to oversee all the various intelligence agencies. You have the Defense Intelligence Agency; you have the National Security Agency. There are a variety of agencies who, all under the statute; there's a central intelligence source.
The President, per the way Congress created this, benefits from the fact that you have different agencies which have different slices of intelligence, who look at it, which provides for a varied point of view, as they look at the areas of their expertise at intelligence, and all adds up -- this is often referred to as a mosaic, where they assemble the various pieces of intelligence they get, to paint as full and complete a picture as intelligence can do.
Q Was the White House aware of the last-minute compromise which resulted in the loss of the $400 extra child tax credit for a number of low-income earners? And if it was, did it try to get that changed? After all, the President made a very big deal about the child tax credit, and the checks going out starting in July.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think everybody who sat in that conference room was aware of the provisions that were before it. That includes Senator Lambert, for example, who -- Lincoln-Lambert -- who had the provision put in in the Finance Committee, who voted against it even with the provision put in. Everybody was aware in the conference of what was in, what was out. So that was very well-known to all the conferees, including to the White House.
In the end, the tax bill that the President signed yesterday delivered tax relief not only for people who pay income taxes, but delivered tax relief by eliminating 3 million families from having any obligation to pay income taxes anymore. This is people at the lower end of the income scale. Sixty-nine million taxpayers will benefit from the expansion of the 10 percent bracket. And, of course, for people in the 10 percent bracket, they benefit the most from it, and that's the lowest-income workers in America. Twenty-five million children -- families with children will now benefit from the child credit.
Q What was the President's reaction when he learned that a significant number of people would be excluded?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well this has been a longstanding matter of policy that deals with several of the technical provisions of the child credit. What you always have to keep in mind in the administration of the child credit is, does tax relief go to people who pay income taxes and forgive their income taxes? Or does it go above and beyond the forgiving of all income taxes and you actually get a check back from the government for more than you ever owed in income taxes? And this is part and parcel of the debate over tax relief. This certainly does deliver tax relief to the people who pay income taxes.
Q But that's precisely what happened in this case. These people will not get that $400. And they are arguably the people who could most use it.
MR. FLEISCHER: Aha. But what they will get is they will pay absolutely no income taxes, while people up the income scale -- even if they get a larger credit, still pay income taxes. And so what happens is, there are people who, as a result of this agreement, will pay absolutely zero income taxes. Now, there are going to be other people who pay much more in income taxes. And that's where fairness comes in.
Q But, Ari, isn't the issue here that the White House, playing such a strong role in this conference negotiation, certainly saw to it that two things happened, that taxes on dividends for the investor class got reduced -- nobody was left behind there -- and that the acceleration of the rate cuts for the highest earners in America, those also go accelerated on the President's timetable. So that was taken care of. But when it came to, now, a large group of people who stand to get more of the government's money -- their money, as the President says -- they're left behind in is.
MR. FLEISCHER: Keep in mind that when you say their money, if you owe $400 in income taxes, and let's say you would get a $500 child tax credit, if you only owe $400 in income taxes, you get the $400 forgiven, you actually get $100 back of other people's money. So by actually forgiving all income taxes and then giving people money above and beyond that, it's not the same as the way other people on the income scale are treated.
Now, you mentioned the fact that the acceleration of income tax rates took place at the various levels, including the higher levels. That's only because, per the President's priorities, the 10 percent rate was accelerated in 2001. In the 2001 tax act, the 15 percent bracket was dropped immediately to 10 percent. All the other brackets were ramped up over time, or their reductions were made over time. So the 10 percent was a presidential priority enacted in the 2001 act. The other rates remained higher, and that's why they could be accelerated in this act.
Q Do you think people who are in this category, who earn just above the minimum wage, who are watching what you say about this accept the notion that this is just what happens in the administration of tax policy and this is how the government does its business?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think all taxpayers appreciate the fact that the income tax burden is too high. And for people who have had their entire income tax burden forgiven, I think they're very appreciative of the fact that they pay no income taxes in America and still benefit from a national defense, which is paid from income taxes; they still benefit from school programs that are paid at the federal level income taxes. They still benefit from a host of programs that income taxes help them in their daily lives; yet they pay zero income taxes. In fact, they get back money from the Treasury which is in the form of public assistance, above and beyond income taxes.
There's a whole other, larger group of Americans, tens of millions, who still pay income taxes, who now will pay less income taxes as a result of this tax relief. And that's why, in the President's judgment, this is fair to all Americans. And I don't think the American people look at it and they say, I'm paying absolutely zero income tax and that's not good enough for me; I want to have more money back from the government, even though I have been forgiven of income tax obligations.
And under this bill, 3 million families will now pay -- 3 million additional families pay zero income tax. There is an interesting trend in tax policy where a larger and larger percentage of the country pays no income taxes.
Q Just to button this up, the President was satisfied with sacrificing this area in order to get the compromise and ultimately get the package, even though it would leave this particular group out?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as the President said, he doesn't get everything that he wants, and if this provision had been included, the President would have signed it. But the conferees did make that decision. The President would have signed it had it been sent to him.
Q You were a party to that conference, so it's not like it's an "us" versus "them." You were a party to that.
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm walking you precisely what happened.
Q So why did the White House conferees agree to drop these 11.9 million children from this benefit?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there were many decisions that were made that represented compromises in order to get something done. At the end, it still was a very close vote. You had the interesting position of a senator who advocated for this position, got it -- on the Senate Finance Committee -- and still voted against what she wanted. So different members of Congress made different decisions, based on the compromises that were made in order to still make progress. At the end of the day, the President determined it was still important enough to make progress, even though he was not getting everything he wanted in this bill.
MR. FLEISCHER: Keep in mind, investors are across-the-board in terms of income groups, include many senior citizens, whose only source of income is their investment, because they don't have an income since they retired. And that's aimed at creating jobs. And so there are a variety of economic factors that go into the tax bill in terms of giving it the oomph to create jobs, which is what this is about. And I think economists can argue, they will differ about which provisions help create more jobs. And that's a debate that will go on.
Q No, but you had to make a choice, and I just want to make sure that you are saying that the White House agreed to make the choice to leave these children behind.
MR. FLEISCHER: Many, many choices get made. For example, people of different income levels don't even get a child credit. There are many people who don't qualify because their income levels are too high to even get a dollar's worth of a child credit, and they pay considerable amount of income taxes. The President wanted to have a zero percent dividend exclusion. He got less of a dividend exclusion.
There are many different factors that go into it. There's still the permanent issue. These tax cuts were not made permanent as a result of the compromises that were made. And so, as always, the President has to make a judgment about whether sufficient progress is being made toward the achievement of a good tax bill that creates jobs and growth for the economy. In his judgment, this tax bill is a good tax bill that creates jobs and growth for the economy.
Q Can I go -- just a quick follow-up on Helen's question here -- that the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq goes on, the President's expressed confidence that they will find them. But it seems that whatever is found, is discovered in Iraq will differ to some degree or more from the description that the administration gave of a locked and loaded stockpile, munitions ready to go on the ground, on the battlefield. That was essentially the description that the administration gave before the war. Does the President, as chief executive, not have any concern about the quality of the intelligence he's getting?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think rewind the tapes, and you'll see what the administration said before the war and you'll find a series of statements, all of which are valid.
The concern as it was expressed repeatedly at the United Nations is that when the United Nations was thrown out of Iraq in the late 1990s, the United Nations reported that Iraq had not accounted for the botchulin, the toxin, the VX, the sarin gas. They said, not accounted for. They didn't say, locked and loaded. And we repeatedly cited the U.N.'s words and said, not accounted for.
Q The President said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
MR. FLEISCHER: As the war was pursued, we, of course, had concerns about whether or not it would be locked and loaded, and that's why we had our forces in the defensive postures they were and with the uniforms and the equipment that they carried with them. So it was a result of their possession of it in a variety of forms, a variety of facts that led the United Nations to conclude, and to vote 15-nothing, that they had not provided adequate explanation of what was unaccounted for that the U.N. knew they had.
Q But let me just -- once again, as chief executive, does he not have any concern about the quality of intelligence on this, as he described it, one of the most critical security matters before the country, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. As I described to you, when the proof came in about what was known so far -- and I think there's going to be more to learn as different people are talked to, as different documents are looked at, as additional forces arrive for the sole purpose of looking for the weapons of mass destruction and obtaining information from Iraqi scientists, particularly mid-level officials -- what else would those biological trucks have been for? Those biological trucks themselves -- and as Secretary Powell pointed out at the United Nations, it doesn't take a lot to produce a lot of deaths, that biological weapons can be small in quantity and large in death. And that's why the American people had a lot to fear about Saddam Hussein developing these weapons, including biological weapons, which there's now proof-positive that he had these biological mobile trucks for the purpose of producing biological weapons.
Q Ari, the President said he would go to a Middle East summit if he thought it would advance the peace process. Well, clearly, he's going, so he must think he can advance it. How does he think he can advance it? Is it just a photo op, just because he's there?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's obviously real work. And the purpose of the summit is for the President to take advantage of this moment and exercise what, in his judgment, is his important personal responsibility as the President of the United States, who can play a very helpful role in bringing Israelis and Palestinians together, to help them take concrete steps to implement the road map toward peace.
That's why he's going -- to look the leaders of the Israelis in the eye and to look the leaders of the Palestinians in the eye and say to them, you must make progress; you must implement the road map; you must carry out your concrete obligations to Palestinian on security, to the Israelis on the humane treatment of the Palestinians, and to -- a reminder that the vision is a two-state solution. This is serious work.
Q Would he be satisfied with a statement that commits both sides to implementing the road map? Would that be progress?
MR. FLEISCHER: Clearly, implementing the road map is what this is about, and there must be concrete actions that are taken.
Q What does he expect to come out of today's meeting between Sharon and Abbas?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm not going to make predictions about a meeting that the United States is not a direct participant in. We will see. The meeting is supposed to be taking place anytime now, Eastern time, and we'll try to get a report after the meeting and see.
Q What does he hope will come out of the meeting?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, what the President hopes will come out of the meeting is a willingness of the Israelis and the Palestinians to work together to implement the road map, meaning the Palestinians taking measurable concrete actions to dismantle terrorism; the Israelis taking measurable concrete actions to help improve the humanity, the conditions of the Palestinian people; and a reaffirmation by both parties toward the vision of a two-state solution, as the road map lays out.
Q President Mubarak is reported to have called Yasser Arafat today to discuss the peace process. You've made very clear that the President doesn't want Yasser Arafat representing the interests of the Palestinian people in the peace process. Can you really keep him out of playing a critical role, given the way other Arab nations are likely to deal with him throughout this?
MR. FLEISCHER: Clearly, there's an important meeting about to take place, and the proper representatives of the Palestinian people will be there, who believe in peace and are espousing the cause of peace. I don't know every detail of every conversation an Arab leader has with Yasser Arafat. But I don't know that you have reason to believe that their message to Yasser Arafat is any way inconsistent with America's message about working to achieve peace and the importance of not interfering with the peace process.
Q So is your message that -- to the Egyptians and other Arab nations to tell Arafat to butt out?
MR. FLEISCHER: I can't speak for what their message is. I think you need to ask them.
Q If I could have one other. The President is going to meet with his Chinese counterpart --
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think this will be another important piece in making a determination about the next way, the next step to proceed in dealings with North Korea. The Chinese involvement in resolving the North Korea attempt to nuclearize the Peninsula is a very important involvement. The President wants to talk to the new Chinese President about this, and China is committed to this process -- that's important -- and the President wants to talk to them about that. I think there will be a number of other issues that come up with China, as well, including trade and some other matters.
Q Ari, two quick questions. One, last week was the 10th anniversary of the largest caucus on India in the U.S. Congress. And 163 members from the both parties, Democrats and Republicans were there -- I mean are the members of the caucus. Now both parties on calling on the administration, that they should pay more attention to the world's largest democracy, India. And also time has come for the administration to fight against terrorism into India, in the -- the terrorism in Kashmir. Do you have any comments? And also where do you -- where would the President put today the relations, really, between the world's two biggest, powerful democracies?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, relations between the United States and India are very good. And in terms of the commitment of this administration to India and to peace and stability and to the reduction of terrorism, I think you have seen so many recent positive developments between India and Pakistan that are, in part, the result of America's active diplomacy in the region. Deputy Secretary Armitage's recent trip to the region is one small piece of that. Many others have been participating in that effort. So this is an ongoing issue of the top priority levels of the American government.
Q Back to the child tax credit. You said the President didn't get everything he wanted. Just to be clear, in his initial proposal, the $726-billion package, he did not propose that this group earning between $10,000 and $26,000 would get the increase in the child tax credit. Is that correct?
MR. FLEISCHER: The 1997 tax act that is the basis for all this legislation applied the tax credit against income taxes, not against payroll taxes. In 2001, the President signed legislation, and supported it, that would, for the first time, have a small application of it to the payroll taxes. That allowed for an increase to kick in in 2005. That was part of the President's budget, and the President supported that increase in his budget.
Q Can you clarify -- there's a report out of the Financial Times out of London that says -- the Treasury Department, that former Secretary O'Neill had commissioned a report to evaluate the federal deficit, they came up with a figure of $44 trillion, and that that report was shelved in the budget of 2004. Is that accurate?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, that's an erroneous report. There's nobody at Treasury who was involved in this. I think there may have been some retired people, people who left Treasury, who had some thoughts. But we agree with their thoughts. If you take a look at President Bush's own budget, you'll find in the budget President Bush submitted to the Congress, the President warned about these long-term structural deficits -- it was a chapter called, "The Real Fiscal Danger" -- on page 31 of the President's own budget where he warned that Social Security and Medicare and the nation's entitlement programs are creating a tremendous burden of debt on the next generation of Americans, which is why entitlement reform is so necessary.
This is why the President wants to create a system of social security based on personal accounts on a voluntary basis, to relieve that crushing debt. There is no question that Social Security and Medicare and the nation's entitlement programs are going to present next generations with a crushing debt burden, unless policymakers work seriously to reform those programs.
Q So just to be clear, the Treasury Department did not commission that study?
MR. FLEISCHER: You can talk to Treasury about it, but my understanding is there is nothing like this underway at Treasury, and nobody working at Treasury has been working on this. There may have been some people in a private capacity outside of the Treasury Department who worked on various projects, but those are not federal employees.
Q On the child credit, you've given that very elaborate explanation, but at the end of the day, there's -- the perception seems to linger that this is an administration study. At the top, it tends to favor the haves, as opposed to the have-nots. And is this a concern that the White House has in light of --
MR. FLEISCHER: This administration treats taxpayers fairly. This administration treats taxpayers right. And this administration recognizes that people who pay income taxes should receive income tax relief, and that when you reach a point where people pay absolutely zero in income taxes, you're being very fair to all income taxpayers.
Now, there may be some who argue that after somebody actually pays zero in income tax, other taxpayers have a responsibility to transfer more of their income to people who pay no income taxes. And that's an argument that some people might want to make, that in the end it's a redistribution of income, that is public assistance, above and beyond what people pay in their income taxes.
But this administration has been very fair about providing relief at the lower-income end of the scale. After all, 3 million people now pay no income taxes. This administration lowered the 15 percent bracket to 10 percent, all of which predominantly helps people at the low end.
Go ahead, Bill.
Q You're talking about taxpayers here. You're not talking about people who don't pay taxes.
MR. FLEISCHER: Income taxes, I said.
Q Well, but the tax credit only applies to people who pay taxes, both payroll and income.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it was designed in 1997 as an offset to income taxes. There's a small portion that offsets payroll, but it is designed as an income tax credit. That's what the child credit is, to offset income taxes.
Q But these are the people who it was designed to benefit, the people who pay those taxes.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. And that's why it's benefiting everybody, to the point where many in society are absolutely forgiven from paying any income taxes, and others will receive a child credit, and therefore, pay less income taxes, but they will still pay income taxes.
Q The point of this discourse seems to be there are people who are not receiving that benefit as a result of the change that was made in conference.
MR. FLEISCHER: Many people would say that if you're paying no income taxes at all, you received a lot of benefit.
Q You and Condi and others talked about conditions permitting for the three-way summit to go forward. Is there something in today's meeting between Sharon and Prime Minister Abbas that creates the conditions for the three-way summit with President Bush to go forward?
MR. FLEISCHER: All signals are go. The same phrase applies, conditions permitting. All -- conditions are permitting; all signals are go.
Q Can you clarify for us at all what "conditions permitting" means?
MR. FLEISCHER: Nothing different than I said yesterday.
Q I wasn't sure what you meant yesterday either.
MR. FLEISCHER: Dr. Rice and I said the same thing yesterday, about the responsibility of the parties -- and you may quote her -- the responsibility of the parties to work toward peace.
Q There's a lot of talk that Hamas may, in fact, be willing to consider a cease-fire. What does the administration make of that? How big a step would that be?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, what's important is for the Palestinian Authority to move immediately to completely disarm and dismantle those groups that oppose a two-state solution and employ terror and violence in order to achieve their aims. Should the Palestinians declare a cease-fire, it must be accompanied by parallel steps to disarm and dismantle terrorists and terrorist infrastructure.
Q We're talking about one of the terrorist groups, itself; not the Palestinian Authority as a whole, but actually one of the terrorist groups that has, in many cases, actually undermined efforts to --
MR. FLEISCHER: And that's why the negotiations and the work with the Palestinian Authority, because they have these responsibilities.
Q Ari, two questions. Again, going back to what Jim brought up, "conditions permitting." It's been like a history in the Middle East, anytime something major is about to take place, terrorist acts take place, and usually, major terrorist actions. Would this be involving the question, "conditions permitting," if something major in terrorism occurs?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as I just said, all systems are go. The conditions are permitting. And I think unless -- in the event, something would change that, you will know it. But all systems are go. And if you have a hypothetical, if something becomes real later, we'll deal with it if it becomes real later. But what's real now is the meeting is moving forward.
Q And the second question, Ari, today another death has been reported in Iraq, an American soldier. This makes nine in the last few days and 24 wounded. The President, as the Commander-in-Chief, is he worried about this turn of events? It seems to be an unending situation, every day something is happening.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as the President said on the Abraham Lincoln, there are dangers that remain still in Iraq. There are still battlefields in Iraq. The President declared that the major hostilities are over. He did not say that there was an end to the violence in Iraq, because much of this was foreseeable because there are still enemies inside Iraq who are loyal to Saddam Hussein, who are fighting the coalition. And that's why the coalition is there, dedicated to the mission of achieving security and carrying out their efforts against remaining pockets of resistance.
Q Ari, on the -- you say -- going back to the child tax credit -- you say the President would have signed it into law if it had been in the bill. Does that mean that he endorses it and would like to see it become law?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I've been asked many questions about what the President will do next, because there are other things the President did not get in this bill that he would have signed into law. And my answer remains the same, that there will be future budgets. I'm not going to predict everything that's in those budgets.
Q So he's not necessarily endorsing it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Just -- there will come a day when other budgets are proposed, and I'm not going to predict everything that's in those budgets.
Q Just to follow up on the Financial Times report about the deficit. Are you saying -- it said that a report was suppressed. You're saying that's not true?
MR. FLEISCHER: I checked I with Treasury and they say that's absolutely not true.
Q Ari, back on the child tax credit, just talking about what the President believes --
MR. FLEISCHER: You don't have to say back on, you can say continuing on.
Q That's right. What does the President think would be a greater stimulus to the economy, just in pure economic terms, giving more money back to the investor class, or giving money directly to lower-income working people who might spend that money immediately on goods?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President views it as a combination of both.
Q If you had to compare those two options, which one serves as a greater stimulus to the economy?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the point has arrived where the bill is law as a result of a good compromise that was achieved that allowed this to pass into law.
Q I'm asking you, Ari, about the President's philosophy, his economic philosophy, and what serves as a greater stimulus to the economy.
MR. FLEISCHER: It's a combination of both.
Q Ari, about the trip, if I may, briefly. A lot of the Europeans have said the President's got a serious amount of fence-mending to do. He's not meeting with several of the G8 folks that would normally be in the meeting with -- in the context of the larger summit. He's leaving a day early. Is he sending the opposite signal, that he doesn't really care?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think, frankly, if you talk to the European leaders that he's meeting with, they just don't view it that way. This is about making progress as members of the G8 on issues that unite us. And I think that the time has moved beyond us, whether there were recriminations or disagreements about previous issues. And for the U.N., we all know now we all are moving together in a unanimous fashion on the reconstruction of Iraq. So I just don't think this has to do with fence-mending. This has to do with working together to move forward.
Q You don't think that there's bitterness left -- this is his first trip to Europe since the Iraq war, where there was huge demonstrations in the streets. And even if some of the European leaders were undecided --
MR. FLEISCHER: One thing I've noticed about European trips, and especially trade summits and EU meetings, it doesn't matter if the President is there or not there, there are hundreds of thousands of people in the streets. This is just the nature sometimes of these meetings. Sometimes it's aimed at the President; other times it's aimed at the European leaders themselves.
Q So you don't think there's any lingering bitterness that the President needs to try to work to ameliorate?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President is going to work to bring people together around the agenda that he has outlined, that he's going to talk about in Poland, and that he's going to demonstrate at the G8, which is America's work -- and we hope the world will work with us -- to help alleviate poverty, to help reduce famine, to help provide relief for AIDS. And he goes to Europe armed with substantial accomplishments where the American taxpayer is leading the way to help the suffering, reduce the suffering around the world.
Q A number of the President's predecessors have spent time with one-on-one meetings to try to address the Middle East peace question over the years. What kind of time or extra attention has President Bush spent in trying to learn from his predecessors and their actual experiences, sitting down with leaders in the Middle East in trying to resolve the problem?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, of course, the President has met repeatedly, on numerous occasions with Arab leaders, summit meetings, one-on-one meetings; with Prime Minister Sharon. Many of those meetings are here at the White House.
Q Not in the same context.
MR. FLEISCHER: It's all the same context. It's all the context of how do you achieve peace in the Middle East and gathering ideas. I submit to you that this meeting could not even be taking place if it was not for the success of the meetings that the President had with these Arab leaders, with Prime Minister Sharon in his conversations, and his efforts in creating a new reformed leadership in the Palestinian Authority. So it all is of the same context, creating an environment now where people in the Middle East can sit down in a different atmosphere where there is a chance of moving forward to implement the road map.
Q But what kind of time has the President spent paying attention to his predecessors' experiences? Either lessons learned, positive or negative?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the most valuable lesson was something that the President expressed in the June 24th speech where he talked about there has to be a fight by the Palestinian Authority against corruption and against violence, and that Yasser Arafat was not committed to that fight. And one of the lessons is that Yasser Arafat was not working toward peace -- that the previous President of the United States was working toward peace, Arab leaders were working toward peace, Israel was working toward peace, Yasser Arafat was working in the opposite direction. And that's the most valuable lesson, and that's why there is now a chance for peace, because you have a new direction in the Palestinian government.
Q Ari, two questions. At the G8 summit, will the President consider asking the other nations to contribute peacekeeping troops to Iraq so that their soldiers can put their lives on the line, as have the U.S., British and Polish soldiers?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there are numerous conversations around the world with a number of nations about their role in peacekeeping in Iraq. As you know, Poland is leading an effort in one sector of Iraq. I anticipate there will be other nations, as well, that join with the United States, the United Kingdom and Poland and others in providing troops and security for Iraq.
Q Will we ever see a day when the U.S. really reduces dramatically its soldiers, so that the other soldiers can be there?
MR. FLEISCHER: Our position is very clear; that we will stay in Iraq for as long as is necessary, and not one day longer. We are there to help get the job done and to do it right.
Q Who decides?
Q Two questions today, please. Given that transfers of power in the Middle East usually occur abruptly and sometimes violently, what contingency plans do we have in place to deal with the implosion of the government of Iran that some in the administration have suggested may occur?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, you go back to the President's statement of July 12th, which is our policy toward Iran, and that is the future of Iran will be determined by the Iranian people. And this is based on the belief that people everywhere, including Iran, want to be free, want to have a government that is respectful of their rights, wants to have a government that allows them to express their views and allows them to advance economically. That is our position, and I cannot predict what every turn will take in Iran.
Q Well, if something happens abruptly, and considering --
MR. FLEISCHER: I just can't speculate, Jeff, about something that hasn't taken place or might not.
Q Two questions, Ari. Since Prime Minister Sharon and the Knesset have accepted the road map to peace with many strong reservations, while Prime Minister Abbas contends that there can be no such reservations, even as Yasser Arafat has expressed his strong reservations about Abbas being at the summit instead of himself, ny question is, is the President glad that the Israelis will not allow Arafat to leave his Rumallah compound?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would just put it to you that the President is looking forward to working with people who are dedicated to peace. And that's why he is looked -- so much looking forward to this meeting.
Q The AP reports from Austin that Governor Rick Perry signed a defense of marriage law, making Texas the 37th state to outlaw same-sex marriages and civil unions. Governor Perry said, "Like the vast majority of Texans, I believe that marriage represents a sacred union between a man and a woman." And my question: You would leave us with no doubt at all that the President is like the vast majority of fellow Texans?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President agrees with that position. That was legislation signed into law by President Clinton. President Bush supports it.
Q Thank you, very much, Ari. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Relax, relax, Lester.
Q It's a wonderful answer.
MR. FLEISCHER: You're not going on the Europe trip, are you? (Laughter.)
Q I'll be watching your every move.
Q Ari, there are reports that the United States is using the dissident group MEK to try and stage a coup in Iraq. Is that true? And isn't the MEK on the State Department's terrorist list?
MR. FLEISCHER: I refer you the Department of Defense's statement about what they are doing involving the disbarment of MEK in Iraq. Our position on that is well-known. Nothing new there.
Q President Bush is meeting with the Chinese President Hu, and since that will be the first summit between the two leaders, can you tell us more about that? Like the agenda, the format, will they be any formal joint press conference --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, actually, this will be their second direct meeting. The President met with President-elect Hu earlier. Now he will be meeting with President Hu, of course. They will have a bilateral meeting. And, as I indicated, I anticipate they will talk about North Korea, they will talk about trade, they will talk about regional security. I think they have a rather busy agenda.
Q Ari, on the subject of Iran, even though the meeting in Egypt will primarily, of course, focus on the Middle East peace process. The President is -- I think you said yesterday he's going to bring up the regional trade idea, as well. Can we anticipate that concerns over Iran and its nuclear program will also be raised for the Arab leaders?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'll try to keep you informed as the meeting takes place. I think they have a busy agenda to talk about the Middle East peace process and the road map. If that's a topic that comes up, we'll try to let you know.
Q Ari, six U.S. congressmen are to visit North Korea. Can you tell us what will be the purpose of this visit?
MR. FLEISCHER: This is a visit that they are undertaking on their own, not representing the President. And I would just refer you to the congressmen and to the State Department on that.
Q Can you tell us if either today or tomorrow the government's going to lower the terror threat level?
MR. FLEISCHER: The terror threat level does get reviewed every day. Given the fact that it was recently raised, it has been reviewed on a continual basis to see whether that raise should continue in place. Conversations are taking place about that. There's nothing to report yet on whether there will be today or tomorrow. We'll see later. So it is something that is being reviewed.
Q The federal officials are saying that it is likely to be lowered as early as today. Is there anything you can say --
MR. FLEISCHER: As of this very hour, no decisions have been made. It is being actively reviewed today.
Q Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
We've discussed some ways to build credit without a credit card in the past, but the folks at Get Rich Slowly have a few additional suggestions, including taking out a small personal loan with a trusted bank or credit union and paying it down on time, and trying out a secured credit card that you load up with money and use like cash. Both options will build up your FICO score over time, and are great alternatives for people who don't like or don't trust credit cards.
Get Rich Slowly walks through exactly what makes up your FICO score, and points out that while credit cards are just tools that—with discipline and good money management—can enhance your financial life instead of destroy it, some people understandably don't trust credit card issuers, or won't trust themselves with a credit card.
For those people, it's important to understand the differences between good and bad debt. A small personal loan for a pet project or a used car from a bank or credit union you have a long history with counts as "good debt," and as long as it's easily added to your budget and paid on time, can do a lot to boost your score. There's also the secured card option, which requires you to put down as much money as you're willing to use it for, and as you spend your collateral, you use up the card until you "charge it up" again, as it were.
As a last resort, they—like we did—suggest biting the bullet and getting a card anyway, but they also pay a nod to the cash-only movement, or the people who dismiss FICO entirely because they manage their finances so even high-dollar purchases like homes and vehicles that traditionally require loans are payable with cash. What do you think? Are you a cash-only believer, or do you believe it's not the cards that put people in debt, but the people themselves? Share your thoughts in the comments.
Building Your Credit Score: Are Credit Cards Your Best Option? | Get Rich Slowly
Photo by nasirkhan (Shutterstock).


text:
Bernie Ecclestone says he does not agree with F1's planned change of engine formula in 2013.
He told journalists in Australia he is "anti, anti, anti, anti moving into this small turbo four formula."
F1 is moving to 1.6-litre, four-cylinder engines in 2013.
Ecclestone added: "We don't need it and if it's so important it's the sort of thing that should be in saloon car racing."
According to Ecclestone only two thing are important in F1: "One is Ferrari and second is the noise."
He said: "The rest of it is basically PR – it's nothing in the world to do with Formula One. These changes are going to be terribly costly to the sport.
"I'm sure the promoters will lose a big audience and I'm quite sure we'll lose TV.
Ecclestone said he and FIA president Jean Todt were "at loggerheads" over the planned changes, saying:
"He's not a promoter and he's not selling Formula One to be honest.
"Jean and I are a little bit at loggerheads over this engine. I don't see the reason for it.
"We had the KERS and this was supposed to solve the problem that Formula One is not green and now we've got something else."
Image © Ferrari spa/Ercole Colombo


text:
Get the latest news on popular HVAC products and hot deals that are not found elsewhere. Your privacy is important to us and we will never share or sell your information.
Your source for HVAC Supplies and Parts. Competitive Pricing and Great Service on Tools, Equipment and More.
Need help?
Your cart is empty
Use this bar to show information about your cookie policy.
39 products
Controls & Thermostats
Tools & Instruments
Fast Delivery
Your orders are instantly sent to our fulfillment center to be processed and shipped same day if ordered by 2pm PST.
Satisfaction Guaranteed
All products are brand new (not remanufactured). No hassle returns and easy support. No risk.
Top-notch support
Our support staff are knowledgeable, easy to work with and best of all here for you when you need them.
Secure payments
Your privacy is paramount to our success. We use latest and greatest technologies to secure and process your payment.


text:
When was the last time you cleaned your diffuser? We all know there are many benefits to diffusing such as the ability to influence emotions and wellness. To keep enjoying those benefits you will want to extend the longevity of your diffuser. The best way to do so is to regularly clean your diffuser. Keep reading below to learn to how properly care for your dōTERRA diffuser.
How to Regularly Clean an Ultrasonic Diffuser
1. Drain water reservoir completely
2. Rinse water reservoir with clean water
3. Wipe water reservoir with dry cloth
4. Air dry before next use
How to Deep Clean an Ultrasonic Diffuser
1. Turn diffuser off
2. Fill water reservoir halfway with clean water
3. Add 10 drops white vinegar to water reservoir
4. Turn diffuser on, let run three to five minutes
5. Drain water reservoir completely
6. Dip cotton swab in white vinegar; wipe down water reservoir and ultrasonic mist chip
7. Rinse water reservoir with clean water
8. Wipe water reservoir with dry cloth
9. Air dry before next use


text:
Introducing trafficking in persons and smuggling of migrants
Every year, thousands of migrants and refugees travel across the world in search of safe heaven and better livelihood opportunities. Amongst these people, there are victims of trafficking and smuggled migrants. But what does it mean to be a victim of trafficking or smuggled migrants, and what is the difference between trafficking in persons and smuggling of migrant?


text:
Security in Tcl Scripts for Cisco IOS
- Introduction to PKI Infrastructure
- Using Digital Signatures to Sign a Tcl Script
- Tcl Script-Failure Scenario
- Scaling Tcl Script Distribution
- Summary
- References
This chapter covers the following topics:
- Introduction to PKI Infrastructure
- Using Digital Signatures to Sign a Tcl Script
- Tcl Script-Failure Scenario
- Scaling Tcl Script Distribution
From the early days of programming, those with nefarious intent have attempted—and in many cases successfully integrated—additional code into programs that have caused serious consequences to the unsuspecting user. Because a Tcl script is a program running on an IOS-based device, additional code added to the script could potentially send passwords via e-mail, erase the saved configurations or IOS images, cause the device to reload periodically, and so on. The capability to protect scripts against this type of attack is paramount!
Cisco IOS Software Release 12.4(15)T introduced a new feature to improve security for Tcl scripts. The purpose of this security feature is to provide a method for signing a Tcl script that proves the script has not been modified since the time it was signed by the author. It relies on techniques and methods of existing public key cryptography libraries.
Introduction to PKI Infrastructure
Public key infrastructure (PKI) is used to provide a scalable method for certificate/key exchange and is commonly used for secure exchange data (confidentiality), to ensure that the data has not been modified in transit (integrity), to authenticate the origin, and for nonrepudiation.
PKI enables you to send messages with confidentiality and sign messages that are guaranteed to be genuine. Confidentiality allows for conducting secret communication via a public channel; however, it is not needed because the Tcl script is not secret and can be viewed by anyone who has access.
Even though confidentiality is not needed, we do require Tcl scripts to have a digital signature to guarantee they are truly genuine and have not been tampered with. PKI enables you to generate a digital signature that is connected to the Tcl script and guarantees it is genuine.
Because PKI is well established, it can be leveraged to provide the security needed for signing Tcl scripts. Many applications already take advantage of PKI and leverage the security it provides, including SSL/HTTPS, IPsec, and S/MIME. You are probably familiar with purchasing items online, filing tax returns online, and software licensing, all of which use PKI and secure protocols.
Using PKI will provide assurance that a script has not been tampered with and give you the confidence to implement a signed script in a production environment.
PKI Prerequisite
To use PKI, a public/private key pair must first be established. Generally, the longer the key, the higher the level of security provided by that key.
A private key is simply a long string of characters, typically 512. As the name indicates, this key is not to be shared and must always be kept private.
The public key is public and distributed to anyone.
The public/private key pairs are simple to generate and the private key is (nearly) impossible to derive from the public key. Although any security algorithm can be broken given enough time and CPU cycles, longer keys make this task infeasible.
Confidentiality with PKI
When sending messages through a public channel, you can use PKI to encrypt the data so that only the intended recipient can decrypt it. The sender of an encrypted message can encrypt the data but cannot decrypt the data after it has been encrypted. The recipient's public key is used to encrypt the data. The data is sent to the recipient, and once it is received is decrypted with the recipient's private key. This process is unidirectional. For two-way encrypted communication to occur, two key pairs are needed. Each sender encrypts data using the correct public key of the intended recipient. This process is also referred to as asymmetric encryption.
As shown in Figure 7-1, Alice will be sending Bob an encrypted message. The process is as follows:
- Step 1. For Alice to send any encrypted information to Bob, she must have Bob's public key.
- Step 2. Alice uses Bob's public key to encrypt the message she wants to send to Bob.
- Step 3. Even if someone captures the information in transit, it is undecipherable without Bob's private key, or at least a tremendous number of CPU cycles used to break the private key.
- Step 4. When Bob receives the information, he uses his own private key to decrypt the original message that Alice sent.
Figure 7-1 PKI Infrastructure
Digital Signatures with PKI
Digital signatures enable you to ensure that information is not altered in transit from sender to recipient. You can do so by creating a hash or signature of the original data.
The entire message must remain intact. Even if 1 bit of the data is changed, the entire message integrity is violated. When you sign a check, for example, you are verifying the authenticity with your unique signature. If the amount of the check is changed from your written and numeric values, this represents an obvious violation.
To provide the integrity check, the entire data being sent is run through a hashing function. In simple terms, the hashing function produces a unique result for any given input data, of a known length. Common hashing functions include message digest 4 (MD4), message digest 5 (MD5), and secure hash algorithm (SHA). The hashed data result can be sent using the PKI confidentiality process described earlier. In this way, the message integrity is preserved from sender to recipient.
Figure 7-2 shows how Alice can send a message with a digital signature:
- Step 1. Alice runs the original message through a hash function, creating a unique value.
- Step 2. Alice encrypts the hash value with her private key, resulting in the digital signature.
- Step 3. The signature is attached to the message.
Figure 7-2 Signing Digital Signatures
Figure 7-3 shows how Bob can verify the integrity of a message.
- Step 1. For Bob to verify that Alice is indeed the originator of the message, Bob must have Alice's public key.
- Step 2. Bob will extract the signature from the message.
- Step 3. The message will be hashed using the same process that Alice used, and a result will be generated.
- Step 4. The signature will also be decrypted using Alice's public key, and a hash value will be generated.
- Step 5. Bob will then compare the message hash value to the signature value. If they match, Bob can be reasonably certain that the message is unaltered.
Figure 7-3 Verifying Digital Signatures


text:
Level Up.
A mountain bike built to raise your game and ignite a passion for the trail. Designed for the mountains and ready for anything
Where it thrives
Low-impact trails, gravel roads, leisurely ride
What it's built for
handling & durability
- Premium SmartForm C2 Alloy frame / SR Suntour XCR 120mm fork with lockout
- Shimano Deore 10-speed shifting
- Shimano MT200 hydraulic disc brakes
Confident Handling
New-school handling and mountain-ready components result in a modern, confidence-inspiring experience at a level where you might otherwise be expecting compromises. This is what fun looks like
Perfectly Framed
Be it your first time off-road or further afield on to your next ride, SE's new SmartForm aluminum frames come assembled with choice components making these bikes the complete, trail-ready package
Spec'd for More
A longer travel 120mm fork, wider 760mm bars and a short stem sets the tone for this bike - combined with more aggressive 2.5"/2.3" tires, the SE handles the biggest trails
Tapered Headtube
The standard for top-end mountain bikes. Light and stiff, it's designed for the 1-1/2" to 1-1/8" tapered steerer tubes found on the best suspension forks
SAVE Micro-suspension
Delivers a smoother, more controlled ride thanks to strategically engineered flex zones built into the frame's rear triangle
Boost Spacing
Enabled by Boost spacing, Trail's short chainstays position the rear wheel optimally for climbing traction and agile handling
Confident Control
A slacker-than-average 66.5 degree head angle results in even more stable handling, giving you extra confidence when the trails point downhill
Right-Sized Wheels
All Trail SE sizes come with 29" wheels to deliver the best blend of fit, fast and fun for every rider
StraightShot Internal Cable Routing
For an integrated look and easy maintenance, the shift and dropper post cables route cleanly through the StraightShot window in the down tube, while the rear brake line is secured outside the frame
Premium Framesets
All-new progressive frame design blends the latest Trail-ready geometry with dropped seatstays for improved ride quality and a leaner look. Longer, lower, lighter and altogether more fun
Frame | All-New, Smartform C2 Alloy, SAVE dropped seatstays, tapered headtube, post mount disc, StraightShot internal cable routing, dropper post compatible BSA 73, 12mm thru axle, Boost 148 |
Fork | SR Suntour XCR, 120mm, coil, 15 x 110 thru-axle, 46mm offset |
Headset | Integrated Sealed Bearing, Tapered |
Rims/Wheels | WTB STX i25 TCS, 32h, tubeless ready |
Hubs |
Front: Shimano MT400, 15 x 110mm thru-axle Rear: Shimano MT400 12 x 148mm thru-axle |
Spokes | Stainless Steel, 14g |
Tires |
Front: WTB Breakout, 29 x 2.3" Rear: WTB Trail Boss, 29 x 2.25" |
Crankset | FSA Alpha Drive, 30T |
Bottom Bracket | Sealed bearing cartridge, square taper |
Chain | KMC X10, 10-speed |
Rear Derailleur | Shimano Deore M4100 |
Cassette/Rear Cogs | Shimano Deore M4100, 11-46, 10-speed |
Shifters | Shimano Deore M4100, 10-speed |
Handlebars | FSA Alloy Riser, 15mm rise, 740mm |
Tape/Grips | Cannondale Dual-Density |
Stem | Cannondale 3, 6061 Alloy, 31.8, 0° |
Brake Levers | Shimano MT200 hydraulic disc |
Brakes | Shimano MT200 hydraulic disc, 180/160mm RT10 rotors |
Pedals | Cannondale Platform |
Saddle | Cannondale Women's Trail, 170mm, steel rails |
Seat Post | Cannondale 3, 6061 Alloy, 31.6 x 350mm (S), 400mm (M-XL) |
* Subject to change without notice.
Part Numbers
Option | UPC | MPN |
Purple / Large | 884603850695 | C26201F10LG |


text:
Japanese Relocation and Internment
NARA Resources
Documents and Photographs Related to Japanese Relocation during World War II
A collection of NARA documents and photographs relating to the internment of Japanese in the United States. A lesson plan for educators that provides a correlation between the Great Depression and American attitudes toward the Japanese.
"How an eagle feels when his wings are clipped and caged:" Relocation Center Newspapers Describe Japanese American Internment in World War II"
Rebecca K. Sharp's Prologue article describes newspapers published by Japanese Americans interned in relocation camps during World War II.
President Gerald R. Ford's Proclamation 4417, Confirming the Termination of the Executive Order Authorizing Japanese-American Internment during World War II
This proclamation by Gerald Ford removed the possibility of a reinstitution of Executive Order 9066. From the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Researching Japanese War Crimes Records: Introductory Essays
Online version of the book by Edward Drea, Greg Bradsher, Robert Hanyok, James Lide, Michael Petersen, and Daqing Yang of the Interagency Working Group
Return to Sender: U.S. Censorship of Enemy Alien Mail in World War II
A two-part Prologue article that reviews the establishment of an internal U.S. censor for mail of "enemy aliens". This article provides insight into the recruitment of censors, their duties, and the strange bureaucracy of the censor's job. Includes information on the particular challenges of censoring Japanese-American citizens who wrote in Japanese.
The War Relocation Authority and The Incarceration of Japanese-Americans during World War II
The Truman Presidential Library's collection of photographs, oral histories, chronologies, documents, and lesson plans regarding the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.
Other Resources
"Abundant dreams diverted"
Seattle Times article recapping the history of Japanese in Washington State in the early 1900s and their subsequent evacuation to relocation camps in the 1940s.
Beyond Barbed Wire: Japanese Internment through Salem Eyes
Multimedia exhibit presenting the experience of being interned in a Japanese relocation camp.
Children of the Camps: Internment History
From the PBS web site, "Children of the Camps is a one-hour documentary that portrays the poignant stories of six Japanese Americans who were interned as children in U.S. concentration camps during World War II."
Confinement and Ethnicity: An Overview of World War II Japanese American Relocation Sites
Information from the National Park Service about the internment camps.
The Decision to Evacuate the Japanese from the Pacific Coast
An extensive and detailed army analysis by Stetson Conn of the circumstances surrounding the internment of Japanese-Americans.
Densho: The Japanese American Legacy Project
"Densho's mission is to preserve the testimonies of Japanese Americans who were unjustly incarcerated during World War II before their memories are extinguished."
Internment of San Francisco Japanese
Primary and secondary documents from San Francisco reflecting common public sentiments regarding the evacuation of Japanese. Includes the Museum of the City of San Francisco's 1942 San Francisco War Events timeline, the War Relocation Authority's 1943 publication "Relocation of Japanese Americans," and excerpts from General DeWitt's "Final Report on the Evacuation of the Japanese."
Japanese American Archival Collection ImageBase
From the Sacramento State University Library, "The Japanese American Archival Collection (JAAC) ImageBase presents about 1400 images in a searchable database of selected photographs and images of artifacts related to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II."
Japanese American Internment
This lesson plan from the Library of Congress includes primary sources.
Japanese-American Relocation Digital Archives
The Japanese American Relocation Digital Archive (JARDA) provides access to the archival and manuscript holdings of numerous California archives and museums. JARDA contains personal diaries, letters, photographs and drawings, camp newsletters, reports, photographs, and WRA administrative documents.
Letters from the Japanese American Internment
Lesson plan from the Smithsonian Institution based on letters between Clara Estelle Breed, a childrenÂ's librarian at the San Diego Public Library, and internees evacuated from San Diego.
Masumi Hayashi Photography
This site focuses on Professor Masumi Hayashi's body of work that deals with the internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry during World War II. Hayashi's panoramic photo collages show the remnants of sites of Japanese American internment camps during World War II, an archeological memory. Also included are portrait collages of internees.
A More Perfect Union
This moving Smithsonian website provides personal narrative, music, timelines, and photographs of the Japanese relocation during World War II.
Ansel Adams's Photographs of Japanese-American Internment at Manzanar
The Prints and Photographs Division at the Library of Congress presents side-by-side digital scans of both Adams's 242 original negatives and his 209 photographic prints.
War Relocation Authority Camps in Arizona, 1942-1946
This University of Arizona photo documentary is also accompanied by brief explanations of the rationale behind the relocation effort, as well as reproductions of governmental decrees that set the effort to relocate in motion. The site also links to numerous points of interest and offers suggestions for further study.
War Relocation Authority Photographs of Japanese-American Evacuation and Resettlement, 1942-1945
A finding aid for photographs of Japanese-American relocation compiled by The Bancroft Library of the University of California at Berkeley. Many of the images are available on the site.
The War Relocation Centers of World War II: When Fear Was Stronger than Justice
The National Park Service created this lesson plan which includes photographs, documents, and maps.
World War II Internment Camps
From the Handbook of Texas, information about internment camps located in Texas that housed Japanese Americans arrested by the FBI, members of Axis nationalities residing in Latin-American countries, and Axis sailors arrested in American ports after the attack on Pearl Harbor.


text:
Last Tuesday, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel held a press conference to announce that he didn't want his city's law-enforcement authorities to follow federal requests to hold some undocumented immigrants, picked up on other charges, for deportation. The national media's ears perked up. Emanuel, a former Chief of Staff to President Obama, was at loggerheads with his old boss — good copy in the making. But on the same day, back in Washington, D.C., much bigger news was developing on the future of federal and local cooperation on immigration policy. John Morton, the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told a House subcommittee that his efforts to persuade officials to honor any of ICE's detention requests in the jurisdiction of Cook County, which includes Chicago, had hit a wall. "I won't sugarcoat it," he said. "I don't think that approach is going to work in full."
In April, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Congress she was "evaluating all options" to compel Cook County, Illinois, to go along with ICE's requests, known as "detainers," under a program called Secure Communities, launched in late 2008 to focus immigration enforcement on criminal aliens. Morton reiterated Napolitano's warning, but his grim assessment of the Cook County situation added further gravity to the statement: "We've been exploring, as the Secretary has said, our options under federal law with the Department of Justice, and we will see where that goes." Translation: the Obama Administration has discussed the possibility of suing a jurisdiction because it's too lax in enforcing federal immigration priorities, a mirror image of the legal drama the Administration just went through with Arizona's law, which the Supreme Court partially struck down in June.
(PHOTOS: Behind the Cover: America's Undocumented Immigrants)
Some advocates have framed nondetainer policies like Cook County's as a response to the trend of aggressive state immigration crackdowns like the one in Arizona, which requires police to try to discern a suspected undocumented immigrant's status during a routine stop or detention. That's convenient politics, but in a much more direct way, they are a response to the rapidly expanding federal immigration-enforcement program, Secure Communities. Under that program, local law-enforcement agents send fingerprints of detainees to the FBI and ICE, which can then ask local jails to hang on to some prisoners eligible for deportation, giving federal authorities the chance to swoop in and remove them within 48 hours. It's a wide net, which snags serious criminals, minor offenders and otherwise law-abiding undocumented immigrants — say, someone who has failed to appear in immigration court or who has been previously deported. And it's putting its critics, who say Secure Communities encourages local law enforcement to arrest more Latinos and undermines cooperation between police and immigrant communities, on a collision course with the Obama Administration.
It's not just Cook County, which stopped honoring any of ICE's detention requests in September of last year, and the city of Chicago, which is considering a narrower ordinance directing jails not to comply with detainers for those convicted or suspected of minor offenses. On the same day that Morton testified before Congress, Washington D.C.'s city council unanimously passed a similar measure. Taos, N.M., already has one. Santa Clara County, California, has declined to honor the majority of the 1,400 ICE requests issued since October. The city of San Francisco has also declined a handful.
These figures are small compared with the vast scope of Secure Communities and the Administration's wider immigration-enforcement efforts, which have produced more than 1.2 million deportations so far under President Obama. Since launching Secure Communities in late 2008, ICE has received 17 million sets of fingerprints, identified nearly 1 million undocumented immigrants, and deported nearly 200,000 of them. The growth of the program has been explosive. Criminal-alien removals increased 89% between 2008 and '11, according to ICE, and more than 3,000 local jurisdictions now participate in Secure Communities, up from just 88 in 2009. ICE expects nationwide deployment in 2013.
But the number of jurisdictions resisting detention requests may soon grow too. On July 5, California's senate passed a nondetainer policy for the entire state, which would restrict local law enforcement from going along with detainers for all but the most serious criminals. It is expected to pass the assembly next month before heading to the desk of Governor Jerry Brown, who has not said whether he will sign it. California has the largest population of undocumented immigrants in the U.S., and about 75,000 of those deported by ICE under Secure Communities have been from that state — far more than any other. It's not clear what the Obama Administration would do if that crucial state bucked the program.
"The Administration has to be seen as opposing [these measures] as vigorously as they did the Arizona measure," says Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University. "First to be consistent on principle, the Administration just argued before the Supreme Court that states should not be able to create detainer policies unilaterally and that the federal government should have overriding authority in the area."
There's a certain irony in the Administration's Secure Communities dilemma, even beyond the Arizona parallel. While ICE has rebuked Cook County for refusing all detention requests — and releasing 222 undocumented immigrants flagged for deportation in the process — the policies that may soon arrive in Chicago and California (which ICE also opposes) seek to prioritize the removal of hardened criminals. That's been the Administration's stated goal from the outset, and why Obama recently announced legal relief for some young undocumented immigrants who entered the country as children.
(MORE: Our National Immigration Policy: Still Clear as Mud)
But it's also why the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) insists that Secure Communities is a good idea. As congressional appropriations for immigration enforcement have ramped up — ICE's detention and removal budget doubled between 2005 and '09 — deportations have shot up too. DHS argues that if the money has to be spent, it's better used going after criminals than someone else. Secure Communities isn't as narrowly focused as its critics would like, but it's been amended on the fly — to reduce the number of traffic violators targeted, for instance — and DHS says the portion of deportees who've been convicted of the most serious crimes, now 27% in the federal government's "level 1" taxonomy, will rise over time.
That argument hasn't been sufficient for immigration advocates, who worry police will arrest people on pretext just so they run their prints, not to mention the spike in deportations. Many local lawmakers still insist discretion over who is held should remain with local authorities. And it's not certain that the Administration, should it decide to pursue legal challenges to nondetainer policies, would be able to make the same case it did against Arizona. While Congress mandated information sharing in 2002, Secure Communities was established by an appropriations bill in 2008. And while Morton now describes ordinances like Cook County's as "inconsistent with federal law," DHS documents acquired by advocacy organizations have suggested some ambiguity as to whether federal officials always considered detainers mandatory.
"As long as it's not directly contradicting immigration law, then it's not pre-empted," Steven Gonzales, a constitutional law professor at the Phoenix School of Law, says of nondetainer ordinances. "It's a fine, fine line, but there is some logic there." Turley, of George Washington University, says there's a crucial difference between taking unilateral action, like Arizona did, and declining to carry out federal requests. "I think it would be very difficult for the Justice Department to argue that states are impeding federal policy by not agreeing to be agents of that policy … that would be a serious threat to federalism and states' rights."
(PHOTOS: From the Family Photos of an Undocumented Immigrant)
If legal action isn't a credible threat, cutting off federal funds just might be. The Justice Department reimburses local jails for a part of the cost of holding detainees flagged for deportation, and provides a number of other law-enforcement grants. Morton hinted in his testimony that some of that funding may be subject to re-evaluation. "The power of the purse is definitely the strongest power that the government has," says Aarti Kohli, a senior fellow at Berkeley's Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy. But Kohli is skeptical the Administration would even take things that far. "Politically, I don't see what's to be gained," she says. It is always risky to snatch away federal funds in an election year.
If nondetainer policies move ahead and the Obama Administration doesn't attempt to force jurisdictions to comply, Secure Communities is sure to be another piece of patchwork in the U.S.'s already mottled immigration policy.
The Cook County sheriff, Tom Dart, who says he doesn't like having to release some of the detainees who've been flagged for deportation but has given up trying to persuade his county board and ICE to work things out, found the program to be inconsistent to begin with — its guiding principles impossible to discern. "We have this hodgepodge of rules and laws when it applies to detainers," he says. "It was so ambiguous, the whole thing." Ambiguity is a word he used more than once to describe the challenges of immigration enforcement.
That's the way things are. Neighboring Arizona and California could soon have vastly different protocols for arresting undocumented immigrants and turning them over to federal authorities. "It really is a political issue, a struggle between different points of view," says Gonzales. "And as long as Congress remains polarized and unable to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform, there are going to be leaks all over the ship … depending on what political environment you're in around the country."
VIDEO: Undocumented Americans: Inside the Immigration Debate


text:
Life insurance is about how you want to live your life right now and many years from now. It's also about how your loved ones will live their lives when you're gone. AMAC offers life insurance products through various top-rated, reputable life insurance carriers to help protect what is important to you. Whether it is to protect the assets you've worked so hard to attain, or to ease your family's burden after you are gone, life insurance helps to provide peace of mind for you and your family.
Most people buy life insurance as a means to replace income lost if something happens to them. Providing money for survivors is important. Life insurance is the most cost effective way to do it.
Debt can be very burdensome to your family, especially without your income available to help repay it. Life insurance can be used to pay off debt and help create more financial security for your family.
Final expenses can be very significant, especially if there are large medical bills, funeral or legal expenses to pay. An emergency fund can cover unexpected bills such as emergency repairs to your home or car. Life insurance provides cash that can be used to help your family cope in a time of distress.
Educating children can be expensive and often requires a long-term strategy. Many people plan to contribute funds each year until they have enough money saved to pay all or some of their children's education costs. Unfortunately if somethign unexpectedly happens to you, there may not be enough time to set aside adequate funds for education. Life insurance can help by creating a lump-sum of cash that you can count on to help pay part of your children's education costs.
Term Life: Protects your family with a death benefit for a specific term or span of years if scheduled premiums are paid. If you die during the policy term, your beneficiary is paid the coverage amount subject to your policy terms. Since it provides "pure" insurance without any cash value accumulation, term life insurance coverage is generally less expensive initially than permanent coverage.
Whole Life: Considered "permanent insurance", converage is intended to remain in force during the insured's entire lifetime, providing premiums are paid as specified in the policy. A whole life insurance policy can build cash value on a tax-deferred basis. Both the premiums to pay and the cash values that result are predetermined and found in the policy contact. The cash value is an amount of money available to the policy owner for policy loans or as the surrender value is the policy is canceled and returned to the company
Universal Life: Considered "permanent insurance", UL policies offer a valuable death benefit and provide the opportunity to build cash values that you can borrow, or withdraw. If you Universal Life (UL) policy is in force at the time of the insured's death, policy proceeds will be paid in accordance with the terms of the policy to the beneficiary. With certain limits, you can choose the premium you wish to pay and this determines how the policy values develop. UL is also an "interest sensitive" product, which means that the interest rates credited to policy values will change over time.


text:
A Little Help From My Friends
An off-the-rack gown is pretty much out of the question for a bride-to-be who happens to be a designer. But Behnaz Sarafpour went above and beyond just designing a dress for her nuptials last summer. She came up with her entire look, from head to toe, with some high-fashion help from Tiffany & Co., Stephen Jones, Lemarié and Christian Louboutin—names that wouldn't be out of place on any bride's wish list. "I thought it was exciting to work with other designers I admire but might not otherwise get a chance to collaborate with," says Sarafpour, who married Evan Shumeyko, a management consultant at Leveraged Technology, on July 28 in Bermuda. "It's fun. Then you've got others' creative input too."
Clockwise from right: The wedding party, from left: Shumeyko, groomsman Peter Cipriani, bridesmaid Starret Zenko, Sarafpour and best man Lance Le Pere
Indeed, tony teamwork was Sarafpour's idea from the beginning. Whereas most engagements start with a ring, hers began with a loose diamond and a trip to Tiffany. Last February Shumeyko proposed with his grandmother's diamond, a brilliant round-cut solitaire from the Twenties, knowing his bride would want to do something special with it. The one-carat gem wasn't the only thing with history. Three years ago, Tiffany sponsored Sarafpour's spring show, which she staged at the jeweler's Fifth Avenue flagship; since then the company has provided jewelry for celebrities she's dressed. "I knew they'd make something really personal for me," she notes. "I wanted something with a little Art Deco feeling to it, and I knew that would be good with the history of Tiffany. They were really great about taking this old diamond and designing something around it." The couple came up with the idea of working an S, the initial of both their last names, into the design. All parties thought the shape of the letter worked best with two stones. Thus Tiffany matched the antique gem with a new one, similar in weight, cut and clarity, and presented three double-stone sketches inspired by current Tiffany styles: the Legacy and Jean Schlumberger's Bud and Ribbons rings. Ultimately, Sarafpour and Shumeyko chose a combination of all three, which features the two diamonds bezel-set side by side, the antique set in gold, the new one in platinum, traced in pavé diamonds in the shape of an S. "We wanted the S to be obvious," says Sarafpour. "And timeless," adds Shumeyko.
Things were less sentimental, though no less stylized, when it came to the hat and shoes. Princess Deena Abdulaziz (her husband is a nephew of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia), a bridesmaid who is a personal friend of Louboutin's, hooked the bride up with custom stilettos in honor of the "something blue" tradition. The result: ivory satin peep-toe pumps with ribbon rosettes and robin's egg blue soles, a special-order touch previously offered to brides.
The bride and groom say "I do"
No such connections played into having Jones make her hat. "I literally called him up and asked him if he would do it," recalls Sarafpour, who had never worked with or met the milliner before. "I had always seen hats he had done for couture and really loved them, but I've never had an opportunity or reason to use those kind of hats, so this seemed like the perfect time." Jones didn't disappoint. His creation reflected Sarafpour's Bermuda-inspired nautical theme, using the signature bows that often appear in her collections, an old-fashioned, Fifties-style headband decked with lace netting that veiled her eyes, and an oversize grosgrain bow. "It was a little abstract," says Sarafpour. "It was a little Isabella Blow–ish, but very beautiful."
Only after her accessories were determined did Sarafpour start on the dress—an item that had been on her mind long before her engagement. "Just being a fashion person, I'd play this game with my best friend," she explains. "Every season he would say, 'Okay, if you were getting married this season, what would you wear?'" Her answers changed with the trends. One season it was a pantsuit, another it was a tank top and a slip—ideas as unconventional as her final decision: a minidress. "I wanted something that was a balance between glamorous and sporty," says Sarafpour. "I didn't want to have the most traditional wedding. And it was outdoors in Bermuda, so taking all those factors into consideration, I wanted something very summery and light."
Sarafpour's platinum and gold Tiffany engagement ring.
Sarafpour went straight to the top for her frills. She enlisted Lemarié, one of Chanel's stable of specialty ateliers that works with couture ruffles, feathers and lace, to embellish her ivory dress. After sifting through piles of plumes and various lace and ruffle combinations, she decided on layered silk organza, crepe de chine and ruffled lace to trim the shoulders and skirt. The pieces were handmade in France and shipped back to Sarafpour for final construction—after a last-minute change. "Originally I chose this very Art Deco 1920s lace," she explains. "At the end I decided that I preferred something with a cleaner look, so we took the Deco lace and ripped it out of all the ruffles and replaced it with point d'esprit." She put the finishing touches on the dress several days before the wedding.
It all came together in the end, but the collaborations weren't always smooth sailing. When Tiffany tried to lure Sarafpour to a surprise presentation of the finished ring the day of the Costume Institute gala at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, she opted out. "I'm not really a big fan of surprises," she says. "It's best just to tell me what's going on. They said, 'Can you come up to Tiffany?' and I said, 'I'm sorry. I'm really busy today.'" She picked up the ring later that week. The timing was also off when it came to her hat. Sarafpour made a special trip to London to meet with Jones, who ended up leaving the city unexpectedly to attend the funeral of Galliano and Dior studio head Steven Robinson in Paris.
And when Lemarié's representative came to New York in May to present Sarafpour with samples, everything, save for a few feather and lace swatches, was lost in transit. The designer remained unruffled and calmly made her trim selections from photocopies. "The good thing about working with people that you know are good is you have some level of confidence that they'll do something that's well executed," she explains of her easy-breezy attitude. "And part of being a designer is being able to envision something that doesn't exist yet."
In fact, for all the leaps of faith that came with working long distance with others, looking back, Sarafpour wouldn't change a thing. That said, she admits to at least one nervous moment. After wearing flat sandals through all her dress fittings, the final look was leggier than she expected. "As a designer, I should know your skirt looks shorter the higher the heel," she says. "Suddenly, I put the heels on and I was like, 'Oh my God, my dress is obscene.'"
Wedding photos: Todd Macintire


text:
Continue browsing here.
Already have an account? Sign in
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up
The Fly Series by Space Copenhagen is a lounge collection made up of two sofas, an armchair, two tables and a pouf. Pushing the idea of lounging to its fullest, Fly is a series that allows the user to sit, lie, rest, and relax.
Unlike many of the sofas and easy chairs in Scandinavian design history, Fly does not impose any particular posture onto the sitter. The seat itself is optimized for comfort, with loose cushions for the back that can be arranged according to the user's own needs. But Fly adheres to tradition in other respects; the frame of the sofa and armchair, with a slatted back rest, is made from solid oak, treated with white pigmented oil or smoked oil. It is the type of material and treatment that ages with true grace, only becoming more beautiful with time.
Space Copenhagen gathers much of their inspiration from travels abroad, often in the form of ambience and mood. An example could be as simple as a particular wall in the streets of SoHo, New York, the distressed look of which makes its way into Space Copenhagen's imagination.
MaterialsOiled oak frame and base. CMHR foam and feather pillows. Fabric upholstery
Lead Time: 10-12 weeks
↓ Spec Sheet
We use cookies to help give you the best experience on our site and allow us and third parties to tailor ads you see on this and other websites.By continuing you agree to our use of cookies.